When I returned to faith after some years away from the church, one of the arguments for the existence of God that impressed me and stuck with me was this argument from universal morals as presented by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity.

I never really got that argument. Different areas of the world have very different moralities, depending on the underlying culture. Examples: cannibalism, bribery, honour killings, genocide. In more developed countries these things tend to be reviled, because they impede the proper functioning of complex societies. In less developed, more tribalistic countries, they’re often considered acceptable behaviour – not immoral in the least.

Lewis’ concept of a moral sense thus seems simplistic at best, and dangerously ignorant at worst. There are some serious ethical issues relating to how we handle this range of different moralities, and Lewis not only provides no guidance here but simply denies that the problem exists at all.

For bonus points, the idea that only humans have a moral sense is complete nonsense, as adequately demonstrated by the existence of moral robots.

Subject to my own later reading of the source, I have to see this as the same kind of “god of the gaps” approach as ID, and also the same kind of roadblock put in front of scientific investigation. I imagine that Dr. Collins doesn’t intend it in that way, but that’s what it looks like to me.

I asked Collins that precise question at a symposium at the Center for Science and Industry in Columbus, Ohio, a month or so ago. His answer struck me as a bit strange. His answer to my question is at about minute 51 in this video. Essentially, for Collins the existence of moral law is some sort of indicator of God, but if sociobiologists manage a naturalistic account of it Collins is willing to abandon it as an indicator. I’ll not say more, so as not to prejudice your reading. I look forward to your blogging on it.

I think you’ll find Collins book to be a disappointment, given the far more challenging material you’ve been reading & pondering. Collins leans very hard on C. S. Lewis & St. Augustine. His recollections of the Human Genome Project, etc. are interesting. It’s an easy read & it’s great that Christians are reading it (since it recommends a Theistic Evolution perspective), so I do recommend it to people. But don’t expect too much from it.

“It is, of course, possible that there is a configuration of particles at the big bang that must produce the universe that we have, but that is at least theoretically subject to scientific investigation. ”

I think I disagree with that statement. Science can never answer that question. It seems likely that with the completion of the next supercollider that we will get even further information on the early particles. However that there is a circular loop that can’t be exited. We exist because the particles configured themselves this way. I fail to see how science can ponder anything outside of that.
It’s the fundamental limit of scientific investigation. It can explain how the particles formed the universe but ulitmately no scientific investigation can answer the why of the particles themselves.