Will Buckingham has a reasonable piece on why it is wrong to call this universe pitiless or indifferent or chinless or whatever:
“Pitiless”, when we use it in an everyday sense, is not simply saying that something lacks a certain property, the property of “pity”. To describe something as “pitiless”, and to do so interestingly, is to suggest that the thing described should be capable of feeling pity, but that, because it has its own purposes, it chooses not to. To usefully deem something indifferent or pitiless, in other words, we might want it first to have the capacity for partiality or pity. This is perhaps why it would seem fairly odd to say that my toothbrush is pitiless even though, technically, we could argue that it is.
I think the Dawkinsian breed of atheists feel they need to drum about that nature is without pity, and does not care a bit about whether you survive this summer or the next. Because people believe in a God who is in control of the world, and responds to their needs.
The atheists might be right, but they are a bore.
Image Credit: dhtstc100
