"But the fact that there is demonstrable evolutionary benefit to morality, which serves in “solidifying social bonds, enhancing trust, minimizing resource depletion, and reducing the odds of infection, illness, and death, among other benefits,” means there’s a perfectly reasonable non-religious reason for morality to exist as well."
But...if evolution is part of God's Creation, then it is intended by Him. Therefore there is no such thing as a "non-religious reason" in a broad sense. I would agree that the scientific method requires an approach that is 'functionally atheistic', but this does not mean that there is no God or that He doesn't make use of evolution.
"If evolution is part of God's creation" is doing a lot of work here. It's certainly possible, although such a hypothesis seems to favor the deist's watchmaker God rather than the "caught up in human drama" dogmatic God of classical Christianity. Honestly, the watchmaker God would help out a lot with the problem of evil, so he's preferable in my view.
But we just don't know that evolution is part of a willful design. And there's no obvious way to ascertain that with any certainty.
My apologies, I meant "If evolution is part of God's creation..." to be rhetorical. Evolution is an observed fact (we merely invent theories to explain evolution). To me the answer is not debatable. The real statement should be "If there is a God then God uses evolution..."
I don't see the watchmaker versus dramatist God as in conflict. One sets the stage, the other uses it. I agree that physical evil (earthquakes, etc) is more understandable with the watchmaker, just a little. We can't be blessed with many of our material advantages without the powerful and sometimes deadly natural processes that gave them to us.
Then again, the watchmaker analogy of the 19th century also fails. The quantum world demonstrates that God has a very great love of randomness. So too with the pseudo-random basis of evolution. One of the great scandals of Christian thought is the failure to take this into account, and the constant reversions to deterministic watchmaker models that largely ignore 20th century science. It's also unbiblical, since we see there the use of drawn lots to determine God's will.
Sorry Albert, God really does throw dice. I don't think that God really cared whether nature gave us five fingers rather than four or six.
"That last line hit me, because of course, I spent 40 years believing in “one true religion,” so “one true morality” derived from that religion never seemed objectionable."
But...a "true morality" derived from evolution per Henderson is not objectionable at all. It makes sense, just as Chomsky's genetically based universal language makes sense. The fact that there are variations are merely due to culture and (dare we admit) revelation. I think this view is entirely compatible with "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" - it isn't just that morality must be centered on human need (as in crafted), but it must be centered on humans ontologically.
"But the fact that there is demonstrable evolutionary benefit to morality, which serves in “solidifying social bonds, enhancing trust, minimizing resource depletion, and reducing the odds of infection, illness, and death, among other benefits,” means there’s a perfectly reasonable non-religious reason for morality to exist as well."
But...if evolution is part of God's Creation, then it is intended by Him. Therefore there is no such thing as a "non-religious reason" in a broad sense. I would agree that the scientific method requires an approach that is 'functionally atheistic', but this does not mean that there is no God or that He doesn't make use of evolution.
"If evolution is part of God's creation" is doing a lot of work here. It's certainly possible, although such a hypothesis seems to favor the deist's watchmaker God rather than the "caught up in human drama" dogmatic God of classical Christianity. Honestly, the watchmaker God would help out a lot with the problem of evil, so he's preferable in my view.
But we just don't know that evolution is part of a willful design. And there's no obvious way to ascertain that with any certainty.
My apologies, I meant "If evolution is part of God's creation..." to be rhetorical. Evolution is an observed fact (we merely invent theories to explain evolution). To me the answer is not debatable. The real statement should be "If there is a God then God uses evolution..."
I don't see the watchmaker versus dramatist God as in conflict. One sets the stage, the other uses it. I agree that physical evil (earthquakes, etc) is more understandable with the watchmaker, just a little. We can't be blessed with many of our material advantages without the powerful and sometimes deadly natural processes that gave them to us.
Then again, the watchmaker analogy of the 19th century also fails. The quantum world demonstrates that God has a very great love of randomness. So too with the pseudo-random basis of evolution. One of the great scandals of Christian thought is the failure to take this into account, and the constant reversions to deterministic watchmaker models that largely ignore 20th century science. It's also unbiblical, since we see there the use of drawn lots to determine God's will.
Sorry Albert, God really does throw dice. I don't think that God really cared whether nature gave us five fingers rather than four or six.
"That last line hit me, because of course, I spent 40 years believing in “one true religion,” so “one true morality” derived from that religion never seemed objectionable."
But...a "true morality" derived from evolution per Henderson is not objectionable at all. It makes sense, just as Chomsky's genetically based universal language makes sense. The fact that there are variations are merely due to culture and (dare we admit) revelation. I think this view is entirely compatible with "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" - it isn't just that morality must be centered on human need (as in crafted), but it must be centered on humans ontologically.