tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post4310444516294376402..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: Alister McGrath on Richard Dawkins, Part IIJimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-68602782997826123022008-06-14T10:34:00.000-04:002008-06-14T10:34:00.000-04:00I concede that many, if not most cultures work by ...I concede that many, if not most cultures work by means of many different reciprocity principles. Those sorts of principles inform a lot of the things we do and are largely empirically-based. I do not doubt, nor do I have trouble with an ethical system based on Darwinian principles. That was not my point. My point was that Dawkins believes that science ought to consider all ethical systems equally valid and he, himself, clearly does not. He thinks that religiously-based systems are inferior and dangerous. He has publicly stated that people who give their children a religious upbringing should have those children removed from their homes--a statement I find offensive to say the least. Now one might reasonably argue whether or not science should consider all systems of ethics equally valid, but that is not Dawkins' point.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-19948632212038648462008-06-13T13:52:00.000-04:002008-06-13T13:52:00.000-04:00How is it a false dichotomy? If Dawkins has determ...<I>How is it a false dichotomy? If Dawkins has determined that science cannot say what is right and what is wrong and yet he claims religion is bad, how is that not an emotional response?</I><BR/><BR/>The false dichotomy is the claim that a moral/ethical system must be based on <I>either</I> science <I>or</I> emotion, and nothing else.<BR/><BR/>But there are defensible grounds for a system for making moral/value judgments that is not purely emotional, but which is grounded in rational thought and at least some empirical evidence. For example, one can build a system for making value judgments based on a reciprocity principle. Sure, there's an emotional component, but it's not the sole basis. <BR/><BR/>What science can give us is information about the origins, operation, and likely outcomes of behaviors. And that's indispensable to making moral judgments. For example, the best available empirical evidence informs us that abstinence-only sex education has the main effect of increasing the likelihood of unprotected sex in teen-agers. It does not tell us whether that's a morally desirable outcome. In fact some people think it is a desirable outcome. In their view (and I actually know people who claims this) STDs resulting from unprotected sex are a just and appropriate punishment for teen-agers fooling around. But that judgment is made on grounds other than the empirical facts. The people I know base that judgment on their fundamentalist religious beliefs. I think they're wrong, but that's neither a scientific nor an emotional judgment.<BR/><BR/>Larry Arnhart is a conservative philosopher who argues that a system of ethics <I>can</I> be derived from Darwinian biology. See, for example, his <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791436942/102-0301024-7740933?v=glance" REL="nofollow">Darwinian Natural Right</A>, and read his blog at <A HREF="http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Darwinian Conservatism</A>.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-91966130268558342442008-06-13T12:51:00.000-04:002008-06-13T12:51:00.000-04:00How is it a false dichotomy? If Dawkins has deter...How is it a false dichotomy? If Dawkins has determined that science cannot say what is right and what is wrong and yet he claims religion is bad, how is that not an emotional response? It isn't grounded in science. I retract my statement about Dawkins' upbringing, since he regards it as a "mild Anglican upbringing," but it is clear that since that upbringing, he has become virulently opposed to anything Christian.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-1891012015362614112008-06-12T21:38:00.000-04:002008-06-12T21:38:00.000-04:00Quite simply, if religion is bad, then that decisi...<I>Quite simply, if religion is bad, then that decision is not based on science but rather on an emotional response to one's experiences, which in the case of Dawkins, have been bad.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a false dichotomy. There are additional alternatives.<BR/><BR/>And that's a particularly silly remark about Dawkins' alleged experiences. He has spoken of his religious upbringing in the C of E, and there's nothing in his description of that experience to support your inference.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.com