Quote:
Originally Posted by Someday
Richard Dawkins tries, vainly, to contrive meaning in a universe without God, even as he mocks believers for refusing to face the cold wind of truth.
|
Someday, that sentence contradicts itself. Dawkins has never contrived meaning. Life just is. There is no ultimate purpose, which is almost the whole purpose of his book. I wouldn't say that he mocks believers, but he is frustrated that a lot of people turn to the supernatural (and away from the sciences) rather than appreciate the magnificance of the natural.
And your comments about what is perceived as being right or wrong is as wrong now as it's ever been. Your idea of morality entirely depends on where and when you were born. Think Ancient Rome, think the Spanish Inquisition, think Salem witch trials, think WWII, think Rwanda. Is it your contention that anyone from those eras, from those places, in that time, would have the same morality as would you or I?
Would you turn the other cheek in EVERY circumstance? Is the taking of a life wrong in EVERY circumstance? Morality is a moveable feast.
Let's take the example of a child to see where your definition of right and wrong is. You have a young boy, say 6 years old and in a bad temper, he violently hits his sister. Tell me where you'd draw the line:
You ignore it.
You quietly point out to him that it was the wrong thing to do.
You raise your voice to him.
You raise your voice and threaten him with loss of priviliges.
You physically hold him and threaten the same.
You shake him gently while doing it.
You gently tap his backside to add emphasis.
You slap him a little harder so that it hurts a little.
You hit him hard enough to cause pain.
You hit him hard enough to cause tears to flow.
I shan't go on, but at some point, everyone would say - 'Whoa, that's taking it a bit far. That's plainly wrong'. And everyone would have a different point at which they'd say that and everyone would be right.
Now you can substitute the beating of a child by anything at all. Taking something from work, criticising your better half, invading another country. No-one will agree on the exact point where something that was obviously right becomes suddenly wrong.
It ain't black and white and as I said above, it depends on when and where. The only reason you believe in your god and have a sense of the morality that you do is because you were born in the middle of the 20th century in an English speaking country where you had a certain amount of education and freedom of action.
Trust me, your 'in-built' common sense (which would exist without following any scripture), is a lot different to other peoples and would be a lot different in other circumstances.
I don't need a religion to have an idea of what I feel to be right or wrong and I object very strongly indeed to the idea that someone who DOES have a religion, has, in some mysterious way, a more justifiable sense of morality than do I. The idea that you can be TOLD what is right is simply abhorrent.