Changes

[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]

[[File:Richard Dawkins Stockholm.JPG|thumbnail|250px|right|[[Richard Dawkins]] ]]

The author and poet Michael Robbins declares about the morality of [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]]:

The author and poet Michael Robbins declares about the morality of [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]]:

{{Cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]]’s atheism is far from exultant—he is not crowing about the death of God, much as he despises [[Christianity]]. He understands how much has been lost, how much there is to lose.

{{Cquote|[[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]]’s [[atheism]] is far from exultant—he is not crowing about the death of God, much as he despises [[Christianity]]. He understands how much has been lost, how much there is to lose.

. . . Nietzsche realized that the [[Enlightenment]] project to reconstruct morality from rational principles simply retained the character of Christian ethics without providing the foundational authority if the latter. Dispensing with his fantasy of the Übermensch, we are left with his dark diagnosis. To paraphrase the Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, our moral vocabulary has lost the contexts from which its significance derived, and no amount of Dawkins-style hand-waving about altruistic genes will make the problem go away. (Indeed, the ridiculous belief that our genes determine everything about human behavior and culture is a symptom of this very problem.)

. . . Nietzsche realized that the [[Enlightenment]] project to reconstruct morality from rational principles simply retained the character of Christian ethics without providing the foundational authority if the latter. Dispensing with his fantasy of the Übermensch, we are left with his dark diagnosis. To paraphrase the Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, our moral vocabulary has lost the contexts from which its significance derived, and no amount of Dawkins-style hand-waving about altruistic genes will make the problem go away. (Indeed, the ridiculous belief that our genes determine everything about human behavior and culture is a symptom of this very problem.)

The believer’s claim is that the world owes its existence to a moral God. All human beings are moral agents created in God’s image and are expected to recognize right from wrong because they all reflect God’s moral character. The fact that human beings are the kinds of creatures that can recognize the moral imperatives that are part of the very fabric of the universe argues strongly against naturalism. Unlike the laws of nature, which even inanimate objects obey, moral imperatives appeal to our will and invite us to make real decisions on real moral issues. The only other parallel experience we have of dos and don’ts comes from minds. Thus when the atheist rejects God while insisting on the validity of morality, he is merely rejecting the cause while clinging to the effect.

The believer’s claim is that the world owes its existence to a moral God. All human beings are moral agents created in God’s image and are expected to recognize right from wrong because they all reflect God’s moral character. The fact that human beings are the kinds of creatures that can recognize the moral imperatives that are part of the very fabric of the universe argues strongly against naturalism. Unlike the laws of nature, which even inanimate objects obey, moral imperatives appeal to our will and invite us to make real decisions on real moral issues. The only other parallel experience we have of dos and don’ts comes from minds. Thus when the atheist rejects God while insisting on the validity of morality, he is merely rejecting the cause while clinging to the effect.

Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings agree on. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution. Had human evolution taken a different course, these acts might well have been the valued elements of our moral code. Even Nazi morality would be right had the Nazis succeeded in their quest for world dominance. Unless the world contains behavioral guidelines that transcend human decisions, there is no reason why anyone should object to such conclusions.<ref>[http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/the-new-atheism/ The New Atheism]</ref>}}

Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings agree on. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human [[evolution]]. Had [[human evolution]] taken a different course, these acts might well have been the valued elements of our moral code. Even [[Nazi]] morality would be right had the Nazis succeeded in their quest for world dominance. Unless the world contains behavioral guidelines that transcend human decisions, there is no reason why anyone should object to such conclusions.<ref>[http://rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/the-new-atheism/ The New Atheism]</ref>}}

==Notes==

==Notes==

{{reflist|2}}

{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:New Atheism]]

[[Category:New Atheism]]