1) That that would not be “a society in which I wish to live” is irrelevant as the burglars do want that society and now it is survival of the fittest.In our society, committing crimes makes one less "fit" (i.e. less likely to reproduce successfully) because of the reaction of the rest of that society.A society which did not punish crimes would ultimately be "less fit" that one that does: crimes result in less co-operation, and co-operation is vital to sociological survival.2) He admits that he has no “rational reason for it necessarily” and “couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually.”Thus implying that he could, and would, defer to his emotions in such an argument.3) That he would “call the police” presupposes that the police agree with him. If he called the police in Nazi Germany to complain about the mistreatment of Jews he would have been summarily placed in a camp.Non-sequitor. In such an example, he would likely adopt a different strategy.4) Indeed, “this is weak.”Opinion. I am, however, in agreement: morality can be defended intellectually, thus Richards lack of attempt to do so is, indeed, weak.
Upon reading your criticism of Dawkins' explanation as to why killing is wrong it seemed to me very out of place. I attempted to find the link through your citation but it appears the link is broken (conveniently). So i took it upon myself to find the true origin of the quote. When I did it came of little surprise that you took it grossly out of context. Of course this is not the first time a creationist has twisted Dawkins' words to suit their needs. This blog is a disgrace.For the full interview with Dawkins: http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=102
So just how were Dawkins words twisted there?
If you read the full interview and still need to ask I feel sorry for your lack of intelligence. But that's no excuse for me not to attempt to explain it to you.He was asked what he would say to men who broke into an old man's home and killed him, and his first response was as seen on this blog. But, it ended with "I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you from doing this."The interviewer then said, "But they would say this is a society we want to live in."To which Dawkins then responded, " I couldn't, ultimately argue intellectually against somebody who....and call the police."These people would not care what Dawkins said to them so he drew calling authorities as the best solution. Would you not do the same if confronted by murderers? If your answer is no I'm assuming you'd be a touch more dead then Dawkins in such a situation.A mentally stable individual should not need Dawkins to explain to them why killing is wrong. Nor should they need a set of rules from a supreme being or the threat of damnation for eternity. If an individual can not dissern the difference between right and wrong by themselves and decide to kill someone they shouold be handed over to the authorities and then be put through the rehabilitation of prison and psychological therapy.
Also Dawkins certainly did not end his response with "I realize this is very weak."
Mariano must have fixed the link? The footnote works fine.There isn't any twisting or quote-mining going on. Mariano quoted what Dawkins said and properly used an elipsis indicating that it is a partial quote. Unless you can demonstrate that Mariano deliberately left out something that would have changed the meaning of what he was quoting then there really isn't any argument.See the question: When do I use those 3 dots (...)? hereAs to a mentally stable individual not needing Dawkins to explain to them why killing is wrong, you miss the point entirely. It is a matter of the source or reason for your worldview. The fact that it is wrong is a given. Dawkins has to borrow from Judeo-Christian principles in order to support his worldview that murder is wrong. It is opposed to darwinian evolution, something Dawkins admitted in the very interview.
Sorry the link for proper quotation is: http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/quotations.html
Where do you get the idea that "Judeo-Christians" are the first ones to figure out things like murder is wrong? You do know that the Sumerians, et al beat them to it, right?Besides, many other cultures have arrived at similar conclusions well before contact with members of the Judeo-christian faith.
Anonymous Poster: it appears you are correct. I did not realise Dawkins was addressing the specific hypothesis of confronting people who had proven themselves to be capable of murder, and thought he was instead speaking on a more generalised level in defence of natural morality. Mariano did state this, and he did provide elipses, however given his apparently purposeful misreading of Dawkins response (apparent in his reply to it), it would have been better for him to have provided the quote in full, including the questions Professor Dawkins was responding to.
An Open Challenge to Bible Critics - http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-challenge-to-bible-critics.htmlNew Atheism: New Excuses and New Abuses - http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-atheism-new-excuses-and-new-abuses.html