| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2008 04:49:44 PM · #726 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Since we do not have written evidence of such, there is no way to state with certainty that Kepler, Copernicus, et. al. believed in ALL of the Roman Catholic Church's positions on matters of science - hence no way to state with certainty that they had to reject [their] religious beliefs in order to accept the findings of their experiments. |
Your argument is that we don't know if they were believers to begin with? Seriously? |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:57:15 PM · #727 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to want to put science closer to Atheism than to Theism by claiming that Secularism is required for valid science. That is simply not the case. |
Atheism is simply lack of belief in religious doctrines while theism adheres to those beliefs. Science requires objectivity to be valid. You cannot perform credible science without controls and a willingness to accept the results. Thus, if a given religion declares the entire universe revolves around the earth, a scientist must be willing to disbelieve those teachings if the results show otherwise. In that regard, science IS closer to atheism. While the experimenter can continue to believe and try to reconcile whatever's left over, every piece of science that overturns theist doctrine (geocentricity, flat earth, lightning, etc.) represents a rejected religious belief. |
I'll jump in here just to say this... Things like the Earth being flat... and sun revolving around the Eartg, etc, are not religious teachings... nor were they ever... there is a big difference between what is doctrine (extrapolated from whatever religious text) and what is taught out of ignorance or tradition (tradition is also not religion)... |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:58:44 PM · #728 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I agree that a scientist must be prepared and willing to accept the results. I agree that a scientist must be willing to disbelieve religious teachings if the results show otherwise. But I do NOT believe that for a religious experimenter every piece that overturns theist doctrine represents a rejected religious belief.
Since we do not have written evidence of such, there is no way to state with certainty that Kepler, Copernicus, et. al. believed in ALL of the Roman Catholic Church's positions on matters of science - hence no way to state with certainty that they had to reject [their] religious beliefs in order to accept the findings of their experiments. |
You seem to be arguing that there is no conflict as long as the "theistic scientist" doesn't have specific religious beliefs in regard to his or her subject of study.
If that is so, then they would be approaching their scientific research from exactly the same position as the atheistic scientist - i.e., they would have no dogmatic preconceptions as to what the conclusions "should" be.
If not, but they are willing to reject their religious beliefs if the evidence conflicts, then that would seem to be that they are agnostic toward their belief on those points - i.e., open to doubt. If they aren't willing to reject their religious beliefs, or will insist on ignoring or interpreting all evidence as being in conformance with those beliefs - as is the case with the "intelligent design" crowd - then they aren't actually practicing science.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 05:28:52 PM · #729 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
I'll jump in here just to say this... Things like the Earth being flat... and sun revolving around the Earth, etc, are not religious teachings... nor were they ever... there is a big difference between what is doctrine (extrapolated from whatever religious text) and what is taught out of ignorance or tradition (tradition is also not religion)... |
They most certainly have been religiously-based beliefs. The idea that the earth stood at the center of the god-created universe has been a central theme of religious belief throughout history, including being held - and vehemently defended - by the early christian church.
What you are attempting to do is define religious belief very narrowly, based - let me take a stab in the dark here - on those currently held religious beliefs that you feel don't clash so absurdly with what we have found to be objective reality. Specifically - again I would guess - christian beliefs. Christianity carries no monopoly on religious belief or practice, no matter what its adherents might like to believe. Further, even modern christianity is not free from objectively absurd beliefs; fundamentalist stripes of such christianity even more so (e.g., transubstantiation and the virgin birth just to name a couple, and not to mention the general belief in the suspension of physical laws of nature at random and frequent intervals (aka, "miracles")).
Scientific rationalism has constantly pushed against theistic belief systems. However, as the materialistic nature of the universe has been revealed, religious adherents have been very adept at constantly redrawing the line as to what counts as a "true religious teaching."
Originally posted by religious apologist:
What, the earth doesn't revolve around the sun you say? Well, that's not true christian teaching anyway. Besides, no matter that, the heavens remain the pristine and unchangeable magisterium of the angels...
Oh... so the heavens do change? ... Constantly you say? ... Hmmm...
Well, that's not true christian teaching anyway. Besides, no matter that, here on earth we know that corruption and sickness are God's punishment on the wicked for...
Oh... What do you mean disease is caused by germs! That's absurd!! ... Really? I can see them? In your little "microscope" thing here? ... ...
um...
...Burn the witch!! |
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 17:31:05.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 05:47:04 PM · #730 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Eyesup:
I'll jump in here just to say this... Things like the Earth being flat... and sun revolving around the Earth, etc, are not religious teachings... nor were they ever... there is a big difference between what is doctrine (extrapolated from whatever religious text) and what is taught out of ignorance or tradition (tradition is also not religion)... |
They most certainly have been religiously-based beliefs. The idea that the earth stood at the center of the god-created universe has been a central theme of religious belief throughout history, including being held - and vehemently defended - by the early christian church.
What you are attempting to do is define religious belief very narrowly, based - let me take a stab in the dark here - on those currently held religious beliefs that you feel don't clash so absurdly with what we have found to be objective reality. Specifically - again I would guess - christian beliefs. Christianity carries no monopoly on religious belief or practice, no matter what its adherents might like to believe. Further, even modern christianity is not free from objectively absurd beliefs; fundamentalist stripes of such christianity even more so (e.g., transubstantiation and the virgin birth just to name a couple, and not to mention the general belief in the suspension of physical laws of nature at random and frequent intervals (aka, "miracles")).
Scientific rationalism has constantly pushed against theistic belief systems. However, as the materialistic nature of the universe has been revealed, religious adherents have been very adept at constantly redrawing the line as to what counts as a "true religious teaching."
|
I tnd to define actual religious belief as what (the bible in my case) a religous text Actually says... there are many things taugh in Christianity and other religions that are taken as fact by followers that the texts do not assert (ie. the Bible doesn't actually teach transubstantiation, nor does the Koran teach to kill all non-believers)... what must be seperated out is what these txts actually say and teach concretely (this is an objective thing) and what religious teachers (and fanatics) say they say... these are two different things |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 06:14:50 PM · #731 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
I tend to define actual religious belief as what (the bible in my case) a religious text Actually says... there are many things taught in Christianity and other religions that are taken as fact by followers that the texts do not assert (ie. the Bible doesn't actually teach transubstantiation, nor does the Koran teach to kill all non-believers)... what must be separated out is what these texts actually say and teach concretely (this is an objective thing) and what religious teachers (and fanatics) say they say... these are two different things |
Except that - even if you limit the issue to christian belief - no one can agree on what books of ancient writing should make up the bible (Council of Nicaea), what book controls when the writings contradict each other (Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions), or what any particular passage of one of the writings actually means (Issues and Methods in Interpreting Scripture ).
I'm constantly amazed by this often voice claim - just look at the history of this thread - that somehow the "true" teachings and beliefs of the Bible/Koran/Torah are clear and easily understood, when history, the current state of religious factionalism, and any honest appraisal of the material itself clearly indicates otherwise.
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 18:16:15.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 06:59:50 PM · #732 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Eyesup:
I tend to define actual religious belief as what (the bible in my case) a religious text Actually says... there are many things taught in Christianity and other religions that are taken as fact by followers that the texts do not assert (ie. the Bible doesn't actually teach transubstantiation, nor does the Koran teach to kill all non-believers)... what must be separated out is what these texts actually say and teach concretely (this is an objective thing) and what religious teachers (and fanatics) say they say... these are two different things |
Except that - even if you limit the issue to christian belief - no one can agree on what books of ancient writing should make up the bible (Council of Nicaea), what book controls when the writings contradict each other (Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions), or what any particular passage of one of the writings actually means (Issues and Methods in Interpreting Scripture ).
I'm constantly amazed by this often voice claim - just look at the history of this thread - that somehow the "true" teachings and beliefs of the Bible/Koran/Torah are clear and easily understood, when history, the current state of religious factionalism, and any honest appraisal of the material itself clearly indicates otherwise. |
I never said that any of the text were easily understood... if that were the case the world would be a very different place, and we likely wouldn't be having the very discussion... for better or for worse... however, it is possible to pull out the basic teachings of each text... the problem with religion (any of them) is when we go out of our way to place our biases over the text itself... |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 08:33:41 PM · #733 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
I never said that any of the text were easily understood... if that were the case the world would be a very different place, and we likely wouldn't be having the very discussion... for better or for worse... however, it is possible to pull out the basic teachings of each text... the problem with religion (any of them) is when we go out of our way to place our biases over the text itself... |
This method of interpreting the bible is a relatively recent one in Christianity (less than 500 years old). It was adopted for political reasons by German princes in the sixteenth century.
The belief system to which you have been introduced is the product of historical and political expediency - not some objective analysis or divine inspiration.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2008 10:10:37 AM · #734 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
...nor does the Koran teach to kill all non-believers)... |
"God is an enemy to those who reject faith" (Sura II 98) so "slay them wherever you find them." (Sura II 191).
If you've got the Koran lying around the house, open it up to any arbitrary page. It is highly likely that you will find more than one passage dealing with God's hatred for unbelievers, the special tortures he's reserved for them in the hereafter, and how much they should be vilified and otherwise dealt with by believers. |
|
|
|
09/06/2008 10:24:59 AM · #735 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Eyesup:
...nor does the Koran teach to kill all non-believers)... |
"God is an enemy to those who reject faith" (Sura II 98) so "slay them wherever you find them." (Sura II 191).
If you've got the Koran lying around the house, open it up to any arbitrary page. It is highly likely that you will find more than one passage dealing with God's hatred for unbelievers, the special tortures he's reserved for them in the hereafter, and how much they should be vilified and otherwise dealt with by believers. |
I admit, I do not have a Koran hanging around... and I'm not going to waste my breath too much defending any faith, such as they are, because I'm sure that any reasonable person could agree that weather there is a God or not, if there was, non of the religions around would fit into what He(It/She/whatever) would want for a people that He(It/She/whatever) presumably cares for.
but my point was more along the lines that a reasonable faith based person not weighed down by the baggage of their particular faith, can make room for science in their life, without too much conflict.... I would further venture that when there is conflict it is usually because of a faulty religious teaching, rather than because some particular scientific result disproves God. |
|
|
|
09/06/2008 10:41:15 AM · #736 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
I admit, I do not have a Koran hanging around... and I'm not going to waste my breath too much defending any faith, such as they are, because I'm sure that any reasonable person could agree that weather there is a God or not,
but my point was more along the lines that a reasonable faith based person not weighed down by the baggage of their particular faith, can make room for science in their life, without too much conflict.... I would further venture that when there is conflict it is usually because of a faulty religious teaching, rather than because some particular scientific result disproves God. |
What you've just done by stating that you're sure that "if there was, non of the religions around would fit into what He(It/She/whatever) would want for a people that He(It/She/whatever) presumably cares for." is to put forth your own interpretation, right?
That's where so many problems arise, IMO, because just as you're sure that "God" is a caring and benevolent God, there are others who are sure that God is a rigid, demanding, and vengeful God, and want to act axccordingly to seek the approval of that God.
And then war will be waged......in the name of God, right?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2008 10:43:31 AM · #737 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
but my point was more along the lines that a reasonable faith based person not weighed down by the baggage of their particular faith, can make room for science in their life, without too much conflict.... I would further venture that when there is conflict it is usually because of a faulty religious teaching, rather than because some particular scientific result disproves God. |
"Baggage of their faith" and "faulty religious teaching" are just different ways of saying that faith and dogma must be continually edited in order to survive the evolution of human morality. |
|
|
|
09/06/2008 10:46:07 AM · #738 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
but my point was more along the lines that a reasonable faith based person not weighed down by the baggage of their particular faith, can make room for science in their life, without too much conflict.... I would further venture that when there is conflict it is usually because of a faulty religious teaching, rather than because some particular scientific result disproves God. |
Originally posted by Louis:
"Baggage of their faith" and "faulty religious teaching" are just different ways of saying that faith and dogma must be continually edited in order to survive the evolution of human morality. |
And also the conclusions of interpretation?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2008 10:47:26 AM · #739 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Eyesup:
but my point was more along the lines that a reasonable faith based person not weighed down by the baggage of their particular faith, can make room for science in their life, without too much conflict.... I would further venture that when there is conflict it is usually because of a faulty religious teaching, rather than because some particular scientific result disproves God. |
"Baggage of their faith" and "faulty religious teaching" are just different ways of saying that faith and dogma must be continually edited in order to survive the evolution of human morality. |
Than Science is guilty of the same... no, they are just different ways of saying that Faith is just as capable of being wrong (and being in need of correction) as science is...
sometimes we're all guilty of a faulty Hypyothesis |
|
|
|
09/06/2008 11:04:23 AM · #740 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
but my point was more along the lines that a reasonable faith based person not weighed down by the baggage of their particular faith, can make room for science in their life, without too much conflict.... I would further venture that when there is conflict it is usually because of a faulty religious teaching, rather than because some particular scientific result disproves God. |
Originally posted by Louis:
"Baggage of their faith" and "faulty religious teaching" are just different ways of saying that faith and dogma must be continually edited in order to survive the evolution of human morality. |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
Than Science is guilty of the same... no, they are just different ways of saying that Faith is just as capable of being wrong (and being in need of correction) as science is...
sometimes we're all guilty of a faulty Hypyothesis |
Umm....science doesn't need to be edited in order to survive evolution of morality, science is edited when a new theory is proven and/or an old one disproven.
Faith shifts when it cannot withstand societal evolution, which more often than not does not involve proof in any manner.
Hypothesis really isn't the right area for Faith.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2008 11:11:52 AM · #741 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Eyesup:
but my point was more along the lines that a reasonable faith based person not weighed down by the baggage of their particular faith, can make room for science in their life, without too much conflict.... I would further venture that when there is conflict it is usually because of a faulty religious teaching, rather than because some particular scientific result disproves God. |
Originally posted by Louis:
"Baggage of their faith" and "faulty religious teaching" are just different ways of saying that faith and dogma must be continually edited in order to survive the evolution of human morality. |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
Than Science is guilty of the same... no, they are just different ways of saying that Faith is just as capable of being wrong (and being in need of correction) as science is...
sometimes we're all guilty of a faulty Hypyothesis |
Umm....science doesn't need to be edited in order to survive evolution of morality, science is edited when a new theory is proven and/or an old one disproven.
Faith shifts when it cannot withstand societal evolution, which more often than not does not involve proof in any manner.
Hypothesis really isn't the right area for Faith. |
no Science needs to be edited put aside inorder to survive make way for new scientific discoveries.... as it should
Faith is likewise revised when it's found an interpretation is lacking, faulty, or false.
Morality really isn't the right area for Science |
|
|
|
09/06/2008 11:24:50 AM · #742 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
no Science needs to be edited put aside inorder to survive make way for new scientific discoveries.... as it should |
True that......as and when PROOF is offered.
Originally posted by Eyesup:
Faith is likewise revised when it's found an interpretation is lacking, faulty, or false. |
Yes, but here the analogies and allegories to science don't jibe......very infrequently is scientific proof the cause of the revisions. It's usually the result of other, societal evolution factors.
Originally posted by Eyesup:
Morality really isn't the right area for Science |
Umm....that's pretty much a given as it's irrelevant.
Stem cell research is viewed in certain sectors as immoral.....this has zero pertinence to the science of it.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2008 12:59:47 PM · #743 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
no Science needs to be edited put aside inorder to survive make way for new scientific discoveries.... as it should
Faith is likewise revised when it's found an interpretation is lacking, faulty, or false.
Morality really isn't the right area for Science |
Yes, scientific theory is changed when better evidence is discovered. That's science in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with being guilty of anything, as you've insinuated earlier. Nor has it anything to do with survivability; evidence does not fall or rise based on its own self-interests, as faith does.
Faith is revised when it cannot survive the evolution of morality. When faith faces extinction because its core tenets have become too irrational in the light of reason, or simply counter-productively homicidal, it either changes or goes extinct. There are countless examples of extinct faiths that could not adapt to changing values, and thus went the way of the Dodo. It has nothing to do with the "falseness" of its own interpretation. What is the interpretation of faith, anyway? Perhaps you mean the interpretation of the holy books on which faith rests. In that case, you can never qualify the interpretation of a holy book as false or not. At some point, any particular interpretation was true to one or more individuals. What made it true? What evidence was there for its truthfulness? By what criteria was it determined to be true, then subsequently false, etc. Faith is impervious to this kind query.
No, the revision of faith in the face of changing human morality has nothing in common with the revision of evidence-based, data-driven theory that changes when better evidence is discovered and more data applied.
Originally posted by Eyesup:
Morality really isn't the right area for Science |
I'm not certain I agree with that, but in any event, you brought this up, nobody else. |
|
|
|
09/06/2008 02:03:59 PM · #744 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
but my point was more along the lines that a reasonable faith based person not weighed down by the baggage of their particular faith, can make room for science in their life, without too much conflict.... I would further venture that when there is conflict it is usually because of a faulty religious teaching, rather than because some particular scientific result disproves God. |
Take evolution. Evolution is scientific fact. It is also perceived by Christian and Islamic fundamentalists to be at odds with their religious beliefs. I don't see much evidence in these threads of the faithful making room for the objective facts.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2008 05:55:31 PM · #745 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Yes, scientific theory is changed when better evidence is discovered. That's science in a nutshell. It has nothing to do with being guilty of anything, as you've insinuated earlier. Nor has it anything to do with survivability; evidence does not fall or rise based on its own self-interests, as faith does.
Faith is revised when it cannot survive the evolution of morality. When faith faces extinction because its core tenets have become too irrational in the light of reason, or simply counter-productively homicidal, it either changes or goes extinct. There are countless examples of extinct faiths that could not adapt to changing values, and thus went the way of the Dodo. It has nothing to do with the "falseness" of its own interpretation. What is the interpretation of faith, anyway? Perhaps you mean the interpretation of the holy books on which faith rests. In that case, you can never qualify the interpretation of a holy book as false or not. At some point, any particular interpretation was true to one or more individuals. What made it true? What evidence was there for its truthfulness? By what criteria was it determined to be true, then subsequently false, etc. Faith is impervious to this kind query. |
Well said. I would only add that in the realm of modern science, scientific theories are rarely wholly overturned - there has not been a truly paradigm-changing advance in scientific thinking since Einstein/physics or the discovery of RNA & DNA/biology. There are some interesting things happening out on the fringes of physics that might upset an apple cart or two, if they actually pan out - but even there you are really only looking at the refinement of existing theories. While the chance that "everything we know is wrong" type of discovery might be theoretically possible, it is pretty highly improbable.
This has not been true of moral evolution. As modern morality has evolved you seem to constantly see what was once deemed perfectly acceptable behavior - genocide, tribalism, casteism, classism, slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, child abuse, animal cruelty, et. al. - being overturned. While there are people here on these lists who would defend some - hopefully not all - of the moral blights just listed, the tide of history is that as we increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us and our understanding and respect for our fellow travelers in it - human and non - our moral nature has increased and evolved.
The morality on display in ancient religious texts - the bible most definitely not excluded - is not one that would be acceptably adopted by a modern person. The bible at some point sanctions every single one of the "ism"s listed above and many more atrocities including premeditated murder, incest, infanticide, and rape. It's not shocking that this is so, since it is the product of a medieval moral sensibility. The only reason that Christianity can proclaim itself to be a religion of "peace" and "morality" in the modern age is because it has selectively ignored those parts of its holy texts and historic beliefs so as to make itself acceptable to an era of humanity that is more moral than the ignorant, superstitious humans who penned the original works.
Message edited by author 2008-09-06 18:48:56.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2008 07:05:44 PM · #746 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
While there are people here on these lists who would defend some - hopefully not all - of the moral blights just listed, the tide of history is that as we increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us and our understanding and respect for our fellow travelers in it - human and non - our moral nature has increased and evolved. |
I'm confused. In another thread, [user]Louis[/user] said
Originally posted by Louis:
Morality and compassion are innate conditions. They do not have their origin in any holy book. Your genes hold the origin of your morality, not your gods. |
If morality and compassion are determined by genetics, how can our moral nature "increase and evolve" as we "increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us and our understanding and respect for our fellow travelers in it"?
Are you saying that thousands of people are simultaneously experiencing genetic evolution in the same way at the same time - and that the specific genetic evolution is being caused by knowledge and understanding as opposed to some "random" change or environmental impetus? |
|
|
|
09/06/2008 10:18:23 PM · #747 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
While there are people here on these lists who would defend some - hopefully not all - of the moral blights just listed, the tide of history is that as we increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us and our understanding and respect for our fellow travelers in it - human and non - our moral nature has increased and evolved. |
I'm confused. In another thread, [user]Louis[/user] said
Originally posted by Louis:
Morality and compassion are innate conditions. They do not have their origin in any holy book. Your genes hold the origin of your morality, not your gods. |
If morality and compassion are determined by genetics, how can our moral nature "increase and evolve" as we "increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us and our understanding and respect for our fellow travelers in it"?
Are you saying that thousands of people are simultaneously experiencing genetic evolution in the same way at the same time - and that the specific genetic evolution is being caused by knowledge and understanding as opposed to some "random" change or environmental impetus? |
Equating the phrase "moral evolution" with genetic evolution is to profoundly miss the point. Equating my opinion regarding the evolutionary origin of morality as described by Dawkins in the The God Delusion with some kind of continuing evolutionary model for morality based on the human genome is funny, but probably knowingly dishonest. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 10:05:21 AM · #748 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm confused. In another thread, [user]Louis[/user] said
Originally posted by Louis:
Morality and compassion are innate conditions. They do not have their origin in any holy book. Your genes hold the origin of your morality, not your gods. |
If morality and compassion are determined by genetics, how can our moral nature "increase and evolve" as we "increase our knowledge and understanding of the world around us and our understanding and respect for our fellow travelers in it"?
Are you saying that thousands of people are simultaneously experiencing genetic evolution in the same way at the same time - and that the specific genetic evolution is being caused by knowledge and understanding as opposed to some "random" change or environmental impetus? |
Equating the phrase "moral evolution" with genetic evolution is to profoundly miss the point. Equating my opinion regarding the evolutionary origin of morality as described by Dawkins in the The God Delusion with some kind of continuing evolutionary model for morality based on the human genome is funny, but probably knowingly dishonest. |
Do you maintain, then, that morality HAD a genetic ( evolutionary ) origin, but has since evolved ( is a societal, not a genetic, sense ) since then as a result of societal pressures only, absent ANY additional genetic evolution? Sort of like a one-shot, "big bang" kind of origin?
What ancestor in the Evolutionary tree of life would you suppose first showed a genetic predisposition to "morality" ( e.g. compassion, altruism )?
Message edited by author 2008-09-08 10:06:53. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 10:21:50 AM · #749 |
| Morality is probably an evolutionary necessity for social animals that rely upon intellectual cooperation for survival (primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.). Though specific moral ideals may change with society, the underlying principles of altruism and compassion have been well documented in several other species of mammals. |
|
|
|
09/08/2008 10:51:46 AM · #750 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Morality is probably an evolutionary necessity for social animals that rely upon intellectual cooperation for survival (primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.). Though specific moral ideals may change with society, the underlying principles of altruism and compassion have been well documented in several other species of mammals. |
And that proves that morality is rooted in genetic evolution how?????
What ancestor in the Evolutionary tree of life would you suppose first showed a genetic predisposition to "morality" ( e.g. compassion, altruism )? |
|
