What do you think of Dawkins' sentiments?

@SparkleLeaf What do you believe in? Where does he make sense?

He is right in that we are all just collections of atoms, a product of a natural world that is not capable of caring one way or another about us. Why would one area be subject to earthquakes, another to hurricanes, while another is a virtually uninhabitable desert, yet another infested with piranha, and other places do not have these problems? Not how do these things occur, which is fully explained by natural law, but why? Where is the morality in the geographic accident of ones birth determining what "evil" will befall them?

But then he mentions "selfish genes," nothing in the immediate context indicating there is anything to balance them out, actually containing the phrase "nothing but pitiless indifference.” We humans are intelligent enough to find meaning, to observe a more altruistic (or at least cooperative) approach has larger benefits for our species. We can do this because, while we do have genes that can make us behave in a selfish way, a genetic predisposition to work together for the benefit of mankind is also present. We can philosophize about this and make conscious decisions. Thus we find meaning in this cold world.

This is also explained by natural law. An animal population where the members will work together, as if toward some common goal, is more likely to thrive than one where they are more selfish and harm each-other. The population that thrives passes this genetic trait on to its offspring and continues to grow. Natural selection occurs. Traits that help the population thrive continue to get passed down, ones that are more harmful get weeded out.

We can see altruistic and cooperative behavior in species that don't have brains that are developed enough to make a choice about it, going on pure instinct. Look at how in different types of insect species the individual insects will sacrifice themselves to protect the colony. They are not capable of making a moral judgement, of believing what they are doing is "good."

There are reasons for these things. Reasons int eh sense of "how," that which is explained in natural law. When we ask "why" we are starting on a journey of finding meaning in it all.

@SparkleLeaf “Why would one area be subject to earthquakes, another to hurricanes, while another is a virtually uninhabitable desert, yet another infested with piranha, and other places do not have these problems?”

The planet is diverse. That is how God made it. If it were less diverse, it would be less joyful and less habitable. It is important that his creations have freedom and variety. God wanted there to be warmth and cold, brightness and darkness, night and day, mountains and deserts, sea and land, and all kinds of colors and creatures.

“Where is the morality in the geographic accident of ones birth determining what "evil" will befall them?”

Where is the morality in not giving us the chance to know evil? Is it moral to only live in a world of goodness? This would make God no different to the fascists who want to stop you from listening to a viewpoint they don't like. If God censored evil, he would not be a moral good, and we would not be moral people. He is moral and we are moral. Morality is flawed, and it is complex. We are supposed to be willing to sacrifice ourselves. We would not be able to follow in the ways of Jesus without trouble and strife.

“Look at how in different types of insect species the individual insects will sacrifice themselves to protect the colony. They are not capable of making a moral judgement, of believing what they are doing is "good."”

The best judgements are those made using our instincts. Instinct comes from God.

@emiliya way to make assumptions about how a fictional entity would create the universe

@uikakarotuevegeta Do you care to elaborate?