Graduate studies at Western
Biology and Philosophy 7 (1):77-88 (1992)
|Abstract||Michael Ruse's writings explore what sociobiology says about morality. Further, he claims that sociobiology undermines the base for Christian morality. After responding to criticisms of Ruse, especially those of Arthur Peacocke, I lay a base for meeting his challenge.|
|Keywords||Morality Arthur Peacocke reductionism Michael Ruse science and religion sociobiology theology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Donald M. Broom (2003). The Evolution of Morality and Religion. Cambridge University Press.
Bruce N. Waller (1996). Moral Commitment Without Objectivity or Illusion: Comments on Ruse and Woolcock. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):245-254.
Peter Woolcock (1993). Ruse's Darwinian Meta-Ethics: A Critique. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439.
Keith Ward (2006/2007). Is Religion Dangerous? William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co..
William A. Rottschaefer & David Martinsen (1990). Really Taking Darwin Seriously: An Alternative to Michael Ruse's Darwinian Metaethics. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 5 (2):149-173.
J. Wesley Robbins (1995). If Our Genes Are for Us, Who Can Be Against Us? Thoughts of a Pragmatist on Science and Morality. Zygon 30 (3):357-367.
Timothy L. Fort (1997). Religion and Business Ethics: The Lessons From Political Morality. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 16 (3):263-273.
R. J. Ryle, C. C. J. Webb & A. F. Shand (1893). Symposium: Is Religion Pre-Supposed by Morality, or Morality by Religion? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 2 (3):46 - 59.
John Lemos (2001). A Defense of Darwinian Accounts of Morality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31 (3):361-385.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #81,796 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?