I’ll stick with the French fries.
Chuck Colson said to test the validity of a worldview, follow it to its logical conclusion. In the case of Richard Dawkins’ naturalistic atheism, just don’t follow him to the dinner table.
The Christianity-despising biologist tweeted: “What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?”
Of course, as Wesley J. Smith points out, what Dawkins really wants to overcome is the idea that humans are special, made in God’s image.
This is offensive to the naturalist. It discriminates against other life forms. If human beings, mealworms and hedgehogs really are nothing more than a collection of molecules randomly cohered and evolved into living things, then human beings are no better than said mealworms and hedgehogs.
Or, for Dawkins, beef cattle.
Look. If the universe and everything in it—including our brains—arose by chance, we can’t possibly know what’s good, bad, or true. Including naturalistic atheism. Which is why, philosophically speaking, naturalistic atheism eats its young
Have a Follow-up Question?
Want to dig deeper?
If you want to challenge yourself as many others have done, sign up below.