When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?", Richard Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."
Larry Taunton, the interviewer wrote, regarding Dawkins' Hitler comment:
|“|| I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.
Dawkins proceeded to cite the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement as examples of Western moral advancements, but would not credit Christianity in the slightest.
“Now you have to remember where I am from,” I objected. “Birmingham, Alabama—the home of the civil rights movement. Many there would argue that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was motivated by his Christian convictions. And what of William Wilberforce?”
But Dawkins would have none of it. Christianity, in his view, had contributed nothing worthwhile to Western civilization, morally or otherwise. Moral advances—and, curiously, he did consider them advances—were matters for further scientific inquiry.
Gary DeMar wrote:
|“|| Atheist Richard Dawkins “regards belief in a God who does not exist as the root of all evil.” Of course, there is no way to prove that God does not exist, and given his understanding of how the world came into being, he can’t account for an entity that he calls “evil.”
....There is no doubt that Hitler imbibed the social implications of Darwinism; it had a long history in Germany as Richard Weikart shows in his book From Darwin to Hitler. Some will say that Hitler and others “hijacked” Darwinism since there is nothing inherent in evolution that logically leads to anti-Semitism. Certainly Darwin was no anti-Semite, and I suspect that he was no Marxist either, and yet it was Karl Marx who wrote the following to Friedrich Engels: “Although developed in a course English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view.”
In the final analysis, whether evolution had been hijacked or not is hardly the issue. Evolution is a malleable worldview that can be shaped to support any worldview since there was no morality in the pre-biotic soup. There is no moral “ought” in evolution. At death, Adolf Hitler and all the righteous Gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews are morally equal. There are no negative or positive sanctions for their actions. They are “nothing but” dust.
Given the above claims by Dawkins, and similar statements by other Darwinists, there cannot be any debate over what is moral or immoral. All atheistic scientists can do is record what Hitler did. They can’t make a moral judgment one way or the other. One more Dawkins quotation might help: “Natural selection is a deeply nasty process. . . . Human super niceness is a perversion of Darwinism because, in a wild population, it would be removed by natural selection. . . . From a rational choice point of view, or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain dumb.” So if there’s a thief sitting in jail waiting for his trial to commence, he might want to see if he can line up Richard Dawkins as an expert witness for his defense since, according to Dawkins, "DNA neither knows nor cares," and we're nothing but DNA.
- Richard Dawkins and morality
- Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy
- Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler
- Atheism and racism
- Western atheism and race
- Atheism and morality
- Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience
- Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism
- Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"
- Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins