When the Apostle Paul delivers a crushing rebuke of man's sinful rebellion against God in the opening chapter of his letter to the Roman Christians, he pens a line that finds extraordinary application to contemporary American culture:
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
There is perhaps no modern thinker who best embodies this trait than the celebrated intellectual fool, atheist Richard Dawkins. Please understand that my use of the word "fool" in describing him isn't as a pejorative, but rather a biblical label given to those who would attempt to find or declare meaning and purpose to human existence apart from the reality of God.
While I pray that Dawkins will eventually admit the glaring inconsistencies in his worldview that he pridefully pretends do not exist, I am thankful that God uses him in such a powerful way to offer articulate insights into the reckless irrationality that accompanies godless thinking.
It's one thing for Christians like myself to offer hypothetical illustrations to the world showing what happens to human ethics apart from God's moral authority. It is another for Richard Dawkins to actually demonstrate them personally. And he's at it again, praise God:
Two important clarifications:
- For those unaware, eugenics is the belief that only the most "fit" human beings should be allowed to reproduce. It's the policy that was advocated by racists like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who wanted to make sure we didn't have so many ignorant, handicapped, or black people running around. It's the philosophical extension of social Darwinism that Hitler embraced as he committed genocide against Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and all "lesser humans" in pursuit of the master (Aryan) race.
- Dawkins made very clear that he was not recommending or applauding a eugenic policy. Even though he has done so in the past, suggesting that killing unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome in the womb is the moral thing to do, he was adamant that he has changed his mind. His current belief is that we humans should oppose eugenics as immoral, even while acknowledging that it "works."
As I read this self-owning tweet storm from the Oxford-educated zoologist, it was as if millions of atheist voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced in the morass of moral contradictions they foolishly embrace.
Dawkins has once again revealed the glaring failure of atheist thought to account for a moral reality to the universe. To the godless, there is nothing distinct or set apart about humans. We are, after all, just highly evolved animals who have emerged from the same ancestral ball of primordial goo as these "cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses" Dawkins references. Therefore, it must follow logically that if eugenics works on all other living things, it must surely work on humans as well.
But after such an acknowledgement, something remarkable happens to Dawkins. He recognizes intrinsically that there is something distinct and different about human beings. There is a moral reality that must be accounted for when considering our behavior, and so he quickly demurs from any notion of advocating eugenics on humans. It's not a question of whether it would work, he says, but whether or not we ought to allow it. And Dawkins offers an unequivocal rejection … on moral grounds.
But wait – where does this moral authority come from? Isn't it Dawkins, after all, who has written so eloquently that,
"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."
Yet for one who embraces such a moralistically indifferent view, Dawkins sounds quite moralistic when he is condemning Christian parents as being abusive, when he is denouncing the perceived silencing of scientists through expansive libel laws, or when he is demanding that we reject eugenics on moral grounds.
My, what tangled webs we weave.
Dawkins and other atheists defend their moralizing on evolutionary grounds, of course. They say that morals evolve as a way to preserve our DNA and spare our species. Leave aside the fact that such an answer falls well short of explaining the vast majority of altruistic behavior of humans, and simply focus on this eugenic case to see the inconsistency.
At its heart, eugenics is intended to best preserve the species by carrying out the work of natural selection – ridding us of "lesser" humans and promoting the best genes. So if your moral compass is calibrated upon the sole end of perpetuating the species, Mr. Dawkins, why wouldn't you advocate it?
Listen to his befuddled silence to that question and you'll hear God speak.