Richard Dawkins: A Gift From God

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well most of us don't believe he represents all atheists, but one wonders on what objective moral grounds an atheist would disagree with him, besides personal opinion.

It depends on the atheist. Some are Platonic realists who believe that objective morality is extant in the form of abstracts. Some are humanists who define morality on the basis of societal health. Some are spiritualists who believe that there exists some objective set of rules which can elevate or lower the state of the soul (for example, ending a reincarnation cycle). Some wholly reject the idea of objective morality.

[seer]

There are a number of different views on the nature of morality, even amongst atheists, but the point of my post is that the issue of morality is one which is very frequently asked of self-described atheists, and that people who have mistaken Dawkins as being the dictator of atheism will immediately and fallaciously present the man's gaffs as if they are representative of positions that atheists MUST hold.

Well most of us don't believe he represents all atheists, but one wonders on what objective moral grounds an atheist would disagree with him, besides personal opinion.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What is "atheist morality?"

There are a number of different views on the nature of morality, even amongst atheists, but the point of my post is that the issue of morality is one which is very frequently asked of self-described atheists, and that people who have mistaken Dawkins as being the dictator of atheism will immediately and fallaciously present the man's gaffs as if they are representative of positions that atheists MUST hold.

[seer]

I think its rather simple really seer, Atheist, at least those that are not nihilist, believe that morality is inherent in the natural order of things. Slavery isn't right or wrong simply because a God says it is either right or wrong, if it were then you could argue that if there were no God to answer to then slavery would be perfectly good. Same for murder, torture, or anything else that we humans find to be immoral. Personally i don't know of any nihilistic atheists, though i'm sure they are out there, but why do you suppose it is that atheists also have a moral compass. It is because they do not need a God to tell them what is right and what is wrong. What if God said that slavery was the thing to do, that murder was good, that stealing was good, in other words what if the nature of God was more in line with that of what you refer to as satan, because of this satan type God do you believe that which we now believe to be evil would actually be good because that is what the satan god decreed. Atheists would say no.

That is nonsense Jim. So when atheists slaughter and enslave millions like in the former Soviet Union, China under Mao, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc... what do you say to them? That you personally object? Why is your moral opinion more correct or valid than theirs? This is the bottom line Jim, if there is no God then there is no objective moral law, no final justice. If there is a God, i.e. the God of scripture, then there is an objective moral rule. And ultimate justice.

[JimL]

LOL, I think Boxing will be a little more nuanced than that...

I think its rather simple really seer, Atheist, at least those that are not nihilist, believe that morality is inherent in the natural order of things. Slavery isn't right or wrong simply because a God says it is either right or wrong, if it were then you could argue that if there were no God to answer to then slavery would be perfectly good. Same for murder, torture, or anything else that we humans find to be immoral. Personally i don't know of any nihilistic atheists, though i'm sure they are out there, but why do you suppose it is that atheists also have a moral compass. It is because they do not need a God to tell them what is right and what is wrong. What if God said that slavery was the thing to do, that murder was good, that stealing was good, in other words what if the nature of God was more in line with that of what you refer to as satan, because of this satan type God do you believe that which we now believe to be evil would actually be good because that is what the satan god decreed. Atheists would say no.

[seer]

Do whatever you want then justify it later using any lame reasoning you want.

LOL, I think Boxing will be a little more nuanced than that...

[Sparko]

What is "atheist morality?"

Do whatever you want then justify it later using any lame reasoning you want.

[seer]

Dawkins just keeps shoving his foot farther and farther into his own mouth. Makes it real hard for the rest of us-- especially whenever the subject of "atheist morality" comes up...

What is "atheist morality?"

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Dawkins just keeps shoving his foot farther and farther into his own mouth. Makes it real hard for the rest of us-- especially whenever the subject of "atheist morality" comes up...

[rogue06]

"Richard Dawkins: A Gift From God"

This reminded me of something I recently read by Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science who seems to specialize in the relationship between science and religion and who describes himself as both an agnostic and atheist (he says that he is "agnostic on deities and ultimate meanings and that sort of thing").

Well, the article he wrote called "Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?" concerns his dislike for both militant creationists and atheists^[1].

In the he notes how Richard Dawkins wrote about him in his book "The God Delusion" saying that Dawkins compared him "to Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who tried to appease Adolf Hitler" because he believes that science and religion are compatible -- a view Dawkins rejects. Ruse writes:

Source: Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?

I am on the outs with the militant atheist group because I do not see that committing oneself to science necessarily implies that one thinks that all of religion is false, and that those who worship a supreme being are in some respects at one with the fanatics who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Of course, I think some religious beliefs are wrong and dangerous. That is why I fight creationists. But overall, I don't think someone is silly or immoral if he or she is a practicing Christian or Jew or Muslim or whatever. Although I don't think you have to be a believer to be good, I fully accept that many believers are good because of their beliefs. Moreover, I think it is both politically and morally right to work with believers to combat ills, including creationism.

The Dawkins-Dennett school allows no compromise. Religion is false. Religion is dangerous. Religion must be fought in every way. There can be no working with the enemy. Those like me who work with religious people are like the appeasers before the Nazis.

© Copyright Original Source

A little further down Ruse states (and this is the portion relevant to the title of your article, "Richard Dawkins: A Gift From God"):

Source: Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?

The creationists and the ID supporters simply love Dawkins and his ilk. They pray that they will say more and more. Every time the atheists open their mouths they win converts to the literalist cause. The creationists have been saying all along that Darwinism equals atheism, and now the Darwinians apparently agree! Americans in the middle—meaning, generally, religious Americans in the middle—get the message that science, and Darwinism particularly, threatens their faith. Dembski once wrote to Dawkins: “I know that you personally don't believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God’s greatest gifts to the intelligent design movement. So please, keep at it!”

© Copyright Original Source

So Ruse agrees that the antics and attitude displayed by Dawkins and his ilk are indeed a "gift from God" for many.

As an aside, note that Ruse calls the radical fundamentalist atheists -- the "Dawkins-Dennett school" -- "militant atheists." This puts to rest the oft stated claim that this description is only used by "Christian extremists."


ETA: Ruse's article has been reprinted HERE and can be read in full by those interested









1. More on his views on "New Atheists" can be seen here: Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster

[Apologiaphoenix]

fixed

[Sparko]

"Interestingly, this same person who wandered about a child with Down’s also admitted to being on the autism spectrum "

"wondered," not "wandered"

-- The Grammar Police.

[Apologiaphoenix]

What are my thoughts on the latest snafu of Richard Dawkins? http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...gift-from-god/