Home » Intelligent Design » Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”

Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”

As irksome as Richard Dawkins can sometimes be, one must nevertheless admire his occasional outbursts of honesty.  Over at First Things  Fr. Ed Oakes refers to an interview  Dawkins gave to an Austrian newspaper, Die Presse (July 30, 2005), in which he said: “No decent person wants to live in a society that works according to Darwinian laws. . . . A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.”

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

42 Responses to Dawkins: “Darwinism Leads to Fascism”

  1. Nice admission by a party opponent. But if Darwinism is the truth about life how do you build a society on anything else?

    Our society is built on the Judeo-Christian world view that right and wrong exist as a fact of nature that all men are created equal by God and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Under the Dawkins model there is no such thing as right and wrong or human rights – only social constructs of convenience.

  2. Dawkins has been extremely clear on his “anti-Darwinism” with respect to his politics. The question is whether Darwinism in his science is consistent with anti-Darwinism in his politics.

    Though I can sympathize with anyone who thinks that Dawkins simply hasn’t made the case, that doesn’t mean that the case for consistency cannot be made.

    And the vignette from Nietzsche isn’t from any of his Untimely Meditations, but from his somewhat earlier, unpublished essay, “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense.”

  3. I don’t understand. Isn’t religion a social construct?

  4. That smells of quote-mining to me.

  5. I think his point is something more like that government shouldn’t emulate Darwinism. The “goals” of the two (to be very metaphorical in the case of the latter) couldn’t be more different, after all.

  6. Unless the full quote before the ellipsis is something like

    “[It is not the case that]A Darwinian society would be a fascist state.”

    Then it seems pretty hard to claim something dishonest is going on.

    I suspect he is being quoted honestly and meant what he said (though no doubt many will scream that it is taken out of context to keep dawkins’ congregation pacified) . He is on record saying really brain dead things to the effect of, he is anti-darwinian when it comes to questions of helping others and the like.

  7. Anybody out there have the full quote?

    Quote mining can be real, or it can be just a convenient objection to nullify the effectiveness of a quote that makes an excellent point. The way one tells which is the case is to look at the original context. It shouldn’t be too hard, as the reference is given in the First Things article.

  8. If the quote is correct. I can only speculate that he is starting to build a case where “we the evolving humans” are reaching the Darwinian limits and should embrace our destiny in the religion of Dawkinsm – The living sage of our time…

  9. I don’t think there was any quote mining here.

    But title of the OP does seem to completely misrepresent what Dawkins is quoted as having said, by conflating the political or social philosophy of social Darwinism with the more common use of Darwinism here (and elsewhere), which is to refer to Charles Darwin’s insights into the natural world, as supplemented by 150 years of research.

    Dawkins does not say anything about “Darwinism”, or that a society in which belief that Darwin was factually correct about the nature of the origin of species was widespread would necessarily be or become fascist.

    He says that a “Darwinian society would be a fascist state.” That is, a society that works according to Darwinian laws would be a fascist state. It seems clear to me that he means that a society based on social Darwinism would be fascist.

  10. The rest of Dawkins’ quote:

    Yes but Fascism as the result of natural selection is the best any society can hope for. THAT is REAL Fascism. And you don’t know Fascism until you have experienced the REAL Fascism born of natural selection.

    :)

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion…

  11. People who believe in scientism, i.e. that science is all there is, all there ever can be, and all there ever will be, must believe what Dawkins said, to be logically consistent. In other words, there is no “social” Darwinism, as congregate states. There is simply Darwinism, and that applies to every facet of life. Dawkins is simply being consistent with his worldview.

  12. Richard often says that we as humans need to rise above our darwinian roots.

  13. The article in question:
    http://www.diepresse.at/home/t.....8/index.do

    It is in German, so i used babelfish on it-http://babelfish.altavista.com/.

    You be the judge.

  14. Kein anständiger Mensch will in einer Gesellschaft leben, die nach darwinistischen Gesetzen funktioniert. Ich bin leidenschaftlicher Darwinist, wenn es darum geht zu erklären, wie sich das Leben entwickelt hat. Aber ich bin leidenschaftlicher Anti-Darwinist, wenn es darum geht, in welcher Form von Gesellschaft wir leben wollen. Eine darwinistische Gesellschaft wäre ein faschistischer Staat.

    No decent humans want to live in a society, which functions after darwinistischen laws. I am passionate Darwinist, if it concerns to explain, how the life developed. But I am passionate anti- Darwinist, if it concerns, in which form of society we to live want. A darwinistische society would be a fascist state.

    http://diepresse.com/home/tech.....8/index.do July 30,2005

  15. Looks pretty much in context to me. I also located the article and that is the entire answer, to a question as to how Dawkins would justify the modern welfare state, which is a challenge to Darwinism.

    The charge of quote-mining is pretty much baseless here.

  16. idnet says: “Richard often says that we as humans need to rise above our darwinian roots.”

    Indeed he does, which is, of course, absurd given his premises.

    As I said in the post, I admire Dawkins’ occasional bursts of honesty, but his internally contradictory and logically incoherent spewings such as this one never cease to amaze me.

    His premises lead him inexorably to Nietzsche. It is a shame he does not have Nietzche’s courage.

  17. Gods iPod,

    You wrote,

    That smells of quote-mining to me.

    What the heck is “quote-miniing”? Unless you are trying to argue that the quote is taken out of context the objection makes no sense. Personally, I think that the term “quote mining” is thrown around by people who are completely ignorant of the relevance and importance of an admission by a party opponent.

  18. But Darwinian Theory is a moral paradigm based on the idea of punishing the ‘bad’ and preserving the ‘good’! The omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient powers of NS are nothing short of the Deification of Natural Selection.But in the real world – all is good – nature does what is necessary – the human does what is unnecessary (include Fascistic ideas here).

  19. There is also the potential for mis-communication since Dawkins probably answered in Englsh and was then translated into German and we now have the second translation back into English.

    I wonder if the interview was recorded and if the original English is available.

  20. Give it up Jerry. He said what he said.

  21. Where did I read lately that even rape has its purpose in darwinism? It has to have purpose in darwinism doesn’t it? Ponder, ponder.

    Right:

    “The Natural History of Rape , which claims that natural selection explains all human behavior–even the crime of rape.” Source

    Just another brow raiser!

  22. I agree with Dawkins here. It’s the same reason I agree that airplaine pilots shouldn’t mimic the theory of gravity in order to fly a plane.
    We shouldn’t mimic natural selection to run society. Natural selection is pretty wasteful and it really takes its toll on the youth. (ever see how many sea turtle babies make it to adulthood?)

  23. BarryA,

    Give what up? An accurate statement?

    What is presented is very harsh and while my opinion of Dawkins is that of a low life because he does not deal with truth, it seems unlikely he would have made such an unpolitical statement. Has he made similar statements on fascism?

    He is essentially saying that fascism is the natural fate of humans because of Darwinian processes. Which is absurd from a study of history. Fascism is a modern phenomena with very limited appeal so the whole sequence of thoughts sounds screwy.

  24. I read Dawkins not as saying, “Darwinism really does lead to fascism,” but as saying, “If Darwinian principles were applied to society, it would lead to fascism.”

    So I don’t read as endorsing that application — he goes out of his way to reject it, not only in this interview, but also in A Devil’s Chaplain.

    Getting right what Dawkins says isn’t that difficult. The difficult part is determining whether he is rationally entitled to say what he says — that is, to repeat myself, whether his Darwinism in scientific theory is consistent with his anti-Darwinism in public policy.

    (Since my contributions tend to get help up in the moderation queue for a while, I don’t know if this conversation will still be ‘alive’ by the time this is posted. Oh, well. Can’t blame a guy for trying.)

  25. Wrong Jerry. Fascism is a new name for an ancient phenomenon – the autocratic rule of the one or the few over the many. The term “fascism” itself comes from the Latin “fasces,” the bundle of rods with an axe in the middle that was the symbol of Roman authority. Autocratic rule – whether it’s fascism, communism, absolute monarchy, or any other type of totalitarianism – is ancient. With very few exceptions (notably ancient Athens), widespread democracy is the new kid on the block. The experiment in Athens failed. Democracy had to await the tempering affects of an egalitarian religion (i.e, Christianity) before it could take root and thrive. Dawkins is right in this sense. Whether you call it the “will to power” or “Darwinian principles,” by their nature men seek to rule over others. It takes a special kind of people, a people accustomed to the self restraint and respect for the other that Christianity brings, to overcome this natural force. Ironically, the very thing that Dawkins detests – religion – is responsible for overcoming the brute force of nature he applauds.

  26. Carl Sachs writes:
    “The difficult part is determining whether he is rationally entitled to say what he says — that is, to repeat myself, whether his Darwinism in scientific theory is consistent with his anti-Darwinism in public policy.”

    Actually Carl, this is not difficult at all. Dawkins writes:

    “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. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

    Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix, 1995), 133.

    Focus on the last sentence. Dawkins is making a very profound truth claim. We are slaves to our genes; there is no free will; the determinism of Darwinian processes is absolute. If that is true, it is intellectually incoherent for him to be an “anti-Darwinist” when it suits him politically. Indeed, if that is true, there is no such thing as an “anti-Darwinist;” anti-Darwinism is simply an illusion itself created by Darwinian processes.

  27. I think BarryA is right. As far as naturalism goes, Darwinism is an absolute. It is all or nothing. Secular evolutionists themselves seem to let this slide sometimes. Whether it’s intentional or not, I’m not sure, but it seems that the interpretation Darwinists use is usually the one that’s most advantageous at the time. A criminal act like larceny is obviously Darwinian, but anytime someone brings up morality or altruism, a speculation is put forth about how it is still driven by Darwinian instincts. But then you apply Darwinism to society and government, and it can suddenly be subverted by our own intentions to “rise above.”

    Darwinists make the necessary adjustments whenever their theory is subjected to any kind of pressure. In the words of Richard Lewontin:

    “Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything.”

  28. A side note:

    I wonder how Dawkins uses Darwinism to explain the act of suicide.

    I can take a crack at it, but does anyone here know if he or other Darwinists have done so already?

  29. BarryA,

    You are welcome to your definition of fascism. However, I do not think it is the same as autocratic rule and you yourself list it as just one type of autocratic rule. The peculiar thing about fascism is nationalism and socialism. The nationalism is what separates it from communism though sometimes I fail to see the difference.

    There are lots of autocratic rule as you indicated and fascism is just one variant of it and it is modern. The nation state did not exist in ancient times. It is mainly a product of the late middle ages and certainly none of the kingdoms or empires since then are identified as fascist even though they were autocratic. I doubt that many would describe England and France as fascist with their long history of autocratic rule as a nation state. What was missing was the socialism which was not part of autocratic rule in general. If Dawkins had meant autocratic rule, why say fascism, especially when he was in the heart of where fascism briefly thrived.

    Athens was the birth of democracy but the real failure was Rome. It was after the debacle of the Roman Republic that democracy got its really bad name as an unworkable form of government. Two colossal failures set the tone for government for the next 1800 years. I think it was the rise of the merchant class and the spread of land ownership which finally led back to democracy. Certainly Christianity had a lot to do with this but Christianity justified the divine right of kings too.

  30. Re #29:

    Thanks for the link, Bork. That article is pretty ridiculous.

    And another reason I should be very wary of anything from Wikipedia (especially if no references are given).

  31. Bevets said:
    [b]“No decent humans want to live in a society, which functions after darwinistischen laws. I am passionate Darwinist, if it concerns to explain, how the life developed. But I am passionate anti- Darwinist, if it concerns, in which form of society we to live want. A darwinistische society would be a fascist state.”[/b]

    Correct me or does this reflect Kant’s position regarding rationalism vs. morality? The thing is, that it was universal moral law that kept Kant from being an atheist.

  32. Just a short comment, after having read the German original. Dawkins does state what is quoted, expect that he seems to agree with the reporter that in stead of saying darwinism leads to fascism it rather leads to radical neo-liberalism:
    …..
    Reporter:Not rather a radical neo-liberal state?
    Dawkins: Yes, you are right there.

    Apparently he seems to regret his ‘hasty?’ remark and prefers to restate it into terms that many will probably consider offense as well, for different reasons.

  33. BarryA [and Jerry, re 30]:

    I always find it irritating when a one-sided revisionist thesis or
    assertion is used to improperly impugn, diminish or dismiss our Judaeo-Christian heritage and its material contribution to the rise of modern liberty.

    For, BarryA [in 25] is RIGHT, manifestly right, when he said:

    Democracy had to await the tempering affects of an egalitarian religion (i.e, Christianity) before it could take root and thrive. Dawkins is right in this sense. Whether you call it the “will to power” or “Darwinian principles,” by their nature men seek to rule over others. It takes a special kind of people, a people accustomed to the self restraint and respect for the other that Christianity brings, to overcome this natural force. Ironically, the very thing that Dawkins detests – religion – is responsible for overcoming the brute force of nature he applauds.

    My irritation is especially warranted, IMHCO, when it responds to the rhetoric of those who are quick to trot out a litany of the sins of Christendom [which ought not to be confused with the Christian Faith and/or its sources! Cf. the just linked . . . e.g. Rutherford's Lex Rex on just how well based Absolutism was [NOT!] on the overall teaching of the Judaeo-Christian sources in light of Covenant Theology of nationhood and the state].

    Surely, we can do better than this, Jerry!

    Now, on the point I really wanted to address, Fascism. Here is Enc Brit, 2001:

    political attitude and mass movement that tended to dominate political life in central, southern, and eastern-central Europe between 1919 and 1944. Common to all fascist movements was an emphasis on the nation (race or state) as the centre and regulator of all history and life, and on the indisputable authority of the leader behind whom the people were expected to form an unbreakable unity. The word fascism itself was first used in 1919 by Benito Mussolini in Italy; in the following years the influence of fascism made itself felt in countries as far away as Japan, Argentina, Brazil, and the Union of South Africa, its specific aspects varying according to the country’s political traditions, its social structure, and the personality of the leader. The Italian word fascio (derived from the Latin fasces, a bundle of rods with an ax in it) symbolized both aspects: the power of many united and obeying one will and the authority of the state, which was the supreme source of law and order and all national life.

    This is a fair summary, and it leaves room to accept the point that the same enc makes about Nazism: In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian Fascism. Nazism, however, was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice . . .

    The second excerpt also brings out the point that the idea that Fascism is always “right-wing” is actually misleading: National SOCIALISM. (And indeed, there were socialist and capitalist factions within the Nazi party. Notice the NSDAP platform plank on nationalising Department Stores . . .)

    What Enc Brit does not bring out, of course is the pedigree of that emphasis on “nation” and “race” and where it leads in light of Darwin’s notorious comments on the same in his 1871 The Descent of Man. For, survival of the fittest strains inthe struggle for existence boils down to extinction of the “unfit,” by whatever means; and thence to a relativistic law of the jungle morality predicated on “might makes right.”

    Nor does it bring out the import of the intellectual pedigree of the will to power of the one man who binds the bundle of the nation or race together as an instrument of his iron will. But that all too neatly lines up with the excerpt from Dawkins that BarryA makes in 26.

    In short, Dawkins cannot live with the moral consequences of his evolutionary materialistic worldview when it comes to power and the state.

    That should warn him that something is flawed in the system at its roots: he finds himself bound by moral intuitions that by his own theory have no proper force, so he needs to think about the worldview level comparative difficulties import of such a fact that we are bound by moral law. (Cf. BarryA in 26 and my linked on Evo Mat’s incoherence.)

    In that context, we can now look back at BarryA’s point that fascism, plainly as more loosely considered, is a new name for an ancient phenomenon – the autocratic rule of the one or the few over the many.

    Plainly, he has left off the question of how that elitism and absolutism are rationalised, which is a significant gap. So, let us ddd in the point about race or nation and we are back at a pretty recognisable definition, but one that would exclude some types of authoritarian states, e.g. the Roman Principate was autocratic but was also plainly multicultural and multi-ethnic.

    However, let us note Wiki on the subtle point: Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity through oppression and coercion, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. (Of course, as a rule there is a mythical — factually poorly grounded — ideological element in those attributes.)

    A common history or myth or religious identity unbridled by the egalitarian import of the Golden Rule — especially, respect and care for others outside of one’s circle of identity [cf. here the story of the Good Samaritan, about a racial enemy and heretic who did the unexpected but manifestly decent and good thing . . .] — can therefore also serve as the locus for what we could reasonably call a neo- fascist or a proto- or paleo- fascist system. [NB, here, the moderate, often Franco-phile Algerians used this sense when they labelled the extremists that they were fighting with in the 1990's, Is^lamo-fas^c^ists.]

    In that light we can go back to Dawkins and note that it would only be race/nation insofar as it is genetically connected, that would directly relate to Darwinian natural selection, as per say his The Descent of Man.

    On the other hand, the ethos of Darwinism unbridled by equalising influences will lend itself admirably to the other bases for bundling the mass behind the autocrat and his reigning elite.

    A bit of a split decision, but trending to BarryA, I’d say.

    GEM of TKI

  34. Jerry, you are parsing the term “fascism” far too finely. Dawkins is not a political scientist. He is not using the term in a highly technical sense. He is using the term as a synonym for “brutal authoritarianism.” This is a common usage. The American Heritage dictionary states: “Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.” Dawkins’ idea here is the same one elucidated by Richard Weikart in “From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany.”

  35. BarryA,

    If you want to give it a rest, by all means.

    But before I go on this my experience is that the term fascist is used by the left any time they don’t like someone. Dictators like Pinochet who actually transformed Chile into probably the most vibrant country in South America are fascists because he used a military dictatorship to do so while Chavez and Castro, both military dictators are men of the people.

    The left wants desperately to associate Nazis and fascist with what is termed the “right” or conservative viewpoints so it is thrown out at any time they don’t like something. How many times have you heard Bush referred to as fascist or nazi. It is interesting that Mussolini was originally a communist and then tried to implement another form of socialism which is also characteristic of being left and so was Hitler’s form of government a left socialist institution. Both were nation oriented which is not supposed to be part of communism so the left tries to pigeon hole this form of socialism as “right” becausse of this. The racism of Hitler, not part of Mussolini, is also used to try to paint fascism as part of the right.

    I would be careful with dictionary definitions because they are reflecting this attitude of the left to paint anything they do not like as fascist.

  36. In re: 32

    Correct me or does this reflect Kant’s position regarding rationalism vs. morality? The thing is, that it was universal moral law that kept Kant from being an atheist.

    Kant does write of being constantly amazed and impressed of “the starry skies above me and the moral law within me” (from the conclusion to Critique of Practical Reason. He does suggest, or intimate, that God is the Author of both. But he doesn’t think that this can be known.

    Russell once described himself as a theoretical agnostic and a practical atheist. Kant, by contrast, was a theoretical agnostic and a practical theist.

  37. Jerry (and BarryA) and Carl:

    Sorry, I am back with that Akismet problem — and no help from them so far this time. [Patrick, do you know why this has recurred, and so fast?]

    I like the developments overnight. A few comments if you don’t mind:

    1] Jerry, 36: Fascism and the Left

    You have expanded my point in 34 admirably. I agree, even though Mussolini spoke of being “right,” Fascism is strictly speaking left-wing. And, let us not forget that there was a monarch on Italy’s throne all the meanwhile! (Or, that today’s classical social welfare Scandinavian and Dutch states are by and large Monarchies!)

    It is worth noting, too, that Lenin in the 1920′s did not implement a massively centrally planned Stalinist style Grosplan five-year plan economy, he wanted to control the capitalists, not to shoot and replace them en bloc. Of course, sufficient control is tantamount to ownership, as Roman Law recognises.

    Fascism classically aimed for cartelisation of key [especially strategic] industries, then applied strong state control. (Sounds familiar?)

    2] BarryA’s point, 35

    BarryA is probably right that Dawkins was speaking loosely: “Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.” I suppose that last “and” really means “and/or.” In short, “fascist” has — like “fundamentalist” — more or less become a hyper-plastic smear-word (i.e. a verbal ball of stinking mud) used for dismissive, hostility-stirring thought stopping.

    Just the sort of thing Aristotle warned us against in his The Rhetoric, when he advised that our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are very different from those we make when we are pained and hostile.

    You are ever right, that there is a tendency to abuse the word — especially by those closest to what fascism is, as a political ideology of the LEFT — as a polemical barb.

    [NB: I like Vox Day's "revised" political spectrum, which now that absolute monarchism is off the table, puts anarchism on the extreme right, with libertarianism then modern conservativism (i.e. more or less, classical liberalism) in centre-right, then shading off into the various degrees of more liberal to more strict socialism as state control rises towards outright Stalinist communism. There are degrees, even of communism -- cf. Yugoslavia and Stalin or Mao. Back in the bad old days, classical liberal democracy was a radical notion, now it is conservative! oddly, Communism's utopian golden age was one where the state withered away into nothing -- which never happened and could never happen with real, radically imperfect people.]

    3] Carl on Kant, 36:

    Actually, as we can see from the Stanford Enc of Phil article on the topic, Kant composed a Moral Argument to God:

    . . . The most famous version of the argument from moral order is found in the writings of Kant (variously formulated in different texts post 1781). Kant’s “moral proof” can be summarized thus . . . .

    20. It is rationally and morally necessary to attain the perfect good (happiness arising out of complete virtue).
    21. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
    22. Attaining the perfect good is only possible if natural order and causality are part of an overarching moral order and causality.
    23. Moral order and causality are only possible if we postulate a God as their source. (See Kant 1996/1962, 240; 5/124-5)

    Now of course this falls short of knowledge more or less naively understood as certain and true belief relative to demonstrative proof from unchallengeable premises — i.e foundationalism, naively and narrowly understood.

    But, as I discuss here, in a revised form of a lecture note/handout, such an attempted definition of either knowledge or proof is both artificial and indefensible. Indeed, such and approach is — if applied generally — self-referentially incoherent. If applied selectively to what one wishes to reject [but not to what one sees as plausible], it becomes selectively hyper-skeptical and inconsistent. In either case, self-contradiction, thus absurdity, results.

    Looking at Kant through the lens of inference to best explanation in light of worldview level comparative difficulties [cf. earlier in the just linked note], the argument at once comes into its own as a practical “proof” that God makes the best sense of the moral order we experience.

    So, it is not so much that Kant is “a theoretical agnostic and a practical theist,” but that we see here the limitations of human reasoning, proof and knowledge. Thence, we come at length to a humbler, Plantinga-style reformulation: knowledge as well-warranted, credibly true and trustworthy belief. But, with room for correction and extension, due to our finitude and fallibility.
    _____________

    Bottom-line: Dawkins cannot live with the credible social/political outcome of his system of thought and its inherent amorality: might makes right.

    That should raise a warning flag that the system is unable to account for reality as we experience it. Thence,the point of Kant’s moral argument applies.

    GEM of TKI

  38. Patrick, do you know why this has recurred, and so fast?

    No idea, but I just emailed akismet again.

  39. Berceuse: Suicide could be described as an act of “self de-selection” within the Darwinian scheme of Natural Selection.

  40. What he is saying is exceedingly simple. Darwinian Law says that the elite (of a particular environment) will survive to pass on their traits and all others will perish. To make this the law of a society says that those traits we deem to be most beneficial SHOULD survive and be passed on and all others should not.

    As thinking and reasonable beings you won’t find many people on either side of this tired argument that would want to live in a society like that. Allow religion or whatever dogma you wish to create govern our societies as long as they follow simple moral ideals.

    Dawkins is not flipflopping, he’s simply saying there is a place for philosophical dogmas in thinking society.

    (first post, I’m going to have a lot of fun here)

  41. [...] So we see that Dawkins is not just any sort of fool.  He is a simpering gutless fool.  He wants to have his atheism with its concomitant materialism, but he does not have the courage to face the earth shattering metaphysical conclusions that follow ineluctability from his premises.  Instead, he tries to smuggle foundational ethics (of a particularly Christian variety at that!) in through the back door.  He shirks not only in ethics but also in politics.  See here. [...]

Leave a Reply