10.30.06
Dawkins’ cheap shot syndrome
Dawkins on morality.
I am no fan of traditional religions, but the dilemma here is that the ‘religion’ of Darwinism is grotesquely worse, and totally unable to rightly account for issues of morality and ethics. The question of altruism, one of Dawkins’ starting points via Trivers, thence the whole absurdity of its phoney account of ethical evolution, is too much for Darwinists.
On this basis Dawkins gets into his indignant snit about the place of ethics in religion.
These tactics are a godsend for religionists and are disarming for true secular critics of religion.
And behind all this nonsense lies the well-concealed college course mentality laced with Nietzsche tidbits and a ‘genealogy of morals’ far worse than the myths of Sinai.
The worst thing about this is that the Dennett/Dawkins cult has managed to get away with the label of science and is granted the media power to simply repeat with challenge ad infinitum. The results are going to be a catastrophe as the reaction rises to counterattack this sophmoric howlerfest.
You have to wonder at all of this. Since the issue is science, scientists could at least sit down and try to study the historical phenomenon of religion. If you have any time left.
Religion may be nonsense, but isn’t it harmless nonsense, like astrology and crystal balls? Why be so hostile? (Scientists have a particular reason to be hostile to any systematically organized effort to teach children to reject evidence in favour of faith, revelation, authority and tradition. Religion teaches people to be satisfied with petty, small-minded non-explanations or mysteries, and this is a tragedy, given that the true explanations are so enthralling. Moreover, such hostility as I have is limited to words. I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement).