After countless arguments, disputes, debates, books, articles and outrages, I am fascinated that Dawkins’ life work has culminated in the observation that, (in his opinion), “there is probably no God”. Not only that, but he plans to plaster it all over London buses according to this article which Lucy kindly emailed me. Well Dawkins, you big girl’s blouse. You really have excelled yourself this time. Either have the guts to say what you really think (i.e. if you think that there is no God) or shut up.
The Methodist church have responded to this campaign by saying that they applaud Dawkins for encouraging debate about Christianity and in a small way, so do I, except that this response is a little thoughtless. This does not encourage debate about Christianity, it simply tells people what they want to hear. God, if He is real (and I believe that He is), is a bit of an inconvenient truth. We are obsessed with democracy, but under God, we live in a theocracy. If we were to look at reality, we do not live in a democratic society at all. We think we do, because Web 2.0 has enabled two-way communication – millions of participators can now exercise “freedom of speech” on blogs, forums, social networking sites etc. However, until bodies and organisations begin to collaborate and say “We think” and not “I think”, then we are but a sea of egocentric individuals shouting all at once in a cacophonous manner, in the vain and somewhat naive hope that one or more being might take notice.
So Dawkins asserts that we should all enjoy ourselves because there is probably no God. This campaign, by its very nature, makes a mockery of life itself. If he believes that there is no God, then, not only should he enjoy himself, but he should go out and kill people, he should steal from people and he could even rape a few women if he likes. Go and enjoy life Dawkins! If, as he suggests, we are just ‘accidents’, then we should have no moral conscience because there is no basis for morality and, indeed there is no good and bad or right and wrong. Why does Dawkins care if people enjoy life or not? It makes no difference to him if life means nothing anyway. Science, whilst real, is not emotional, because there is no functionality or purpose in emotion. A plant does not have sense of right or wrong because it does not have an intelligence. Why not? It doesn’t need one in order to function.
If you argue with me and say that we do need a moral conscience in order to function then what is the basis of that morality? What are we comparing good and bad, or right and wrong to? Good monkey bad monkey? What is it that makes bad bad? A sense of right and wrong appears to be inbuilt, but there is no purpose for this, UNLESS there is an ultimate ‘right’ and an ultimate ‘wrong’, (which, in Christian belief is God and the devil) which would suggest that there are consequences to the choices that we make.
I don’t believe that many people have a problem with the existence of God actually, I think that most people have an issue with religion, which I can understand. I think that people also miss the point about heaven and hell and still assume that you have to be a really good person to get to heaven rather than believing that Jesus told the truth. Well I don’t know any perfect people, the ones I love the most are flawed all over. I hope this does get a discussion going and I hope and pray that Dawkins finds his peace one day