Richard Dawkins’ Generous Absurdity

“The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist” said Michael Ruse, a philosopher of biology at Florida State University.

As Ruse once pointed out, “Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing.”(Ruse 2010: int) I believe Dawkins, a brilliant Zoologist, failed again in his recent guest-voice post at The Washington Post: Dawkins: Don’t need God to be good … or generous.

Contending for a conclusion: “atheists and freethinkers are full human beings whose generous impulses are at least as sincere as those of the religious”, Dawkins expounded:

One reason for our[freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists – whatever name non-believers go under] unpopularity is the widespread belief that you need God in order to be good. Going along with that misconception is further belief that atheists are less generous than religious people, less philanthropic, less likely to donate to charity. Even if that were the case it would, of course, have no bearing on the truth of religious beliefs.(Dawkins 2012: post)

When theist and atheist philosophers argues that with the death of God, comes the death of objective moral values and duties, they mean that God’s existence, not belief in God, is the ontological ground for objective morality. Since if God does not exist, good and evil is illusory. Theists, atheists and freethinkers are good not because of their belief or lack of belief in God, but because of the existence of God.

It seems that Dawkins himself believes in this widespread belief that you need God in order to be good, since he wrote if there is no designer then “at bottom,[there is] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”(Dawkins 1995: 85). He explained:

“This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”(Dawkins 1995: 112)

In The God Delusion, Dawkins explained “[i]t is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.”(Dawkins 2006: 232) It seems Ruse was accurate in asserting that “People forget that it is possible to be intensely religious in the entire absence of theological belief.” (Ruse 2003: 335). I am beginning to believe that Dawkins is intensely religious. Well, I could be very wrong.


Washington Post Logo Vector – Creative Commons License

Dawkins, Richard (1995). “God’s Utility Function”, in Scientific American, November 1995

___________________ (2006) The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press

Ruse, Michael (2003)Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Harvard University Press.

_____________ (2010) Interviewed: Centre for Public Christianity

9 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins’ Generous Absurdity

  1. GOD the zero of mathematic the dichotomy and what looks like the ‘phi’ of mathematics greek lower case, devine proportion, golden ratio. C.G. Jung does nice job explaining god symbols of transformation. What type of woman would want animus reflected as Richard Dawkins god delusion.CG Jung Man and his symbols or that other who narrator cacodemon asfoetida finnochio book. Being doped by tailor lalla genetic for religious extremist .allay to alloy to mix with something inferior to dilute to debase. Book read by Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward. allatonis one of the membranes that develops in embryonic reptiles,birds, and mammals as a growth from hindgut.It acts as a urinary bladder for storage of water excretory products in egg.Allele one of the alternative forms of gene. In diploid cell there are usually two allels of any one gene(one from each parent), which occupy the same relative position(*locus) on *homologous chromosomes. One allele is often *dominant to the other(known as the recessive),i.e. determines which aspects of a particular characteristic the organism will display. Within a population there may be many allels of a gene;each has a unique nucleotide sequence. anima/animus Richard Dawkins/Lalla Ward help help tartarus place worst than hell these twos Lord Kurma get them of your back get them off your caco ‘The God Delusion’ cacoon cacoon(mimosa) caco monkies.

  2. Pingback: Science vs. God? « agnus dei – english + romanian blog

  3. Mark 9:49-50 For with fire everything will be vaporized and every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt.
    Salt is good, but if the salt should become bland, with what will it be seasoned? Let salt be in you and be in harmony among each other.

    You’d better have thick skin if you read a warriors thoughts about an affront on his faith. Some men and women bought by Christ are renowned for their frank and unapologetic input.

    All followers of Jesus should be no less honest with their evaluations and recommendations to one another. There is certainly never a place for “brutal” honesty (Eph 4.15) but we as Christians desperately need the truth to be told to us in love. My attention should be given to two responsibilities on this matter of “being salt” in another person’s life. First, how do I receive truth? Do I get defensive, try to hide or deny. Do I get angry or bitter? Or do I prayerfully consider what a person is communicating to help me become more like Christ? Secondly, when I speak the truth to others am I delivering it in a manner where it will best be received? When sharing truth I should try to maintain both potency and peace.

    I feel I have a great amount of self-refection. I am willing to learn more about my fundamental nature, purpose and essence. I think you should have used [a lack of Introspection] to belittle me instead of a lack of self-reflection.

    Peace and love to you and yours!

    Which of the 11,000 religions is the “true” one? Find the answer at…

  4. im seriously perplexed by the lack of selfreflection here; im wondering why you people are getting so irritated by a book written by someone who according to you guys doesnt even know anything. or is it perhaps because it has a core of truth in it that religious people fear? and the terminology is just downright scary. whoever is not with me is against me?! come on ppl. if you guys are allowed to believe what you want, cant you let atheists just believe in what they want? do we need dark age expressions like”mockery of god”, and “a slap in the face of all who worship etc”? and clothed in gods armor? is that an euphemism for suspension of disbelief or something? is your faith really threatened by an atheists questioning? ive been following praysons articles for a while now, but i have a hard time recognising this thing you call christian love in it. kinda sad for a religion of love and peace.

  5. While Dawkins is a very learned man, he is about as stupid. I am not trying to be mean here. He himself is the one deluded. His book, and I do have it, seems to be more of a cathartic experience for him to vent his twisted logic on people who do not think for themselves. His mockery of God is beyond question, a slap in the face of all who worship our creator. He seems bent on attempting to change the nature of God for his own foolish delusions.

    It is such a shame a mind is wasted on such rubbish.

  6. Hello Prayson,

    Satan, no doubt, is using Richard Dawkins and other atheists such as Hitchens, Harris and Pullman, but he need not possess them. He, most probably, simply inspires them to create works that serve to confuse weak souls that have a poor grounding in their faith, and provides justifications for others who want to free themselves from the guilt that may accompany a sin-filled life-style.

    Before writing about, and trying to understand these types, we must assuredly be properly clothed in Gods armor. These people are not “for” God (Whoever is not with me is against me) and to entertain, understand, and refute their ideas is to tempt Satan.

    Richard Dawkins lives according to the practices of this world, according to the Ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons and daughters of disobedience. We were all dead in trespasses and sins, but God in His mercy, for the great love with which He loved us, made us, who bow the knee to the Lord Jesus, alive together with Christ. Those of us who have been made alive with Christ are in the light. The world walks in darkness. We are to walk in the light as the world walks in darkness. There is no logical argument that will help Richard Dawkins without the Holy Spirit to enlighten him. But alas. men loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. Choose you this day whom you will serve, God or Satan. This is the choice all men make, including Richard Dawkins. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. Richard Dawkins attacks Faith, displaying whom he represents. We do not wrestle against men like Richard Dawkins, we wrestle against wicked spirits and powers, emissaries of the ruler of this age whose mission is to crush faith in the earth by ANY means necessary.

    To quote me dear old dad,” This s__t ain’t no joke son.”


  7. the error that atheists make is in thinking the issue has to do with goodness. The issue is not our degree of goodness but forgiveness. While it’s true that that a person does not need God in order to be good according to human standards of goodness, one does need God in order to be forgiven.

    Thanks for the post. God Bless.

  8. Pingback: Richard Dawkins’ Generous Absurdity: WP

Comments are closed.