Ceci n'est pas un blog
Dawkins on rape
Presenter of Premier Radio’s Unbelievable? programme “Justin Brierley spoke to prominent atheist Richard Dawkins after his debate with Professor John Lennox at Oxford University in October 2008.” Here’s what was said 5:30 into the interview:
JB: But when you make a value judgement don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say the reason this is good is because it’s good, and you don’t have any way to stand on that statement?
RD: But my value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.
JB: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.
RD: Well, you could say that. But it doesn’t in any case – nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.
JB: Okay, but ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.
RD: You could say that, yeah.
(HT: Tom Price)
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 6 Nov 2008 at 10.08 am, and is filed under Comment. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
No trackbacks yet.
Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?
about 1 month ago - 16 comments
This question (also the title of a recent book by Denis Alexander) is one over which evangelical Christians often sharply disagree. Some (“young-earth creationists”) maintain that the Bible makes it crystal clear that life, the Universe and everything have had their beginning within the past few thousand years. Others (“theistic evolutionists”) are less willing to
David Robertson on secular belief and society
about 1 year ago - No comments
David Robertson, author of The Dawkins Letters, is due to visit Brighton in June/July. Yesterday he was on Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? programme, discussing the place of rationality, belief, progress and tolerance in a secular society, along with atheist blogger Adrian Hayter and Ariane Sherine, creator of the Atheist Bus Campaign. The fascinating conversation may
Is atheism compatible with belief in evolution?
about 1 year ago - 1 comment
Perhaps not. Have a read of this extract from Alvin Plantinga’s entry on Religion and Science in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (dealt with at more length here): In crafting our cognitive faculties, natural selection will favor cognitive faculties and processes that result in adaptive behavior; it cares not a whit about true belief (as
Does Richard Dawkins exist?
about 3 years ago - No comments
For a novel take on this perplexing question, read this, or listen to this:
I am a research fellow in 
Loading ...
about 1 year ago
Hey Anthony,
Dale here (one of the astro Msc students at Sussex, i think we met before) Hope you don’t mind me commenting on your blog, found it randomly..
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to get at here. So Dawkins thinks morality is arbitrary, this is consistent with his views. Do you present this for any particular reason as an argument against atheism or just to make RD look callous?
it’s good to read something intelligent on a blog for once
cheers, Dale
about 1 year ago
Hi Dale,
Welcome! And thanks for the comment. I think Dawkins is being consistent – atheism implies there are no moral absolutes – but it’s quite striking, and sickening, when that position is pushed to its logical conclusions…
See William Lane Craig on objective moral values.
about 1 year ago
Deuteronomy 22 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Biblical proof that rape is an absolute moral wrong…
Provided , of course, that it is a virgin that is raped.
about 1 year ago
Steven Carr – or Csrr – what an honour!
Proof indeed – if rape were morally right, then the man would have been allowed to walk away without facing the consequences. This is just one example of the consistent teaching of the Bible – and Deuteronomy in particular – that the laws of society must protect those who are most vulnerable, reflecting the character of the God of the Bible.
Anyway, back to the topic of the post … would you agree with Dawkins? I take it you believe rape is wrong? Would you say that “your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six”?
about 1 year ago
The laws of society must protect those who are most vulnerable.
So it is morally right for the rapist to be forced to marry the girl he raped?
We can evaluate rape to see if it contributes to the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.
And we can see that it doesn’t.
You can say that this is ‘arbitrary’. We might have evolved so that rape benefitted people, just as pigs might have evolved to have wings.
But pigs don’t fly, and rape harms.
Thank goodness we have moved away from the absolute moral values of the Bible and no longer force rapists to marry their victims.
about 1 year ago
Now that you and I agree that the Bible says that rape is morally wrong, the question is now: what should be the consequences for the rapist? In that society, it seems that no woman would want to remain unmarried, and it seems that if an unmarried woman was not a virgin, she was unlikely to find a husband. So for the virgin who is raped, she could either (1) remain unmarried for the rest of her life, or (2) be married to the rapist. Now, neither sounds particularly desirable (and, fortunately, there are other options in our society), but I would say (2) is better than (1). But you think (1) is preferable?
You make a value judgement that rape is wrong, which you base on another value judgement that anything that damages the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular is wrong (with the implicit assumption that the wells-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular will always coincide, which is absurd). But where did this value judgement come from? Is it as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six?