Replies

Dawkins cannot account for why the universe is here. Pretty fundamental, dontchathink?

Of course he can't... and won't. Dawkins is a scientist and, as a scientist, doesn't make up answers to unanswered questions. He wouldn't disagree with you. He would tell you to your face that he doesn't know... but that "we're working on it". Religion claims they do know. Religion has claimed very many things in the past, but has once again retreated to the gaps in current knowledge of which, "why the universe is here" is currently one.

I found Dawkins' arguments to be self-refuting and contradictory

He acknowledges the golden rule as a universal moral. In the second statement, he's simply acknowledging that not all moral questions can be answered by that single rule and must be considered in situational contexts. He denounces moral absolutes and acknowledges that morals themselves (which are a product of what he calls the evolution of memes, if you care to read his books) can change over time and between cultures and species. On the whole... he doesn't believe there is one set of morals handed down from a personal god. He does accept that compassion is ingrained in the human condition (via evolution) which leads to the golden rule.

He acknowledges the golden rule as a universal moral.

Why? What makes the golden rule any more moral than doing onto others before they do unto you?

In fact, shouldn't the prime imperative be whatever the "Selfish Gene" wants it to be in the world of Dawkin's?

His acknowledgement is like air pie, there's nothing under the crust but hot air. Who cares what he acknowledges, we want to know why he places greater credence in the golden rule than the prime imperative.

“He acknowledges the golden rule as a universal moral.”

“He denounces moral absolutes and acknowledges that morals themselves (which are a product of what he calls the evolution of memes, if you care to read his books) can change over time and between cultures and species.”

UndauntedR,

The two statements above are contradictory. One cannot claim that there exists a “universal moral”, and yet at the same time say that there are no moral absolutes.

Further, the statement, “There are no moral absolutes” is a moral absolute in an of itself.

Also, to believe and proclaim that moral absolutes do not exist is a belief that is just as “exclusivist” as any religious belief. Why? Because those who proclaim that there are no moral absolutes believe that all who disagree with them are wrong - just as those who do believe in moral absolutes believe that those who don’t are wrong as well.

I’m not saying that you have to be “religious” to have a morality - it’s just that for the atheist, their “moral” beliefs are merely a code of “preferences” that can be followed or ignored at whim. Why? Because there is no external absolute, transcendent moral basis for their moral beliefs. This is why someone who really believes that there are no moral absolutes (amoral) is a very dangerous person in society. They can commit the most heineous of crimes and yet not violate their “moral” code. On the other hand, those who hold to a Christian morality, must violate the ethical teachings as given in the Old and New Testaments in order to commit crimes against others. To kill someone because they refuse to believe in Jesus as Messiah is a direct violation of Jesus’ teachings to love our enemies and our neighbor. No where in the New Testament is it even remotely taught that Christians are to use violence or intimidation to force “conversions”. Unfortunately, all through history people have committed many cruel and horrible acts in the name of God and Jesus - but all in direct contradiction to New Testament teaching.

It’s nice if some atheists want to follow or mimic traditional, moral behavior, but they are under no particular “moral” obligation to do so. To act as though they are somehow morally superior (and how can that be if there are no moral absolutes) because some atheists voluntarily do moral things (for their own purposes or reasons) rather than out of respect, love and service to God is a fanciful delusion.