Richard Dawkins Writes About Human Responsibility In Light of Darwinian Evolution

EDGE -- World Question Center ^ | Richard Dawkins

[betty boop]

In this wicked flesh of mine I sometimes wish Jesus had not said we may not call anyone an idiot.

More's the pity.... LOLOL!

Thanks so much for the link to Alister McGrath!

[FreedomProtector]

the laws written on our heart imply a Lawgiver.
I would agree. Few evols would.

"..in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." Rom 2:15

While articulated by many, one popular reading of the argument from conscience is in C.S. Lewis book Mere Christianity. He expounds the argument that universal Laws of right and wrong imply a Lawgiver in the first six chapter of the book. In his book, "The Abolition of Man"[ Abolition of Man Chapter 1, Abolition of Man Chapter 2, Abolition of Man Chapter 3 ], he tackles the subject of how education develops ones sense of morality. While doing so he provides various proofs of the doctrine of objective value, the idea that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false... Lewis calls this objective value the "Tao". The two books go together.

Peter Kreeft has a gift for concise writing while avoiding oversimplification. Dr. Kreeft's summary of the argument from conscience.

If the purpose in life is to "direct mans future evolution" and man is nothing more then an intellectual animal, there is no difference between helping an elderly lady across the street or running her over because she is unfit. Evolution's source of ethics contradicts the objective value that is written on our hearts. Richard Dawkins source of ethics is contradictory to the observed world.

Dawkin's blind watchmaker idea is bankrupt as well, it is also contradictory to the observed world.
The Bankruptcy of Richard Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker Hypothesis
The Religion of the Blind Watchmaker

[FreedomProtector]

It is Richard Dawkins who says there is no such thing as evil, and he who came up with the idea of "memes" - that religious belief (but not the religious belief of atheism) is a 'virus' in the 'programing' of our brains. LOL. In this wicked flesh of mine I sometimes wish Jesus had not said we may not call anyone an idiot. Related Link: Alister McGrath wants the world to know that Richard Dawkins is wrong: good science is not tantamount to atheism.

Candidate for the:
Funniest Post of the Month Award.

[TXnMA]

"...God is not to be found as an existent bound by our spatiotemporal order."

Nicely put, BB!

And thanks for the ping, A-G!

[FreedomProtector]

It is Richard Dawkins who says there is no such thing as evil, and he who came up with the idea of "memes" - that religious belief (but not the religious belief of atheism) is a 'virus' in the 'programing' of our brains. LOL. In this wicked flesh of mine I sometimes wish Jesus had not said we may not call anyone an idiot. Related Link: Alister McGrath wants the world to know that Richard Dawkins is wrong: good science is not tantamount to atheism.

ROTFLOL!

Maybe I am guilty of succumbing to my wicked flesh, but I believe that the label of 'fool' is permitted for this particular case :)

"The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Ps 14:1

It is Richard Dawkins who says there is no such thing as evil, and he who came up with the idea of "memes" - that religious belief (but not the religious belief of atheism) is a 'virus' in the 'programing' of our brains. LOL. In this wicked flesh of mine I sometimes wish Jesus had not said we may not call anyone an idiot. Related Link: Alister McGrath wants the world to know that Richard Dawkins is wrong: good science is not tantamount to atheism.

ROTFLOL!

Maybe I am guilty of succumbing to my wicked flesh, but I believe that the label of 'fool' is permitted for this particular case :)

"The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Ps 14:1

[betty boop]

I believe that the label of 'fool' is permitted for this particular case ... "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Ps 14:1

I totally agree -- it's a technical point!

[YHAOS]

( Dawkins) ”But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not?”

(You) “If man were merely a machine, incapable of exercising free, rational decisions (machines do not modify their own programs as a rule), then the whole idea of personal responsibility and legal sanction for wrong-doing is absurd.”

Moreover, if, as you say, the scientific mechanistic view of life (therefore of the human brain) is that of an array of unguided chemical reactions and random neuron discharges, then that sort of life-view cannot claim anything as a matter of positive knowledge beyond its physical environment, and must confess it is helpless to believe anything other than what it does believe.

If I have stated anything which is substantially inaccurate or unfair, please enlighten me.

[hosepipe]

[ If I have stated anything which is substantially inaccurate or unfair, please enlighten me. ]

Exactly right..
Does/Do thoughts come from the human brain?..
-OR- from the human spirit?..

They cannot originate in both.. Some(people) attack that there even "IS" a human spirit.. and ultimately(I beleive) a Spirit(God) at all.. Evolution as a concept attacks indirectly ultimately "the Spirit(God)"..

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thanks for the ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

...then that sort of life-view cannot claim anything as a matter of positive knowledge beyond its physical environment...

Indeed. It draws a very narrow, fabricated boundary.

[.30Carbine]

Thank you both! What a blessing our fellowship! (:

[OriginalIntent]

Yes, Dawkins is just openly admitting to the inevitable conclusion of belief in godless evolution that other godless evolutionists still pretend is not the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from their own belief in godless evolution.

The godless evolutionists secretly hail Dawkin's proclamations, yet they will just continue to pretend that their own coronation of godless evolution does not lead where Dawkins admits it leads.

Yet, many of us are glad to see that there is finally one somewhat honest evolutionist, that is, he is honest enough to stop pretending that this is not where his godless evolution obviously leads and has always led.

[betty boop]

...if...the scientific mechanistic view of life (therefore of the human brain) is that of an array of unguided chemical reactions and random neuron discharges, then that sort of life-view cannot claim anything as a matter of positive knowledge beyond its physical environment, and must confess it is helpless to believe anything other than what it does believe.

Your statement strikes me as spot-on, YHAOS. I question whether such a life-view is even capable of reasoning about its physical environment. For if everything is just random neuron discharges and unguided chemical reactions, how do logic and reason enter into the picture? How could logic and reason be the products of a long chain of antecedent accidents? Even if we could say they were (which I very strongly doubt we can), according to what principle could unguided chemistry and random neural activity access them?

Dawkins is undermining the very foundation of science itself by making the claims he does. His is an exercise in absurdity.

Thank you so much YHAOS for your excellent essay/post!

[FreedomProtector]

If the brain of Dawkins was programmed by a "blind watchmaker" [title of a book by Dawkins] why should he trust it?

[betty boop]

If the brain of Dawkins was programmed by a "blind watchmaker" [title of a book by Dawkins] why should he trust it?

Exactly, FreedomProtector! More to the point, why should we trust it?

As Eric Voegelin observed, a universe that contains intelligent beings cannot have a less-than-intelligent (e.g., "blind") cause.

Thanks so much for writing!

[Alamo-Girl]

So very true. Thank you for your insights!

[FreedomProtector]

More to the point, why should we trust it?

The brain of Dawkins may have been programmed by chance [hence the label which I believe is permitted for this particular 'technical' case], but my brain certainly was not.

[SoldierDad]

I'd hazard to say that a case could be made that Dawkins' brain may not have been programmed completely during formation.

[FreedomProtector]

I'd hazard to say that a case could be made that Dawkins' brain may not have been programmed completely during formation.

Maybe the random incomplete programming during formation is circumstantial evidence that his ancestor by common descent was a frog or a rodent.

[SoldierDad]

Maybe the random incomplete programming during formation is circumstantial evidence that his ancestor by common descent was a frog or a rodent.

Or, they just imbibed copious amounts of alcohol or drugs.