The atheist writer Richard Dawkins has observed that according to the findings of modern science, the universe has all the properties of a system that is utterly devoid of meaning. The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference. Dawkins further argues that we human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules, assembled into functional units over millennia of natural selection, and as for the soul--well, that's an illusion!
To no one's surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules.
If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science.
One does not have to believe in a Christian God to understand a savagely hateful crime took place. None of those people needed to die and we may never be able to make sense of it. All we can do is honor the memories and be vigilent in stoopping people like Cho Seung-hui from killing. Religiously dividing people during a tragedy smacks of political grandstanding.
D'Souza also wrote the book "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11". He isn't aiming for fairness or historical accuracy.
D'Souza is proof that god exists, and has given us a poor, pathetic soul to laugh at.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, only a person whose mind is seriously deranged and constantly worried about how to define themselves ideological would think, "32 people shot dead, hm. Where's all the atheists responding? THIS PROVES ME RIGHT!!"
On the topic of only writing according to ideology, I'm reminded me of an Instapundit post yesterday: "GEORGE WILL ON LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE: Raising the drinking age was a major betrayal of federalism on the part of the Reagan Administration. It should be undone."
Yes Glenn, because federalism is ALL THAT MATTERS! Not DEATHS that result from irresponsible adults drinking and then going behind the wheel. Nope. It's ALL federalism!
Christ. It's like the popular kids in high school all over again, wondering about what clothes they should wear and if wearing the wrong kind of shoes will make them look like a dork, no matter how comfortable they are. Well, we can't have that!
If Glenn and George F'in Will wanted to have an honest conversation about teenagers and drinking, it would start with how their side attempts to repress all forms of supposedly immoral behavior via the zero tolerance approach, how such methods insure that kids will not know how to drink in moderation when they encounter alcohol, therefore binge drinking becomes popular leading to people getting hurt and sometimes dying. I think that has a little more substance than fucking federalism.
Maybe Dimbulb D'Souza can write soliloquies on how atheism is to blame for drunk driving. What a goddamn fucking dipshit he is.