Skip to comments.Richard Dawkins Writes About Human Responsibility In Light of Darwinian Evolution
Posted on 10/20/2006 8:52:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
I cannot even read this drivel. He is a morally abhorrent man.
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 :
It is instructive to learn what Darwinian philosophy, taken to its ultimate conclusion, leads to.
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.
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.
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.
Richard Dawkins is interviewed by Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report.
Colbert has a lot of fun doing it too.
It is also available here :
And this guy is an Oxford don? Fascinating.
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.
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.
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.
Criminal Number 18F
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.
He'll be wormfood in about 30-40 years, completely and utterly forgotten.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.