|
|
|
|
|
|
by acct_0053
4364 days ago
|
|
|
That's nice.
In a sense he's rationalizing away the need to apply the same rigorous requirements to the existence of a god (and therefore whether or not obedience is necessary, followed by a source from which to gather his sense of morality) that one would apply to any other fantastical claim. So what? Nothing wrong with that. So long as he's not applying that same mode of thinking to the actual science he does (which he apparently does not), doesn't negatively impact others with that morality which he derives from his beliefs - or the source of those beliefs, and doesn't demand that others respect or accept those beliefs. Doesn't appear from the article that he's guilty of any of those actions. Then again, I'm unfamiliar with his name or his work. *Edit: rephrased "...or acceptance of..." => "...or accept..." |
|
|