Oct 21 2007
Evolution Cheapens Life, Christianity Teaches Accountability, Says Dahmer
Salient has a great post on serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s claim that the theory of evolution cheapens life, and how he learn the concept of accountability only through his post-arrest conversion to Christianity:
If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep within acceptable ranges. That’s how I thought, and I have since come to believe that the Lord Jesus is truly God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they’re the only true God.
In 1989 Dahmer was first arrested for sexually assaulting a 13-year old boy, after luring him with the promise of paying for a photo session. During this arrest three psychologists examined Dahmer and agreed he displayed traits of anti-social personality disorder (aka he was a sociopath), he was manipulative, resistant and evasive, and his only remorse was that he should have picked an older victim. They recommended hospitalization and intensive treatment , yet after Dahmer and his lawyer made a persuasive argument that he wanted to “tread the straight and narrow” (notice the religious narrative), and turn his life around he got one-year work release and five years probation, and was released after 10 months. This is where he began his killing, necrophilia and cannibalism in earnest (he had killed before his 1989, and his early victims were yet to be discovered). He was finally brought to trial in 1992 after one of his victims managed to escape. He was convicted to 15 life-terms in prison. In 1994 he was murdered by two of his prison mates.
During this short time between his arrest and death, Dahmer claimed to have found God in prison. All who came in contact with Dahmer agree he was well-spoken and persuasive, common traits in sociopaths, and he does appeared very calm and persuasive during an MSNBC interview. So did Dahmer convert in earnest, or was it just part of a manipulative ploy? And would his conversion even be relevant to behavioral change?
As I mentioned earlier Dahmer claimed that only through God did he come to a realization of his accountability, and without God there was no accountability. One would be lead to conclude from this statement that before his conversion in prison, he was unaware of God’s saving grace. A quote I presented earlier from his 1989 pedophilia trial shows he was familiar with and did not shy away from employing religious rhetoric. His 1992 trial statements also show he was perfectly aware of the social expectations of God’s grace in time to make one last rhetorical attempt at appearing humbled before his trial ended:
The doctors have told me about my sickness, and now I have some peace. I know how much harm I have caused… Thank God there will be no more harm that I can do. I believe that only the Lord Jesus Christ can save me from my sins…
If we analyze this statement we can see traces of another anti-social trait, focus on self, or the need to feel important by drawing attention to oneself. Despite trying to show he understands he harmed people he makes no specific mention of those he had harmed. He doesn’t even mention his victims through generic terms. He says “I have caused harm,” but to whom he does not say. He shows an inwards focus as he points to his sickness, and he wants to be saved from his sins.
During the MSNBC interview that Salient uses as the centerpiece of the post, Dahmer is once again very centered on his own experience. A Crime Librabry article reviewing the book on Dahmer’s conversion (by Roy Ratcliff who was Dahmer’s spiritual guide) mentions two other instances that show Dahmer preoccupation with drawing attention to himself. Ratcliff mentions Dahmer was upset his lawyer was channeling his meager prison wages to his victims’ families, and also because his prison-mates made it difficult for him to live his faith. So despite his claims he understood he hurt people, and that he had found accountability through God, his actions showed he continued to display anti-social behavior.
Ultimately, whether he believed in evolution or in creation Dahmer was still a sociopath. In fact, that’s the paradox of prison conversion stories–those who do the converting appear to be exclusively concerned with the acceptance of god or Jesus as a path to salvation (just as Dahmer is fixated on one concept and one concept only–accountability to God), not necessarily with remorse, or more importantly, with behavioral change. Christian spiritual guides are focused on the salvation of the soul, which to them has a very short requirements list–sincere acceptance of Jesus as the savior.
It was not the theory of evolution that made Dahmer a sociopath and it was not his conversion to Christianity that stopped him from being one. He stopped killing because he was caught, imprisoned and murdered. And nothing in his public statements between his arrest and death pointed to his comprehension of the value of human life. He talked of his personal salvation, he talked about accountability to God, he talked about taking his urges to torture, rape, kill and rape again too far (as if taking them not-too-far was acceptable). The only believable thing he ever said was that his parents were not to blame. It is irrelevant whether or not he was sincere during his conversion when it comes to his being a dangerous murderer. His conversion just made him a very dangerous Christian.
TechTags Plugin [ religion | Christianity | serial killers | sociopath | evolution | creationism | God | Jesus ]
13 responses so far
Interesting post, Mana.
I agree that Dahmer displayed sociopathic traits, but I think that there is more to his urges than mere lack of feeling for other people. Sociopaths are often charming, social, and manipulative, but their lack of conscience does not typically include boyhood fantasies of lying next to unconscious men or of sexual fantasies involving killing. I think he said “men”, not “boys”, which is weird considering that he targetted younger boys when older.
If you watch the video of his boyhood again, note the weird body language when he’s swanning around the garden at about age 7 in what appear to be pink pajamas. He moves like a girl, yet he appears very masculine in other clips. His father said that he was a fairly normal kid until they moved to Ohio. I wonder what really happened to twist him.
There is also the fact that he mentions losing somethink like six hours of time and being disoriented when the police arrived and found one of the bodies. Since he was already convicted, that claim was not part of an insanity plea. Quite a lot of what I watched seemed like DID gone horribly wrong, and that was clearly the case with Canada’s serial killers (Paul Bernardo and Carla Homolka). Lest I give DID an undeservedly bad name, I should point out that it is quite common (2-6% depending on the study) and that most patients with DID do not commit horrendous crimes. (Females tend to self-abuse and wind up in therapy, whereas males are more likely to be violent and to end up in jail.) Because different personalities play different roles, they can be very persuasive.
I definitely agree with you that his conversion to God was probably as fake as a lot of his presentation of self. Even if he’d been a believer throughout his life, nothing short of incarceration would have stopped him from killing those boys and young men.
Thanks for the comment salient. Yes the psychiatrists who interviewed him did say he exhibited symptoms of a number of possible disorders, predominantly axis 2 disorders. Personality disorders are generally difficult to diagnose particularly because their symptoms tend to overlap, so we’d only be speculating. All I know is that the theory of evolution idea was just Dahmer’s attempt at explaining himself. It’s the religious narrative that fascinates me.
A Maruna, Wilson and Curran study published in 2006 in Research in Human Development argues that prisoners’ turning to god while incarcerated functions as “a shame management and coping strategy in the following ways. The narrative creates a new social identity to replace the label of prisoner or criminal, imbues the experience of imprisonment with purpose and meaning, empowers the largely powerless prisoner by turning him into an agent of God, provides the prisoner with a language and framework for forgiveness, and allows a sense of control over an unknown future.”
That’s a pretty powerful narrative…
You are correct that we are speculating, but isn’t speculation fun?!
I agree that psychiatric diagnosis is much more difficult than medical diagnosis because individuals can exhibit symptoms from several categories. However, if you read the DSM-IV description of DID, you will see that dissociative amnesic episodes that Jeffrey described are conditio sine qua non for the diagnosis of DID. I emphasized DID because Dahmer clearly describes dissociative episodes (third video) and because DID arises *only* through severe, early, prolonged childhood physical or sexual abuse. In other words, Jeffrey’s adult behavior indicates that matters were far worse in Jeff’s childhood (probably in the home) than the videos indicate.
There has to *be* an explanation for Jeffrey’s inclinations, whether it is genetic or environmental or a combination of those. He was murdered in jail, so we’ll never know more. However, his behavior and background fit to a pattern that has been described by other serial killers, so I’d say that childhood abuse remains the likeliest stimulus to his perversion.
I agree that the anti-evolution pitch was some kind of ploy. I have read elsewhere that Lionel was a creationist throughout Jeffrey’s life, so I suspect that his father influenced (or convinced) Jeffrey to feed that line to Stone Phillips in the interview. You might wonder how I could consider the father such a powerful influence over toeing the creationist line despite probably having been Jeff’s abuser, but continued obedience, and ironically love, is common in the victim-perpetrator relationship. Think of it as lifelong Stockholm syndrome.
Thanks for the information on that study, which certainly makes sense and probably partly explains why there are a disproportionate number of believers in American jails. Ironically, since many or most males with DID run afoul of the law, there are presumably also a disproportionate number of DIDs in the nation’s prisons.
The phenomenon that Maruna et al describe can precede prison, though. I have ‘met’ alter personalities who are devoutly religious. That is, even though the host (chief) personality is not religious, one alter personality may carry all of the religious ‘hopes’ for the personality system. The religion-of-choice may not be the religion in which the child was raised — I once met an alter who called herself ‘Totem’ and practiced native spirituality despite the fact that the host was a nonpracticing Jew. Personality systems also typically include workers, reporters, helpers, protectors, sluts, etc. I suspect that Maruna et al were merely seeing the more frequent emergence and personality-consensus adoption of religious ‘hope’ bargaining.
I suspect that the alarming frequency of pedophilic priests reflected a similar phenomenon — devout Catholics with no interest in adult women might well have hoped that entering the priesthood would ‘cure’ them of their unwelcome urges.
A very high percentage of my patients were raised and abused in highly religious families — several were the daughters of Bishops. Several have told me that when, as children, they told their mothers that they were being abused, their mothers merely prayed over them or instructed them to pray.
I suspect that jail ‘conversions’, religious alters, pedophilic priests, praying look-the-other-way mothers, and televangelists reflect the fact that we have inherited both the intergenerational impact of difficult lives and the empty promises that religionists have repeated about “remedies” that cannot help.
I posted another comment, but it seems to have disappeared, Mana.
In case you are interested, I also posted it here: http://saliental.blogspot.com/2007/10/accounting-for-accountability-accounts.html#c5665813017554018324
Salient, thanks for explaining DID in further detail. Not sure why your reply didn’t get posted on my blog. I didn’t find it under “waiting for moderation”…
I agree DID is a possible explanation but I can’t comment on it, or any other diagnosis. I think the symptoms are there and yes, it’s important to discover what was at the source of his behavior and hope to find better treatments for such cases.
Abuse for the purpose of inflicting religious teachings is a tough one to debate. I mean atheists seem to agree (and agree with Dawkins) that teaching religion to young kids can be abusive. But how do you analyze it without running the risk of “offending” religious sensitivities? I wrote a few posts on the abusiveness of religion.
See what evolution is doing to us, this stupid evolution crap is going to be the cause of the end of this world. ONLY GOD KNOWS how people can believe that we came into existence by random movements of molecules.
I mean if I dont clean my office, it gets more and more junky, I have never seem my things organize themselves. My papers never sort themselves into nice piles of things to do, things already done, this pile is junk and this other pile is important stuff. If that has never happens in the real world how can people think molecules can randomly encode themselves into complex DNA that describes how to build something else? The molecules cant even see anything, and they dont know anything, how can they do complex things like create the plans for a trip to mars by accident? Its laughable!!
You have got to be completly brainless to believe that, even my 4 year old knows that.
I think people who believe that crap is certainly DEVOLVING!
Dread Locks,
It seems you know little to nothing about science. Random movement of molecules do not create humans… no self respecting scientist would ever say that.
The entropy and hygeine of your office also has nothing to do with biology.
Who said molecules encode themselves? What are you talking about?
I do agree with you that molecules lack the sense of sight.
I am not sure why molecules would plan a trip to mars even if they had that capability… why do you think they would want to?
As far as you lack of belief or understanding of Evolution is concerned I have questions:
Why do you come down with new versions of the flu every year or new strain of bacteria for some illness?
Do you think an angel decends down to earth with a new strain that was created in Heaven just for you personally?
Where do you think you get your DNA from? Your parents? or does god only know?
Do you think the dozens of strains and new genotypes of HIV were sent here on the wings of angels? Did the Angels sneak up to people and inject them with it in their sleep or something? I am really curious because natural selection and evolution explain this in a very clear manner.
Evolution will go on with or without your belief.
Please explain your theory of Devolving.
postifthenon,
Well the DNA is made of molecules, and evolution says random mutations and natural selection is what put us here. Mutation is nothing more than movement of molecules isnt it not?
Random DNA mutation means the DNA encoded itself, now thats akin to accidentally generating a 128 bit encryption algorithm, and simultaneously randomly generating the decryption algorthm. Nobody would believe that can ever happen, yet this is what evolutionsts wants us to believe that DNA encoding and decoding procedures (algorithms) were randomly created.
When I spoke of mars I was creating an analogy between creating the plans to go to mars with creating the plans for the human body. I doubt that blind DNA and non living molecules could do either.
The other thing with evolutionsts is that they keep comparing bateria and single celled creatures with creatures containing trillions of cells working together (like human beings). Now explain to me how evolution can coordinate trillions of blind and dumb cells to work together to do something they have no knowledge what they are doing. That would be a miracle! And WHY would they waste their time? I mean the world doesnt need people, people uses way more resources than a single cell. Single cells were existing perfectly fine before, so why evolve into something that needs more fuel, more resources, waste natural things like water, trees, create pollution. There is no reason to evolve humans.
Mutating virus is just one cell, cant compare that with a trillion celled human.
I never said anything about angels, of course virus mutate, I dont deny that, its part of nature.
I got my DNA from my parents, and they got it from their parents, but where did the original DNA come from? Evolution? random movement of blind molecules? That like saying a bunch of blind and deaf men in a factory just happen to create a sky scraper by accident. Cells dont know what they are doing, they are just running here and there, they dont have the big picture how can it work, it never work can unless something higher is directing them.
Evolution is like saying that spider man could actually exist from humands getting bitten by spiders over millions of years.
Dread Locks, you need to go back to school to learn some basics so that you won’t waste your time attacking straw man misrepresentations of what science actually says.
Every time a creationist pumps out such drivel, it makes any possibility that a supernatural entity will ever be demonstrated retreat farther and farther into the distance. It certainly demonstrates that educators must be firm in their insistence that lies cannot be taught in lieu of science.
Salient,
What was it that evolutionsts always say when they got no good science to back themselves up, they say “Go back to school to learn some basics”, as if the question is too stupid to answer, because its so beneath them to even ackowledge it. Because they cant answer it!!
Evolution is not science, which branch of science would believe in the vanishingly small probablity of evolution. In any other branch of science, that probabilty would be taken as zero. But not in evolution, if the probabilty is 1:infinity, since its not zero, EVILushionists take that as an absolute certainity.
Given enough time even an event with 1:infinite probability can happen. But given the length of time the universe been in existence, can 1:infinity really happen?
Look how big the universe is, we dont even know how many dimensions there are, or what is outside of the physical universe. We dont even understand quantum physics. How do you know there isnt a creator out there? Evolutionsts think they know everything about everything everywhere, wow what an ego to have, they know everything! I wonder why they havnt cured the common cold as yet since they know everything.
Dread Locks despite your effort to ask many rhetorical questions and back none of your arguments up with even one book other than scripture, you are not irritating me but rather making me laugh. When you talk about molecules moving I instantly think of Chris Rock talking about pimped-up rims–”they’re spinnin’, they’re spinnin’…”
I’m also seeing the potential that you’re just making fun of creationists here by impersonating all the inane arguments I’ve ever seen brought against science and evolution. I can’t honestly believe you are serious when you say, “Mutation is nothing more than movement of molecules isnt it not?”
Bad grammar aside, and in case I am wrong, and you are serious, the answer is NO. Genetic mutation is not movement of molecules. It’s not about the rims “spinnin’ and spinnin’.”
“Mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene. Gene mutations occur in two ways: they can be inherited from a parent or acquired during a person’s lifetime. Mutations that are passed from parent to child are called hereditary mutations or germline mutations (because they are present in the egg and sperm cells, which are also called germ cells). This type of mutation is present throughout a person’s life in virtually every cell in the body.”
And where did you get the idea that evolution has a vanishingly small probability? If you say you know viruses mutate then you know evolution doesn’t have a vanishingly small probability.
Mana,
Have you ever wondered why evolution would make our brains so powerful. Why would we need to evolve the brain power to goto the moon, build telescopes to look back in time, develop equations in quantum physics, build HD TV sets, air bags,4 slice toasters, and develop internet.
These things are not a part of nature, why would evolution need us to do these things? The most we need to do is be able to find food and run away from preditors. Other animals survive for millions of years without the brain power to send space ships to mars, why do we need that?
[...] through Christianity did he learn the concept of accountability. Can Christianity undo a serial killhttp://skepticum.com/evolution-cheapens-life-christianity-teaches-accountability-says-dahmer/Jeffrey Dahmer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn January 2007, evidence surfaced potentially [...]