Now, it seems clear that in the case of Dawkins, yes, his affinity is grounded in the bare fact (as per many of his writings external to biology) that he's a fundamentalist without God, certainly this seems an increasing phenomenon: entire armies of the intellectually and emotionally lazy, whole swaths of indolent pigs rallying behind the banner of atheism firstly, generally some brand of social humanism secondly. Nothing against atheism; it's not the problem, not the source of concern, as I see things, it's the road leading there and that which furthers its continued affirmation. (generally a presupposed, shoddy "scientific realism" or methodological naturalism).
This is an interesting phenomenon to me: the process in which philosophic/religious/metaphysical foundations shift or collapse. Consider: forty years ago, it was deemed a reductio ad absurdum that a strict negative utilitarianism mandates the destruction of the world; persons judged, as people (even philosophers) will reject a theory before their, in this case, moral intuitions, before rejecting their intuitions in light of a metaethical/normative theory... in short, negative utilitarianism was casted aside. But a new breed of person is emerging: the antinatalists of today readily argue, even gleefully argue, that we should collectively stop breeding and die out as a species or welcome the literal end of the world. What the fuck happened?
The context in which the ills of the world, the sufferings one endures in living life, can be rendered meaningful, teleological, part of some purpose external to finite evolved monkeys merely looking for excuses to go on with their miserable existence, has collapsed. Even the theists of today are atheists. What I do despise is when persons pretend that nothing has happened. How sickeningly puerile to live in such a way. Moral reality is delegated to the sphere of "subjective preference" and yet so many of the secular atheists of the day go on with morally mandating. There is no "ought" but everyone "ought" to have access to medical care; moral nihilism... but I'm going to go on double taking and act like it's unethical to give false pretenses for war. Disgusting.
Now, "nihilism" itself, if on a mass scale persons experienced it an existentially tolerable position, may indeed not be the problem; ideologues are always causing the most trouble, but the problem is that, and this has been commented on across the board, (Richard M Weaver, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet, and especially Eric Voegelin) nihilism (axiological) paves the way for ideology to fill the void.
I think when people (not you, dear reader, the masses) slowly come to realize the nihilistic world absent God, absent moral reality, absent transcendent purpose, when that "long shadow" Nietzsche spoke of finally retreats out of existence, the only thing therafter revealed will be a world in ruins.
Edited by DeadCanDance, 22 July 2012 - 07:47 AM.