• Article by: Jonathan MS Pearce

    • D Rizdek

      I note that at the end, he comments that they were working toward seeing if they could build a morality from the bottom up without god. The problem being that they can’t do that if there is a god. Regardless of what they accomplish with these other animals, they are doing it “in the presence of god” so to speak. There is nothing that I can tell that prevent a theoretical god from causing the feelings/tendencies that underpin rudimentary morality in these animals.

      It’s a bit like the argument that there has to be a god because life is too complex to have arisen naturally. And I’ve heard comments like, “they’ve been working for x years to come up with life in a lab and haven’t been able to, so obviously life had to be created by a god.” But of course, I predict that the minute someone does come up with some rudimentary “life in a test tube” from inanimate components, those same commenters would immediately shift to, “well, there is a god so whatever was done, even in the test tube, was influenced by god for god’s own purposes.”

      • John Grove

        “The problem being that they can’t do that if there is a god.”

        How would accepting the demands of God as being absolutely true and correct enable us to get any closer to objectively grounding morality?