Richard Dawkins Writes About Human Responsibility In Light of Darwinian Evolution

EDGE -- World Question Center ^ | Richard Dawkins

[Just mythoughts]

This guy is a piece of work. Now it was the *law* as given by Moses that set for the death penalty for specific law breaking. Christ said he came NOT to change one jot or tittle (Matthew 5:18) of the law that means the law is still in effect.

Yes I know that many Christians claim the *law* was fulfilled but they are wrong.

[eleni121]

I cannot even read this drivel. He is a morally abhorrent man.

[SirLinksalot]

For more of Richard Dawkin's beliefs about human responsibility and free will, listen to his debate with Irish Catholic commentator and journalist, David Quinn here :

http://origins.swau.edu/misc/Dawkins2.mp3

It is instructive to learn what Darwinian philosophy, taken to its ultimate conclusion, leads to.

[outdriving]

What an ass wipe. The bottom line when it comes to horrific killing is not the motivation of the perp., but how do we best protect society from this animal.

If the best solution is to kill the animal, what's the problem? I don't get this whole debate.

[Dreagon]

I don't know, if I were to turn his logic in another way I could simply state that nature selected towards vengeance in our species, therefore vengeance obviously has utility. Therefore I can accept vengeance as a part of the justice system.

[Felis_irritable]

Mr. Dawkins spare me. When a mechanical contrivance I own becomes defective I stop using it. The same position taken with regard to criminals is that you take them out of society so they cannot re-offend.

Of course our legal system introduces debatable concepts such as rehabilitation, but in the end, we're taking them off the streets so they cannot offend for a period of time. Nothing more, nothing less.

[jwalsh07]

Quinn gave Dawkins a good ole fashioned rhetorical arse kicking. I listened to that debate, if it was a boxing match the ref would have stopped it in the 6th round.

[SirLinksalot]

I cannot even read this drivel. He is a morally abhorrent man.

If you listened to the debate with David Quinn ( see link in my above post ), you will hear Dawkins say : “I’m not interested in free will… Just as before Darwin, biology was a mystery — Darwin solved that…”

[SirLinksalot]

Richard Dawkins is interviewed by Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report.

Colbert has a lot of fun doing it too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO9OFOcdB0Q

It is also available here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA9EiSJaXww

[satchmodog9]

for later

[Just mythoughts]

Thanks for the link. I think Mr. Dawkin's is demonstrating a memory error in his mind. Maybe he needs an upgrade or maybe he needs a transplant.

[RichInOC]

Ah, yes, but you see, Dr. Dawkins, even if you leave any trace of supernaturality out of the equation (which I wouldn't, but I digress) it should be obvious that a human being is not a car. If a car has mechanical problems, you can change parts out, or with the newer jobbies, put in a new on-board computer, if that's what is necessary to fix the problem. You can't really change a defective or misbehaving mind or will out of a human being.

And this guy is an Oxford don? Fascinating.

[SirLinksalot]

And this guy is an Oxford don?

Richard Dawkins, in a recent poll of the Brits, was considered one of the most (if not the most) influential scientists of our time.

[Just mythoughts]

He is not opposed to the killing he is opposed in doing it on moral grounds. He hates God and anything and everything associated with God, such as morals.

[SirLinksalot]

In the New York Time's review of Dawkin's book -- THE GOD DELUSION, they hailed him as :

" a writer who "'understands the issues so clearly that he forces his reader to understand them too."' Recently awarded the distinction of "'public intellectual"' in Britain, Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Well, let'e engage him on his own terms.

When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.

Ah, but when a machine is hazardously defective, we scrap it. The USAF just scrapped over $100 million in training planes because they had dodgy spin-recovery characteristics. If your car fails inspection, you may not register it to drive it on the public roads, and if it is not registered, many jurisdictions expect you to scrap it.

If a ladder or toy is hazardous, it is recalled from the market and destroyed.

So, if we accept that a criminal, pervert, or violent brute, is a "defective unit," the answer is obvious.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[jwalsh07]

I don't know if Dawkins hates morals but he certainly can not logically justify their existence since he denies the concept of free will. How can morals exist in a strictly deterministic system? Answer, they can't and that is a conundrum for the deterministic materialists like Richard Dawkins.

[JCEccles]

This guy is a piece of work.

He'll be wormfood in about 30-40 years, completely and utterly forgotten.

[My2Cents]

mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution.

Prove it.

This stuff is just assumed to be true because...well, because evolution is "true," therefore concepts like personal responsibility and evil and good HAD to be the product of evolution. No need for proof; it just fits the unassailable theory of evolution...the only absolute that Dawkins believes in.