I’ve read this three times and still don’t understand it. I think he’s suggesting that atheists simply can’t appreciate the scope of the horror because we’re too busy playing with beakers and nattering on about how veddy interesting it is when a psychotic blows away a bunch of kids. Which is another way of saying that he thinks we have no morals.
Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning…
To no one’s surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it’s difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho’s shooting of all those people can be understood in this way–molecules acting upon molecules.
Right. The thousands of words I’ve written about the shooting in the past three days all come from the fact that I’m fascinated by molecular interplay. Fancy thinkin’, Dinesh.
Moran responds at length. Exit question re: D’Souza: Cynical attempt to coopt the murders for his own agenda or transparent case of projection by a religious believer who’s a little ticked at God for not stopping Psy-Cho in his tracks?