Richard Dawkin's Dilemma
Richard Dawkins is a well-known Atheist.
He said the following in a Huffington Post video. "The world has no justice."
Richard Dawkins does not believe in God, this is at the core of his belief. He argues that the universe is governed by physical laws rather than moral or divine intervention.
If the universe is governed by physical law, can physical law administer justice? Doesn't it need a will and a mind to enacted, to enforce justice? If I speed down the FDR and get pulled over, it's not the law that pulled me over, it's a Police officer who is there to enforce the law. There is no such thing as a universal law enforcement officer. Countries and States make up their own law and put men in place to enforce them.
Since Dawkins said the universe is governed by physical laws, how does he expect moral law to be enforced? Most of the injustices in the world are moral in nature. There is a fundamental difference between moral law and physical law. Physical laws are unbreakable, deterministic rules governing the natural world (e.g., gravity), while moral laws are rules of conduct for human behavior that can be broken. Physical laws describe what will happen, whereas moral laws describe what ought to happen.
Again, Since Dawkins does not believe in a universal moral lawgiver, what is the nature of the injustice he complains about? Not only does human-constructed moral standards differ from geographical local to geographical location, the quality of the standards also differ according to regional or local construct.
Here is a man who complains about the lack of justice in the uinverse, while denying that the universe has a judge who would administer such justice.
Since he does not believe in a universal judge, he must be content with sporadic, subjective, unbalanced, localized justice. Because the universe is not governed by local or national boundaries, the law they impose would be limited in scope, and might be considered unjust from one boundary to another.
So, is Dawkins right? Are there no universal justice? Is man held to a universal standard, and will he be judged for breaking it?
The answer is yes, because there is a universal Judge. As a Bible believer I could take the whole day to show you why that is true, but let me just give you a synopsis of what Scripture reveals.
Psalm 7:11 KJVS God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day .
Psalm 96:12-13 KJVS Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice 13] Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.
God will judge the world." This is not a local judgment, it is the justice for which Dawkins seeks (universally).
Because He is the Lawgiver, He will judge against those who break His law. Not just the Mosaic Law but the law written on every human heart (that means you Richard Dawkins).
Acts 17:31 KJVS Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
God will judge the WORLD (universal judgment). This is not contingent upon you believing in Him or not, that's not a prerequisite for this judgment. The only prerequisite for this judgment is that you were born.
God's justice might delay but it is not denial. Since Dawkins does not believe in God (his character plays a less important role in the Bible, it is called the fool). He is left blinded to the reality of true justice by the ignorance of his own atheism. May 2026, he is 85 years old. I pray that through faith, he might come to know the Lawgiver, Jesus Christ, so that his current role as a fool might be changed to "the wise." Only wise men seek Jesus, fools could not care less, to their own destruction.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7 KJVS) That is universal justice.
He said the following in a Huffington Post video. "The world has no justice."
Richard Dawkins does not believe in God, this is at the core of his belief. He argues that the universe is governed by physical laws rather than moral or divine intervention.
If the universe is governed by physical law, can physical law administer justice? Doesn't it need a will and a mind to enacted, to enforce justice? If I speed down the FDR and get pulled over, it's not the law that pulled me over, it's a Police officer who is there to enforce the law. There is no such thing as a universal law enforcement officer. Countries and States make up their own law and put men in place to enforce them.
Since Dawkins said the universe is governed by physical laws, how does he expect moral law to be enforced? Most of the injustices in the world are moral in nature. There is a fundamental difference between moral law and physical law. Physical laws are unbreakable, deterministic rules governing the natural world (e.g., gravity), while moral laws are rules of conduct for human behavior that can be broken. Physical laws describe what will happen, whereas moral laws describe what ought to happen.
Again, Since Dawkins does not believe in a universal moral lawgiver, what is the nature of the injustice he complains about? Not only does human-constructed moral standards differ from geographical local to geographical location, the quality of the standards also differ according to regional or local construct.
Here is a man who complains about the lack of justice in the uinverse, while denying that the universe has a judge who would administer such justice.
Since he does not believe in a universal judge, he must be content with sporadic, subjective, unbalanced, localized justice. Because the universe is not governed by local or national boundaries, the law they impose would be limited in scope, and might be considered unjust from one boundary to another.
So, is Dawkins right? Are there no universal justice? Is man held to a universal standard, and will he be judged for breaking it?
The answer is yes, because there is a universal Judge. As a Bible believer I could take the whole day to show you why that is true, but let me just give you a synopsis of what Scripture reveals.
Psalm 7:11 KJVS God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day .
Psalm 96:12-13 KJVS Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice 13] Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.
God will judge the world." This is not a local judgment, it is the justice for which Dawkins seeks (universally).
Because He is the Lawgiver, He will judge against those who break His law. Not just the Mosaic Law but the law written on every human heart (that means you Richard Dawkins).
Acts 17:31 KJVS Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
God will judge the WORLD (universal judgment). This is not contingent upon you believing in Him or not, that's not a prerequisite for this judgment. The only prerequisite for this judgment is that you were born.
God's justice might delay but it is not denial. Since Dawkins does not believe in God (his character plays a less important role in the Bible, it is called the fool). He is left blinded to the reality of true justice by the ignorance of his own atheism. May 2026, he is 85 years old. I pray that through faith, he might come to know the Lawgiver, Jesus Christ, so that his current role as a fool might be changed to "the wise." Only wise men seek Jesus, fools could not care less, to their own destruction.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7 KJVS) That is universal justice.
Comments