Richard Dawkins recently made a rather crude comment concerning the Roman Pope's resignation.
I'm no fan of the Roman Catholic church, so we'll let the direct comment itself pass. But in making any such comments - and materialistic atheists like Dawkins do this all the time - Dawkins was again putting his own incoherence on display for all to see.
Materialistic atheists are always telling us about what ought to be. This should happen, that should happen. (e.g. Scientific enquiry ought to be like this, rational discussion should be like that).
But materialistic atheism has no basis to say anything after the words "ought" or "should". Because "ought" and "should" are to do with ideals. They involve the non-physical. They describe mental constructs, and realities which do not necessarily exist. The proponents of scientism have no basis on which to make such declarations, because under their view of reality, only the physical exists or can be rationally discussed.
I can say that Richard Dawkins ought to live differently - because I believe in an ideal model of life, given to us in the gospel. Dawkins, however, has no intellectual basis for saying that the Pope, Bob the Builder or anyone else ought to live differently, without speaking in irrational contradiction of his own professed belief system.