Dawkins confesses impotence

I have often been criticized for my repeated assertion that atheists lack an objective morality, that they have no basis with which to criticize the behavior of another individual except a basic appeal to utilitarianism. This criticism has largely faded away to nothing over time, however, as atheist after atheist has failed to make a coherent case that does not rest wholly on the parasitic hijacking of a moral tradition from a religious source.

This inability to construct an independent morality does not speak poorly of them, though, as it is a profoundly difficult intellectual exercise. The relatively few moralities we possess after thousands of years of recorded history are testament enough to this. And if it is amusing that so many atheists are satisfied with an ontological faith that such a morality could, theoretically, be somehow constructed, it should also be recalled that this is an argument which Christians have also relied upon in the past.

But what cannot be excused is the intellectually dishonest denial by most atheists of the fact that they currently posses no claim to even participate in any ongoing moral debates. In truth, such individuals have no logical grounds to even express an opinion with regards to questions of “should” or of “right and wrong”. Even Richard Dawkins seems to implicitly admit to the inherent hypocrisy in his dabblings in these fields in an October interview with Salon:

What about the old adage that science deals with the “how” questions and religion deals with the “why” questions?

I think that’s remarkably stupid, if I may say so. What on earth is a “why” question? There are “why” questions that mean something in a Darwinian world. We say, why do birds have wings? To fly with. And that’s a Darwinian translation of the evolutionary process whereby the birds that had wings survived better than the birds without. They don’t mean that, though. They mean “why” in a deliberate, purposeful sense. So when you say religion deals with “why” questions, that begs the entire question that we’re arguing about. Those of us who don’t believe in religion — supernatural religion — would say there is no such thing as a “why” question in that sense. Now, the mere fact that you can frame an English sentence beginning with the word “why” does not mean that English sentence should receive an answer. I could say, why are unicorns hollow? That appears to mean something, but it doesn’t deserve an answer.

But it seems to me the big “why” questions are, why are we here? And what is our purpose in life?

It’s not a question that deserves an answer.

Well, I think most people would say those questions are central to the way we think about our lives. Those are the big existential questions, but they are also questions that go beyond science.

If you mean, what is the purpose of the existence of the universe, then I’m saying that is quite simply begging the question. If you happen to be religious, you think that’s a meaningful question. But the mere fact that you can phrase it as an English sentence doesn’t mean it deserves an answer. Those of us who don’t believe in a god will say that is as illegitimate as the question, why are unicorns hollow? It just shouldn’t be put. It’s not a proper question to put. It doesn’t deserve an answer.

This highlights is the inherently destructive aspect of atheist philosophy. Dawkins understands that he can no more answer the question “why should I not kill Jews?” than “why are unicorns hollow?” even if most of those who consider him a great advocate of atheism do not.

When one responds to a question of “why am I here” with “that’s not a question that deserves an answer”, then one has no right to take exception to the behavior of the individual who concludes “I am here to conquer, kill, steal and rape on the basis of my desire and my ability to carry out my will.”