Filomena wrote: > >I think that the source of the argument is that Religion (which has >not been properly defined in the argument and which I think means a >set of beliefs in a supernatural Power and a set of moral standards) >is the source of values but Science has no moral values. >
Dear Filomena: I think you have got it exactly right. The only thing that I would add to your summation is what I have already stated before in one of my recent posts. It is that no religion holds a monopoly on moral values. Religion has merely co-opted the moral values that are already built into human nature. Evidence is now accumulating that many of these values have evolved by natural selection in the same manner as any other biological phenomenon. Some of these values are also a consequence of learning from experience, which includes those that have emerged from social, cultural and technological development, but all of which are tied to the basic survival instinct. The former can be categorized as natural ethics and morality. The latter can be grouped under rational ethics and morality. You can read about some of this in a book published in October 2003 by a philosopher friend of mine, William Casebeer. Sorry for this shameless plug for a friend. I assure you that I am not making any money from this. He has not asked me to advertise his book. The title of the book is "Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition". It is published by the MIT Press. Cheers, Santosh ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
