Recently Dawkins tweeted some things about rape and comparison that had a lot of people in a huff. Basically, people get hurt feelings and in our society of tolerance that is the one thing that won’t be tolerated. I don’t want to defend Dawkins statements here but I do take issue with his response to all of those emo’s. One of Dawkins main tenants in his post, and what is he is after here, is that he wants to teach us all how to think. Notice though, he also wants to teach us all how to feel. Or rather, he wants us all to take our emotion suppressant pills so that we can have a pleasant conversation. I understand that logic and reason are important, but it sounds more like Dawkins wants people to be Vulcan’s. People have feelings, and they are going to bring those feelings to any conversation that has to do with hard subjects, especially rape.
Furthermore, Dawkins has to admit that even he is passionate about championing logic and reason as the highest court of appeals. But where does this passion come from? Where do his denouncements of the emotional masses come from? Could it be that passion in this area is some sort of…emotion? In addition, Orwellian states never see the hypocrisy of their own position. They can not see it in fact, because they are too busy looking into everyone else’s lives and minds and knowing how they think. Dawkins proves my point in this post when he tells us all how to think and then warns us of the thought police. Yes, I will keep my eye out for them. (wink).
At the heart of all my issues with Dawkins comes when he starts making moral claims. They might sound good, and they might even be right every now and then but we all know about broken clocks. A good friend recently reminded me that Dawkins doesn’t actually believe in right or wrong. Or more appropriately stated, Dawkins doesn’t believe in good or evil (as stated in his book, The Selfish Gene.) For him, rape should just be an effective way to pass along DNA. After all, mallards do it all the time. This is the problem for the new atheist because they can’t be both moral relativists and have a standard of morality to appeal to. Logic and reason very well may be the ultimate authority on all matters of morality, but according to who?
Dawkins, in his post uses the example of a woman who is pregnant and that she still has the right to abort the baby even if the baby is fully conscious and writing poetry in the womb. Why? Why is a choice of higher moral value than life? Who decided that? Who said? And on what moral authority do they stand? And doesn’t that go against Dawkins naturalist view of the world? Thankfully we have a “bright” to help us with his magical flashlight that can see things clearly. He never tells us where he got the magical flashlight of moral supremacy, but don’t question it. Just go back to thinking logically.
The arrogance and hypocrisy is swirling around like a bunch of leaves and trash caught in the corner of a shopping plaza parking lot. He hopes if he swirls fast enough you won’t have time to clean it up.