Atheist Richard Dawkins Defends “Mild” Pedophelia

Atheists like to talk a good game about morality in a God-free world. But consistent atheists recognize that morality in an evolving materialistic universe is relative and arbitrary. Richard Dawkins, famed apologist for atheism and Darwinism, just proved this point most spectacularly when he defended what he called “mild” pedophelia:

In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”

Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.

“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.

Right. Because there is no such thing as “fixed” morals in a constantly evolving world. This is just consistent atheism. It surprises me that the watching world doesn’t see this. They are all outraged over Dawkins’s claims. But how can they really defend a position other than the one Richard Dawkins holds? If there is no God, and matter is all there is, and that matter is constantly reorganizing itself into new forms, then how can you hold that morality (a mere construct of matter) can stay fixed even while the matter constantly changes? Is that not just wishful thinking? It’s backward-looking, close-minded, hierarchical antiquarianism.

The chickens are coming home to roost, people. You can’t reject God, absolutes, meaning, and morality, and still hope to retain fixed ethical principles in society. What’s most pathetic is that atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens say there is “good without God.” And perhaps there is—as long as the majority of people are practically inconsistent with their philosophical principles. But ideas have consequences. And sooner than later, those ideas will bear their consistent ideological fruit. And, truth be told, the fruit of secular atheistic Darwinism is rotten. Just look around you.