Following on the heels of the Darwin post, A-Team offers us a less-bleak view of atheism.
"Evolution is hardly as bleak as Darwin described it. I suggest you look at the work of Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins for a less bleak depiction of reality."
Here's the quote he offers us from Richard Dawkins:
"Nature is not cruel, pitilessly, indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose." -Richard Dawkins
* * *
Since Dawkins is refuting Darwin's statement here, it is necessary to add quotes to correctly follow Dawkins' line of thought:
"Nature is not 'cruel, pitilessly, indifferent' [per Darwin]. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose." -Richard Dawkins
So, nature is not really cruel or pitiless, because these imply consciousness and the objective reality of good and evil, which, according to Dawkins, cannot exist in an uncreated universe.
Rather than being a less pessimistic view, this is actually a bleaker view than Darwin, but one which agrees entirely with my assertion that atheism is logically amoral and that, if darwinian evolution is true, the moral sense within all human creatures is an absurdity, a gaseous burp of a mindless evolution-god.
For a second opinion, let's consult the sage Carl Sagan, as A-Team suggests:
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent."
Well, at least everybody's on the same page.
According to these views, acting in utter indifference towards the well-being and welfare of others would put one in entire harmony with nature.
Everything in me rebels against such a notion. I'll leave it to evolutionary psychologists to ponder what evolutionary advantages my rebellion against absurdity and incoherence and the denial of everything genuinely human affords.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
3 comments:
While many proponents of evolution fashion their motor vehicles with fish symbols, having Darwin written in them, I have yet to see one with the names Dawkins or Sagan written in them. In regards to the blog posting it would seem that some disharmony exists in the atheist camp, and here I thought the science was settled.
Thankfully, this Mediaeval religion drivvel has mostly been superceded by celebrity worship. Unfortunately, it is still inane drivvel; Marx's opiate of the people.
Too many innocents have died for your sky fairies.
Neil --
1. Christianity precedes the medieval era by some 10 centuries, and Judaism is another 1,000 years older still.
2. If there is no God, and no objective moral order, if there is no design, no purpose to life, then what possible objection can you have to the killing of innocents? Who's to say that it is right or wrong or good or bad -- these are nonsensical categories in an uncreated universe, as is the very concept of innocents.
2. You've got some duplicated, extraneous DNA in your drivel. Check it out!
Post a Comment