He and his
supporters have a right to their atheism, but not to intellectual dishonesty
about it. This past Friday, CNN conducted an interview with Richard Dawkins,
the British biologist most widely known for his polemics against religion and
on behalf of atheism. Asked “whether an absence of religion would leave us
without a moral compass,” Dawkins responded: “The very idea that we get a moral
compass from religion is horrible.”
This is the crux of
the issue for Dawkins and other anti-religion activists — that not only do we
not need religion or God for morality but that we would have a considerably
more moral world without them. This argument is so wrong — both rationally and
empirically — that its appeal can be explained only by (a) a desire to believe
it and (b) an ignorance of history.
First, the rational
argument. If there is no God, the labels “good” and “evil” are merely opinions.
They are substitutes for “I like it” and “I don’t like it.” They are not
objective realities. Every atheist philosopher I have debated has acknowledged
this……To Read More…..
No comments:
Post a Comment