is it wrong to "play God" when there is no God?


Still, it may come across as a little weird for secular organizations like the ETC Group to accuse synthetic biologists of assuming the role of God (and only slightly less weird to compare them with Dr Frankenstein). Indeed, as the Christian philosopher Gordon Graham notes, ‘... if, as the secular world believes, there is no God, how could there be any danger of human beings illegitimately abrogating to themselves His function?’ ([31]: 145).9 The Dutch physicist-cum-theologian Willem B. Drees also notes that even non-believers often find ‘playing God’ a useful metaphor in criticizing new technologies ([23]: 651). 
indeed Christians believe that when people believe there is no God, they inevitably Play God, taking his place by abandoning his morals and values -me
A possible answer to the paradox of ‘playing God without God’ may lie in Ted Peters’ hint that the God of ‘playing God’ is not necessarily the God of the Bible, but rather ‘deified nature’ ([47]: 383). It is the presumed sacredness of nature that the modern life sciences threaten to profane.
Modern people think nature is sacred even when they think they believe nothing is sacred -me

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"White supremacists/Antifa rioting"? Show me the videos

2 radical conservative changes to the police--

Storming of Capitol