Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[tonyrey]

Could you show that I was wrong by telling me if you have ever reached a decision you considered morally correct that was counter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

1. Since the power of reason and decision-making comes from God all moral decisions have an implicit reference to God
2. We** all** make moral decisions independently without reference to God
3. Since we are not infallible we cannot always know whether our moral decisions are correct regardless of whether we believe in God.

I’m not claiming that morality comes from the Declaration of Human Rights. I am not suggesting that I can make moral decisions independently and without reference to it. So whether I agree with all aspects of that document or not is moot.

You haven’t explained where morality comes from.

And back on topic: why aren’t all animals vegetarians?

1. All life depends on life
2. Predation is not intrinsically evil
3. Predation is more efficient and merciful than allowing organisms to suffer from a painful disease or injury for weeks or even years
4. Predation originated from necessity
5. No animal is a true vegetarian because insects are consumed with the vegetation
6. The basis of life is competition because there is constant warfare at the microscopic level.
7. Without competition as well as co-operation there cannot be advanced development.

 

[Hounchell1945]

Why would God design some animals to painfully kill and eat others? Why would he design animals to live inside and on other animals and leech their nutrients until they die slowly and painfully? Why would he create killer viruses and bacteria that cause so much death and pain?

No one, will be able to answer your questions with direct answers… as only God could
answer them… However:

What we often see as cruel and horrible is more often a less evil than another one in
it’s place… We think we see, but we don’t see… we think we understand, but we
don’t.

when clams are created, thousands upon thousands at a time… we see helpless little clam babies, being eaten by predators without any means of defense… We think “horrible” slaughter of the innocent etc…

However: In the providence of God… we learn that if two clams were to procreate without
any predators involved, and all the babies were to live, and we were to have that happen to all such offspring of this family for three generations, or three years, the size of the clams
would equal too eight times the size of the earth…

I personally think that there is a number of “evils” that we have and know about which Mankind can over come and eliminate… I think that we are not only part of God’s creation but that we are part of creation also… “we are made in the image of god”…

We need water, God gives us the system where we receive rain… however that same
water takes lives each year by drowning… Is it God’s fault? as you view seems to
indicate?

 

[Gaber]

What is the foundation for your ethics?

That there are not two.

 

[Gaber]

I was actually just explaining what the argument is, but yes, I do think it’s a serious argument. Do you disagree with either or both of the premises?

A law is a precept using language,among other things, to formulate a relationship in positive or negative terms, or describe a dynamic. A “lawgiver” is necessarily a person ascribed authority. As we are using language, the way it is phrased there, the first assumption already contains the conclusion. It simply sticks the word “God” onto “lawgiver.” Further, ther is no objective moral law. The Great Commandment and the Golden Rule in all its forms necessitate divine subjectivity as reality. So there is no objective moral law giver, only the model of one constructed linguistically for the pupose of exploration until mind is transcended. I am a theist and I do not equate “lawgiver” and “God.” Both of those ar lingusitc conveniences, albeit necessary in our kind of encounter with existence, but as metaphors, their referent being unknowable as mental ojects nd only trelatively useful.

 

[Blacksword]

No, but AIDS, ebola, smallpox, cancer, hemophilia, and dysentery certainly are evil - the bacteria/viruses themselves aren’t evil, but the effects they have on people are evil (“bad” would be a better word here). They exist, and therefore they must have been created by God. So why would God create them?

Or they came about in the natural evolutionary course of events, the same events that have rise to US. And they cause suffering, but this does not make them “bad” as suffering has purposes and itself is not inherently bad. It is a position of hedonism that suffering is inherently bad, one I reject.

 

[tonyrey]

That there are not two.

?

 

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

Or they came about in the natural evolutionary course of events, the same events that have rise to US. And they cause suffering, but this does not make them “bad” as suffering has purposes and itself is not inherently bad. It is a position of hedonism that suffering is inherently bad, one I reject.

I reject it as well. Too many people adopt this fallacy of: “that which feels good is good, and that which feels bad is bad”.

Well the truth hurts; does this make the truth evil? To a hedonist; yes!

 

[punkforchrist]

Serious:

While retaining the real meaning of “objective” and absolute"?

Yes.

Of course. Non-mathematicians think that mathematical truths are absolute. They are not, they are contingent upon the selection of certian axioms (which are arbitrary) and a language to manipulate them. The only requirement is that the axioms should not lead to contradictions. Every mathematical theorem is formulated as: “IF xxxxx THEN yyyyy”.

The fact that mathematical truths are dependent (“contingent” can mean either dependent or possibly non-existent) does not mean they can be false. If the axioms on which they are dependent are themselves necessary, then the truths may also be necessary.

Why not? Of course I already know your answer, I have seen it many times. I disagree. If someone consents to an act, which does not hurt others, then this act is no one else’s business - it is morally neutral. This disagreement cannot be resolved.

We obviously disagree, but the inability to resolve this problem is no burden for the moral absolutist. Absolutes don’t need to be recognized as such in order to be absolute.

Since metaphysics is merely a set of empty musings (mostly nonsensical), I could not care less about it. Epistemology is what counts.

Haha that’s a bit dismissive, don’t you think?

 

[punkforchrist]

A law is a precept using language,among other things, to formulate a relationship in positive or negative terms, or describe a dynamic. A “lawgiver” is necessarily a person ascribed authority. As we are using language, the way it is phrased there, the first assumption already contains the conclusion. It simply sticks the word “God” onto “lawgiver.” Further, ther is no objective moral law. The Great Commandment and the Golden Rule in all its forms necessitate divine subjectivity as reality. So there is no objective moral law giver, only the model of one constructed linguistically for the pupose of exploration until mind is transcended. I am a theist and I do not equate “lawgiver” and “God.” Both of those ar lingusitc conveniences, albeit necessary in our kind of encounter with existence, but as metaphors, their referent being unknowable as mental ojects nd only trelatively useful.

You say there is no objective moral law. Okay, on that much we certainly disagree, but I don’t want to pursue a debate on that in this thread. Now, you asked earlier whether I was being serious with this argument. Is it your claim that a belief in an objective moral law should not be taken seriously? Because the vast majority of philosophers, even secular philosophers, would disagree.

Moreover, the first premise does not contain the conclusion. For, without the second premise, we have no way of validly deducing that an objective moral lawgiver exists.

 

[Bradski]

1. Since the power of reason and decision-making comes from God all moral decisions have an implicit reference to God. We** all** make moral decisions independently without reference to God.

OK, so let’s say that there’s a God. He’s given me the power of reason and decision making. But I don’t believe in him so I make moral decisions without reference to Him. You do believe in Him and (apparently, as you say above) you also make moral decisions without reference to Him. So how do we get to the point where a Christian can say that morality comes from God? You’re saying that it’s just the ability to make these decisions that come from God.

If God is guiding your decisions, then he is also guiding those of other Christians. If that is the case and you have a different moral outlook, then how do we know who is right?

Since we are not infallible we cannot always know whether our moral decisions are correct regardless of whether we believe in God.

Now we’re on firmer ground (although I’m not sure why you emphasised ‘always’ – are there some cases where you ARE sure?). If you admit that you don’t know that you’re right, then you obviously agree that you could be wrong. If we disagree on a moral matter, then that should be implicit in any discussion on the matter.

So we have an atheist and a Christian who both make moral decisions entirely independently and who both agree that their decisions may be wrong in some way. Isn’t that the way it should be? You have to convince me that you are right on any matter without reference to any divine authority.

You haven’t explained where morality comes from.

I get mine the same place you get yours. We both (as you say above) make moral decisions independently of God. I make mine as a result of empathy I feel for others. I know how I would like to be treated by others and I extend that requirement to myself.

All life depends on life.

That’s not necessarily so in the way that I think you are meaning it. In that something has to die before something else can live. That is certainly the way it is structured as far as animals go. Even if they’re vegetarian, they have to ‘kill’ plants. But I don’t think there’s a moral problem in eating a plant. Nothing suffers.

I can’t remember who said this, but on asked on the meaning of life, a biologist said: to be eaten. Why does it have to be that way? It could have been ‘designed’ in any way at all, but the way you say it has been designed has resulted in uncountable agonising deaths over, literally, billions of years.

Predation is not intrinsically evil.

Completely agree. A lion isn’t being evil when he tears an antelope apart. But the OP isn’t about about evil.

Predation is more efficient and merciful than allowing organisms to suffer from a painful disease or injury for weeks or even years.

That’s a false dichotomy. There are creatures near the top of the food chain that don’t suffer from predation. Would you say it would be better for them to be eaten alive rather than live out their natural term?

Predation originated from necessity.

Yeah, I’d agree with that up to a point. But only because that’s the way that evolution turned out. You say that God has created life, that it has been designed, so how is it ‘necessary’ for God to set things up in that way? Is He constrained in some way?

The basis of life is competition because there is constant warfare at the microscopic level. Without competition as well as co-operation there cannot be advanced development.

There doesn’t have to be competition. There is no ‘need’ for advanced development. It’s not a requirement. God could have put us in place on this planet with nothing to eat except plants. There wouldn’t be anything wrong with that from a biological viewpoint.

You must realise that there are literally millions of species now extinct that were never a requirement for us to be here right now. They were evolutionary dead ends. There are billions of creatures that served no other purpose at all except for food. Pretty grim way of running a place if you ask me.

 

[Gaber]

1. Since the power of reason and decision-making comes from God all moral decisions have an implicit reference to God .

Non-sequitur. You are making unstated assumptions both about God and morality that arenot, or not necessarily true.

1. We** all** make moral decisions independently without reference to God

Of course. We will have the need for morality until we recognize our use of the word “God” for what it is. In the mean time, we only have a contructed referent about which we can entertain beliefs, which word functionally means “behave as if.” Some do, some don’t depending not so much on beleifs or strategems about God, but from inculcated habit, expereince, fear, etc, until those are transcended.

1. Since we are not infallible we cannot always know whether our moral decisions are correct regardless of whether we believe in God.

We make them correct at the time of acting by acting. Few actions are deliberated and are actually re-actions, however much we protest about having a code–our “own” or acquired. The idea that someone might think they know ever, by the standars you seem to postulate, is amusing.

You haven’t explained where morality comes from.

Morality, as far as it is an externalized consideration, always stems from the need to survive, reactive or active. At a point that few reach, the question of morality is irrelevant. In the meantime it is, as well, a construct used to make consequences, mostly unpredictasble anyway, thinkable.

1. All life depends on life

You mean eating other life forms. All living things are energy systems not discreet from the whole except in appearance at our level of viewing.

1. Predation is not intrinsically evil

Amongst animals? Or amongst humans, who have elevated it into highly developed craft in some instances?

1. Predation is more efficient and merciful than allowing organisms to suffer from a painful disease or injury for weeks or even years

This is an anthropomorphization, but it would seem so, except in humans who do in many medical circumstances, especially of the aged, seem to do everything to prolong it.

1. Predation originated from necessity

Again, an anthropomorphization. Atoms “predate” when they bond out of the “need” to fill electron shells.

1. No animal is a true vegetarian because insects are consumed with the vegetation

And this is relevant how? And to what?

1. The basis of life is competition because there is constant warfare at the microscopic level.

And evry other level. That lovely birdsong is territorial in nature. Sound makes presence. The forest, the sea, the sky, the earth, all are a symphony of predation. And again, “competition” is what we call it. It is just something that creatures do to eat. Some are more efficient than others.

1. Without competition as well as co-operation there cannot be advanced development

You mean better eaters survive, whether alone or in groups.

 

[Serious]

Yes.

Cenceivably there could be an “absolute” and “objective” moral code, in an extremely simply world. See a little below.

The fact that mathematical truths are dependent (“contingent” can mean either dependent or possibly non-existent) does not mean they can be false. If the axioms on which they are dependent are themselves necessary, then the truths may also be necessary.

But the axioms are not logically “necessary”. Some set of axioms may describe reality better, other set axioms may have been selected for their “fun” value. Mathematics is a complicated mental game, but of course some parts of it have a lot of practical use.

We obviously disagree, but the inability to resolve this problem is no burden for the moral absolutist. Absolutes don’t need to be recognized as such in order to be absolute.

Certainly. But since I do not accept the absolute nature of a moral code, it seems to be futile to continue. I have a good reason for rejecting the notion of “absolute” moral code. Ethics (morality), which is the fourth part of philosophy deals with “ought to” questions, like: “If I want to achieve X, given circumstances of Y, I ought to do Z”. Obviously the “Z” is contingent (dependent) on “X” and “Y”. It is extremely naive to think that there is a “Z” which is applicable for all “X”-s and “Y”-s, or even for particular “X” and all “Y”-s… Mathematically speaking we deal with a function with 2 independent variables (X and Y) and one dependent variable (Z). In other words Z = f(X, Y). What the “absolute morality” would suggest that this function is either a flat surface (one Z for all X-s and Y-s) or does not dependent of “Y”, that is Z = f(X), which is ridiculous.

Haha that’s a bit dismissive, don’t you think?

Guilty as charged. Metaphysics is simple: “what exists?” Look around, and you will see what exists. Epistemology is a tad more interesting: “how do we know it?”, or how do we gain knowldege about the reality? In principle it is also simple: look around, intuit some inferences, set up a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and if the test works out, accept the hypothesis provisionally, if the test does not work out, discard or modify the hypothesis…

There are parts of existence when this method is inapplicable:

1. the abstract sciences. Of course the abstract sciences do not deal with “reality”, they deal with the abstractions of reality.
2. history. But again, history does not deal with reality, since the past does not exist.
3. aesthetics. Which also does not deal with reality, it deals with our reflections of reality.
4. ethics. And ethics deals with reality in an oblique way, it does not deal with what exists, it deals with “how should we behave” or “how should we react to reality”.

 

[Sair]

Many choose to ignore the interests of others because they believe their crimes will be undetected.

What about those who ignore the supposed teachings and demands of their God because they believe they can pray their way to forgiveness, and perform token acts of faithfulness that have nothing to do with helping real sentient beings? You should understand that there are those amongst the atheistic community that value mortal beings just as highly as believers value their supposed immortal entities and for reasons just as compelling - theists do not have a monopoly on morality. Quite the opposite, if practical demonstrations are called to account.

Your dogmatism stems from the assumption that only material objects exist and the failure to recognise the power of the mind. There is evidence of messages from the dead. The evidence of Christ’s Resurrection and the survival of His Church for two thousand years extending to one third of the world’s population are ample justification for belief in His teaching - in contrast with the absurdity of materialism which claims that persons are composed of nothing but purposeless particles.

You’re forgetting the power of political coercion and physical force. How do you think most of the ancient European tribes were converted to Christianity? By force or by reasoned argument?

And I’ve had no messages from the dead, even dating back to the time when I believed in and passionately desired such things.

If anyone is failing to recognise the power of the mind, it is those who insist that it must be augmented by a supernatural soul.

Natural human empathy is a myth when there are so many individuals who put the life of a pet before the life of a person… It is certainly a rational ideology for an egoist.

Do you think that the life of another sentient being is just a matter for an individual human ego? Surely the particularly human ego would recognise only the interests of other humans, yes? It takes a broader perspective to extend our empathy to other species. Ain’t evolution grand?

 

[tonyrey]

Many choose to ignore the interests of others because they believe their crimes will be undetected.

Your diatribe is irrelevant to the fact that many individuals - regardless of what they claim to believe or disbelieve - choose to ignore the interests of others** because they believe their crimes will be undetected**.

Your dogmatism stems from the assumption that only material objects exist and the failure to recognise the power of the mind. There is evidence of messages from the dead. The evidence of Christ’s Resurrection and the survival of His Church for two thousand years extending to one third of the world’s population are ample justification for belief in His teaching - in contrast with the absurdity of materialism which claims that persons are composed of nothing but purposeless particles.

You’re forgetting the power of political coercion and physical force. How do you think most of the ancient European tribes were converted to Christianity? By force or by reasoned argument?

1. The first Christians were a persecuted minority.
2. The vast majority of Christians have not been converted by political coercion and physical force.

And I’ve had no messages from the dead, even dating back to the time when I believed in and passionately desired such things.

Does your lack of experience entail the falsity of all the accounts of others?

If anyone is failing to recognise the power of the mind, it is those who insist that it must be augmented by a supernatural soul.

The reduction of the mind to the brain obviously deprives it of power because then it cannot control itself! All its activity is determined by its environment.

Natural human empathy is a myth when there are so many individuals who put the life of a pet before the life of a person… It is certainly a rational ideology for an egoist.

Do you think that the life of another sentient being is just a matter for an individual human ego? Surely the particularly human ego would recognise only the interests of other humans, yes? It takes a broader perspective to extend our empathy to other species. Ain’t evolution grand?

I have pointed out more than once that all life is valuable but not all life is equally valuable. To extend empathy to other species does not justify, nor would it be accepted in a court of law, the sacrifice of a person for an animal…

 

[tonyrey]

1. Since the power of reason and decision-making comes from God all moral decisions have an implicit reference to God. We all make moral decisions independently without reference to God.

We make individual decisions without Him but on the basis of the moral laws He has given us.

If God is guiding your decisions, then he is also guiding those of other Christians. If that is the case and you have a different moral outlook, then how do we know who is right?

God is not guiding our individual decisions: He has given us the freedom to decide specific cases for ourselves.

Since we are not infallible we cannot always know whether our moral decisions are correct regardless of whether we believe in God.

Now we’re on firmer ground (although I’m not sure why you emphasised ‘always’ – are there some cases where you ARE sure?).
If you admit that you don’t know that you’re right, then you obviously agree that you could be wrong. If we disagree on a moral matter, then that should be implicit in any discussion on the matter.

I often know I’m right. For example, I am absolutely sure torturing a person is always unjustified.

So we have an atheist and a Christian who both make moral decisions entirely independently and who both agree that their decisions may be wrong in some way. Isn’t that the way it should be? You have to convince me that you are right on any matter without reference to any divine authority.

Not **all **decisions - as I have just illustrated.

You haven’t explained where morality comes from.

I get mine the same place you get yours. We both (as you say above) make moral decisions independently of God. I make mine as a result of empathy I feel for others. I know how I would like to be treated by others and I extend that requirement to myself.

That is an arbitrary decision if you have no further reason. It is certainly not a rational basis for categorical imperatives.

All life depends on life.

That’s not necessarily so in the way that I think you are meaning it. In that something has to die before something else can live. That is certainly the way it is structured as far as animals go. Even if they’re vegetarian, they have to ‘kill’ plants. But I don’t think there’s a moral problem in eating a plant. Nothing suffers.

That is precisely what I mean.

I can’t remember who said this, but on asked on the meaning of life, a biologist said: to be eaten. Why does it have to be that way? It could have been ‘designed’ in any way at all, but the way you say it has been designed has resulted in uncountable agonising deaths over, literally, billions of years.

“uncountable agonising deaths” is a gross exaggeration in the context of normal life spans. Only a hedonist believes the immense value of life is outweighed by deaths which are generally swift rather than protracted - thanks to predators.

Predation is not intrinsically evil.

Completely agree. A lion isn’t being evil when he tears an antelope apart. But the OP isn’t about about evil.

It has that implication - as you have just confirmed.

Predation is more efficient and merciful than allowing organisms to suffer from a painful disease or injury for weeks or even years.

That’s a false dichotomy. There are creatures near the top of the food chain that don’t suffer from predation. Would you say it would be better for them to be eaten alive rather than live out their natural term?

Singling out one extreme simply underlines the truth of the general rule.

Yeah, I’d agree with that up to a point. But only because that’s the way that evolution turned out. You say that God has created life, that it has been designed, so how is it ‘necessary’ for God to set things up in that way? Is He constrained in some way?

Everyone who creates and designs a complex system is constrained by the purposes for which it is intended.

The basis of life is competition because there is constant warfare at the microscopic level. Without competition as well as co-operation there cannot be advanced development.

There doesn’t have to be competition. There is no ‘need’ for advanced development. It’s not a requirement. God could have put us in place on this planet with nothing to eat except plants. There wouldn’t be anything wrong with that from a biological viewpoint.

Fantasy is not a sound basis for argument unless it is supported by a feasible blueprint.

You must realise that there are literally millions of species now extinct that were never a requirement for us to be here right now. They were evolutionary dead ends. There are billions of creatures that served no other purpose at all except for food. Pretty grim way of running a place if you ask me.

Your anthropocentric view of reality overlooks the intrinsic value, beauty and fulfilment of all the other forms of life.

 

[Sair]

Fantasy is not a sound basis for argument unless it is supported by a feasible blueprint.
Your anthropocentric view of reality overlooks the intrinsic value, beauty and fulfilment of all the other forms of life.

I am frankly amazed that you don’t see the irony in these comments, coming from a Christian theist.

Fantasy with no feasible blueprint is exactly what the Christian account of reality is based upon. There has never been any explanation of exactly how the Christian god went about his creation, nor exactly what his purposes actually were - just that he did create and that he does have a purpose, even if it’s “mysterious”.

What’s more, there is no worldview more anthropocentric than that imparted by the monotheistic religions. According to all their teachings, human kind (preferably male human kind) is the be-all and end-all of creation - it was human freedom that was the ultimate goal of god’s creation, and human salvation and fulfilment that is its ultimate end. If you don’t believe this to be the case, you are something other than a Christian.

 

[Sair]

Your diatribe is irrelevant to the fact that many individuals - regardless of what they claim to believe or disbelieve - choose to ignore the interests of others** because they believe their crimes will be undetected**.

And the fact that they choose to do this regardless of whether they are theists or non-theists renders the argument from morality invalid as any kind of proof of the existence of gods or the value of belief therein.

1. The first Christians were a persecuted minority.

So Christian apologists like to claim. Even if this is the case, the Christian majority certainly got its own back, and much more, in later centuries.

1. The vast majority of Christians have not been converted by political coercion and physical force.

Even if we accept that, it’s fair to say that by now, the vast majority of Christians have been brought up from birth to believe in Christian teaching, so they had just as little choice in the matter as if they had been forced or coerced.

Does your lack of experience entail the falsity of all the accounts of others?

Of course not, but if such “proofs” were to be had, I would surely have been a prime candidate to receive them. It doesn’t take a stretch of imagination to put encounters with dead people down to wishful thinking and delusion.

The reduction of the mind to the brain obviously deprives it of power because then it cannot control itself! All its activity is determined by its environment.

You have an entirely different conception of ‘power’ than that which is demonstrated by the reality of human interaction with the world. Brains - and by extension, minds - are, fundamentally, information processors and experience synthesisers. They don’t need to be causally independent, adrift from their environments, in order to have the power to be so.

I have pointed out more than once that all life is valuable but not all life is equally valuable. To extend empathy to other species does not justify, nor would it be accepted in a court of law, the sacrifice of a person for an animal…

Yet sacrificing a person - whether directly through means of murder, or indirectly through the means of a life of abject subservience - for the sake of an imaginary being is entirely acceptable?

 

[Gaber]

I am frankly amazed that you don’t see the irony in these comments, coming from a Christian theist.

Fantasy with no feasible blueprint is exactly what the Christian account of reality is based upon. There has never been any explanation of exactly how the Christian god went about his creation, nor exactly what his purposes actually were - just that he did create and that he does have a purpose, even if it’s “mysterious”.

What’s more, there is no worldview more anthropocentric than that imparted by the monotheistic religions. According to all their teachings, human kind (preferably male human kind) is the be-all and end-all of creation - it was human freedom that was the ultimate goal of god’s creation, and human salvation and fulfilment that is its ultimate end. If you don’t believe this to be the case, you are something other than a Christian.

That is well stated. So’s the next one.

 

[tonyrey]

That is well stated. So’s the next one.

Not so fast… Wait until you have read my replies!

 

[tonyrey]

I am frankly amazed that you don’t see the irony in these comments, coming from a Christian theist.

I am amazed that you don’t see the absurdity of your physicalist/pantheist monstrosity!

Fantasy with no feasible blueprint is exactly what the Christian account of reality is based upon.

False! Do you have no experience of planning, designing and creating a project? Probably not but there are many artists, musicians, poets and scientists who do.

There has never been any explanation of exactly how the Christian god went about his creation…

Do you have an exact explanation of how matter was created? If not your objection is worthless.
…

…nor exactly what his purposes actually were - just that he did create and that he does have a purpose, even if it’s “mysterious”.

False! Your own behaviour is a living example of how we are created to choose what to believe and how to live - for better or for worse…

What’s more, there is no worldview more anthropocentric than that imparted by the monotheistic religions. According to all their teachings, human kind (preferably male human kind) is the be-all and end-all of creation - it was human freedom that was the ultimate goal of god’s creation, and human salvation and fulfilment that is its ultimate end. If you don’t believe this to be the case, you are something other than a Christian.

False! Unlike your **atomistic **notion of reality monotheism is ratiocentric. Rational beings wherever they exist are the ultimate end of God’s Creation - as opposed to humanism which makes man the measure of all things (notably morality).

I note that you have ignored the other points in my post. Silence implies assent or impotent bewilderment…