According to the secular, atheistic worldview the human soul has no transcendent existence beyond mere matter. Therefore human behavior is totally conditioned by the chemical reactions occurring in the brain and how these reactions are affected by external stimuli. This worldview of course destroys the traditional ethical concept of moral culpability. How can an individual be considered guilty if the chemical reactions in his brain cause him to commit a crime?
This logical conclusion of the atheistic worldview is now being used by defense lawyers who are basically claiming that their defendants are innocent because “their brains made them do it.”
From NBC News:
“He says his brain was coded to kill.
Anthony Blas Yepez didn’t deny beating an elderly man to death in Santa Fe, New Mexico, six years ago in a fit of rage. But after learning that he had a rare genetic abnormality linked to sudden violent outbursts, he argued for leniency, saying he wasn’t fully in control of himself when he committed the crime.
The claim seemed like a stretch to the judge, prosecutors and some scientists. But Yepez took it to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which agreed to consider it.
The court’s decision — still months away — could accelerate a trend in the criminal justice system: the use of behavioral genetics and other neuroscience research, including the analysis of tumors and chemical imbalances, to explain why criminals break the law. The rapidly developing field is forcing officials to confront new questions about how changes in the brain influence behavior — leading some to rethink notions about guilt and punishment.
This cutting-edge evidence, collected through brain scans, psychological exams and genetic sequencing, has been deployed in a range of ways: to challenge whether a defendant was capable of premeditated murder, whether a defendant was competent to stand trial, whether a defendant should be put to death. Most of those attempts to use neuroscience as a defense have failed, researchers say. But some — about 20 percent, according to one study — have worked, winning defendants new hearings or reversals.
That is troubling to researchers who fear some of the tactics push the boundaries of science.
‘The law at the moment exists in this gray zone where everyone acknowledges that both genetic and environmental factors could affect culpability,’ said Owen Jones, a Vanderbilt University law professor who directs the Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. ‘But how do you know when, and how much?'”
Sadly, but not surprisingly, the secular media completely fails to explain the real philosophical issue at stake. It is absurd to take the position that brain chemistry determines human behavior, but then apply this to only a handful of crimes. How could it be that brain chemistry destroys moral culpability in the case of some crimes but not in others? Are they suggesting that in some cases the disposition of a criminal’s brain forces him to act, but in other cases there is some transcendent ego that can resist brain chemistry? Of course they would never say this, but then the secular worldview does not aim at logic or consistency. The goal of this worldview is to slowly destroy all vestiges of the Biblical concept of justice and to replace it with the therapeutic state that can play god and reform men through its own efforts. And the secularists certainly do not care how many murderers are allowed to roam free in order to achieve their goal.