Difference between revisions of "Richard Dawkins and morality"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] | + | The [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] 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?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying [[Adolf Hitler|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]]."<ref name="Hitler"/> |
| + | |||
| + | The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position [[Atheism and morality|did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments.]] His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref name=Hitler /> | ||
Revision as of 03:43, July 5, 2016
The new atheist Richard Dawkins 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?", 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."[1]
The interviewer wrote in response, "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."[1]