The Playing God Argument

Playing God: Abusing Scientific Advancements As Jack Kevorkian says, “Anytime you interfere with a natural process, you’re playing God”. By that qualification, a great deal of human activity gets simplified to the idea of “playing God”. In Margaret Atwood’s novel, Oryx and Crake, Glenn, better known as Crake, becomes godlike in the sense that he creates products that manipulate natural functions and his own form of people-like creatures, the Crakers. However, Crake is not the only character to engage in godlike activity. The major premise of this novel is the advancement of gene splicing and genetic engineering to the point where scientists are creating hybrids of animals like wolvogs, pigoons, rakunks, and snats. Essentially, through

BEST EXPLANATION Does God exist? This question has been in debate for centuries with many opposing views, some arising from philosophers on the same side while others refute Gods existence altogether. However for this particular paper I will be taking the best explanations approach. What I mean by this

Notes • The problem of evil (the problem of suffering) is an argument against the existence of God

Divine Command Theory Argument The Divine Command theory states that” an act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.” (Lecture Notes pg. 42, slide #2.) This theory says that since God has said that it is something we must do to be good, that we must do it. Many religions believe and live by this saying that “it is the will of God or the Gods”. I truly believe that God has done his work and is still at work and since He did create us, He does know what good and evil is and does have authority to tell us what is good.

The ethical issues with this procedure are not rooted in the utilization of non-human elements to aid the procreative process. So why the moral fuss over the McNamara's method of growing embryos? The heart of the issue was the potential risk to the child. Animal diseases, either known or unknown, can easily be transmitted to humans through xenotransplantation (the use of live animal cells, tissues and organs for transplantation)[9]. There is the potential, both in xenotransplantation and in the utilization of animals in the procreation process, of placing humans at major risk of contracting new types of infectious diseases[10]. Clearly the McNamara’s view and attitude towards creating their offspring may not have been the most ethical way but they would have done absolutely everything to have the one thing they wanted in this world: a child. Do we have a right to have a child at all costs? It should be obvious that our rights must be limited for the sake of others, especially when our own actions would endanger the lives of others[11]. Are there ethical limits to our good, God-given desire to reproduce? There are limits to all our good desires, precisely because these desires are given by God to be coordinated with one another according to His specific design for human beings. When we add to this the fact that our God-given desires are mingled with sinful desires, selfish impulses, and fallen drives, the need for limits becomes even more apparent[12].

Edwards' speech, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", is a congitive piece of argument that basis its creates fear in its audience. During the time of the Great Awakening, many Salem Witch Trials imprisioned and killed many. He believed that he could not only convert non-believers, but also

Primary and Secondary sources found that Gene Enhancement had no place in the religions of Catholicism and Islam; both believe it is selfish, unnecessary and unethical. It is an embellishment to human vanity and additionally, insults human integrity when the offspring is affected by the technology. (What is the Catholic view on genetic engineering? - Mary Meets Dolly. 12/ 05/ 2014.)

The film God on Trial explores the controversy behind the existence of God and his goodness, in terms of the Jewish people and the Holocaust. One argument that is presented is that God cannot exist because he allowed the suffering of the Jews, despite the covenant that they shared; and if God did exist, then he could not possibly be good for the same reason. The other side of the trial that is presented is that God does exist, suffering is merely a test, and through faith the Jews and the Torah will prevail as shown in history. In actuality, this argument can be summed up in one sentence: God cannot be both all powerful and just. If God were all powerful then He would be able to put an end to suffering, and because he does not, He is not

God’s existence cannot be proved nor disproved, but this is an attempt to refute the existence of this all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being through an analysis of arguments and theories that try to prove or insinuate His reality.

Human genetic engineering and eugenics have been a largely controversial topic over the past decades. Eugenics can be popularly defined as the science of improving and enhancing a human population or person through manipulating the human genes, selective breeding, and sterilization. The end goal and desired result of eugenics is

the contention that it is in one's own best enthusiasm to carry on as though God exists, subsequent to the likelihood of everlasting discipline in damnation exceeds any point of interest of trusting generally.

Many people think that it is a terrible idea to mess with the way God makes children. When one tampers with genes, there is a large amount of embryos that are used to make sure that at least on will turn out the way that the parents want it, and the embryos that are not used are just thrown in the trash; scientists are throwing human life forms in the waste basket just because they didn’t have a certain trait that the parents wanted (Brownlee 31). Another ethical question is whether or not parents own their own off-springs, and if they even have a choice in the genetics of their baby. Some agree that using screenings of the embryo would help take out the chances of having a kid with Down Syndrome, but most think that discarding these embryos causes judgement towards the kids that have different conditions that are not considered normal. Another reason that this doesn’t follow ethics is that the scientists are planning on creating Savior Siblings, and the purpose of them would be to save the life of their sibling that has a lethal disease; most are concerned about the embryos that contain the disease or are not a match to the child that needs saved because they are just discarded with no hesitation. The big problem with gene editing is that it conforms to the ideas that are put upon this generation; it suggests the idea that everyone needs to

The act of cloning a human being comes dangerously close to human beings acting as God. Do human beings have the right to tamper with nature in this way? This essay explores the various ethical issues related to the cloning debate, and seeks answers to this deep philosophical question at the heart of bioethics. As a student of genetic biology and future biologist, this question also has personal relevance. Our science is evolving at a rapid pace. As human cloning becomes increasingly possible, it is important that we analyze the ethics of cloning so that judicious public policy can be created. It is therefore my position that research into cloning should continue to fulfill the fundamental goals of scientific exploration and to explore the possibilities that cloning might have in terms of benefitting human society; on the other hand, there are certainly ethical limits to the practice of cloning. It is important to define those ethical limits, so that scientists understand the best ways to proceed.

Genetic engineering is a powerful tool that can be used to accomplish a multitude of tasks. From species population control to ensuring certain traits in a human baby, there isn’t a lot that genetic engineering can’t do. It is becoming more and more acceptable to genetically engineer organisms as our knowledge on the subject grows. There have been experiments manipulating entire ecosystems by introducing a genetically modified organism into it. It’s even possible to change tiny details all the way down to the color eyes a child has. However these developments are not without controversy. Many people claim that changing the genetic make-up of a living being is playing God, and are against it. The works of Kiera Butler, John J. Conley, Ronald Bailey, and Simon Wallace speak on the controversy as well as utility value of genetic engineering.

In Rene Descartes First Meditation, he argues that there are many things we do not know and has based his premises off of skeptical doubts. Descartes undermines all the beliefs he has by using 3 skeptical arguments. However, the deceptive God argument is most appropriate with reference to his conclusion that we do not know we have a physical bod. In meditation 1 Descartes argument is: Either I was created by an omnipotent God, or I was created by something less powerful. If I was created by an omnipotent God, then I might be mistaken about those beliefs which seem most certain. If I was created by something less powerful, then my intellect might be unreliable. If my intellect is unreliable, then I may be mistaken about those beliefs that seem