Another Dawkins quote

[udontknowmickey]

He's got it figured out:

Dawkins

As a side note, if anyone is willing to engage a full Christian apologetic against atheism...

Steve Hays is working through a series of posts against atheism.

[Phil153]

I've never read Dawkins but this one article makes me think he's a little kooky. His deterministic view of human behaviour, choice and consciouness is an example of far too much thinking. All I can say is thank God he's a scientist and not a lawyer, judge or politician.

[Meromorphic]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never read Dawkins but this one article makes me think he's a little kooky. His deterministic view of human behaviour, choice and consciouness is an example of far too much thinking. All I can say is thank God he's a scientist and not a lawyer, judge or politician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful before you rush to judgement. I think it was a little unfair of OP to link to that site without commenting on the nature of it. Here is the main page. Everything you see there is going to be provocative and extremely speculative.

Edit: by the way, I'm a little grumpy that OP beat me to introducing that site to SMP. I encourage everybody to read much more than just Dawkins' contribution. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never read Dawkins but this one article makes me think he's a little kooky. His deterministic view of human behaviour, choice and consciouness is an example of far too much thinking. All I can say is thank God he's a scientist and not a lawyer, judge or politician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful before you rush to judgement. I think it was a little unfair of OP to link to that site without commenting on the nature of it. Here is the main page. Everything you see there is going to be provocative and extremely speculative.

Edit: by the way, I'm a little grumpy that OP beat me to introducing that site to SMP. I encourage everybody to read much more than just Dawkins' contribution. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am normally a fan of Dawkins, but that article was entirely crap. Most crime is not caused by defective brain wiring, unless you think a raccoon that digs through the garbage or a stronger carnivore that takes a kill away a weaker one is defectively "wired."

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]

I am normally a fan of Dawkins, but that article was entirely crap. Most crime is not caused by defective brain wiring, unless you think a raccoon that digs through the garbage or a stronger carnivore that takes a kill away a weaker one is defectively "wired."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the people are considered to be wired defectively in virtue of their anti-social actions and disposition, not necessarily in some biological sense.

If a hungry shark were to eat somebodys kid clearly it would not be due to faulty bilogical wiring, now if some human eats somebodys kid it is pretty clear that they are defective in both senses. When a 25 year old man screws a 16 yr old girl it doesnt mean he is a mutant or something its just means he has a certain defect which causes this kind of behavior.

So perhaps Dawkins would say in virtue of the fact raccoons dump our trash cans out they are defective. Moreover, even if Dawkins has the confusion you claim he does about the way to classify the causes of anti-social behavior, it is not the crux of the argument. All he is saying is that since peoples "crimes" are usually result of forces other than themselves they should be held blameless. Cars have defects which they could not be faulted for. People have defects they could not be faulted for, and according to him these defects directly result in crimes that people should not be faulted for. We should merely look for a way to fix them.

So, if you think his argument is crap because of the issue you mentioned you need to learn to read. The problem you raised is not a problem for his argument, and probably isn't even a mistake, it is merely confusion on your part.

[Lestat]

Does everyone agree with Dawkin's first premise (i.e the primary purpose for punishment being retribution)? I'm not sure I do. I'd like to believe that we lock people up first and foremost because they are a danger to society. The more severe their crime the more dangerous they are, and the more severe the punishment. Of course, I realize this isn't always the case (Martha Stewart?). We also impose severe punishment as a deterrent to other people who might be apt to commit simliar crimes.

[Borodog]

I think Dawkins' very argument contains his answer, at least to the question of executions:

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing?

[/ QUOTE ]

His entire thesis is a moot point, given that science is nowhere near to being able to "fix" the "defective unit" that is the child murderer's brain.

Even though I am personally against the death penalty for a spectrum of reasons, none of them is that a murderer doesn't deserve to die.

Clearly a rabid dog is defective. The dog doesn't "deserve" to be killed. He didn't "deserve" to get rabies. He was probably a good boy. But he gets put to sleep. Maybe some day we'll have a cure for rabies. Maybe someday we'll have a cure for murderous instincts and intent. But we don't right now.

Dawkins should stick to explaining evolution and bashing religion in entertaining and thought-provoking ways.

[Borodog]

Furthermore, the implications of government getting to "fix" the minds of those it defines as "criminals," is too frightening a concept to even think about. It's fine if you talk about child-murderers. But what about all the victimless things that government has criminalized, like smoking pot and free trade. Do you get your brain "fixed" for those too?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He's got it figured out:


[/ QUOTE ]

What Dawkins says is perfectly logical, the natural outworking of a materialistic worldview, the end of all morality and justice. If our brains are just the deterministic result of the laws of physics, if evolution made me do it, how can anyone ascribe guilt to anyone?

And of course Dawkins shouldn't be angry at me for being a Christian. He should stop calling me stupid and brainwashed. The laws of physics and evolution made me what I am, I'm not responsible, it's not my fault.

[hmkpoker]

Responsibility is +EV to the querent and you have to be pretty dumb not to realize that. That's why me and the other self-proclaimed determinists aren't out hacking people to bits on PCP. The justice system is (or should be) useful to other members of society as well, i.e. removing dangerous people, etc.

Determinism does not proclude justice.