Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 6 of 6

In the previous 5 parts of our consideration of evilbible.com's claims as to the question of rape in the Bible we noted an unfortunate trend amongst many atheists towards un-scholarly pseudo-skepticism and an inability to condemn any action by appealing to anything but assertions of authority and outrage.
Our study of evilbible.com's claims demonstrated that they imagined rape where there was none and that they, for some odd and yet self-servingly convenient reason, neglected to quote, cite or comment on the biblical text that is crystal clear about its views on rape.

Now, let us consider some statements that atheists have made about rape.

Dan Barker
Dan Barker, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation repeatedly argues that nothing is absolutely immoral.

At 33:49 into part 1 (here is part 2) of his debate with Peter Payne on the topic of ethics Dan Barker claimed,

…there are no action in and of themselves are always absolutely right or wrong. It depends on the context. You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case.

Thus, keeping true to his words he argues that rape is not absolute immoral. His "reasoning" involves a hypothetical scenario in which the Earth is attacked by malevolent alien rape voyeurs from outer space.
Of course, appealing to malevolent aliens he could state that cannibalizing babies is not absolutely immoral or fill in the blank with your darkest and most malevolent fantasy is not absolutely immoral.

He may consider it a triumph of reason to state that, "I can think of an exception in any case." But this is how criminals think-they can justify absolutely anything.

This is well in keeping with Dan Barker's worldview and view on ethics.
During his debate with John Rankin (entitled Evolution and Intelligent Design: What are the issues?) he stated that "Darwin has bequeathed what is good" and expresses part this goodness by stating "abortion is a blessing."
During his debate with Paul Manata, Dan Barker stated,

There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares.

He referred to Jesus as "a moral monster" and makes a point by asking and answering as to whether happens to us or a vegetable ultimately matter,

…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won't the Sun is going to explode, we're all gonna be gone. No one's gonna care.

Sam Harris
Sam Harris stated,

If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, Harris explains, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.1

One can only wonder where the women's rights groups are in response to such statements.

He also believes that rape is not only perfectly natural but that rape played a beneficial role in our evolution,

there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there's nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you're a male. You can't move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.2

I am not certain how Sam Harris knows that chimpanzees and orangutans rape? Perhaps they do. I suppose that we would have to know that the victim was saying "No" and also have a working knowledge of chimpanzeean and orangutanian ethics.
He argued that "You can't move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that." But he just did. Actually, he defended rape as a good practice for a certain period of our evolutionary history (when was that, by the way?)

Rape was a good thing within the Darwinian scheme of life thus apparently, rape is what Darwin bequeathed as good. Or rather, was good. But may it be good again someday? Sure, why not?
In parts of the world where little human tribes are isolated and have low population levels perhaps rape is still Darwinianlly acceptable. And what if population levels, in general, drop (due to plagues, nuclear war, etc.)? Apparently, rape will make a moral comeback.
Sam Harris also argues thusly:

I would argue that the taboos around rape that religion has given us, have perversely made rape a very common tool of psychological oppression and war. The reason why all those women were raped in the Bosnian conflict was that it was so stigmatising in the Muslim community to be raped, that you were essentially ruining the community from within by recourse to its own taboos. This has been the practice over and over again.3

If you know anything about Sam Harris you know that he has a one word explanation for all evil everywhere and at anytime "religion" (yes, even if the evil was committed by atheists who premised their evil deeds on their particular atheism).
Apparently, if religion (God) did not proclaim rape as evil then it would not be evil. That is the point that theists are making and the point that Sam Harris denies even while virtually stating it himself. If it were not for God condemning rape the invaders of Bosnia could have raped at will and Sam Harris would have said, "there's nothing more natural than rape."

Thus, while Sam Harris commits an ad hominem by claiming that "religion" is discredited by evil deeds done in its name, evil deeds done in the name of Darwinian advancement are only "evil" by the quaint first world country standards de jour. Indeed, while religion can state that rape is wrong everywhere, every time atheism states that it had its day in the sun from which we all benefited.

Richard Dawkins
Ever answering any question on any topic by appealing to the evolution of the gaps, Richard Dawkins was asked about rape during an interview:

Justin Brierley (JB): If we had evolved into a society where rape was considered fine, would that mean that rape is fine?

Richard Dawkins (RD): I, I wouldn't, I don't want to answer that question. It, it, it's enough for me to say that we live in a society where it's not considered fine. We live in a society where uhm, selfishness, where failure to pay your debts, failure to reciprocate favors is, is, is regarded as [in transcribing I could not understand the next word, perhaps it was a Britishism]. That is the society in which we live. I'm very glad, that's a value judgment, I'm very glad that I live in such a society.

(JB): When you make a value judgment don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good. And you don't have any way to stand on that statement.

(RD): My value judgment itself could come from my evolutionary past.

(JB): So therefore it's just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

(RD): You could say that, it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

(JB): 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.4

As an example of Prof. Richard Dawkins' skills as a logician note his roaring approval of the following "entirely right" conclusion:

As the Medawars [Paul and Jean] were entirely right to point out, the logical conclusion to the 'human potential' argument is that we potentially deprive a human soul of the gift of existence every time we fail to seize any opportunity for sexual intercourse. Every refusal of any offer of copulation by a fertile individual is, by this dopey 'pro-life' logic, tantamount to the murder of a potential child! Even resisting rape could be represented as murdering a potential baby.5

That the Medawars would make such a point is bad enough but that Prof. Richard Dawkins would not only agree but endorse such jejune notions is quite another. Although, let us be fair; this was not strictly a logical or biological point-they are both arguing in favor of the brutal murder of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies-the Darwinian blessing of abortion.

Of course, considering the thought process which is consistent with atheistic Darwinian evolution we end up with statements such as Ingrid Newkirk's (President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-PETA),

A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

In likewise consistent and inhuman, inhumane and subhuman fashion Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote,

Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse.)…
if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer - though all suffering is deplorable - it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any stage suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage.6

Perhaps he should watch Silent Scream.

Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer
The book, "A Natural History of Rape" was co-authored by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. I do not know if they are atheists per se but their views are certainly commensurate.

Craig T. Palmer

Randy Thornhill

Also being proponents of the evolution of the gaps they, in part, they answer the question "Why Do Men Rape?" thusly,

The males of most species-including humans-are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female's choice…
evolutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape….
Human rape arises from men's evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates.7

Most interesting is what I will term their heavy metal mutant apologia,

Lead may account for certain cases of rape, just as mutations may.8

By "Lead" they are referring to the heavy metal which they surmise may "disrupt psychological adaptations of impulse control" to the point that they may lead to a "higher rate of criminality." Thus, upon being placed on trial the rapist may offer the following court room defense (Greek: apologia), "Your honor I ate lead paint chips and a child and mutated into a rapist."

Joann E. Rodgers
Joann Ellison Rodgers,

Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs for Johns Hopkins Medicine. For 18 years, she was a reporter, then national science correspondent for the Hearst Newspapers, winning a Lasker Award for Medical Journalism. She is president of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, former president of the National Association of Science Writers, and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is a lecturer in the Department of Epidemiology at the Hopkins School of Public Health, a freelance writer and author of six books.

I do not know if she is an atheist, per se, but, as above, her views are quite relevant as Sam Harris virtually plagiarized her book "SEX: A Natural History" wherein she wrote,

Rape or at least rape-like acts clearly exist in many species, giving additional weight to both rape's "natural" roots and its "value" in our biological and psychological legacy.9

Being another proponent of the evolution of the gaps Joann Rodgers also notes,

Even rape, fetishes, bondage, and other so-called aberrant sexual behaviors are almost certainly biologically predisposed, if not adaptive, and may therefore be what biologists call 'conserved' traits, attributes or properties useful or essential to life across all cultures and genomes.10 11

In Conclusion
Philip S. Skell, "the father of carbene chemistry," member of the National Academy of Sciences and Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University elucidated the point about the evolution of the gaps by writing,

Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable.
Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers.
When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.12

Benjamin Wiker seconds that observation by noting the following in his consideration of "Game Theory",

By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming "to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms." We'd better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…
The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D.
It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.13

Indeed, as Charles Darwin hath bequeathed,

A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.

From here he offers a typical atheist motivation for acting "for the good of others",

…in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts.
If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth.14

Following impulses towards the good of others is not to be done because it is ethical or even moral but in order to have people tell you, "You're a good person!" (see here, here and here). Selfish self-gratification is the highest form of service according to a worldview which places the human as the highest being-God in your very own mirror.
As Professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett argues: the atheist, Joseph Stalin, was a theist because he told himself what to do-thus, by extension, every atheist is a theist who serves his creator to the tune of "I shall have no other gods before me!" (see this post for Prof. Daniel Dennett's misosophy).

According to the Judeo-Christian worldview/theology; rape is always and everywhere immoral and the Bible may be quoted to this effect.

According to an absolutely materialistic worldview:

1) Rape played a very beneficial role in evolution.

2) Rape is perfectly natural.

3) Rape can be excused, explained away or blamed on mutations, lead poisoning, and Darwinian evolution run amok.

4) Rape is only considered immoral today by those who choose to agree that it is immoral today.

5) Rape is, even now, not absolutely immoral because Dan Barker and rapists "can think of an exception in any case."

6) If rape occurs in a society which chooses to illegalize it and the rapist is not caught-they simply get away with it.

7) If the rapist gets away with it rape is of great and benevolent benefit since the rapist enjoyed him/herself. This is because if they had no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God they followed those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.

The fact of evil, such as rape, is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism. And as our consideration of the contents of evilbible.com have demonstrated their illogical, un-scholarly, un-skeptical, manipulative, eisegetical/isogetical handling of the issue is one of the very best reasons for rejecting evilbible.com as anything but a very valuable example of erroneous polemics-zeal without knowledge.

For more info see: Atheism and Rape - Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Elucidates

1. 1. Jorg Blech, THE NEW ATHEISTS - Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists, October 26, 2006
   
2. 2. ABC Radio National-The Religion Report, "Science Fatwah? Part 2: Sam Harris," December 20, 2006
   
3. 3. ABC Radio National, Stephen Crittenden interviews Sam Harris
   
4. 4. Stated during an interview with Justin Brierley
   
5. 5. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 300
   
6. 6. Ibid., p. 293, 297
   
7. 7. Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), p. 53, 55, 190
   
8. 8. Ibid., p. 58
   
9. 9. Joann Ellison Rodgers, Sex: A Natural History (New York: Henry Holt, 2001), p. 412
   
10. 10. Ibid., p. 11
    
11. 11. I am indebted to Kyle Butt'sarticle The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part II]for the information about Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer and Joann Rodgers (Apologetics Press:: Reason & Revelation, August 2008 - 28[8]:57-63)
    
12. 12. Philip S. Skell, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," The Scientist, August 29, 2005
    
13. 13. Benjamin Wiker, "Playing Games with Good & Evil - The Failure of Darwinism to Explain Morality," Crisis, May 1, 2002. Candy Land is a "Hasbro" board game for children ages 3 and up. "Q.E.D." the Latin term "quod erat demonstrandum" which means "that which was to be demonstrated," in other words; tautology or circular logic.
    
14. 14. Nora Barlow, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton, 1958), p. 94 section "From my return to England Oct. 2, 1836 to my marriage Jan. 29, 1839"