The American Humanist Association has withdrawn the Humanist of the Year Award from Richard Dawkins because, well, he’s just too much of a biologist for the august body. He makes the audacious claims that a person’s gender is determined by her chromosomes and her blackness by the amount of melanin in her skin.
This used to be known as reality; now it’s called demeaning marginalized groups. The American Humanist Association claims to promote “Good without God”. So does Richard Dawkins. This must mean Dawkins has finally got what he wants: an end to objective reality and to his humanist award.
God frequently visits judgement upon us by allowing us to have what we want. Having worked tirelessly to remove God and Christianity from what is left of western civilisation, Dawkins has helped usher in a new golden age of superstition.
From here:
Regrettably, Richard Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient. His subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity.
Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.
Which leaves him just as philosophically naïve as before.
Of course, the AHA fails to acknowledge that apart from God, the concept of “good” (like their concept of gender) is completely fluid and subjective, which would be why evil advances swiftly among those who repudiate the knowledge of God.
Ruth, “the concept of “good” (like their concept of gender) is completely fluid and subjective” is by no means accurate or consonant with the teaching of the New Testament. Civilized ethics are known to all, binding but not enforceable. Cf. Rom. 1-3, where St. Paul says in effect that when it comes to true worship and right living, everybody knows and nobody does.
As Lewis said long ago, the Gospel was first preached against the background of a known morality. We are all sinners, Jew or Gentile, and know it, nor is it possible to say, “I’m an unbeliever, therefore these standards are not binding on me.” To teach otherwise is to sell the pass. That this is frequently done in conservative Christian circles South of the Line is by the way.
The classic text on this whole subject is Lewis’ The Abolition of Man.