tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post8434789182697629547..comments2022-11-21T03:43:58.782-06:00Comments on Regardant les nuages: Evolution can't bridge the moral gapUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-8695680914992307392008-02-02T11:34:00.000-06:002008-02-02T11:34:00.000-06:00Matt,Let me begin by saying that I appreciate you...Matt,<BR/>Let me begin by saying that I appreciate your thoughtful comment. And I have a few replies to some points your brought up. First, niether my post nor Hares paper was trying to evaluate evolution as a theory. Instead, it was a critque of view that evolution can explain <I>more</I> than the natural process. I dont think it can, again, thats the point of the post. <BR/><BR/>You said, "Assuming there actually IS a moral gap is also fallacious." The paper and the post is not trying to assume the moral gap, but rather trying to prove that there is such a thing. Of course I cant make the moral gap exist by proposing the idea, but Hares paper provides a compelling case for its existence, imo.<BR/><BR/>You may have guessed by the post, and by the blog, that I am a moral realist. That means I dont think morality is a social construct. I think it is as real as mathematical truths (not tangible, but still real). I could be wrong about this; and indeed many philosophers think I am, but thats a whole different issue in itself. Also, I dont think of God as a "God of the gaps" (a being we invoke to explain the inexplicable-- its tempting to do but not a good idea because eventually we can explain things, and then the reason we invoke for Gods existence becomes null). <BR/><BR/>I also believe, quite strongly, that science religion and philosophy can and do together lead us to the truth, and I dont think any of them are mutally exclusive. From the Christian perspective, most people believe that God purposefully gave us the capability to discover truths about our world and about himself. That includes scientific and philosophical reasoning. If I didnt think we could, by reason and experience, discover truth, then I certainly wouldnt bother with philosophy!<BR/><BR/>That probably doesnt answer your questions, but Im out of time for now. Feel free to ask more if you stick around the site, and Ill do my best.Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095269766349024764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-26018463318389229152008-02-01T11:22:00.000-06:002008-02-01T11:22:00.000-06:00Evaluating evolution on the grounds that it does n...Evaluating evolution on the grounds that it does not provide us with ethical truth is absurd because evolution is simply a theory of a natural process. Assuming there actually IS a moral gap is also fallacious. Yes, there are reasons why people think Hitler was wrong and immoral, but just because they think that does not mean morality is the cause. People could also have invented a moral standard that happens to place Hitler in the bad column, right? It could be the case that humans are simply the product of a series of natural processes and that we will never comprehend these processes, but that's ok! Interjecting social constructs like God and morality to discover "truth" is flawed from the get go because you must assume there is something that resides above the physical world for the argument to make sense. It's natural for humans to feel belittled by their lack of knowledge and consequently invent things to fill gaps. You said earlier Lindsey that science has a problem speaking about ethical truths. Well, of course science would because science never claims to be completely true. Theories simply get better and better, and arguably moral theories do too. By placing God as a necessary step between science and non-tangible truths, you enter in yet another variable (along with ethical truths) that must be completely assumed to be true. Figuring out the logistics of how to have a religion help you discover truth is insane, unless of course you throw out all the other religions except Christianity, which at that point any argument becomes hopelessly biased. <BR/> Yet, I am a Christian. I'm only writing this because I truly don't think that God and philosophical consistency actually coincide. There is something alluring yet totally irrational about religion. It is a belief system, and most likely just a human construct. We cannot use it as a tool to get to a truth, assuming that the truth is universally true and God is just an entity residing in the chemicals in your brain. And even if the Christian God is real, has the religion actually contributed much to humanity's search for truth? Certainly not, if anything it has vastly distorted it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-32043680368036330632007-12-04T02:17:00.000-06:002007-12-04T02:17:00.000-06:00Rasselas,That's kind of the point. Evolution can ...Rasselas,<BR/>That's kind of the point. Evolution can explain some things, but it can't explain where mathematical and ethical truths come from. It can't explain how or why they're there. It also can't explain whether (for ethical truths) we are obligated to adhere to them. Ethicists do try to handle that, but the problem is that many people believe science can answer these non-science problems. The question isn't whether science can show us how we know these truths, but whether science can speak to anything else about them; Hare and I would both say probably not.Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095269766349024764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-37633850635508104702007-12-04T01:47:00.000-06:002007-12-04T01:47:00.000-06:00Although evolution may not explain why mathematica...Although evolution may not explain why mathematical truths are true, it can explain why we have a mind that is capable of apprehending mathematical truths. Likewise, evolutionary theorists can help us understand why we have a moral sense even if they don’t have a complete account of what makes moral truths true (perhaps ethicists will handle that).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com