Two points: firstly, satisfying a basic instinct isn’t necessarily immoral.

Except that is a straw man. My thesis is that the satisfaction of the base instinct to kill is immoral.

Now that is exactly my thesis, and if that is what you say is not immoral, it is up to you to demonstrate why my argument as to why it is immoral is incorrect.

Secondly, I haven’t argued that executing criminals must be based in satisfying such an instinct – if you recall that’s exactly what i took exception to.

And as you will recall, I have agreed from the start that inasmuch it is possible not to kill on the base instinct for retribution, this is possible. The question is only whether the other reasons themselves stack up.

So my cited reason, which was that Christianity is immoral, isn’t a valid reason to reject the religion?

Because a religion based on the message of tolerance of Christ is not immoral.

Stop saying it’s ad hominem

Or you could just desist with the ad hominem line…

Notice how you are spending more time attacking belief sets you (often wrongly) impute to me than the nub of the argument. Your line is fallacious.

What’s your reason for finding atheists hypocritical? Or was that just a playground nyaa-nyaa na na na rejoinder?

No, these are personal observations. I will not go into them because it is unfair on those with no ability to reply. My point is that human nature is human nature, and that emotion is a very poor reason to reject or accept a belief.

inasmuch as our desire to execute criminals is found in a satisfaction of a basic instinct to exact retribution, it is immoral.

Two points: firstly, satisfying a basic instinct isn’t necessarily immoral. Secondly, I haven’t argued that executing criminals must be based in satisfying such an instinct – if you recall that’s exactly what i took exception to.

Only your first reason for rejecting Christianity is valid. All the others suggest you are allowing emotion to dictate your belief set

So my cited reason, which was that Christianity is immoral, isn’t a valid reason to reject the religion? How so?

because there is at least one whole group of Christians who do indeed hold to a doctrine of theological determinism.

Yes, that’s why I mentioned Calvinism. And of course it’s utter nonsense. God preordains my damnation? Nice of him. And he wants me to worship him? Why would I do that then?

This is a critique of a faith position. Stop saying it’s ad hominem as if you’ve just discovered the Junior Guide to Logical Fallacies. You couldn’t believe in predestination and believe in Christian redemption, which i presume you do, and be making sense. There’s a logical contradiction.

I find Christians hypocritical and patronising because of their glossing over of the problem of evil – for example. What’s your reason for finding atheists hypocritical? Or was that just a playground nyaa-nyaa na na na rejoinder?

I don’t understand why you keep missing my point

And I don\’t know why you keep missing mine, which I repeat: inasmuch as our desire to execute criminals is found in a satisfaction of a basic instinct to exact retribution, it is immoral.

If you really believe this then it can’t possibly square with your Christianity unless you’re some sort of Calvinist.

So I can possibly believe this. There exist Christians (Calvinists) who would believe this. Your protestation that it is unfair that I hold a position that you see as determinism whilst holding to an apparently contardictory Christian faith turns out to be spurious, because there is at least one whole group of Christians who do indeed hold to a doctrine of theological determinism.

Note that “some sort of Calvinist” could have a very broad interpretation. For instance, to many people\’s point of view, Finney is “some sort of Calvinist”, so beware at this point of taking your ad hominem line further and imputing to me all the views you may believe to be held by Calvinists – that would only lead to unnecessary stereotyping. It is enough to now note that I could indeed hold to the viewpoint I have expressed above and to a Christian faith. This ad hominem line fails.

I go through life rejecting your religion at every opportunity because I find it unconvincing, immoral and childish, and its adherents patronising, smug, annoying and hypocritical.

I feel the same way about entymologists.

Only your first reason for rejecting Christianity is valid. All the others suggest you are allowing emotion to dictate your belief set. I find many (perhaps most) atheists patronising, smug, annoying and hypocritical (oh, and yes – childish too in some key examples) – but should I reject atheism because of this?

But conviction? That is not in my gift.

I notice you misunderstand my argument when you quote me as saying:

if we were in his shoes, we must conclude we would have done what he did.

I am saying that if and only if we give in to the base instinct of retribution, then we must conclude that were we in the same position as Cornelius, we would have done as he has done. (See, not so classically Calvinistic as all that, is it?) Because we make no attempt to choose to ignore our base instincts, we must conclude that were our instincts afflicted by the same neurosis as Cornelius, we would not have chosen to ignore those instincts either, and our action is equally reprehensible.

So I’ll say it again. I’m not defending capital punishment.

If we were in his shoes, we must conclude we would have done what he did.

If you really believe this then it can’t possibly square with your Christianity unless you’re some sort of Calvinist. Let’s put it like this:

I go through life rejecting your religion at every opportunity because I find it unconvincing, immoral and childish, and its adherents patronising, smug, annoying and hypocritical. However, to my amazement, it turns out you’re right and I’m wrong so when I die I don’t get eternal paradise. You do, though.

But you say, in the context of a murder, if we were in his shoes, we must conclude we would have done what he did.

So you get eternal paradise and I get eternal damnation despite your conviction that, given each other’s circumstances, we couldn’t have done otherwise.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

By the way. Taking issue with ridiculous opinions isn’t in itself an attack on an individual who hold those opinions – though that might be prefectly justified.

We wouldn’t be ’simply’ satisfying base instincts: we could be deliberately employing the death penalty as a deterrent

Inasmuch as capital punishment is a deterrent (over, say, whole of life sentences), this is true, as I have stated. However, as there is no evidence of a deterrent effect, the argument is counterfactual.

However, it is possible to make a narrower case, and I take it this is what you are trying to say: that there may be other reasons for choosing capital punishment than the satisfaction of our base instinct for retribution. I happen to think that all the other reasons given for executing people rather than whole of lofe tarrifs are also problematic, but not for reasons I have written above. For instance, it can be cheaper to execute a criminal than to house them in a prison for the rest of their life. I would discount that argument based on the observation that economics do not drive morality. Other arguments are also posited.

Therefore I propose that you read my thesis above as: inasmuch as our desire to execute criminals is found in a satisfaction of a basic instinct to exact retribution, it is immoral.

You go on to defend your use of an ad hominem line by protesting that it is unfair that a I should appear to have a contradiction in the belief set you impute to me by my faith and the belief set you impute to me in the argument above. This line is ad hominem, as I have said.

If you wish to explore whether one can be a Christian and hold to a viewpoint that is apparently deterministic, then you could take me up on my challenge to read some Christian literature. For instance, I think you will find my viewpoint above is in some senses a poor relation to the thesis of Jonathan Edwards in his essay “On the Freedom of the Will”, in which he takes issue with Hobbesian determinism amongst other things, but nevertheless produces a seminal work on what exactly is meant by the freedom of the will.

You will note that Edwards, as a puritan, does not exclude the miraculous from his philosophy – but for him, even the freedom brought by the intervention of the Holy Spirit is predestined.

This is not the article to discuss that viewpoint though. If you wish, I will re-read Edwards and try to summarise his viewpoint in a psot on this blog (or you could read his treatise and summarise on your blog, to which I could comment).

The problem with an ad hominem line though, is that if you follow it, you will spend more time complaining about the fairness of my position on these issues between which you see a tension, and less time considering the argument proposed.

Thanks again for your comments (which I appreciate, btw. I would much rather see a contrary opinion that probes the ideas, rather than a whole bunch of messages just agreeing – or worse, no comment at all.)

we have made exactly the same choice that Cornelius made. We have chosen to kill (or torture) simply to sate our base instincts.

Our choice would not be the same. We wouldn’t be ‘simply’ satisfying base instincts: we could be deliberately employing the death penalty as a deterrent. Note I haven’t argued for or against, I’ve pointed out that you are wrong.

As the the ad hominem – my remarks were entirely appropriate because you say you are a Chistian, a religion that offers paradise for accepting a set of beliefs: that seems unfair if at the same time you’re such a determinist in other things. There’s a glaring contradiction between your argument here, such as it is, and your religious claims, and pointing out the contradiction is pertinent.

“Punishment may hold an element of retribution, but a restrained retribution that allows for some measure of healing.

Punishment should be a deterrant, but also with the hope that the offender may be rehabilitated too.”

I did not say the motive would be the same. I did say that were we in his shoes, we must conclude we would have done the same thing he did, if we give in to our base instincts.

If I am wrong (and I accept that I could be, of course), you have not demonstrated the error here.

The rest of your comment was indeed ad hominem. Ad hominem, as I am sure you know, is Latin for “to the man”. Consider how your argument above is directed at the person with whom you are arguing rather than the substance of the argument.

Thanks for your interest.