Spiegal Speaks of Dawkins

In this tragic article from the German magazine Der Spiegel, we read about the “crusade” against religious fundamentalism by the likes of atheist scientist Richard Dawkins of England. The article opens by recounting a scene last week at First Parish Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Dawkins’ reading of his new book, The God Delusion, was met by laughter and “resounding applause” from an audience of 600. The reading, among other things, called “[t]he God of the Old Testament … the most unpleasant character in all fiction[.]”

One doubts that First Parish Church has an evangelistic mission—except, perhaps, for atheism.

The article also reviews the efforts of another atheist, author Sam Harris, who writes that he would prefer to eliminate religion than rape. Harris argues that the Bible and Koran are “little more than anthologies of violence,” though one wonders what Harris would call the “book” of evolution, with its millions of years of death, struggle, carnivory, extinctions, rape, and—if one is an evolutionist—ultimate production of beings that created religion! In other words, not only is the story of evolution an account of eons of violence, it also claims credit for why religion exists. Evolutionists who argue against religion must explain why religion should be abandoned if natural selection “produced” it.

Evolutionists who argue against religion must explain why religion should be abandoned if natural selection “produced” it.

Dawkins does explain his beliefs as to where altruism comes from: the motivation to “ensure that as many hereditary factors as possible survive into the next generation.” He believes evolution has shaped this drive into our modern-day morality (what’s left of it, anyway).

The most prominent of the many flaws and inconsistencies of these atheists’ arguments (some pointed out even by evolutionists) is this: they argue against religion by pointing out the alleged “bloodbath” that religion has produced, from the Crusades to 9/11. Yet to persuade others that religion should therefore be abandoned, they must make the case that bloodbaths are bad and that atheism will stop them. Virtually everyone agrees that bloodbaths are both bad and immoral. But if evolution and atheism are true, and someone decides he likes bloodbaths and has the power to mass-murder millions, what can an atheist evolutionist say in response? Can he legitimately say, “No, murder is wrong”? No, for atheists reject any absolute moral code, saying that whatever altruism exists has resulted merely due to selfish evolutionary forces. Can he say, “No, the rest of us would prefer you to not murder us”? He could say it, of course, but what basis does the mass-murderer have for respecting the preferences of anyone else? After all, mass murder is really just a type of natural selection.

And that’s what at least one of the Columbine shooters thought.