Nothing Is “Right” or “Wrong” – Except . .

I can't remember whether atheist Richard Dawkins is working on wife #3 or #4 but when, as a marriage counsellor, I hear people saying the following, it often indicates rationalizing a behaviour that is already or soon to be put in play.

Beyond that, I have rarely seen a better example of the absurd, illogical and incoherence that beholds in the minds of those who accept the world-view of atheism. Below we find Richard Dawkins saying, “Nothing is wrong.” At the very same time, in a supercilious manner so common to the man and other “strong” atheists, he relates something he considers to be very, very wrong indeed. While he's at it, Dawkins encourages people to do their “duty” to lie when confronted with behaviours that others might consider wrong. I can see how he fits into the leadership role of atheism so easily.

“I want to raise another question that interests me. Why are we so obsessed with monogamous fidelity in the first place? The underlying presumption — that a human being has some kind of property rights over another human being’s body — is unspoken because it is assumed to be obvious. But with what justification?

In one of the most disgusting stories to hit the British newspapers last year, the wife of a well-known television personality, Chris Tarrant, hired a private detective to spy on him. The detective reported evidence of adultery and Tarrant’s wife divorced him, in unusually vicious style. But what shocked me was the way public opinion sided with Tarrant’s horrible wife. Far from despising, as I do, anybody who would stoop so low as to hire a detective for such a purpose, large numbers of people, including even Mr. Tarrant himself, seemed to think she was fully justified. Far from concluding, as I would, that he was well rid of her, he was covered with contrition and his unfortunate mistress was ejected, covered with odium. The explanation of all these anomalous behaviour pattern is the ingrained assumption of the deep rightness and appropriateness of sexual jealousy. It is manifest all the way from Othello to the French “crime passionnel” law, down to the “love rat” language of tabloid newspapers.

Why should you deny your loved one the pleasure of sexual encounters with others, if he or she is that way inclined? I, for one, feel drawn to the idea that there is something noble and virtuous in rising above nature in this way. And why don’t we all admire — as I increasingly do — those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy, stop fretting about who is “cheating on” whom.”

For someone who eschews the concept of right and wrong, good or bad (except of course in his twisted and bigoted mind, all religion is wrong and bad), Dawkins really does make one's head spin. I suppose once you've been a raving atheist as long as Dawkins, desultory and contradictory thoughts no longer light any internal awareness that one's thought process is embarrassing and should be kept to oneself.

Lead on O Prince. Lead on!