Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fitting Together the Cosmic Jigsaw Puzzle

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’ve been thinking about the God of the Gaps argument today.  Proponents of naturalism (of both the philosophical and methodological stripe) use this argument in an attempt to discredit design theory as a means of explaining the physical world.  The argument usually goes something like this:  There are many things we formerly did not understand, such as the law of gravitation.  We might have been content to sit back and say “We don’t understand gravitation and we never will; God must have done it so there is no sense in inquiring further.”  But we were not content to rest in our ignorance, and scientists like Newton kept at it until they discovered the law of gravity.  There only seemed to be a gap that we needed to fill with God.  Similarly today, we can be assured that science will eventually fill in the remaining gaps of our scientific knowledge.  Thus, there is never a need to resort to “God did it” as an explanation for any phenomenon. 

 

Most ID proponents do not insist that a deity must have been the designer.  Nevertheless, the God of the Gaps argument is employed against ID by one of two means:  (1) We don’t care that you don’t posit a deity as the designer in your theory; we have fathomed your heart of hearts and we know that God (especially the God of the Bible) is really whom you have in mind.  (2) Even if we grant that you don’t posit God as the designer, you still posit the act of an agent, which cannot be encompassed by explanations based strictly on mechanical necessity (i.e., the laws of nature) and/or chance.  Since science operates only with explanations based on law and/or chance, for purpose of the “gaps” argument, it makes no difference if you posit a non-deity agent, because an “agent of the gaps” is just as much a scientific show stopper as a “God of the gaps.”

 

The problem with the “God of the Gaps” argument is that it is demonstrably false as a matter of the plain historic record.  Consider the law of gravitation from the example I used above.  No one can seriously doubt that Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man.  Indeed, he saw his work not as the search for knowledge for its own sake, or even for the sake of the practical benefits that would ensue from his discoveries.  No, he saw his life’s work as an inquiry into the nature of God’s design in the cosmos.  Newton believed “God did it.”  So why didn’t this belief bring his scientific inquiries to a screeching halt?  After all, that is exactly what the “God of the Gaps” theory predicts should have happened.

 

Newton did not stop his work for the same reason people work jigsaw puzzles.  Millions of jigsaw puzzles are sold every year to people who know beyond the slightest doubt that the overall picture was “designed” and that each of the individual pieces was cut by a designer in such a way as to fit into a unified whole.  So what is the fascination of a jigsaw puzzle?  At a certain level it seems utterly pointless.  Yet, humans appear to have an innate drive to explore puzzles.  There is something deeply satisfying about working out how a set of complex and seemingly unrelated pieces fit until an elegant, beautiful and unified whole.  The inner drive that motivates my kids to sit on the floor by the tree and put together the puzzle they just got for Christmas, is the same drive that motivated Newton to discover the laws of gravity and Kepler the laws of planetary motion.  Newton and Kepler were working on the grandest jigsaw puzzle of all – the jigsaw puzzle of the cosmos.  It mattered not one wit to them that before they ever began their inquires God had “painted the picture and carved the pieces of the puzzle” as it were.  They were driven to discover how it all fit together.

 

For this reason ID is not a scientific show stopper because it posits design in the universe.  The fact of design means nothing when it comes to continuing to investigating the details of the design – working the puzzle if you like.  With respect to every phenomenon we choose to investigate through the scientific method, we can ask what is its function, how can we model it, how does it fit into a unified whole, and can we use it to improve our material condition?  These are all jigsaw puzzle type questions, questions we are driven to answer by our innate curiosity about the world in which we live.  And at the end of the day it seems to me that it makes little difference in how we approach these questions if we assume the puzzle was made by blind chance and law that came together with such perfection that an illusion of design arises, or if we go one step further and assume the appearance of design gives away the fact of design.  The puzzle of how it all fits together and how we can use it remains to be solved.

Comments
----pubdef: "Your first and second sentences raise my hopes that you could answer a question I asked in another thread In “There’s probably no God …”, comment 127, I asked, essentially, whether there is any data that shows a significant difference between theists and atheists regarding daily life and behavior, and overall “happiness.” About six months ago, I reported on two major studies that confirmed the point. I started to rummage through my records to find it, then I thought, just for fun, I will do a quick google. That was enough. Just type in believers happier than non-believers, or Christians happier than non-Chritians, or Church goers happier than non-church goers, or conservatives happier than liberals---you get the drift. The results are pretty much standard---invariably, the answer is, yes. Then test it the other way. Try getting a response with "non-believers happier than believers" etc, or atheists happier than Christians etc.... What you will find is that the results reverse the order of the words and send you right back to the same reports that confirm that "believers happier than non-believers," Chritians happier than atheists." I couldn't find a single one in any context that refutes the point.StephenB
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
I asked, essentially, whether there is any data that shows a significant difference between theists and atheists regarding daily life and behavior, and overall “happiness.” Your third sentence, of course, is all about theory, not data; so, can you in fact provide any evidence on this question? You ask interesting questions Pubdef. I think I gave you an out-of-context answer on that thread. Someone who thinks about that question is much happier believing the answer to be yes - just look at the posts here vs. the ones on PZ's board. OTOH, I think you can go through life being relatively happy without thinking about the question. Consider the Bible story about Lazarus the beggar and the rich man. I read it as the rich man was a fairly happy fellow who didn't think too much about God and what God wanted us to do.tribune7
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
StephenB
For what it is worth, I can provide plenty of evidence that church goers are happier and more peaceful than their atheist counterparts. Also, they do a better job of forming communities and well-ordered societies. Just compare the ideas in Communist Manifesto with those in the Declaration of Independence.
Your first and second sentences raise my hopes that you could answer a question I asked in another thread In "There's probably no God ...", comment 127, I asked, essentially, whether there is any data that shows a significant difference between theists and atheists regarding daily life and behavior, and overall “happiness.” Your third sentence, of course, is all about theory, not data; so, can you in fact provide any evidence on this question?pubdef
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
OK Laminar, we can leave it at that. For what it is worth, I can provide plenty of evidence that church goers are happier and more peaceful than their atheist counterparts. Also, they do a better job of forming communities and well-ordered societies. Just compare the ideas in Communist Manifesto with those in the Declaration of Independence.StephenB
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
StephenB I don't think we are going to get much further, and I am getting behind on my chores so this will be my last post on this topic. I actually agree that some of the biblical laws are very useful for an ordered society and it is obvious when we look at history that our western society is built to a degree on those laws. I'm glad we don't still adhere to ideas like the divine right of kings though. The question for me is whether these laws are, as you suggest, divine in origin or whether they are just the things that have worked for ordered societies and as such have become formalised as part of various religious doctrines. Were they created divinely or naturally. "Go with the evidence. Find happy people. Watch what works. Observe what causes unhappiness and resentment and take note of what brings peace (especially peace in the heart)" I do, that's why I tend to avoid church and deeply religious communities.Laminar
January 16, 2009
January
01
Jan
16
16
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Laminar --Getting rid of God might not help but it might not make anything worse. Gee, I wonder if anybody as ever tried sort of put that idea to the test?tribune7
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
----"Finally, I would note that both sides of the American Civil War went into battle convinced that the GoA was on their side and that the “rights” they fought for were Bible-based." Both sides violated Biblically based principles and the natural moral law. One side asked for the Biblically-based freedom to secede, and the other side chose not to honor that Biblically-based freedom. Both sides violated the inherent dignity of the human person by holding slaves.StephenB
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
Oops, I mean, "It is a Judeo/Christian principle that [those] who choose not to follow the first commandment should have the political freedom to ignore their creator."StephenB
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
-----Laminar: "It is perfectly clear and just as you have stated, objective morality is not something we make up, it is something we discover - so if we discover that it is ‘in our genes’ and a product of evolution then it is objective, not just made up." I don't think that really captures the idea of "objective." The objective moral law is on the outside of us, so to speak. It is not part of our genetic code. ----"Why should I believe your assertion that there are some natural moral laws fashioned by a supernatural creator, that this creator is exactly what you believe him to be and that these laws are what you believe them to be?" Think of it this way. If we don't believe that, then we have no other to provide a rational justification for our freedoms, which was the main point of my argument. I don't expect to persuade you about the truth of the Judeo/Christian world view, but I submit that you are free only because others built a well-ordered society around that principle. I think that point deserves to be acknolwedged. -----"Precisely, on what evidence should I believe your claim that these moral laws you subscribe to are any more than the whims of men presented as the word of god?" The best answer I can give is that they work wherever they are tried, and that no civilized society has ever been built without them. Since they work, and since they are confirmed in the Judeo/Christian playbook (which also claims revealed truths that are consistent with these same sound social principles), that seems like a pretty good indication that they are appropriate. ----"I don’t claim to have an answer but I would like to know why I should subscribe to the moral laws that you advocate and not to someone else’s. They may not be your personal revelations but it is you who are advocating their divinity." I am advocating nothing more or less what the founding fathers advocated. If there is no natural moral law, then there is no unifying principle around which warring nations (or states) can settle their differences. All societies have recognized this natural moral law, even though they were not wise enought to structure their governments accordingly. —- ----"As far as the constitution goes, if the first commandment is something that Americans are expected to abide by then presumably is is un-American to not be a Christian." Well, we would all be better off if all Americans did observe the first commandment, but the law does not require it. Indeed, the Judeo/Christian ethic is the only one that provides for other world views to flourish under its banner. That is a big, big, deal. ----"I never suggested the US constitution was wrong I just suggested that it might not actually require Americans to be Christians but instead it might grant the freedom NOT to follow the first commandment." It is a Judeo/Christian principle that anyone who chooses not to follow the first commandment should have the political freedom to ignore their creator. No one in the United States has ever been given a political mandate to save their soul. The Judeo/Christian principle supports the "inherent dignity of the human person," which allows everyone to practice his or her religion. Again, no other belief system is consistent with that kind of freedom. —- ----(Atheism and Agnosticism) argue that true morality should be the product of rational thought not the whims of theologians masquerading as objectivity and divinity." Yes, that's true. That is why they never come up with anything. If you have the time, ask an atheist to explain his moral code and provide his rationale for it. He'll probably say something like, I believe that our moral code should be based on "reason." You will not even get the chance to ask him if his code applies to all people at all times and in all places because he will not yet have told you what it is. ----"If this objective divine morality exists then why do so many people disagree on what it is?" They don't. Almost everyone knows that we shouldn't lie, cheat, steal, and murder, oppress, betray, mislead, covet, and commit adultery. The problem is that many people would prefer to do these things anyway, so they pretend not to know better. ----"I’m not even claiming that God or God given moral codes do not exist, I’d just like to know how to tell them apart from the ones that aren’t." Go with the evidence. Find happy people. Watch what works. Observe what causes unhappiness and resentment and take note of what brings peace (especially peace in the heart)StephenB
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
CJYman: How much time would you consider having to wait to know for certain without a doubt? First though:What is your definition of love? I don`t feel a dictionary is a personal view.Dr. Time
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
My two cents is that we are designed to discover the moral law through rational discourse, beginning from a foundational point of course. Now, how to get to that foundational point through rational discourse, I'm not sure. But, I do believe that point to begin all discussion of moral law is "love" -- treating others as you would have them treat you and respecting them as having intrinsic worth. Now, absent any moral code of "love" built into nature, would we ever discover love and a moral code? Without a certain type of front-loading, would evolution on its own (merely chance and law absent any purposive structure) be able to build minds which could even discover and comprehend a moral code or the concept of "love."CJYman
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
I think there's a false dichotomy going on here, between "the natural moral law fashioned by the creator," and "your own moral whims." In between is a rich and complex tradition fostered by human evolution and experience. I would hold that the sources brought by StephenB (10 Commandments, etc.) grew out of that. Behaviors and standards vary significantly among social groups, but I think there is also a good amount of consensus. This isn't 100% on point, probably, but I'm reminded of a list of dozens (if not hundreds) of attitudes that appear to be common across cultures; I saw it in a book by Steven Pinker, I think, although I think it was attributed to someone else. Meanwhile -- the "Judeo/Christian moral framework" has a significantly longer history than the Declaration of Independence, including a lot of time and places where the GoA [god of abraham] was acknowledged by the ruling class, with widely varying degrees of "humane" government. So, it would seem that the law of the GoA might not be sufficient. Finally, I would note that both sides of the American Civil War went into battle convinced that the GoA was on their side and that the "rights" they fought for were Bible-based.pubdef
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
StephenB: It is perfectly clear and just as you have stated, objective morality is not something we make up, it is something we discover - so if we discover that it is 'in our genes' and a product of evolution then it is objective, not just made up. "The same creator that fashioned us fashioned the natural moral law." Why should I believe your assertion that there are some natural moral laws fashioned by a supernatural creator, that this creator is exactly what you believe him to be and that these laws are what you believe them to be? "On what principle, other than your own moral whims, would you build a well-ordered society?" Precisely, on what evidence should I believe your claim that these moral laws you subscribe to are any more than the whims of men presented as the word of god? I don't claim to have an answer but I would like to know why I should subscribe to the moral laws that you advocate and not to someone else's. They may not be your personal revelations but it is you who are advocating their divinity. ---- As far as the constitution goes, if the first commandment is something that Americans are expected to abide by then presumably is is un-American to not be a Christian. As for proposing an alternative - I'm not, I never suggested the US constitution was wrong I just suggested that it might not actually require Americans to be Christians but instead it might grant the freedom NOT to follow the first commandment. ---- "Atheism and agnosticism reject the objective morality on which civil law must stand." No they argue that true morality should be the product of rational thought not the whims of theologians masquerading as objectivity and divinity. I think you are missing the critical point here, if this objective divine morality exists then why do so many people disagree on what it is? I'm not even claiming that God or God given moral codes do not exist, I'd just like to know how to tell them apart from the ones that aren't.Laminar
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
-----Laminar: "Unless you can empirically demonstrate divine instructions the only thing you have are a series of personal revelations and these can, and have been, used to justify almost anything. Simply referring to ‘the good book’ as your divine source won’t stop someone claiming to have a better book or others from believing them." I think that you are missing a critical point here. Every government has an ethic; the challenge is to choose the right ethic. To say there is no right ethic is to invite the wrong ethic. Other than the Judeo/Christian moral framework, there is no belief system that can support personal freedom and reconcile itself with the Declaration of Independence. It is not possible to build a well ordered society without it. Atheism and agnosticism reject the objective morality on which civil law must stand, and Islam does not acknowledge the “inherent dignity of the human person.”StephenB
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
-----Laminar: "A rabbi in Israel recently ‘discovered’ that there is nothing morally wrong with killing Palestinian civilians in the Torah." Are you talking about an military act in a wartime situation or a personal act of murder? Your example is too imprecise to be helpful. ----"So if we discover that in fact we have evolved to be on average good people who don’t tend to steal, murder indiscriminately then this must therefore be objective morality?" Objective morality is not something that we make up for ourselves as we go along. The same creator that fashioned us fashioned the natural moral law. I thought that was clear. —- ----"Do creations? We can still be accidents even in a created universe, one definition of accident is an unintended consequence of an intentional act." [A] You have yet to confront the question about whether accidents can have rights? [B] We are not talking about a created universe, we are talking about created beings in a universe. A created being cannot be both what it is an accident. -----"Do creations? You claim they do but I don’t believe your revelations are truth." They are not MY revelations. I don't recall issuing forth any revealed truths from on high. The question persists: On what principle, other than your own moral whims, would you build a well-ordered society? —- ----"So although the constitution grants freedom of religion it is also based on the Christian commandment(s) “I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me” Hmmm…" The constitution was set up to establish relationships between citizens, not relationships between God and citizens. It was assumed that responsible citizens would follow God's laws (including the first commandment that you allude to) so that they could govern themselves. Self government requires self control, which, in turn, requires an objective behavior standard. That is the whole point. The citizen submits to a just moral law so that he does not have to submit to an unjust tyrant. It appears that you disagree with that formulation, but you have yet to provide a reasonable alternative. What would you choose instead? Sharia Law? Chaos? Atheistic tyranny? Tyranny of the majority?StephenB
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
crandaddy:96 Although I was brought up in the west I have not had my religious experience limited to the abrahamic religions so my definition of God incorporates those from Dharmic religions as well as the ancient Greek and Roman gods, along with some Norse mythology and aboriginal ideas. Because I'm agnostic my concept of what God could be spans theism and deism - personal and impersonal, involved and uninvolved gods. I think we could probably agree on the point that an intelligent designer at the level of a universe does not imply any divine purpose or meaning for our lives but it does imply a purpose behind the universe. An intelligent cause for the universe, or life on earth doesn't imply purpose though, even intelligent agents can have accidents ;)Laminar
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
StephenB: 85 "It is not a “personal” revelation, (which would indeed make it subjective), it is a Divine revelation" "If it is objective, we “discover” it; if it is subjective we “create” it. " A rabbi in Israel recently 'discovered' that there is nothing morally wrong with killing Palestinian civilians in the Torah. Unless you can empirically demonstrate divine instructions the only thing you have are a series of personal revelations and these can, and have been, used to justify almost anything. Simply referring to 'the good book' as your divine source won't stop someone claiming to have a better book or others from believing them. "If it is objective, we “discover” it" So if we discover that in fact we have evolved to be on average good people who don't tend to steal, murder indiscriminately then this must therefore be objective morality? ---- "The atheist position is that humans were not created at all, they just happened by accident. So, they have no created nature..." You have not made a case; you have simply made an assertion. ---- "[a] Do accidents of nature have rights?" Do creations? We can still be accidents even in a created universe, one definition of accident is an unintended consequence of an intentional act. "[b] Are they morally obliged to do anything?" Do creations? You claim they do but I don't believe your revelations are truth. ---- "The substance of that morality comes from God’s natural moral law which was designed by God and made explicit in the Ten Commandments," So although the constitution grants freedom of religion it is also based on the Christian commandment(s) "I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me" Hmmm...Laminar
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
Tribune7: 84 "So if we leave God out of the picture, humans will form large social groups without indiscriminate killing and overt selfishness?" Well currently we have God IN the picture and we still have large groups of religious people indiscriminately killing. Religion might be useful for many but it kills a lot of people every year. Getting rid of God might not help but it might not make anything worse. The big problem with the idea of getting rid of god is the people who are only capable of being good when they have the threat of divine retribution hanging over their head.Laminar
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
tragicmishap:82 "If your life has no meaning, how can anything be enjoyable?" My life has meaning, I enjoy my life but I don't believe in God. Telling me it doesn't won't make it true. In many ways I pity people who are incapable of enjoying life without divine permission.Laminar
January 15, 2009
January
01
Jan
15
15
2009
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
You're fine, Dr. Time. Night. :-)crandaddy
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
StephenB, Thank you for the compliment. Laminar, Of course you can define "God" however you choose. You can go outside and name some tree "God" if you want. But as Western users of the word understand the term, what I provided is actually a very broad definition. (Persons including but not limited to all three Abrahamic faiths would assent to it.)
You have basically defined the word GOD to make your argument true. Should we be making definitive distinctions between GOD, super natural forces and Intelligent designers as causal agents?
It is true that I've provided a definition and have laid out what I take to follow from it. If you disagree with something, then your task is to focus on my axiom or some inference from it and show what's wrong. To answer your question, in order to have any idea what we're talking about, I think the answer is unquestionably yes! I'm kind of surprised you would ask such a question. You start your comment by defining "God" simply as any being able to create a universe. But I say this definition is too broad. From this it isn't clear whether your god is even personal. And even if your god is personal, I still don't know whether he/she/it creates ex nihilo or uses preexisting objects. The best I can say from what you give me is that simply from the fact that a universe is caused to exist it doesn't seem to follow that our lives have any value deriving from that cause. But of course, this is not what the large majority of English speakers have in mind when they speak of "God."crandaddy
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Thanks for my concern pubdef. My eyes and brain do need a good tune up.They sometimes don`t know what they are seeing.Know of any good doctors who can test stupidity and teach me the lessons "I do" need to learn.Maybe I need an injection of the gene of love.Is a self diagnosis of stupidlylovelesscrazy? Going to take a shot of sleep and go to bed now.What would would your prescription be? Check it in the morning. Night.Dr. Time
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
-----"Both the concept of “rights” and the recognition of them as held by other beings are natural consequences of the development of “human nature.” Likewise, for “morality” and “moral obligation.” You have not made a case; you have simply made an assertion. Which moral code are you talking about? Where is it grounded? By whose authority are rights conferred? What does the atheist say to the government when it tells him that he has no rights except those that the state chooses to give him? How does he protect himself from the tyranny of the majority? -----"And here’s one for you: does the existence of God settle all questions of behavior within the concepts of rights and moral obligation (or, can religion provide clear answers as to what is “right” or “moral”?)" The traditional argument has been put forth by the founding fathers and is summarized in the Declaration of Independence. Here is a quick informal summary: Rights come from God. The job of government is to protect those rights not to confer them. If the state grants rights, the state can take them away. Under those circumstances, individual freedoms would be subject to the whims of legislators. That means that they would not be unalienable. The citizens’ “rights” are tied to their“ responsibility” to follow the natural moral law. They need no tyrant to tell them right from wrong inasmuch as their consciences, which apprehend the natural moral law, can do that job without the tyrants help. It is this capacity to know that moral law and follow it that qualifies them for self governance. It is because of this power that they are said to have "inherent dignity, meaning that they are made “in the image and likeness of God.” The substance of that morality comes from God’s natural moral law which was designed by God and made explicit in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Beatitudes. Citizens’ freedoms depend on their willingness to know those laws and follow them willingly. The government’s limitations are based on those same laws and are justified by that same rationale. Do atheists have a counterpart to even one of these elements? Of course not. That is why their regimes are always inhumane.StephenB
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Is anyone paying attention to Dr. Time? I'm worried he may hurt himself.pubdef
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
tribune7 -- I'm not comfortable expounding on the specifics of an "atheist paradigm" (having said only that I don't see that it would be incompatible with "a morality of human nature"). But I will say something about "morality" in a secular context. Human society has a number of mechanisms and devices to support behavioral and moral norms, ranging from informal, community-based means such as disapproval, shame, and opprobrium, through formalized sanctions such as civil damages, and criminal penalties. The informal categories tend to be self-executing (e.g., you don't need a monitor on the street shouting out, "Hubert! Pull up your pants!"). The agents of formal sanctions (and positive social morality, such as care of dependent persons) are accountable to a complex system of legitimacy that varies with the specific character of the society.pubdef
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Would a complete change in governments,a complete house cleaning and starting over with honest youthful tomorrow caring knowing wake up the whole continent "if" it could only happen in Nova Scotia? Many have to start in the smallest voting results area. It seems that all eyes are watching.Too bad they wouldn`t help us to help themselves obtain some values instead of that almighty dollar they are chasing,so it seems!Dr. Time
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
[a] DO accidents of nature have rights? Do you mind? Are rights allowed to make mistakes?YES they are.By taking the bull by the horns when no one else would is not wrong.It is the only right thing that could have been done. The consequences that happened may not be acceptable by others but how many really know the truth that caused the accident?Dr. Time
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
pubdef--So, I see no inherent problem with “a morality of human nature” within an atheist paradigm. Pubdef, I'm not trying to pick on you but what is the arbiter of morality in an atheist paradigm? Should it be the state or do we want ever police officer, judge, IRS agent, DA, the President and every other officer of the state to understand that they will have to account to a higher judge for what they do with the authority they mind find themselves holding?tribune7
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
[a] Do accidents of nature have rights? [b] Are they morally obliged to do anything? How do you make a case for either [a], [b], or both?
Both the concept of "rights" and the recognition of them as held by other beings are natural consequences of the development of "human nature." Likewise, for "morality" and "moral obligation." And here's one for you: does the existence of God settle all questions of behavior within the concepts of rights and moral obligation (or, can religion provide clear answers as to what is "right" or "moral"?)pubdef
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
----"So, I see no inherent problem with “a morality of human nature” within an atheist paradigm." [a] Do accidents of nature have rights? [b] Are they morally obliged to do anything? How do you make a case for either [a], [b], or both?StephenB
January 14, 2009
January
01
Jan
14
14
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply