Was Anders Breivik “not-insane”?
|April 10, 2012||Posted by DLH under Animal minds, Cosmology, Darwinism, Design inference, Ethics, Evolutionary psychology, Intelligent Design, language, News, Philosophy, Religion, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Society|
Other psychiatrists now find Norway massacre gunman Anders Behring Breivik ‘not insane’ – prison now possible
“The experts’ main conclusion is that the accused, Anders Behring Breivik, is not considered to have been psychotic at the time of the actions on July 22, 2011,” the Oslo district court said in a statement which reopens the debate on whether the self-confessed killer can be sent to prison.
“That means that he is considered criminally responsible at the time of the crime.”
The new evaluation counters the findings of an initial probe that found Breivik was suffering from “paranoid schizophrenia,” which meant he would most likely be sentenced to psychiatric care instead of prison.
Recall our first highly controversial post questioning:
Was Norway shooter a Social Darwinian terrorist?
Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings.
Breivik’s actions and the “experts” evaluations raise numerous questions:
Are we only Social Darwinian creatures? – Who consider “good” to be only whatever is “beneficial” to greater reproduction?
Is “insanity” any action that does not cause greater reproduction?
See Noah Webster (1828)
Insane: 1. Unsound in mind or intellect; mad; deranged in mind; delirious; distracted.
e.g., See Peter Haas Doing Ethics in An Age of Science in Good and Evil After Auschwitz: Ethical Implications for Today
Only in Germany under the Nazis, did Social Darwinism become the unquestioned ideology of government policy.
Does “evil” exist? Consider Webster (1828):
E’VIL, a. e’vl. [Heb. to be unjust or injurious, to defraud.]
1. Having bad qualities of a natural kind; mischievous; having qualities which tend to injury, or to produce mischief.
Some evil beast hath devoured him. Gen.37.
2. Having bad qualities of a moral kind; wicked; corrupt; perverse; wrong; as evil thoughts; evil deeds; evil speaking; an evil generation.
3. Unfortunate; unhappy; producing sorrow, distress, injury or calamity; as evil tidings; evil arrows; evil days.
E’VIL, n. Evil is natural or moral. Natural evil is any thing which produces pain, distress, loss or calamity, or which in any way disturbs the peace, impairs the happiness, or destroys the perfection of natural beings.
Moral evil is any deviation of a moral agent from the rules of conduct prescribed to him by God, or by legitimate human authority; or it is any violation of the plain principles of justice and rectitude.
There are also evils called civil, which affect injuriously the peace or prosperity of a city or state; and political evils, which injure a nation, in its public capacity.
All wickedness, all crimes, all violations of law and right are moral evils. Diseases are natural evils, but they often proceed from moral evils.
Were Breivik’s actions “insane” and/or “immoral”? Or were they “evil”, “murder” and an “atrocity”?
Or were they justified based on his presuppositions and stated intentions?
If so Why? Or Why Not? On what presuppositions do you ground your beliefs or arguments?
To understand some of the issues see Edward T. Oakes, S.J. Atheism and Violence, First Things Jan 29, 2008
‘the varieties of man seem to act on each other in the same way as different species of animals – the stronger always extirpating the weaker’.
What is an “atrocity”? Webster (1828):
ATROC’ITY, n. Enormous wickedness; extreme hainousness or cruelty; as the atrocity of murder.
To commit atrocity, must one be “insane”?
Can person be both sane and evil?
One of the main drivers for Darwin in developing evolution was his struggle with the problem of evil and the difficulty of reconciling design with suffering. e.g., See Sara Joan Miles citing Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design PSCF 53 (September 2001): 196-201.
We now discover that: Anders Behring Breivik ‘planned to bomb Barack Obama at Nobel Peace Prize ceremony’
The far-Right extremist told Norwegian police of a plot to drive a car packed with explosives onto the square next to Oslo City Hall, and detonate it while the ceremony was taking place there, according to Norway’s Dagbladet newspaper.
See earlier posts on Breivik: Breivik: Advances in biology will makes possible a vigorous new form of Social Darwinism that will save the Nordic race
Breivik harbors a special concern that Christians not be able to influence issues related to science and public policy “in any way.”
Because he sees biological science–not traditional religion–as the ultimate savior of society. In his view, advances in biology will makes possible a vigorous new form of Social Darwinism that will save the Nordic race through positive eugenics.
The most disturbing thing about Breivik’s eugenics proposals is that they are not simply inspired by his own private demons. Instead, they largely spring from “mainstream” Darwinists, past and present. . . . Lee Silver’s. . . .1997 book Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family features prominently in Breivik’s lengthy manifesto . . ..
if lone wolves thought we didn’t care, they wouldn’t bother with human targets anyway.
Caring is not Part of the Solution, it is just inevitable background noise. Intelligent strategy is part of the solution.
See further articles at WND