This column, which was actually dead on target through its opening two paragraphs, is really something. It’s so blindingly unsophisticated and unoriginal that I won’t quote whole passages, but I do want to list the array of non-sequiturs (including a priori statements utterly lacking in support or supportability) seeded within the hapless ramble’s 700 words. (Highlighting straightforward errors of scientific or historical fact would require a wholesale reposting of the column.)
[W]ithout God, there can be no moral choice.
Without God, there is no capacity for free will.
[A] Godless world is a soulless world.
Transcending biology and our environment requires a higher power – a spark of the supernatural.
We can only condemn or praise individuals if they are responsible for their actions.
It’s not only our criminal justice system that presupposes a Creator. It’s our entire notion of freedom and equality.
Human equality must spring from a Creator, because the presence of a soul is all that makes man human and equal.
Biology suggests the sort of Hegelian social Darwinism embraced by totalitarian dictators, not the principles of equality articulated by the Founding Fathers.
Without a soul, freedom too is impossible – we are all slaves to our biology.
According to atheists, human beings are intensely complex machines.
According to atheists, if we could somehow determine all the constituent material parts of the universe, we would be able to predict all human action, down to the exact moment at which Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pick his nose.
[I]f action without restraint is impossible, how can we fight for freedom?
If there is no God, there is no freedom to choose.
If there is no freedom to choose, there is no good or evil.
There is no way to “be good for goodness’ sake” – that would require an act of voluntary will far beyond human capacity.
Without a soul, [the statement “We can have ethics and values based on our built-in drives toward a moral life”] is wishful thinking of the highest order.
If [biology dictated a moral drive], wouldn’t man always get more rather than less moral – wouldn’t history be a long upward climb?
But as a system of thought, atheism cannot be the basis for any functional state.
Note that for all of his insistence on the importance of “the soul,” this wonderfully irrelevant essayist does not even try to define it.
The only remotely useful comment I have about this gleefully inane shitburst is that the author obviously cannot distinguish between metaphysical equality and political equality, with the latter being the only concern of the Founding Fathers. Biology dictates that Arnold Schwarzenegger can bench-press Stephen Hawking but not the reverse, and no matter how unfair it may be that some people are attractive and intelligent while others wind up like Ben Shapiro, all the praying and theistic reductionism in the world won’t change this. It will only spawn upstart crapblogs and various acceptance groups packed with the aggrieved and the shafted.
Anyway, I’ve decided that this is it–I’m going to submit a column for publication to the WorldNut Daily, and my goal is to make it even more clueless than Ben Shapiro’s. This will obviously require help from the LORD and all of my heart and soul, but I have faith it can be done.