anthropocentric ethics

Anthropocentric Ethics – In Ancient & Modern Perspective

The author/composer/poet/community which produced the text we know of as Genesis 1 observed many things. Just one of these is the uniqueness of humans in relation to our environment.

Day and night, earth and sky, sea and land, vegetation, and fruits, creatures great and tiny, both in the sea and on land…

And then behold – human beings. These humans are at the pinnacle of creation and are invested with the task and responsibility of governing the entire earth. Continue reading “anthropocentric ethics”

flew’s brain still works

{***EDIT: The review discussed below – allegedly by Antony Flew of ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins – is of uncertain origins.  I’m awaiting an email response to clarify the source.  Discerning how much Flew’s age is affecting his critical thinking is a difficult thing.  Poor memory doesn’t – automatically – mean poor logical thought.  I’ll update this when I hear more…***}

{***EDIT 2: ‘Bethinking.org’ Emailed me back with this:

Dear Dale,
Sorry for the delay replying.  This was written by Flew who wanted to get it published. Flew mentioned
it to a mutual friend, who then spoke to me – I have seen a pdf of the original manuscript and some subsequent correspondence with Flew that took place during the process of publishing it (I live some distance from the mutual friend). Other friends have seen the original.
I hope that helps,
Chris Knight
Apologetics Website Co-ordinator

I’ve thanked him and also mentioned the challenge that Flew may well have been ‘helped’ (or bypassed?) in writings such as these, and have suggested that ‘bethinking’ posts further evidence about Flew’s authorship.  To be continued?  Maybe? ***}

Antony Flew used to be an atheist – now he’s… well… a Deist (or pantheist or Spinozan or a believer in the ‘god’ of Aristotle or Einstein or… well… something…)

Swiftly, his book “There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind” (I didn’t write the sub-title – don’t blame me) was dismissed by some atheists as a ‘sad’ case of an older man losing his mental capacities, and being ‘manipulated’, etc. Some claimed that the book didn’t represent Flew’s own thoughtsContinue reading “flew’s brain still works”

pain bears a message

This post over at ‘Just Thomism‘ is short, sweet and very thought-provoking.

I’m thankful for pain. Not generally at the moment I experience it, but when I think about it, yes I’m glad (for example) that my body tells me when I’m burning my hand on the stove-top. It’s a painful message that my body sends, but it’s one I desperately need to hear. Continue reading “pain bears a message”

gould: science a natural venture

Here Gould threatens a ‘knuckle-rapping’ to both theists and atheists who would try to use science (in general) or the theory of evolution by natural selection (in particular) to butress their worldview.

People familiar with Gould will detect the scent of N.O.M.A. (Nonoverlapping Magesteria – don’t ask me why it’s not N.M. or N.O.M.) in this, but it still seems to make some good points… Continue reading “gould: science a natural venture”

ken miller on ‘the colbert report’

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=173099

(tried to embed video but HTML didn’t work – maybe a problem between HTML and CSS???  That’s how for my web knowledge goes…  not very far…)

is anything significant?

This question (‘Is anything significant?’) can be fleshed out a bit…

We could ask, “Is everything equally in-significant?”, or we could ask, “Is everything equally highly-significant?”

What makes something (an event or object [which can quite rightly be said to be ‘events’ in themselves]) significant, and another thing not so?

Continue reading “is anything significant?”