Richard Dawkins is well known for the sophisticated air that drapes the lack of sophistication he exhibits in the statements he makes in attempting to defend the atheistic and godless world view. Of course, as an AGT, Dawkins is not alone in this, but as he is one of the most prominent of the braying AGTs, he will serve as our examplar. While Dawkins claims atheism, we can all be sure that he doesn't really believe that God does not exist because he has not committed suicide, nor am I aware that he's actively seeking the means to end his life¹See. Instead of fulfilling the mandate of the blind atheistic faith, Dawkins fulfills the created need for all humans to worship something by having adopted scientism as his religion of choice. Today, I came across an excerpt of an interview with him conducted by Alex O'Connor.

In that interview, Dawkins makes the following statements as to why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig:

• Professional debaters like William Craig, I have no time for him. He's got this sort of loud, rather pompous voice: premise one, deduction two, and things like that. And the audience I suppose is supposed to be impressed.
• [On debating William Lane Craig] I've vowed not to. I feel such contempt for him because of, I don't know whether you've seen what he says about the Israelites slaughtering the Midianites. Instead of saying what any decent theologian would say "Well it never happened, and this is just Old Testament story" he says "Well the Midianites had it coming because they were so sinful." And then umm, if you worry about the Midianite children who had their brains beaten out of them, well that's OK because they went straight to heaven. And that finished him off as far as I was concerned for me. I actually wrote a piece in the Guardian saying why I will never have anything to do with him.

In the first point, Dawkins begins by expressing his aversion to 'professional' debaters. Any person who has read what he has written on atheism and Christianity or heard him in a debate will immediately understand why Dawkins prefers to debate with amateurs. Further, Dawkins is stating that because Craig makes use of logic (syllogistic reasoning) when debating, Dawkins can't be bothered. This is not surprising, because when one reads just about anything by Dawkins, one rarely encounters logic. Instead, it mostly consists in him being shocked at what the Bible says, that people believe it, etc. The vast majority of what he states is simply a rehash of points made by people in the past such as Thomas Henry Huxley, although it must be said, the erudition and force of his rhetoric makes Dawkins look like a rank amateur by comparison. Where the two are on par is the squalid nature of their core beliefs about the universe, the world, and mankind. As to who is impressed with well-formed arguments, it can only be said that those interested in well-formed arguments are impressed, while those interested in emotive ones such as those in which Dawkins deals are not. An irony arises from Dawkins' aversion to logic because as a scientism cleric, his shtick is supposedly that science is everything that we need, and that science explains everything of importance, but true science has a strong dependency upon logic, yet, logic-based debate repels him. One would rightly conclude then, that in consonance with all AGTs, Dawkins' faith in his religion is blind indeed.

Moving on to the second point, Dawkins is expressing moral horror at what Craig supposedly said. I don't know what Craig said or wrote about the Midianites, but what I do know is that simply dismissing something out of hand is not an argument, i.e., it is not an exercise in reason. In the linked-to video, Dawkins makes reference to an opinion piece he wrote that was published in The Guardian which supposedly explains why he (Dawkins) “will never have anything to do with him.” The article contains nothing substantive: it is the usual atheist scorn heaping and ridiculing. The epigraph alone suffices to convey to the reader what is needed to know the score: “This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.” Dawkins instead chooses to 'debate' supposed theologians who, like Dawkins, rather than deal with the difficult portions of Holy Writ, simply write them off as fiction. This makes sense of course for Dawkins because it is inordinately more difficult to launch an attack against a fortification head on than it is to use a side door that has been unlocked and opened by the ones who are supposed to man it and keep it secure, who then invite an avowed enemy in for a 'friendly' little chat!

In referring to Craig as "an apologist for genocide," Dawkins is tendentiously portraying Craig's attempt to explain a divine mandate in the distant past as tantamount to Craig advocating for 'genocide' in the here and now. In this charge, Dawkins has been at best careless, at worst purposely misleading. Considering that there was a 13-year timespan between Dawkins' article in The Guardian and the dialog with Alex O'Connor, one would have to conclude that Dawkins is doing this purposely. Why? Well in the ensuing 13 years since the article was written, Dawkins has been saying essentially the same thing ad infinitum. Additionally, there is no evidence of any edits or corrections to the article in which Dawkins has issued a mea culpa. If it was carelessness on Dawkins' part, we'd have to countenance 13 years (at least) of him fumbling about with the truth of the matter, which while possible, is not probable. Decidedly, the man is a proponent of the greatest of evils, but he's certainly not unintelligent. We'd also have to countenance that for at least the past 13 years, none of his ardent devotees (who, while clearly not being the most principled lot, are of course, according to their own report, the best and brightest among us) have been capable of making this distinction and bringing it to their cleric's attention. Therefore, because we always strive to be reasonable, the only tenable conclusion is that Dawkins has misconstrued Craig's statements on purpose in order to attempt to besmirch the man's character and put up a smoke screen to cover the real reason why he won't debate him. Hint: Dawkins would lose. Badly.

The reason Dawkins would suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of Craig is the same reason he was roundly trounced by John Lennox. It's the same reason Sam Harris was made to look rather like a bumbler by Craig in their debate²Craig laid out premises, demonstrated the logic of the conclusions, while Harris engaged in wide-ranging storytelling and 'imagine this' scenarios, not a single instance of stating his premises and moving from them in a logical fashion to a valid conclusion.. Logic. Considering Dawkins' aversion to logic, I'm somewhat reluctant to bring logic into this, but, in order to refute something, one must state one's premises and then from those do one's best to draw valid conclusions, or demonstrate that the logic of one's adversary in a debate has violated some established rule of logic. Sometimes the inferences in play will be deductive (syllogistic), sometimes inductive, and many times abductive (presumptively plausible), and each of these require different tactics to either support or refute, all of which take effort. It is much easier to simply pour scorn upon the statements of one's opponent as does Dawkins and most of the 'new' atheists³Refreshingly, I have not witnessed Alex O'Connor doing this..

In the process of analyzing Dawkins' statements, we will not only be dispensing with any pretense to morality feigned by Dawkins himself, but also any feigned by AGTs in toto, for as is made clear in Atheist Godless Types, all AGTs have the same motivation and impact upon the world: they begin with moral and intellectual squalor, and end with putrescence, destruction, and death. The evidence of the truth of the previous all but surrounds every denizen of Western Civilization, but as it is the case that their consciences have been so scorched by the AGT world view and their ability to see danger and destruction looming before their very eyes has been all but blinded by the glowing screens of their entertainments, it will more-than-likely be dismissed summarily. We will address each of the following propositions in turn:

1. It is impossible for Dawkins to proclaim anything to be either moral or immoral without contradicting himself.
2. It is impossible for Dawkins to have a moral framework.
3. In expressing moral indignation at the deaths of the Midianites, Dawkins is engaging in a bald falsehood⁴Of course, in the AGT (and by proxy Dawkins') world view, neither good nor evil exist, and so deceptions are just fine, so in that sense he is consistent..

In contending with the first proposition, we will start by consulting the words of Russell Kirk, then Jean-Paul Sartre, and finally Dawkins himself, before delving into the nitty gritty of the matter.

Russell Kirk, in his grand and sweeping survey of what it is that lies at the heart of what made the United States the envy of the world and history, invokes the voice of Orestes Brownson to make the point that only that which transcends man can give moral authority:

Equivalently, In Existentialism is a Humanism, the ostensible atheist Jean-Paul Sartre tells us all but the same when he states that absent God, there is no such thing as good or evil. All is left up to the whim of man. This is pure logic, pure, pitiless reason at work. It is the same type of logic that informs us that motion is impossible. No one hinged to reality would countenance a fool who tried to convince us that motion is impossible, yet, we do countenance the most pernicious of all possible fools who tell us that good and evil do not exist. The only reason we do so is because we posture that it gives us license to commit evil. No person hears such statements and then proclaims: "Wow, good and evil don't actually exist, or are relative? I didn't know that. I'm going to go right out and start a charity for the homeless! It was my belief that good and evil actually exist that has prevented me from serving my fellow man for the entirety of my life." No, it is, without exception, a license for condoning or committing evil acts. Because there is nothing that Dawkins has spoken against Christianity or theism of a propositional nature that wasn't spoken or adumbrated by others previously, it is unsurprising that Dawkins more or less avers the same when he states that the observable universe has precisely the properties one would expect with "no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Any person who attempts to get around the validity of the conclusions based upon the AGT premises is a fool or a liar. Further, absent a positive affirmation of God's existence and accountability to Him, it then follows that there can be no meaning to life other than the merest of pretenses unto meaning which is manufactured by the fancy which will then fade into less than dust upon death.

What all of the previous makes as clear as the Summer's sun, is that absent the Lawgiver, any person can assert that something is 'good' and another person can declare that very same thing in the precise same circumstance to be 'evil.' Even if some human enforcer arises to impose upon a culture or civilization that something is 'good' does not change the arbitrary nature of it.

For those clever fellows who protest and bring to the fore the question of an infinite regress past the mind of God who is granted sole authority to declare that which is to be accounted as good or evil (i.e., the schoolboy's interrogative “Who is God's authority?”), considering that we are absolutely helpless when it comes to understanding our own finite minds and how they operate, let alone the finite minds of other people, to then make an infinite jump and force upon God's infinite mind our logical systems, difficulties with regress, etc., which are rife with all kinds of flaws and paradoxes when one gets down to the nitty gritty of it, is not only foolish but the height of hubris. It is useless, it is meaningless. Either God exists or He doesn't. Only a fool proclaims that something (God) is a fiction and then turns around and creates an ad hoc fiction (an infinite regress past God) in order to undermine what they originally claimed to be a fiction (God). Infinite regresses are something with which we contend as we crawl between heaven and earth. To posit that somehow the Author and source of truth is constrained by our inherently flawed logical systems is evidence of a disconnect from reality.

Dawkins' aversion to logic notwithstanding, before proceeding with our defense of the validity of proposition one, we need to define some terms and concepts:

1. Morality, at bottom, has at least to do with seeking to enunciate and clarify that which is good or evil, righteous or unrighteous.
2. Atheism and its GT variants, at bottom, involve at least the lack of a positive affirmation of God's existence⁵Because any person who actually believes that God does not exist would be actively seeking to find ways to end their life, it then follows that 'atheists' such as Dawkins are only nominally so: they deny, but don't really believe that God does not exist. This is why the Bible says, "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God,'" rather than believes. For a complete explication of this, see..
3. In the logic of conditionals, whether one adopts the Philonian approach, or the Diodoran approach, there is agreement between both, that a conditional is considered to be invalid (i.e., non-truth preserving) if the antecedent obtains but the consequent does not.

Next, we will formalize the conditionals that are in play within Dawkins' world view as a nominal atheist, where for each, the antecedent is the first list item, and the second item is the consequent, with all being propositional:

1. If God⁶As is made plain in the article Atheist Godless Types (AGT)s, semantic legerdemain is the source of any perceived difference in the world views of atheists, simatheists, agnostics, and apatheists, and so all of what follows applies in equal measure to all of them, whatever name they go by. does not exist, then good and evil do not exist.
   • God does not exist.
   • Good and evil do not exist.
2. If good and evil do not exist, then morality does not exist.
   • Good and evil do not exist.
   • Morality does not exist.
3. If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
   • God does not exist.
   • Morality does not exist.

The validity of conditional #1 follows from the words of Orestes Brownson, Jean-Paul Sartre, Dawkins himself, the Bible, philosophy in general, and the testament of all written history that deals with the nature of man. Even if one were to cavil at this, it suffices that for the purposes of this discussion, in evaluating the statements of Dawkins, it will be considered operatively true because Dawkins himself has affirmed his belief in it.

Before commencing with proposition #2, as an aside, I have noticed that Dawkins relatively rarely bandies about terms like 'evil' and 'good.' Words such as those put a line in the sand and are to be avoided by those who tend to equivocate. Ronald Reagan, when he referred to the Soviet Union as an 'evil empire,' was roundly excoriated for his 'absolutist' language. It is likely that Dawkins avoids these words because he is at the very least calculating, and he shies away from explicitly using any words that annihilate any pretense that he is consistent in his beliefs. Instead, he uses words like 'horrid,' 'abominable,' 'disgusting,' as the descriptive adjectives of beliefs and ideas that he finds immoral according to what we will soon discover to be his ad hoc morality, which is no morality at all.

Conditional #2 is built from the definition of morality from the print editions of both the 2nd Edition of the OED and the unabridged MW dictionaries which predate the unhinged ideological upheavals which have taken place in the editorship of both and is therefore valid.

Because conditionals #1 and #2 are both valid, we can conclude that conditional #3 is also valid because it follows from the previous two conditionals. In other words, if one were to proclaim that the antecedent of conditional #3 were true, it is impossible for the consequent of that same conditional to be false. Dawkins has proclaimed that God does not exist in at least the following ways:

• There are no reasons for the existence of a God.
• God is a delusion.
• God is as worthy of belief as are fairies.

Even though Dawkins won't come right out and state absolutely that God does not exist, he proceeds, speaks, and behaves as though the proposition is true. He behaves as a Pyrrhonist in this, but it is akin to someone stating, "When it comes to the existence of my wife, I cannot be certain about it due to the infinite regresses one encounters in dealing with the justificatory component of knowledge." But then behaves as though she does exist. We will deal with stated words and observed actions. Despite Dawkins exemplifying the AGT's tendency to attempt to slither around this issue via semantic legerdemain, we will use the sharp-edged shovel of logic to chop off this particular snake's head irrespective of whether we can demonstrate metaphysical certitude as to the snake's existence or not. An interesting aside to this is that because knowledge is defined to be a justified, true, belief, that is non-Gettiered, Dawkins in this is proceeding by faith, not knowledge, and certainly not science.

A key to understanding the morality problem faced by AGTs like Dawkins is that it is a category error to confound external actions with morality. AGTs focus on externalities: I behave just as well (perhaps even better!) than that Christian over there or some of the people I can find in the Bible. The rich young ruler was turned away by Christ even though he had apparently followed every jot and tittle of the Law. AGTs put on airs of morality as they relax atop the civilization built by Christians, in much the same way that the philosophes did in revolutionary France, or as the Greek 'atheists' did in Ancient Greece: the AGT only comes along after the hard work has been done to establish safety, security, and stability, and then pipe in hand, reclining in an easy chair with a dram of cognac on the stand next to him, commences with incessant nitpicking. Their pretenses to morality are truly contemptible, and in the minds of those with a perspective anchored in reality, it is not unlike homosexuals engaging in mock marriages: sure they can dress up in the clothes, exchange unholy vows, have the reception, and get the piece of paper from the government, but everyone knows deep down that it is a pernicious farce of true marriage.

Because Dawkins is an ostensible atheist, he is compelled by the tenets that he pretends to avow, to at least deny the existence of morality. Hence, were he consistent, he could take no moral stand on anything. Yet, he is regularly using moral language. He is akin to a man who denies that numbers exist yet spends the entirety of his life working as an accountant writing books inveighing against accountants.

For Dawkins in particular, and the AGT in general, the consequent of conditional #3 follows, and hence proposition #1 is true.

The truth of proposition #2 follows trivially because if there can be no morality, then there can be no moral framework. However, that being said, let us cautiously, very cautiously, dip our minds into Dawkins' stream of consciousness and proceed as he does, ignoring the validity of proposition #1, along with being content with stark contradictions. Where does that lead as regards the veridical status of proposition #2?

To the same conclusion it turns out. By definition, if God be not the author of one's moral framework, then it is the work of man, and therefore ad hoc. No matter how many people might support it, it will have no authority higher than the whim of some man at some time and will still be ad hoc. Henry David Thoreau stated, "All perception of truth is the detection of an analogy; we reason from our hands to our head." Using our hands, let us therefore open a dictionary and see whether we can use it to reason to our heads. Look up the definition of a word, any word, it matters not which. If everyone is free to define that word as they see fit, then the word cannot be said to have any meaning whatsoever apart from a particular definition for a particular person at a particular time. According to the dismal world view of the AGT, such a 'framework' would be nothing more than an emanation of a burbling cauldron of chemical reactions within what the materialists consider to be our 'wet computer brain:' why would any man submit to that? In essence, all authority, meaning, and relevance will have been drained from the word. And so it is with ad hoc moral frameworks: they have no authority, and they provide neither dependable structure nor guidance; not even to the person who defines such a 'framework,' because it can be remade at a moment's notice to fit any given circumstance. An evil phenomenon manifested most starkly by Dawkins himself as will be seen shortly.

And so, the truth of proposition #2 follows even in the case of making an allowance for Dawkins' contradictions. When one surveys the confused mess that is the mind of a typical declarative atheist such as Dawkins, it is readily seen why it is that there has never been a civilization built by AGTs and why there never could be. The best they can do is come along and wreck what others have built, specifically in the case of Christendom, that which Christians have built.

Moving on to proposition #3, it is readily discerned that because Dawkins is making a moral point, he is, in essence, taking a moral stand: he is saying that is wrong! where the 'that' in this case is how Craig handles the story of the Midianites from presumably Numbers 31.

Before addressing Dawkins' crocodile tears at the deaths of Midianite children, let me state that the horrors of the fallenness of this world can neither be numbered nor adequately addressed by man. The horrors of war in particular, cannot be avoided: only those bereft of any knowledge of history and without the barest modicum of understanding of the nature of man and warfare can think otherwise. I plan at some point to undertake an analysis of the Midianites and other such terrible events in the Bible, but here is not the place. What can be addressed is the patent hypocrisy and incongruity of Dawkins and those of the AGT persuasion in their supposed indignation at 'God' and the Bible. If a person were to proclaim to all and sundry their love for children and their deep sorrow at the evils and accidents which befall children, but it was observed that that same person wept at the death of an unfamiliar child of one race, but was indifferent about the death of a child of a different race, any observant person would, mutatis mutandis, conclude that there was a hypocritical at best, evil at worst, bias in that person: their 'sorrow' (as well as their 'love') could only be construed as likely calculating and self-serving. We don't know how many Midianite children there were, but it was probably in the thousands. Dawkins laments, his heart breaks for the Midianite children, yet he does not condemn, and in fact supports the murder of children. Not in the distant past, but in the here and now. In the UK alone, since 1967, there have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million murders of children that have taken place. In the United States, where Dawkins has been enormously popular with ostensible atheists, from just 1973 to 2021 inclusive, there have been an estimated 63 million murders of children. Yet, Dawkins' statements on those children are glaringly pitiless:

• [Murder in the womb] "is a subject whose importance has been inflated out of all sensible proportion."
• [On murdering a child with Down's Syndrome] Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.
• Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees!

When one reads of the contempt for human life evinced by Dawkins and further the utter contempt he has for those who will require extra care upon birth, one who has read Boreham's The Luggage of Life cannot help but recall the following:

AGTs such as Dawkins are perfectly willing to shake hands with those who support the murder of the unborn, not just in the past, but also in the present, and absent a miraculous regeneration of their dead souls, in the future. Even if we were to grant Dawkins' counterfeit proposition that 'physical suffering' is the key criteria for us to consider in murdering the unborn, bearing in mind that a baby's neural tube has formed and that the heart begins to miraculously beat at just five weeks, how many of the 70+ million murders of children in just the US and Great Britain occurred after the baby had reached this stage of development? Given the truly callous nature of the atheist world view (despite their disingenuous metaphysically anemic protestations to the contrary), one would highly doubt that such an investigation would ever be undertaken by one of its adherents. In the following, I set out to answer just that question by looking at data from, of all places, the Center for Disease Control. Mind boggling. In any case, a simple analysis of the data from Table 11 follows where for each 'breakout' section, the averages over a 10-year period were calculated and applied to the total of 73,000,000 murders in the United States and Great Britain. Bear in mind that the following analysis is based only on statistics from the United States and Great Britain concerning the murder of the unborn. Factor in the remaining Western Countries, along with the rest of the world that has followed our 'moral leadership,' and words fail to adequately describe the extent of the horrors perpetuated in the name of secularism, 'humanism,' and the parent of both, atheism⁷Ironically, the one place where parricide is most needed and where it would be moral, it isn't practiced.. Barring wild differences in murder trends between those two countries, the analysis is sound.

Murder Stats by Week of Gestation

# of Murders 1973-2021 Total	73,000,000
Breakout 13 Week Demarcation
92% @ <= 13 weeks	67,160,000
8% @ > 13 weeks	5,840,000
Breakout 6 to 13 Weeks
36% @ <= 6 weeks	24,177,600
64% @ 6 < weeks <= 13	42,982,400
Breakout <= 6 Weeks
75% @ >= 5 weeks	18,133,200
25% @ < 5 weeks	6,044,400
# of Murders 1973-2021 @ >= 5 Weeks	66,955,600

Trends sourced from CDC.

The analysis is also self-explanatory apart from the 24,177,600 murders that occurred at <= 6 weeks (Breakout <= 6 Weeks section). It is unknown how many murders occurred after the heart had started beating at the five week mark, but considering that a woman's cycle occurs on average every four weeks, but can be up to five, it's not a giant leap of speculation to infer that a significant portion of these murders occurred after the baby's heart had started beating (i.e., after the woman recognized that she had missed her cycle). Indeed, 75% is rather conservative considering the lack of responsibility (on both the male and female's part) that led to the pregnancy in the first place. So, we have, in essence, 67 million murders after the heart had started beating and the neural tube has formed, which now (apparently) Dawkins would say match his 'physical suffering' criteria? I'm a big fan of true science, but no fan of evil cloaked in scientific lingo, and the advocacy of the world view espoused by AGTs for the murder of the unborn is atheism and godlessness in its most brutal and appropriate garb. Can anyone imagine lending any credence whatsoever to moral monsters such as Dawkins who would dare to offer an opinion on any of the above? I can see it now⁸Of course, the word 'baby' wouldn't be used because that denotes reality, but instead the rather fetid sounding 'fetus' would be used.: "Oh come now, how do we know what the baby feels and what is real physical suffering? We must continue murdering until absolute proof can be obtained that the baby is actually suffering. What's that you say about the silent scream? Balderdash. A baby's mouth opening could just be pleasant nerve sensations causing that purely physical reaction as a result of the baby having his arms and legs pulled off. We must do more studies on the corpses of the babies and wait for science to catch up so we can do brain scans on the in-utero babies to see if their brains register pain in some way the way we do before we can make any determination. Apart from that, let the murder continue apace! I am a scientist don't you know?" It makes sense of course because caviling at arguments that stand against the evil for which they advocate is the only thing that the AGT does apart from advocating on behalf of evil, their efforts to couch it in urbane sophistication and interest in the 'truth' notwithstanding. Accordingly, we hear nothing from Dawkins on any of this, for all of his bluster about children and 'suffering' and God's 'cruelty' is simply a pseudo-intellectual smokescreen over the fact that at the core of the murder of babies in the womb is selfishness, i.e., the worship of the self, over all others. 'Atheism,' 'secularism,' 'humanism,' 'materialism,' 'scientism,' are all debased attempts to rationalize man's selfish nature.

The validity of proposition #3 then follows: by proposition #1, AGTs such as Dawkins bring no logic or reasoning to the table in considering the deaths of Midianite children not only because of the glaring inconsistency and hypocrisy that would be made patently manifest, but by proposition #2, they would find themselves grasping at straws, for in order to declare that anything is immoral, they must simultaneously assert the moral framework to which they subscribe, and then be able to defend that. Any moral 'framework' posited by an AGT is by definition ad hoc, and it is therefore indefensible, in fact, meaningless, purposeless. The ad hoc 'moralities' that are brought to the table of morality by the atheist godless types are equivalent to a moral vacuum which can be filled with anything and everything by anybody. There is a glaring irony at work in the ad hoc moralities championed by AGTs such as Dawkins, for in his religious framework of scientism, it is proclaimed that in order for an experiment to be accounted valid, it must be replicable, i.e., it can't simply be a 'one off.'⁹I wholeheartedly agree with this critical component of science established by the Christians who created the first societies dedicated to the pursuit of science. Certainly, Dawkins' pretended morality is off. The irony is that it is 'one off.'