“Men seek stranger sins or more startling obscenities as stimulants to their jaded sense.  They seek after mad oriental religions for the same reason.  They try to stab their nerves to life, if it were with the knives of the priests of Baal.  They are walking in their sleep and try to wake themselves up with nightmares.”

To the argument that the universe was caused by God, the village atheist retort is “Oh yeah?  Then what caused God?”

But the argument isn’t that every being requires a cause.  The village atheist is quite correct that if B causes A, C causes B, D causes C, and so on without end, we have a problem.  Nothing has ultimately been explained.

Monday again – student letter day.  To answer the writer’s question, I’ve borrowed from my chapter “The Strange Second Life of Confessional States,” in Paul R. Dehart and Carson Holloway, Reason, Revelation, and the Civic Order: Political Philosophy and the Claims of Faith (2014).

Maybe natural law doesn't spell the end of democracy, but surely it spells the end of tolerance.

What do you mean?

Just what I said.  If there really is a natural moral law, then tolerance goes out the window.

You think everyone ought to be tolerant, is that it?

I don't like the sound of this.  If there really is a natural moral law, then democracy is over with.

Why?

Because there would be no decisions left for legislators to make.  If they did try to make any, judges would just say "The natural law says" and overrule them.