Dawkins is in trouble for bringing the idea of the “sacred” human nature into question:
The critic (a sociologist) says there are three ways of looking at human nature; this corresponds to the division I set out in DR Part 1: Meditations On First Reactionary Philosophy.
1: Theological View.
2: Rational-Idealistic View.
3: Naturalistic View.
However, what’s comic is that the sociologist (Evans) wants us to view humans as sacred, while not using any kind of theological foundation. A noble lie in other words. What’s even more comical is that Evans points to “constitutions” and “secular” documents” as proof of no religious influence.
Of course, in reality, human rights, dignity and sacredness evolved from Christian concepts.
All this is either forgotten, or suppressed, or ignored.
