Thursday, April 19, 2007

Cho Seung-Hui Should Not Be Punished

Recently John Loftus came into the combox of this post and responded to a statement I had made. I wrote in response to the question, "Where was God in all this":

PM: "Controlling all the details of His plan. Holman may not like this, but God ordained that Seung-Hui would do this."

John W. Loftus responded,

JWL: "While our views may seem problematic to you, your view is absolutely sick."

Now, we must remember the context here. John holds to physical determination. Thus, both sides hold that these events were brought about by antecedent causes. From there I point out that in my view this was planned by a person, there is meaning here, there is real right and wrong here, there is true moral good that will come out of this, there will be justice, and these events were done, ultimately, and in some way, for the good of those who love (or will love) God.

On the other hand, in John's view, this event was still determined; but it has no meaning, it is not really wrong, it will be forgotten, there will be no justice, and these events were ultimately done for no purpose.

That's John's view and my view.

But, I'm not here to comment on the above, just to use it as a spring board into bringing out something else Loftus has said while in the safety of the ivory tower. While in the context of debating Christians, making purely an academic point. I'm going to offer an example of how unbelievers, like John Loftus for instance, are not being very consistent.

You see, John thinks that because I said that these events were planned by God, that is morally reprehensible. Why is it "sick" that God would plan this? Well, supposedly because what Seung-Hui did was evil. What happened was a moral outrage.

His buddies at Debunking Christianity, if you read the comments in the combox of the original post by Holman which I responded to in the linked post above, think this event was immoral, evil, and a terrible tragedy.

Well, what if Seung-Hui had not killed himself and the police caught him after he shot 30 people. What should happen to this man according to John W. Loftus. Was this man a "bad" man even? Let's read John Loftus' comments on why people do bad things, and what should happen to them:

"People don't misbehave because they are evil, they may just be sick. Punishment isn't what people need, so much as healing and understanding." - John W. Loftus ( SOURCE)


So, we need to "heal" and "understand" Cho Seung-Hui. If he didn't take his life, we should send him to a 4 star hotel along with doctors to "heal" him and "understand" why he did what he did. But what if Seung-Hui says that "Bertrand Russell is right. That there is no meaning to the world, other than what we create, and I [Seung-Hui] want to create my own meaning, which entails being a mass murderer." Should we "understand" this? Do we then let Seung-Hui go on his merry way? To keep him confined to the supervision of the doctors against his will would constitute punishment. And we can't have that, says Loftus!

The is Holman's leader's view. The view of the boss man at Debunking Christianity. This is the view of the atheist.

Clearly the sides are divided. Debate has left the comfort of mere words and has entered into the realm of reality. How do the atheists words comport with what happened? With our feelings? Is the atheist worldview satisfying? Sure, they can talk a big game when nothing is on the line, but will they step up when the chips are on the table? Tell us to not be upset with Seung-Hui, rather, we should try to "understand" him. Seung-Hui does not deserve punishment? Tell that to the victims! Let atheists run the show and any form of justice is out the window. Remember that Loftus says he doesn't punish his dog, Franklin J. Loftus? He's trying to be consistent. So in Loftus' world, if Franklin went on a rampage, killing dozens of school children, Loftus' wife would say "no-no!" and "put him in his cage for the night."

Furthermore, to say Seung-Hui was "sick" simply means that his neurons didn't fire in the type of pattern that Loftus' and most others fire. That's all.

So, when you want to get upset with Seung-Hui or these events, remember to try and "understand" Seung-Hui. And, if you wish he were here to reap justice, remember that Seung-Hui should not be punished, says atheist John Loftus.

That's the worldview of Loftus. That's the worldview of atheists.

The line has been drawn. The blood is in our face. Is this event really wrong? Was it meaningless? Is there no justice? Will there be justice? Will the victims have vindication? Ask yourself if your worldview can handle these events? Ask yourself if you're acting as if your worldview were not true. If you realize the problem, call a local church. If you want to remain a meat bag, then try to act consistently. Stop acting as if what happened was "evil" or "terrible" or a "moral outrage." Just remember that you're a lump of matter who is thinking (having neurons go snap, crackle, pop in your head) about one lump of matter who flung a bunch of matter at high speeds at other lumps of matter.

22 comments:

  1. This post convinces me that Christians hold the last vestige of true open-mindedness. These supposed learned men couldn’t hold a candle to your arguments. Their positions are as devoid as the foundation upon which they stand. Your position is so right, that you don’t have to hide behind intellectualism to fend off those that would disagree. The intelligentsia is always going to deny your position, not because they have an intellectual argument-for you have proven time and again that they do not-but because of the consequences brought to bear on them by your position. They are closed minded, and thus have a closed self-perpetuating meaningless argument regarding the meaning of meaninglessness.

    But as Christians what do we do? What can we do to fight the true antecedent causes of this tragedy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I stand by what you quoted me as saying--both quotes of mine--although you mischaracterized them for polemic purposes.

    You must take a college psychology class sometime. You just must do it, okay?

    In the absence of doing that, try this thought experiment on: the more you walk a mile in someone's shoes, the better you understand them. This man had serious anger issues, but he wasn't dumb. He was articulate. He was also very troubled and he acted irrational. In this sense he was probably not much different than Hitler was.

    But let's suppose you knew everything he did, and you had watched as he experienced everything he did throughout his life. I don't know if you could imagine doing such a thing, but if you would try, then you'd better see how he felt and why he did what he did.

    Now enters God. He knows everything about this man...everything. He watched as he was born. He saw the first time he got beat up. He watched as he was rejected time and again by rich people, and so on, and so on. Even if God doesn't have the ability to foreknow with certainty the future free-willed contingent actions of people, God could still predict what this killer would do that day. And if this is the case, that God or anyone else could fully understand why someone does what he does, then they couldn't be surprized by what he does. If we couldn't be surprized, then we'd fully understand why they did what he did. And if that's the case, God cannot be angry with us for sinning, and people may not be evil, they may be sick.

    Oh, don't let this be the only psychological stuff you read. Take a class in it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Danny said:
    ---
    But as Christians what do we do? What can we do to fight the true antecedent causes of this tragedy?
    ---

    Two things: Apologetics and moral living. Or stated another way: know and live the truth.

    One of the problems that we run into in America is that there are many "Christians" who neither know the truth nor live according to it. The rest of us get painted with the same brush. This makes it difficult to overcome the false impressions.

    But of course, as a Calvinist, I know that God is sovereign and that He also uses us to accomplish His ends. He didn't have to; but we are blessed because He chose to.

    These tragedies demonstrate the bankruptcy of the secular worldview, and God can use them to that effect. Firstly, only the most hardened atheist can deny the existence of evil in these actions. Secondly, because we are all in the image of God, we all "instinctively" know the truth that what Cho did was evil so even those hardened atheists go against our very nature. Because of that: thirdly, atheists cannot provide a meaningful response to this tragedy because they have no rational basis for morality and they cannot provide psychological/spiritual relief either.

    Christianity can provide both, and this is what Christians should do now.

    But this also requires consistent living and beliefs on the part of the Christian. There are many who take the mantle "Christian" who woudl condemn Cho yet speak nothing about the sanctity of human life when it comes to abortion. This inconsistency allows fertile ground for the secular seeds of doubt to grow (i.e. "There is no rational basis for the distinction, therefore there is no rationality in Christianity", etc.).

    Christians who live consistently with their beliefs and who defend them to those who would ask the reasons for the hope that is within us--this is the way to provide a counter-cultural response to the current culture of death and cheapened human worth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Loftus said:
    ---
    If we couldn't be surprized, then we'd fully understand why they did what he did. And if that's the case, God cannot be angry with us for sinning, and people may not be evil, they may be sick.
    ---

    I need money. I'm going to rob Loftus. He'll know I robbed him because I need money. Therefore, he won't be mad that I robbed him because he understands why I robbed him.

    But I might go to jail if he reported it anyway. I can't risk that. So, I'll kill Loftus too. But don't worry, he'll understand that it was just because I needed the money.

    And the real kicker is he'll even understand I decided to pick him to rob and kill to get my money because he knew that his very understanding of my actions would render my actions non-evil!

    Thanks in advance, John....

    Or perhaps we could just stick with "You shall not steal" and "You shall not murder."

    Hmmm.

    Criminals would certainly prefer Loftus's morality. Victims, though, would probably prefer the Bible's.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No! Just because I understand an evil person does not mean I don't want to separate him from society in jail or prison, but not hell. I do. And I have just as much of a right to object to him hurting me as anyone, because I don't want to be hurt, nor do I want people I care for hurt, and although I care for people less and less the farther away they live, just as Augustine taught, I still care for them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul,

    I heard a lot about you, buddy boy. What's your problem? Can't you get off of Loftus' back? The next time I smack his wife silly and do damage to his property he'll let me have a pass and say that what I did wasn't evil. Only cool people do that Pauly. You understand? Just look at my hero Brian Sapient. I'm going to follow his example. What I'm going to do is use my mother's hard earnings and buy a house. Or wait until she croaks then use the insurance money to buy me some cars. Then I'll lie and say my mommy is the anonymous source. I can't give her credit. Or mention her. There's nothing wrong or evil with using your family while you hardly do any work, right? So take that, Paul Manotty-notty. This is the Rational Response Squad Jr. You best recognize, fool!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Loftus said:
    ---
    No! Just because I understand an evil person does not mean I don't want to separate him from society in jail or prison, but not hell. I do.
    ---

    Okay, I think this means that you would punish a criminal, just not in hell.

    What justification do you have to punish someone at all?

    What justification do you have for why hell would be too far?


    Loftus said:
    ---
    And I have just as much of a right to object to him hurting me as anyone, because I don't want to be hurt, nor do I want people I care for hurt, and although I care for people less and less the farther away they live, just as Augustine taught, I still care for them.
    ---

    A criminal has just as much right to hurt you as you do to object to being hurt, because there are no rights in atheism.

    Tell me, John, if I want to harm you, what gives you the right to say I cannot do so? That you don't like it? What if I do? Why should my likes be subservient to your likes? They're both simply chemical reactions.

    You can say that people ought to live a specific way, and you can say that they should be "moral"--but you cannot SHOW why this is the case. You have no justification for your moral claims.

    ReplyDelete
  8. By the way, I also find it ironic that Loftus had to quote a Christian (Augustine) as the basis for one of his moral beliefs.

    Augustine based his worldview on Scripture.

    Does this not demonstrate a tacit admission by Loftus that Christianity is the cause of his morality?

    Where are the great atheist moralizers Loftus could have quoted?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Loftus said,

    "No! Just because I understand an evil person does not mean I don't want to separate him from society in jail or prison, but not hell."

    But that *punishes* that person, John.

    And you specifically said,

    "Punishment isn't what people need, so much as healing and understanding." - John W. Loftus"

    Get real John. Make up your mind. Sheesh, one day you're for punishment, the next day you're against it. Stand still so I can shoot, will ya?

    To tell you the truth, there are times I sinfully wish that I could be irrational and denounce consistency in my thought. I'll say whatever floats my boat at the present time. I'll affrm, deny, shift, dace, skate around, and dodge every critique because depending on the critique, I either saiud or didn't say what people say I said.

    All I can say to you John, especially in honor of your cowboy hat, is: That's some fancy footwork partner!"

    ReplyDelete
  10. But that *punishes* that person, John.

    And you specifically said,

    "Punishment isn't what people need, so much as healing and understanding." - John W. Loftus"

    >>Does it really punish them? Or does it make them into even more hardened criminals? What Loftus is saying is that he wants to understand the criminal while putting him in prison, where he can be further hardened and become even worse than he already is. The morality of the prison system is known to produce a subculture that reverses the morality of greater society. This does not harmonize with Loftus humane rhetoric.

    Loftus wants to understand the criminal and, one supposes, rehabilitate him. Great. How does prison rehabilitate? What is being tacitly stated, despite the, pardon me, lofty language, is that Loftus wants the person to undergo counseling (eg. be manipulated by the mental health system until he passes their muster, a process that can be indefinite) and make himself (that is Loftus)feel better, because now the crime is concealed and put in a place where he doesn't have to look @ it anymore. Loftus is using the criminal, counseling, and prison as a means to deal with the interplay of his altruistic desires and his his desire for the absence of guilt feelings.

    So, Loftus thinks that God's decrees are manipulative but then he wishes to manipulate the criminal. He becomes the very thing he says he despises in God.

    Basing punishment on deterrence and rehabilitation, on understanding and healing meering turns the perpetrator of a crime into an object to be manipulated. Loftus has succeeded not in treating the criminal as a person but it objectifying him/her and removing the boundary between crime and personality problems. Criminals aren't restored to society when they pay their debts, but when the mental health professional is satisfied that his personality has been readjusted. How is any different that God allegedly manipulating humanity for His own ends to His own satisfaction?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Does it really punish them?"

    Not in a just way.

    But, Loftus can't inflict *any* punishment. No penalty, no matter how poor the philosophy behind it, can be inflicted for a crime on Loftus' lofty view.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I find some of the comments here to be a gross example of dealing with a straw man argument. You do not even attempt to seriously engage me in what I'm saying. You purposely mischaracterize what I, and a great many others, believe.

    I find that ignorant. Like David Wood before you, I do not believe you can actually state my argument in a charitable light. The principle of intellectual charity does not apply to me, I guess.

    Until you can state my argument, I find your evaluation of what I'm saying quite simply ignorant. You need more knowledge. Until you gain this knowledge it's useless to engage you.

    The reason I leave discussions like this is simply because it's useless to try.

    I can quote from anyone I want to, too. I refer to Augustine because what he said is reasonable, and what he said on this matter did not come from the Bible. If you think otherwise, give me book chapter and verse.

    Just do this thought experiment: Imagine, if you can, that this universe is unexplainable in the same sense that your God is unexplainable. Who knows how the universe came into existence? I don't pretend to know, although Victor J. Stenger has a real good argument for how it did. Okay so far? Once again, this universe just exists without an ultimate explanation. It may have just popped into existence out of the unstable nature of zero energy with a quantum wave fluctuation between the forces of positive and negative energy.

    Anyway. God does not exist.

    I know you don't accept this. But I do.

    Now what?

    Figure it out. It's all about seeing things differently, and I have much better reasons for why I see things the way I do.

    I'm speaking at an upcoming Freethought meeting and they'll video my talk. I'll put up a link to it so you can see the basis for my beliefs.

    Seeing things the way I do, even if you object, is the way I see them for reasons I'll argue for.

    You really want to know why I'll use physical force to stop an attacker? Because I don't want hurt. You want to know why I am kind to people, even you? It's because I cannot turn my character on and off like a faucet, so in the interests of having a stable character that produces the benefits of friendship, and mental health, I'll refrain from doing what might bring me immediate self-gratification because of the long term goals of my over-all life plan.

    You want to know why I want some people in jail? To keep them away from me and those I love. Is this punishment? To the criminal it is. Does the criminal need help? Yes. Does our prison system deliver this help? No. Is that the fault of my position? NO.

    The reason criminals don't always get the help they need is because Christian people like you think in backward terms from pre-psychological days when it was believed people did wrong because they were evil. I taught college classes for a prison because the State allowed for it and paid for their tuition. That's helping these people. But you know what? The funding was cut off because people didn't think we should help these prisoners get a better job when they get out.

    I can only deal with so much ignorance in one day, and this is enough for today.

    ReplyDelete
  13. John W. Loftus said...

    "Like David Wood before you, I do not believe you can actually state my argument in a charitable light."

    You're using David Wood to draw an invidious comparison.

    But, of course, we don't share John's opinion of Wood. To the contrary, if there's an invidious comparison to be drawn, it's between David's professional performance and Loftus' amateurish performance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Of course Loftus hasn't show how *I* (or anyone) as misrepresented him.

    So, here we stand.

    Loftus says he doesn't think people like Cho should be punished, but then says people like Cho should be punished.

    Loftus thinks that putting people is jail is not punishment. How so? It is a *penalty* which is imposed for a transgression of *some kind.*

    Loftus is ignorant if he thinks that nothing happens except "being away from Loftus." It is legal kidnapping. Cho wouldn't want to go, it would be against his will.

    SO, Loftus says people should not be punished, but then says that they should.

    His only way to get out of the dilemma is to say "Boo-hoo, you guys don't get my genious. You are so 'stoopid,' you can't even get my arguments."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Punishment isn't what people need, so much as healing and understanding

    That's the quote.

    Can you properly exegete it? If you can't do that with just any statement, how is anyone to expect you can do properly exegete the Bible? I've asked this question a number of times. Hermeneutics isn't just about understanding the Bible. It's about understanding any written text, and you've shown me you cannot do it.

    Does my statement exclude punishment, or does it say what's most important?

    That's what I mean when I say you guys are ignorant and cannot state my arguments fairly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stevge said...if there's an invidious comparison to be drawn, it's between David's professional performance and Loftus' amateurish performance.

    Here's another example of what I mean. Who in their right mind can read what David Wood has written and conclude I didn't have a right to be done with his childishness?

    I have faulted you for not understanding. Now I must fault you for not even being able to read.

    I think what you do is a sign to jaundiced eyes that they are blind. No one would behave this way of fail to understand simple sentences if they weren't blind. I hope I can be a wake up call to you, but I doubt it.

    And yes, I'm a different sort of person. Most scholars wouldn't give you the time of day. I do. I don't understand it, really. But I think what I say matters. Ignorance like yours cannot prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,

    You say that punishment "is not" what people need.

    Furthermore, above you said,

    "You want to know why I want some people in jail? To keep them away from me and those I love. Is this punishment? To the criminal it is."

    So, *you* do *not* think 'prison is punishemnt.'

    Just because the criminal *thinks* he's being punished, doesn't mean that *John* thinks he is.

    So, I find you trying to be consitent with the first quote. Now, you are trying to act like you allow punishment.

    Okay...

    So, tell me, since *John* does not think prison is punishment (it just is to *the crimianl*), but John wants the criminal away from him, and since he thinks we *should* punish, and prison is not punishment but is required to "keep them away from John," then what does John suggest we *add* on to prison for punishment?

    John, keep digging your own grave. And, you know what, your bombastic and wild-eyed, Manson-lamped comments, only make you look more ridiculous. Perhaps the problem isn't with "us" and out Loftusian "exegetical" abilities, perhaps the problem is with you? A bumbeling bafoon, really.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Paul, I have been using the term "logical gerrymandering" for a few years now to describe what you and others like you do in unfairly redistricting and reshapingwhat people like me say out of context to gain an advantage.

    The first person I know of to use this term is Walter Kaufmann in his book, Critique of Religion and Philosophy, although he merely calls it "gerrymandering." He claimed "many theologians are master of this art. Theologians do not just do this incidentally: this is theology. Doing theology is like doing a jigsaw puzzle in which the verses of Scripture are the pieces: the finished picture is prescribed by each denomination, with a certain latitude allowed. What makes the game so pointless is that you do not have to use all the pieces, and that pieces which do not fit may be reshaped after prounouncing the words 'this means.' That is called exegesis."

    Anyway, he knew in advance that theologians would be gerrymandering what he wrote in his book. He wrote: "This Critique is exceptionally vulnerable to slander by quotation and critics cursed with short breath, structure blindness, and myopia will be all but bound to gerrymander it."

    He said:

    Quotations can slander
    if you gerrymander."


    Paul, that's exactly what you have done with my words. Are you a master at it? No, I don't think so. For if you were it wouldn't be so easily seen what you're doing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Notice that John simply *says* that I have done such and such with his words. That's called "respoding directly to comments gerrymandering," and you do it best, partner.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Loftus is great at saying. No so much on showing.

    It makes things easier for us, even if it's about as exciting as beating a Pee-Wee football team at ice hockey.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The reason I don't try to explain here, is because you will not accept the explanation. You will use any further explanation as a reason to mischaracterize me further. I claim that any freshman student could easily harmonize my statements.

    Here's a hint: Do what you do regularly with the Bible, except that in the Bible's case, the harmonizations are completely contrived. In my case it's easy.

    Go ahead. Try it. Come on now. You can do it. ;-)

    You're making fools of yourselves again.

    ReplyDelete