A reader going by the handle of “solspot” has a very fine comment here:
My
dear Horgan, it’s elementary:
Neither atheist, theist nor agnostic could prove or disprove their beliefs to Holmes’ satisfaction (otherwise, it would lack the primary quality of faith). Holmes would require deduction; that is, eliminate the impossible.
1. It would be impossible for a human to be accountable for their actions without free will. Holmes obviously believes that humans are accountable for crimes; ergo, Holmes believes that humans have free will.
2. Likewise, Holmes believes in an absolute morality because it is entailed by free will.
3. It is impossible to have an absolute morality without a transcendent purpose of that morality; otherwise the morality is simply relative to each person (this was Moriarty’s logical error!).
4. The transcendent purpose is Holmes’ God, his raison d’etre, without which logic itself does not exist!
Neither atheist, theist nor agnostic could prove or disprove their beliefs to Holmes’ satisfaction (otherwise, it would lack the primary quality of faith). Holmes would require deduction; that is, eliminate the impossible.
1. It would be impossible for a human to be accountable for their actions without free will. Holmes obviously believes that humans are accountable for crimes; ergo, Holmes believes that humans have free will.
2. Likewise, Holmes believes in an absolute morality because it is entailed by free will.
3. It is impossible to have an absolute morality without a transcendent purpose of that morality; otherwise the morality is simply relative to each person (this was Moriarty’s logical error!).
4. The transcendent purpose is Holmes’ God, his raison d’etre, without which logic itself does not exist!
As the shamus Jerome once said: "Ratio donum divinum est, et sic ipsa est divinae consors naturae."
No comments:
Post a Comment