Gary discusses recent articles about immigration, birth rates, and anti-natalists.
Moral questions can only be answered in terms of ultimate presuppositions. What are the preconditions for morality? Where does the atheist go to account for his moral worldview? Why should I be concerned about the poor if Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is fundamental to the undebatable theory? Raising moral questions serves as an indirect way to get an unbeliever to come to grips with the internal inconsistency of his worldview. Given that there is no God, why are there moral absolutes and human rights?
The unbeliever will claim that the Christian’s ethical views are defined in terms of a religious commitment the unbiased and neutral skeptic appeals to reason, facts, and science.
Both sides maintain a presuppositional starting point. When has the pro-abortionist ever formulated his or her argument “in accordance with the best scientific opinion as to when the beginning of life, as we know it, occurs”? And what if science does determine that life begins at conception? Why is human life significant at any point in the continuum of life? Science alone can’t tell us if or when a life is valuable or whether life itself is significant and should be protected. All science can do to define life is by way of certain electrical impulses detected on a machine.
Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor
The most damning assessment of a matter-only cosmos devoid of a Creator is that we got to this place in our evolutionary history by acts of violence whereby the strong conquered the weak with no one to support or condemn them. Why It Might Be OK to Eat Your Neighbor repeatedly raises the issue of accounting for the conscience, good and evil, and loving our neighbor. It’s shocking to read what atheists say about a cosmos devoid of meaning and morality.
Buy NowGary discusses recent articles about immigration and birth rates. So called anti-natalists put the welfare of the planet over the welfare of humanity, but they are seldom willing to rid the planet of themselves first. Gary calls materialistic “science” into the argument to point out the hypocrisy.