Nietzsche claimed that the “death of God” would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective and any coherent sense of objective truth. Friedrich Nietzsche – perhaps best known for his statement “God is dead” – believed that human behaviour was ultimately based on individual people’s “will to power”.

So let’s see where this level of honesty might lead. Unless there is independent justification for such a concept, an intellectually honest atheist should scrap it. They have unequal distribution of intellect, of athletic ability, of attractiveness. “All people are created equal” is a wonderful basis for a just society, but without the Creator it makes no sense. The biggest problem with the humanist approach is that it requires staunch adherence to beliefs which are insupportable in the absence of God. This philosophy maintains that ethics and morality can be derived from human rationality (“ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation”, as the humanist articles of faith put it), despite the dearth of evidence for such rationality in human affairs. Dawkins is happy to propose secular humanism as an alternative moral compass, despite its unfortunate tendency to promote eugenics and infanticide. Morality is an interesting case in point here. In the midst of their tireless self-promotion as evangelists of the bright atheist future, there is a marked unwillingess to be honest about the details of where exactly their ideals would lead humanity.

are very happy to make grand and sweeping claims, but they seem to lack the intellectual courage to follow their arguments through. No, I’m more disappointed with their timidity. Not specifically with their conclusions, although I think their investigative methods to reach said conclusions are remarkable sloppy.

Vox day young