Richard Dawkins has once again shown that high intelligence does not transfer into the ability to understand fundamental truths about ones worldview. In a recent interview, where he explained why he will not debate William Lane Craig, Dawkins had the following to say;
“This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.”
Whoa, hold on there, Dr. Dawkins. You refuse to debate Craig because he allegedly supports “genocide”? But, Dr. Dawkins, what is wrong with genocide? After all, the human race is nothing more than advanced pond-scum, the result of random, chance events (according to Dawkins). There is no Heaven or Hell in your worldview and there is no objective law giver, so, why would genocide be wrong? Wow, it almost sounds like you believe that there is such a thing as absolute laws of morality. But wait, I must be wrong because in an evolutionary worldview, there are no absolutes, there is no human dignity, there is no objective value or reason to life.
It is often the case that those who are touted as the “intellects” of the Western world are point-in-fact, proven to be “dense” on simple matters. Of course, I am not one to call names, but, I just don’t see any reason to avoid this statement. To object to genocide in a universe with no God amounts to a non-statement; No God = No Problem. Any basic philosophy 101 class will teach a person that without the existence of God, there is no objective standard of ethics. As a result, there is no true standard to call something “evil.” Hence, without (the Christian) God, all ethical systems simply reduce to individual or cultural expressions of subjectivism. Noting this, Dr. Dawkins really should have no problem with genocide, given the worldview that he espouses. I mean, the Jews, according to atheistic-materialism, were simply subject to the internal and external stimuli which created electro-chemical reactions in their brains. This stimuli/reaction, produced in them a necessity to commit genocide, all according to Dawkins theory, if he were to live by his presuppositions. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, Dr. Dawkins.
Dawkins has made a wise move in refusing to debate Craig and has saved himself a great deal of embarrassment.