I think I must be the biggest fan in the world of Richard Dawkins’ logic. I say this based on the fact that although I disagree with him on almost everything, I’m using my own definition of the word ‘logic’, and using a sample size of only one: me.
Think that sounds silly? Good. Me too.
So, to add to the silliness, have a look at an article written by Dawkins himself in which he shows that atheists are more generous than Christians.
Here’s a couple of key facts he uses to convince us:
- giving to churches or faith-based charities doesn’t count as generosity
- giving to atheist charities (such as the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science) does count as generosity
Oh right. There we go then. I don’t think I need to say anything to that, do I?
But that’s not my biggest gripe with his article, or with his general logic expressed here. What does Dawkins actually mean when he talks about being ‘good’? I think you’ll find that under the atheist worldview (particularly Dawkins’ extreme version of it) we’re all results of chance and random mutation, so ‘good’ is simply something our DNA has created from itself, and therefore is changeable at will.
So, if you’re an atheist, why not keep your money and spend it on yourself? Stop being nice and charitable because you only live once, and any emotions you feel for other people are only biological results of your heritage and nothing to be considered.
Thankfully Christianity knows what goodness looks like, and his name is Jesus.