Tuesday, November 08, 2005

On a Theory of Moral Neutrality

I've been inspired by Intelligent Design to come up with my own pseudo-scientific theory about the origins of everything. It doesn't disprove Intelligent Design, and actually uses the same logic, but comes to a startlingly different conclusion. Also like ID, it is not science (after all, just how complex does the Universe have to be before you can conclude there was a designer? And complex compared to what?). On the bright side, it does seem to fit the facts as we know them, and it's no more dis-provable than ID or Christianity.

Here's how it goes, point by point:

1. The physical universe operates by laws which are morally neutral. A neutron doesn't care if it's passing harmlessly through your body, or starting a chain reaction that will kill a million people. The behavior of matter and energy are not affected by notions of right and wrong (which are entirely human constructs).
2. Human beings, like the rest of the universe, are not compelled in any non-cultural imperative to be good or evil--being good is behavior one chooses in order to get the rewards of being an accepted member of a culture, but many people throughout history have clearly made a good living at being evil.
3. If there was a designer of the universe, and he created a morally neutral place and filled it with morally neutral (by their nature) people, plants, and animals, then that designer/creator has to be himself morally neutral. This would explain why God lets babies die in floods.

If true (and it does fit the facts, doesn't it?), it can only mean one thing: There may have been a designer, and he may have designed evolution, but he was certainly not the Christian God, who is ALWAYS portrayed as a moral and motivated being. No such being would create a morally neutral universe.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, fools.


Post a Comment

<< Home