Contemplating source of morality
I have learned one thing from Gene Johnson. One need not investigate or research for the facts of history. If you do not like what the facts say, just dismiss them and make up your own version and pass it off as fact. There is no sense discussing the past with someone with so little regard for evidence. Johnson implies that only atheists are scientific and that atheists can be ethical, loving and caring. While I will admit that many atheists are ethical and caring people, I can verify that only by using my own set of ethics to evaluate them, since atheism specifically denies the existence of absolute morals. Many atheists argue that the universe and all of life is the result of random chemical accidents. There is no purpose or meaning to anything.
Dawkins says, we all just “... dance to the music of our genes ... in a world with nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Atheists can behave morally but they cannot explain why they bother to. Nor can they explain how they define morality. You may not need “magic” to behave morally, but you do need an explanation for what is moral and what is not. Can chemical reactions be good or bad? What is the source of the atheist’s morality and what evidence suggests it is true?
Johnson says truth is an illusion yet he continues to argue for the truth of his ideas. Why? He writes as if his ideas have meaning while maintaining that life has no meaning.
In a world of only mechanistic causes, man’s ideas become just the result of the “dance of his genes.” He is destined to think what his nature demands. As such, no one’s ideas are right or wrong. They are just what they must be. Why then all this angst about false, magical ideas? They are just the results of the same processes you advocate. That nothing means anything is what you believe. You then, are the one who must live and operate within the constraints of such a world.