Reflecting on the new Atheist, Richard Dawkins claim that there is no meaning, or purpose of this life. If that is true then I can not help but notice how self-contradicting his claim is. In his famous book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkin claims:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” p.133
How can we explain the hurting if we have no idea what “not hurting” feels? How can we explain “luck” if we do not know what “unlucky” means? How can we explain “injustice” if we do not have any knowledge of what “justice” is?
If at the bottom, there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, why are we(including Dawkin) wants the fairness, “Justice”, and not ready to pretend we are not in pain, “getting hurt” when fair-play is not exercised?
If it is true that there is no evil and no good, then I am not in a position to point these things out. If no purpose, fairness, including Dawkins’ own claim is “nothing but blind pitiless indifference” which is absurd.
Dawkin wishes his reader to take his claims serious namely “becoming an atheist after reading to the end of his God Delusion book” Are Richard Dawkins’ claims also “at the bottom … nothing but blind pitiless indifference?” (You ought to ponder these one by yourself)
Dawkins’ Self-exception Fallacy:
In his best selling book, God Delusion, Richard Dawkin attacks the evilness of religion throughout his entire book. “Religion: Root of All Evil” but I am at lost! Help me understand here! If, by his own words “there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” how then is Religion evil?
More over, if Religion is the root of all evil, then there are other evil to which Dawkin knows they exist but rationally deny them by his own definition which again is absurd.
Dawkins’ Self-Deluded Logic:
There is no A and no B
There is A and B
There is no evil and no good,
Religion is evil, not good.
There is No A and there is A can not all be true at the same time. Accepting there is evil i.e. “Religion is the root of all evil” and not accept there is evil i.e. “there is at the bottom … no evil” is simply absurd because either one is wrong, or both are wrong. They can not all be true.
Dawkins’ claim fails to satisfy Logical Thinking on the light of The Law of Non-contradiction . A cannot be B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.
Therefore, Richard Dawkins’ New Atheist claim commits a “Self-Deluded” Logic namely A is evil and not-evil at the same time and in the same sense.
Dawkins’ Self-Exceptional Fallacy:
If I at the bottom, accepts no evil and no good, I will have to accept and apply it to all my views, not just on my hobbies as Dawkin does on his hatred-of-Religion dogma.
Moreover, If I were to accept Dawkins’ atheistic idea, the only an avoidable conclusion I would reach is, Religion is no evil, no good, just a blind pitiless indifference. Attacking Religion as evil is simply absurd from Dawkins’ own chain of thinking.
Therefore, claiming no evil and no good to all things except Religion is simply a self-exceptional fallacious.
There has to be purpose to trace a seemingly purposeless life. Seemingly purposeless life does not mean life is purposeless, but it looks like it purposeless, no meaning(as the new Atheistic calm to which I beg to differ). If there is no God, then there is no meaning to our lives, no purposes, no values, no fairness, nothing, we live, reproduce and die.
If there is no God, why should I be fair? why should I not have my own standards, say murdering babies for no reasons, raping, stealing, lying? Social conduct? You help me I help you? But why do you need to help me if at the bottom all is meaningless? It is normal for animals to rape, steal, kill each other! If at the bottom, there is no evil and no good why am I ought to act like evil and good exists?
Can I stand in front of the courtroom charged with killing, raping, and stealing and bravery state that “Judge! at the bottom, all these is nothing but blind pitiless indifference” without the Judge thinking I am self-deluded?
Meaning of our Universe:
From C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, comes a very interesting argument for the meaning of our universe.
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” p.45-46
I will try to put his argument in Contrapositive form to which I believe is easy to follow:
If not A, not B
not A = Universe has no meaning
A = Universe has meaning
not B = Never(not) have found out the universe has no meaning
B= Have found out the universe has no meaning
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning,
We have found out the universe has no meaning,
Therefore, the universe has meaning.
I am open for your views,comments, corrections or something I overlooked or over reacted on, and most if I have committed a logical fallacy.
P:S I am officially banned from Dawkins’ Website Discussion for pointing Dawkins’ Self-Delude Logic, Don’t Feed A Troll is their Motto; “You don’t have the ability to comment” And they call themselves Truth-Seeker. I beg to differ, Dawkins-Discussion is no better than a religious cult! Say something different and you are out.