The Right to Say 'Right'
Richard Dawkins - “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Yet where is the balance in that statement from the famous Atheist? As he believes, life is pointless. We came from nothing and to nothing we will return, so where does morality even come from? Saying something is right or wrong - not what is, but what “ought to be”? In a predesignated, purely natural machinations of pure science, where does “ought” come into being. It’s all pure science, so all that “ought” to be “is”. Yet, all mankind discriminates between good and evil. Those who do not, we label as psychopaths.
Where does this morality come from? The atheist has a real problem there, for we actually just registered that it is in fact not natural. (If it was, it would simply be, there would be no “ought” to it. It is counterintuitive to nature in and of it’s very definition.) So they pass it off as preference of the masses. Yet every culture in history around the globe has signs of this seemingly universal sense of right and wrong. Are they all the same? No, but that does not negate the fact that it is universal. It is counter-intuitive (for a reason) to say that morality comes from the preferences of the crowd. Why? Because the crowd is made of individuals. So if all people so easily come to the same conclusion as to what they “like” about what they think is good and evil, then where did they get that similar sense of what is right and wrong? I guarantee they didn’t gather around and debate or discuss it! Yet we also insist that those cultures who have warped sense of morality are wrong, for instance cannibalism. If it truly is just preferences of the masses, what right have we to say they are wrong? They came to a consensus of morality. Just because theirs is different doesn’t make them wrong if wrong is merely a similar case of consensus.
It becomes a farce. A joke. Morality ceases to exist because it becomes a preference. Upheld only by mob rule and those strong enough to enforce their opinions upon the weaker. In this sense, Richard Dawkins has no legs to stand on. His vicious and voluminous attack on God’s character in the quote at the beginning becomes a breath of sound and fury meaning absolutely nothing. Their words cease to have meaning, for it is merely the opinion of a ranting raving angry man who simply doesn’t like something. No “oughts” about it, just a man speaking his mind about something he doesn’t like. Like I don’t like peanut butter. Bleh. He cannot even say that all those attributes he falsely accuses God of are wrong. Just unpleasant things that he doesn’t personally like.
Because there is no standard in nature when it comes to morality. Morality supercedes the machinations of scientific law. We see death caused by natural disasters and we say, that “ought” not to happen. We see certain animal species doing despicable things such as female spiders of certain species eats their young or their mates. We see that as something that “ought” not to be. We certainly would label a human with such inclinations as pure evil. A psychopath. So where does this supernatural standard come from? In a word, I just answered it. It supersedes nature, therefore it is supernatural. It is quite rationale to make the connection that God is the source of that supernatural standard of morality. Otherwise, refuse the supernatural standard, and you refute that any “ought” actually exists. Do that, and you forfeit the right to call anything good, or evil.
Jared Williams.
Yet where is the balance in that statement from the famous Atheist? As he believes, life is pointless. We came from nothing and to nothing we will return, so where does morality even come from? Saying something is right or wrong - not what is, but what “ought to be”? In a predesignated, purely natural machinations of pure science, where does “ought” come into being. It’s all pure science, so all that “ought” to be “is”. Yet, all mankind discriminates between good and evil. Those who do not, we label as psychopaths.
Where does this morality come from? The atheist has a real problem there, for we actually just registered that it is in fact not natural. (If it was, it would simply be, there would be no “ought” to it. It is counterintuitive to nature in and of it’s very definition.) So they pass it off as preference of the masses. Yet every culture in history around the globe has signs of this seemingly universal sense of right and wrong. Are they all the same? No, but that does not negate the fact that it is universal. It is counter-intuitive (for a reason) to say that morality comes from the preferences of the crowd. Why? Because the crowd is made of individuals. So if all people so easily come to the same conclusion as to what they “like” about what they think is good and evil, then where did they get that similar sense of what is right and wrong? I guarantee they didn’t gather around and debate or discuss it! Yet we also insist that those cultures who have warped sense of morality are wrong, for instance cannibalism. If it truly is just preferences of the masses, what right have we to say they are wrong? They came to a consensus of morality. Just because theirs is different doesn’t make them wrong if wrong is merely a similar case of consensus.
It becomes a farce. A joke. Morality ceases to exist because it becomes a preference. Upheld only by mob rule and those strong enough to enforce their opinions upon the weaker. In this sense, Richard Dawkins has no legs to stand on. His vicious and voluminous attack on God’s character in the quote at the beginning becomes a breath of sound and fury meaning absolutely nothing. Their words cease to have meaning, for it is merely the opinion of a ranting raving angry man who simply doesn’t like something. No “oughts” about it, just a man speaking his mind about something he doesn’t like. Like I don’t like peanut butter. Bleh. He cannot even say that all those attributes he falsely accuses God of are wrong. Just unpleasant things that he doesn’t personally like.
Because there is no standard in nature when it comes to morality. Morality supercedes the machinations of scientific law. We see death caused by natural disasters and we say, that “ought” not to happen. We see certain animal species doing despicable things such as female spiders of certain species eats their young or their mates. We see that as something that “ought” not to be. We certainly would label a human with such inclinations as pure evil. A psychopath. So where does this supernatural standard come from? In a word, I just answered it. It supersedes nature, therefore it is supernatural. It is quite rationale to make the connection that God is the source of that supernatural standard of morality. Otherwise, refuse the supernatural standard, and you refute that any “ought” actually exists. Do that, and you forfeit the right to call anything good, or evil.
Jared Williams.
