majiksznak

"Hauser claimed the findings help explain recent studies indicating that people’s moral intuitions vary little across different religions."

Umm... this guy needs to read C.S. Lewis on natural law if he thinks this somehow disproves religion.

Plus, religion is far more than just moral philosophy. It's also about metaphysics.

C. S. Lewis was the first name that came to mind when I read this, and he has been echoed by N. T. Wright and Philip Yancey in saying that this very thing is actually suggestive of the validity of spirituality, not a rebuttal of religion. Christian theologians have been saying exactly what Hauser is claiming for a long time now.

However, Gregmita, I didn't get the sense that Hauser thought that this "disproved" religion.

The concept of natural law actually goes all the way back to at least Aristotle.

But yeah, "disprove" is probably too strong a term. I was talking about the notion of religion as an evolutionary by-product of non-religious processes.

I think that this is certainly a valid theory, and fits well with the evidence. My own feeling is that religion is indeed a by-product of non-religious processes. This makes sense to me, and the arguments for it are coherent and well supported.

You could also make coherent arguments for an other-worldly wellspring for spiritual notions, I'm sure. Whatever tickles your fancy.
One thing I am sure of, however, is that no modern authority on matters of morality need check their theories at the door because of anything C.S. Lewis has written. I don't really care how far back Lewis' notion of natural law goes, it is overly simplistic, outdated, and does not hold up to close scrutiny. Since his time advances in genetics, biology, psychology, and evolutionary understanding (including kin selection) really make it difficult to say "hey, go read C.S. Lewis before you publish your research paper at Harvard."

I haven't studied the criticisms of Lewis's writing on natural law closely, but I've read that there are some flaws in them. Part of the problem, I think, is that Lewis overstates his case. Even N. T. Wright (who is an Anglican Bishop) agrees that Lewis took it too far and that some of his arguments don't stand up to close scrutiny.

That said, Lewis had a lot of good stuff to say, too, and is worth reading for interest's sake, if one is able to refrain from throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I certainly agree with you, with reservations. I enjoy reading Lewis; his approach is refreshingly clear and understandable.

I have just heard him used as an authority on morality far too often. He isn't an authority on that matter, in my opinion

CS Lewis's most oft-cited writings were usually taken from his speeches to uneducated laypeople wherein he tried to explain the most basic tenets of Christianity in the simplest terms possible.

He's not really a shining example of a bullet-proof apologist for the Christian faith. There are other folks who are pretty dedicated to that.

Having said that, Christian apologetics basically make me want to shoot myself in the head, so I don't really recommend looking into them. And for that matter, using CS Lewis (or any Christian writer) as some sort of arguing tool only makes that arguer look like... well... a tool.

C.S. Lewis was a popularizer, so Nick is right in that he presented a simplified form of more complex philosophies to a lay (in all senses of the term) audience.

But Major Major, in terms of moral philosophy, as in other areas of philosophy, there's no such thing as "outdated." We're talking about logical arguments, not empirical discoveries, so generally theories are proven wrong if they're shown to be logically flawed at some point, not if new discoveries supersede old ones. Although of course, new discoveries that completely undermine what was thought of as empirically true before can still have an effect.

Now I wouldn't necessarily recommend someone like C.S. Lewis specifically, but a good knowledge of various schools and systems of moral philosophy (for example, natural law moral philosophy, categorical imperatives, utilitarianism, etc.) should be necessary if someone is doing research in the area of morality. Science by itself shows us *how* the world works, but can't tell us about what is moral and what is not. So to use the knowledge it gives us requires going into the area of moral philosophy.

Gergmita, my position is that morality has a perfectly natural explanation. I'm not saying that all moral philosophy is bunk. I'm just asserting that supernatural explanations are not necessary to explain the origins of morality anymore.

I recently finished reading a book by Richard Joyce called The Evolution of Morality, and it was a real eye opener for me. After reading that I dug around a bit more and found that there is no shortage of literature supporting a non-religious origin for morality. So, yes - and a resounding yes - moral systems are subject to empirical discoveries.

In organisms as "primitive" as fish you find societies based on reciprocity. Give our ancestors a few hundred million years, and it's not too hard to imagine a complicated moral system such as ours.

After that, I agree with you: philosophy can help us make sense of our moral systems.

Major Major, the point of natural law is that morality is in some way built into the world, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "supernatural" explanation there. None of the science you refer to in the post contradicts that position. The supernatural part here is attributing that pattern (and the world in general) to some divine source. Again, you will not find any answer in science to deny that, since science doesn't concern itself with answering questions on that level.

Gregmita: what do you mean by "built into the world"?

The details of that will vary by what version of natural law morality they follow, but generally the idea is that there is such a thing as objective morality, (some philosophers actually use "natural law" to describe belief in just that) and it can be discerned from the world via natural means. The religious variations of natural law would say that God built this into the world.