What is a God? I ask.
That depends on what one Believes, says the Owner.
Surely what something is cannot be determined by what One Believes? I say.
In this case, says the Owner, it can. God is usually understood as a Morally Good Creator of the Universe, says the Owner.
That stands to reason, I say. Something must have made it, I say. The Moral Dog could not simply have Arisen by Chance, I say. Is that not Absolute Proof? I say.
Well, says the Owner, Dawkins suggests that it is like saying that a Blind Watchmaker cannot make a Watch.
I am sure a Blind Watchmaker can make a Watch, I say, but he cannot make a Dog. At least, I say, not a Moral One, I say.
Ah, says the Owner, you are making a Religious Argument for Morality, but one could equally make a Moral Argument for Religious Belief.
Do you mean, I say, that it is the difference between arguing that fact that the Dog is Moral is proof of a Creator God, and arguing that Belief in a Creator God is proof that the Dog is Moral.
The apparent connection between Morality and Religion appears to People of Faith to support the claim that Moral Truths and Evolution are best explained by God’s Existence, and appears to Darwinians to support the claim that Religion is best Explained by the Evolution of Morality, says the Owner. There is no possibility of Proof, says the Owner.
We Dogs think we have Spotted a Clue, I say.
Do not tell me, says the Owner. Dog is God spelled backwards.
You had Spotted it Too, I say.
That does not mean anything at all, says the Owner. It is a Coincidence, says the Owner. That is all, says the Owner. Do not imagine this means you are having a Lolly, says the Owner.
It comes to something when a God can’t get a Lolly even in his own Kitchen.
Hergest the Hound
I am a dog of many thoughts.