Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Richard Dawkins, as seen apart from proxy Darwin worship


By a woman raising a special needs child:

My daughter needed 10 times the support of a typical kid. It also felt like the truest, most human work I could do: to love someone into whomever they would become.

I was learning. Meanwhile, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins tweeted that it was immoral for a pregnant woman to knowingly carry to term a child with Down syndrome because, according to him, disabilities decrease happiness and increase suffering. I was appalled.

When Fiona reached kindergarten in 2016, I fretted: Would her teachers think the same? That her life wasn’t “worth it”? At a standard public school, among kids twice her size, would she be dismissed as incapable, rejected as less-than?

I couldn’t know that in one year, her gross motor confidence would climb. She’d saunter down the hall with the height of a 3-year-old and the confidence of a cool kid.

Heather Lanier, “The Real Work of Parenting a Rare Girl” at Wall Street Journal

Paywalled, unfortunately.

Also: Sarah Palin pleads with her son Trig to be tolerant of Richard Dawkins: “ But, in my request for you to be tolerant, I’d have to warn Trig he must be tolerant, too, because he may superficially look at you as kind of awkward. I’ll make sure he’s polite, though!”

Dawkins, no matter the audience, always comes across as arrogant and views himself as superior to everyone. Arrogance does not exist in nature, yet there is no shortage of it in man. He is hypocritical, as all atheists must be. Free will does not exist, which means morality cannot exist, yet morality is used by atheists on a daily basis. If someone truly believed there was no free will, then they would never use morality as justification for anything. If there is no free will, then there is no need for justification. BobRyan
Bornagain77 @ 4
Whom is this “I” that you speak of? and how can this “I” possibly be absolutely certain of any moral in the atheist’s worldview of “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”?
'I' is me and 'I' is you and 'I' is everyone else. Except 'I' cannot be certain there is anyone else. I doubt there is any absolute certainty to be had anywhere in this life, much as we find that unsettling, not even that 'I' existed yesterday. Seversky
I have to say I absolutely disagree with him (Dawkins) on this one.
Whom is this "I" that you speak of? and how can this "I" possibly be absolutely certain of any moral in the atheist's worldview of "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”?
The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - STEVEN PINKER - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.” – Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, 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 that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
I thought he lived in England. I have enjoyed his books but I have to say I absolutely disagree with him on this one. Seversky
He lives in hypocrisy, like many of his ilk, he is not capable of living the life he claims has to be true AaronS1978
How can Dawkins claim anything to be moral without morality being unique to humans? BobRyan

Leave a Reply