Changes

. . . The point is not that a coherent morality requires theism, but that the moral language taken for granted by liberal modernity is a fragmented ruin: It rejects metaphysics but exists only because of prior metaphysical commitments.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/atheists_the_origin_of_the_species_by_nick_spencer_reviewed.html Know Nothing: The true history of atheism] By Michael Robbins</ref>}}

. . . The point is not that a coherent morality requires theism, but that the moral language taken for granted by liberal modernity is a fragmented ruin: It rejects metaphysics but exists only because of prior metaphysical commitments.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/atheists_the_origin_of_the_species_by_nick_spencer_reviewed.html Know Nothing: The true history of atheism] By Michael Robbins</ref>}}

Commenting on the morality of Richard Dawkins, the [[Shadow to Light blog]] declares in an post entitled New Atheism Has a Real Problem with Morality:

Commenting on New Atheism and morality the [[Shadow to Light blog]] declares:

{{Cquote|A veneer of secular morality rooted in subjective preferences hardly counts as “foundational authority,” meaning that Coyne again fails to refute Robbins’s point. In fact, that morality is anchored to such a subjective foundation means that secular morality is not significantly different from a cultural dress code. The “veneer of secular morality” is just a way for the collective to impose order and conformity on a population of individuals. And if secular morality is nothing more than that, we get to the core problem with atheism – the dress code known as morality simply ceases to be important. That is, if an atheist believes X is wrong, they can easily ignore and dismiss it if it becomes inconvenient to refrain from doing X.

{{Cquote|A veneer of secular morality rooted in subjective preferences hardly counts as “foundational authority,” meaning that [[Jerry Coyne|Coyne]] again fails to refute Robbins’s point. In fact, that morality is anchored to such a subjective foundation means that secular morality is not significantly different from a cultural dress code. The “veneer of secular morality” is just a way for the collective to impose order and conformity on a population of individuals. And if secular morality is nothing more than that, we get to the core problem with atheism – the dress code known as morality simply ceases to be important. That is, if an atheist believes X is wrong, they can easily ignore and dismiss it if it becomes inconvenient to refrain from doing X.

We have already seen a concrete example of this. Richard Dawkins believes that eating meat is wrong. He even compares the eating of meat to owning a slave!<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/atheism-has-a-real-problem-with-morality/ New Atheism Has a Real Problem with Morality]</ref>}}

We have already seen a concrete example of this. Richard Dawkins believes that eating meat is wrong. He even compares the eating of meat to owning a slave!<ref>[https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/atheism-has-a-real-problem-with-morality/ New Atheism Has a Real Problem with Morality]</ref>}}