I've been having some fun reading through all sorts of bioethical journal entries, religious debates, other moral relativistic types of sites, and well, I'll just admit it - baseball statistics. I came upon an interesting Time article quoting a Catholic ethicist, Daniel Callahan, as writing
"To say, for instance, that God forbids the taking of 'innocent' life while conceding — as I think we must — that it is left up to a man to define what an innocent life is, is to fail to see that the only possible meaning this rule can have is the meaning human beings choose to give it . . . To place the solution to these problems in the hands of God is to misjudge God's role and misuse human reason and freedom."
I can feel another onslaught of fire and brimstone coming, but are we capable of making judgments on our own moral absolutes with God as a guide as Potts seems to argue in this article, or do we surrender all rationality to a higher authority?