By Selwyn Duke

I’ve long observed that great scientific minds virtually never make for formidable philosophical ones.  A perfect example of this is Richard Dawkins, the famous, and also infamous, British biologist and author of the book The God Delusion.  Dawkins has made quite a career out of attacking religion, rehashing the same worn-out arguments as many before him and missing the 800-pound reality in the center of the room.

What I find so amusing about professional atheists such as Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens (men who do worship, mind you — their own intellects), is that what they fail to grasp are basic philosophical concepts that more intellectually nimble atheists understood well.  An example of what I’m talking about can be found in this TimesOnline article, which concerns a debate Dawkins had with Christian apologist John Lennox.  Here is the relevant passage:

"In an effort to silence his opponent [who implicated atheism in various atrocities], Professor Dawkins, who was he said ‘intensely frustrated’ by the format of the evening, said Atheism did not
motivate people to carry out terror."   

Actually, I cannot disagree, but perhaps Dawkins would understand the matter better if he pondered something Jean-Paul Satre once said:

"Without God, all things are possible." 

I will explain what Sartre (who was as misguided as Dawkins) meant. 

No, atheism doesn’t motivate people to commit terror; it simply removes the motivation to not do so.  In other words — and this has been a common theme of mine because it’s addresses the characteristic spiritual disease of our time — if there’s nothing above man that determines right and wrong, then it simply doesn’t exist.  Right and wrong then become synonymous with opinion, with taste, and why should anyone defer to the tastes of others when deciding whether or not to act on his own tastes?  Sure, I may tame a lust for power if I believe there is a moral principle — one that is part of objective reality — stating that I must do so.  But if it is only society that says my desire should not be acted upon, why should I assent?  This is what Sartre meant in making his statement: If God doesn’t exist, morality doesn’t exist, and then the only limitation is self-limitation. 

Let’s expand on this.  If there is no such thing as Absolute Truth, then it cannot be our yardstick for making moral decisions.  The only yardstick we then have left is our emotions.   And if we defer to them, we will often be ruled by our basest instincts, such as lust, greed, gluttony, wrath or envy.  Or, it could be sloth — the intellectual variety — which can prevent one from thinking a matter through completely.  Then again, it could also be pride, which can prevent one from admitting he’s wrong even after his arguments have been refuted.  Regardless, once unmoored from authentic moral constraints, there is no limit to what a person may do in the service of his instincts.  Then, why not kill millions if they stand in the way of the communist utopia you crave?

This is what Sartre meant when he said that without God all things are possible.  They certainly are, but not all things are good.

               Protected by Copyright