Far away, in our neurobiological tradition at least, it looks
incredible that anyone could still seriously assert "Darwinian
science denies religious belief." Are we in 2006? Such an
opinion seems me untenably sticked to the conceptual frame of
the Huxley-Wilberforce arguments.
Darwinian science lend in fact the frame utilized in some
discussions of the Catholic synod finished Oct. 21, 2005,
linking cigotal animation and Eucharistic consecration.
Darwinian science evolved; observers, I think, should keep
pace.
As regards morality, I agree that it is indeed possible without
religious belief, as morality depends on the subjective and,
therefore, rests ultimately on moral sentiments in human
nature; ethics does not.
Ethics gets public inasmuch as it depends on absolute value, of
which we now know - again, things moved - that natural science
can and must say something when such a science considers the
entirety of the empirically-found facts. As we see thereby,
also natural science evolved and is no longer constrained to
keep its subject as much minuscule as feasible, leaving the
market forces to do the job of joining the results.
Whence now science can look for and eventually find values,
e.g. why to respect persons - a factual remark that both
conservatives and transformatives might notice with interest,
as it grounds objective ethics leaving subjective moralities
untouched.
Reading a summary of these evolutions might be of interest. Let
me propose one that can be found at the following URL:
http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/a_palindrome.htm
Greetings,
Mariela
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
No comments:
Post a Comment