While the central focus of The Bonobo and the Atheist is the moral disposition of primates, Frans De Waal makes a subtler point that he wishes the reader to understand. His opposition in writing this book is not just to the notion that religion is the root of morality, but also to dogma of any kind. De Waals laments irrational thinking from people of all backgrounds - the religious, the nonreligious, and even scientists. De Waals begins the book by attacking religions which purport to be the origin of ethical behavior. Since most of the content of the book takes direct aim at this contention, the specifics of his objection will not be exhausted here.
Firstly, the genetic modification of humans, animals and plants may have adverse and unpredictable effects, or may be dangerous. Secondly, there are religious issues against genetic engineering; is it wrong to “play god” by effectively creating and changing life? Genetic alteration treats humans as products that must be designed, perfected and controlled; they are viewed as commodities, no longer gifts. Michael Sandel, a political philosopher, argues that genetic engineering is a problem because it represents a kind of hyper-agency, a Promethean aspiration to remake nature, including human nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires”. (Michael
Rushdie states “ as a result of this faith, by the way, it has proven impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race number from swelling alarmingly”. Basically if we’d follow the spiritual rules we wouldn’t have things like sexually transmitted diseases,in Rushdie's opinion religion is a theory proven wrong. We can say the same about science and evolution and counter argue the reason of God bringing his son down for forgiving our sins. Not everything that is man made, it correct, not saying religion is
Nowhere in The Natural History of Religion does Hume’s explicitly speak in favor of atheism (perhaps due to the fear of persecution at the time), and yet, I would categorize this work as atheist. Hume strategically places monotheism or “theism” in contention with polytheism, leading the reader to assume that one would eventually prevail, but instead, he picks apart at both until readers are left questioning their own faith and wondering what a more rational alternative might be. In sections 1-5, Hume discusses polytheism and its origin. In sections 6-8, Hume discusses how we transition from polytheism to monotheism, and finally, in sections 9-15, he compares and contrasts the two, pointing out weaknesses and flaws in both. Throughout the book,
The supporters of both sides of this topic have many motives to clone or not to clone. In general, I am against cloning in all cases because the spirit is transferred to us through God because of love and our parents transferred it to us through love also through relation. Why some curious scientists have playing the role of God in their laboratories? Reproductive cloning would reduce the sense of uniqueness of an individual. It would interrupt deeply and widely convictions concerning human individuality and liberty, and could lead to a reduction of clones in comparison with non-clones.
Later, Leibniz, a foundational rational metaphysicist of the Enlightenment and influential thinker, stated that “everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence” (Enlightenment). This statement is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which explains the existence of God and the universe. Many scientists of this time, including Isaac Newton and Leibniz, used science to defend their claims of a deity. At this time, this was somewhat unheard of since science and religion were typically kept in separate lanes. But this brought on controversy as Leibniz and Newton did not agree.
Strongly believing in your religion versus accepting the actual truth is a real testament of a religious person’s faith. While one might want to keep their strong beliefs in their religion and not go against it, testable theories and results from science say otherwise. In Stanley Kramers film Inherit the Wind, the ongoing battle of science versus religion continues. Along with several other problems, Kramers film helped me to formulate three questions. Can myth and superstition be tested?
Recently some political candidates argued that Syrian refugees should not be allowed in the country unless they pass a religious test. Some people have accused the current president of being a Muslim to try to discredit him as a capable president. Recently, Pope Francis was criticized by some for questioning whether or not a presidential candidate was behaving as a Christian. Critics do not believe a leading world religious figure should comment on American politics. Even with the separation of church and state in this country, conflicts still arise as politics and religious beliefs cross lines.
It does not mean that inaction is wrong, but only it question where the boundaries should lie. Some argue that it is against Christianity. Nonetheless, holy books does not have an explicitly written text about genetic screening. The arguments are only constructed from implications of the holy texts. As the holy texts might hold many different meanings, who can know for sure, if genetic screening is just or unjust way?
Natural law is instilled in humans by God, whereas human laws are imposed by rulers (240). Based on its origins, natural law takes priority over the state laws, meaning that one could arguably disregard laws based upon one’s own conscience (243). This is another concept that is visible in politics today. Missionaries break government bans on Bibles based on their conviction to disciple all nations. Conservatives protest or disregard policies that they feel goes against natural law: homosexuality, abortion, etc.
The author is using genetic engineering as a parallel of inter-racial breeding. So when thought of eugenics that way, it does not seem so terrible. While the author does use parallels so that the reader can relate to the text, the author also estranges the reader from the idea of humans being the superior species. Through this estrangement the reader can see that the medical ethics in play, when referring to eugenics and genetic engineering, are in jeopardy as many people believe. The notion of humans not being the top species forces the reader to take a mental step back and rethink the reluctance to explore the possibilities of the human