Russell A. Scott wrote a thoughtful letter to the editor of a newspaper of a town in southeastern New Mexico not necessarily known as a hot spot for intellectuals. Scott chose to oppose the view of an individual who wrote a letter titled Being moral does not require a religion.
A particular part of Scott’s argument which demands an immediate refutation is his usage of the word dogma. Dogmatic folks assert their opinion as facts. Scott refers to the dogma of atheism as violating the laws of genetics and physics. He believes evolution could not have been responsible for yielding the remarkable runaway human brain.
Let’s shift to the dogma of Russell Scott’s view point which is that there is a transcendent creator who produced the human animal. Scott also believes that a man around 2000 years ago was dead for approximately 3 days and then came back to life(resurrection).
MR. SCOTT is the resurrection a repeatable, verifiable experiment? Yet, you believe that Jesus Christ came back to life and that is the center piece of the Christian point of view. The incongruity of your criticism of atheism with your own views has to be reconciled before you can even consider describing an atheist perspective as dogmatic.