This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Dawkins and Grayling: can there be evidence for god?

Bonzai's Avatar Jump to comment 127 by Bonzai

Comment 129 by Steve Zara :

What is the difference?

Believers claim moral authority based on the nature of God. God is either the definition of goodness or he is not. If he is just a clever alien, then he is not and he has no moral authority.

A significant justification, for me, for insisting that believers simply cannot back up their claims about god is to show that their insistence that they have moral authority in this world is groundless.

I don't see that, whether God is the true "alpha" or a gamma or just the cyber programmer the argument of Euthyphro still applies.

Also if we are in a cyber make believe world morality and moral authority are also illusions. So an illusory God having illusory moral authority over illusory beings, there can be no real objections to that anymore than the Holodeck Moriaty being tricked into taking a cyber grand tour of the universe. It would be as real as it can possibly be.(Edited: and in this scenario the theologians themselves would agree since they too live in this illusory world and wouldn't be able to peek out of it to notice that their God is a "fake", I put "fake" in quotations because for all intent and purposes he is the real thing! The cyber programmer is the foundation of reality for the little universe he created)

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:01:25 UTC | #603950