First of all, from my friend Kristen-
A little yellow duckling, flopping comically on its white belly in the wet grass and scarcely able to stand on its thin, feeble legs, runs in front of me and quacks: “Where’s my mommy? Where’s my family?”
He has no mommy, because he has been fostered by a hen: duck eggs were put in her nest, she sat on them and hatched them with her own. To shelter them from the bad weather, their home-an upturned basket without a bottom– has been moved into a shed and covered with sacking. They are all in there, but this one is lost. Come on then, little thing, let me take you in my hand.
What keeps it alive? It weighs nothing; its little black eyes are like beads, its feet are like sparrows’ feet, the slightest squeeze and it would be no more. Yet it is warm with life. Its little beak is pale pink and slightly splayed, like a manicured fingernail. Its feet are already webbed, there is yellow among its feathers, and its downy wings are starting to protrude. Its personality already sets it apart from its foster brothers.
And we men will soon be flying to Venus; if we all pooled our efforts, we could plow up the whole world in twenty minutes.
Yet, with all our atomic might, we shall never-never!-be able to make this feeble
speck of a yellow duckling in a test tube; even if we were given the feathers and bones, we could never put such a creature together.
(The Duckling from Stories and Prose Poems by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, translated by Michael Glenn)
Secondly, I am reading a PHENOMENAL book by a Patrick Madrid called “The Godless Delusion.” It contains logical, irrefutable, Christian arguments in defense of God. I highly recommend it to everyone here. Anyway, one of the arguments is about right and wrong. Atheists are actually technically naturalists, people who believe only in what can be seen, heard, weighed, smelled, or otherwise physically experienced. They also always believe that the concepts of “right” and “wrong” are social constructs, and that the definition of such depends on personal preference. Here is the argument, somewhat paraphrased.
Would you agree that kidnapping, molesting, and killing a nine year old is wrong? Why? Would your friends agree that it is wrong? Would the president? Would a scientist? Would a homeless person agree? Well then, it must be concluded that if everyone agrees that such an action is wrong, than then concept of wrong must exist. And if we believe the concept of wrong, than we must believe in the concept of right to compare it to. Therefore, right exists as well. But does wrong have a smell? Can a scientist cook up a batch of right in a test tube? Can you taste evil? How much does good weigh? We must now conclude that right and wrong exist outside of the natural world, and yet still inexplicably exist. And everyone, regardless of race or culture or gender or education, has an identical code inside of themselves as to what is right or wrong. But why do we have this code? If you were to argue that such a clear moral compass is natural, why do not dogs and cats have it? Why can a chicken steal the food of one it’s coop-mates, and a human cannot? Why is it allowable for an ape to kill its mother, but a human will be put into prison for such a crime? Our next conclusion is that we are different from the animals because we know what is inherently right and wrong, and we did not get this knowledge through any natural or accidental means. This universal knowledge must have been acquired some other way.
(Time to get off now, more later!)