From his debate with Sam Harris.
Here are a couple more videos you may like:
The moral argument is one of my favorite arguments.
Tag Archives: Responsibility
Woman who falsely accused lacrosse players of rape faces murder charge
From Fox News. (H/T Dad)
Excerpt:
The woman who falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players of raping her was charged Monday with murder in the death of her boyfriend.
Crystal Mangum was indicted on a charge of first-degree murder and two counts of larceny. She has been in jail since April 3, when police charged her with assault in the stabbing 46-year-old Reginald Daye. He died after nearly two weeks at a hospital.
An attorney for Mangum and officials in the district attorney’s office did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Mangum falsely accused the lacrosse players of raping her at a 2006 party at which she was hired to perform as a stripper. The case heightened long-standing tensions in Durham about race, class and the privileged status of college athletes.
Prosecutors declined to press charges for the false accusations, but Mangum’s bizarre legal troubles have continued.
Last year, she was convicted on misdemeanor charges after setting a fire that nearly torched her home with her three children inside. In a videotaped police interrogation, she told officers she set got into a confrontation with her boyfriend at the time — not Daye — and burned his clothes, smashed his car windshield and threatened to stab him.
Friends said Mangum has never recovered from the stigma brought by the lacrosse case and has been involved in a string of questionable relationships in an attempt to provide stability for her children.
I know many of you think that I am going to blame the woman for this, but you’re wrong. The man is to blame. This woman was evil before the man met her – because she made false accusations against the Duke lacrosse team. The man knew this. Even if he didn’t know it, it’s his responsibility to interrogate her to unearth all of her craziness before his judgment is overwhelmed by the power of physical contact with her. So I blame the man – he is the one who had the dashed expectations. He believed that she was capable of a relationship, but she clearly was not! Easy sex is no guarantee that the woman is going to treat a man well. You don’t try to pet the alligator at the zoo – you can’t have a relationship with an alligator. It’s an alligator!
If every man on the planet ignored this woman, then who would she have left to be evil with? Surely at that point she would realize that there was something wrong with the way she treats men. I really recommend that men do a better job of reading some of the cases where women make false accusations of rape, harassment and child abuse (against ex-husbands in order to get custody) and get very familiar with what kind of women do this sort of thing and why. Learn the warning signs by reading their stories. Why do these women make false accusations? What do they have in common? What should men ask them to see whether they are dangerous? Men have to be careful because not judging wisely can lead to divorce, or even being murdered.
Paul Copan challenges Richard Dawkins on determinism and rationality
This is from Parchment & Pen. There is an MP3 file linked in the post. (H/T Apologetics 315)
Excerpt:
Last week, Richard Dawkins spoke here in Ft. Lauderdale at Nova Southeastern University on “The Fact of Evolution.” The following week, I spoke on “The Fact of God”—also delivered at Nova Southeastern.
[…]I asked Dawkins how he could claim that the naturalist id rationally superior to the theist since, according to his book River Out of Eden, all of us are dancing to the music of our DNA. Our beliefs are the product of non-rational, deterministic physical forces beyond our control—whether we’re theists or naturalists. In fact, if the naturalist is right, it’s only by accident—not because he’s more intellectually virtuous than the theist. That is, the naturalist has accidental true belief (which is not knowledge) rather than warranted true belief (which is knowledge).
Dawkins gave the odd reply that it’s kind of like Republicans and Democrats—with each group thinking they’re right and the other group wrong. But on what grounds could either side think they are more rational than the other? Dawkins then added that he supposed that whatever view “works” the correct one to hold. But here’s the problem: what “works” is logically distinct from “true” or “matching up with reality”—since we may hold to a lot of false beliefs that help us survive and reproduce, even if they are false. Indeed, naturalistic evolution is interested in survival and reproduction—the “four F’s” (fighting, feeding, fleeing, and reproducing). Truth, the naturalist philosopher Patricia Churchland argues, is secondary to these pursuits According to another such naturalist, the late Richard Rorty, truth is “utterly unDarwinian.”
[…]…how can Dawkins condemn “religious” people who fly planes into buildings since they are just dancing to their DNA—just like the naturalist is? They’re just doing what nature has programed them to do. We can further ask: Why isn’t Dawkins denouncing atrocities done in the name of atheism—like those of Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Tse-tung? Dawkins gives the impression that it’s only people of “religion” who carry out horrendous evils. Of course, if Dawkins is right, these mass murderers could not justly be condemned since they too were wired by nature to act as they did.
Paul then excerpts a segment from an interview with Dawkins:
Dawkins:….What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” Maybe we should… I sometimes… Um… You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won’t start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that’s what we all ought to… Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is “Oh they were just determined by their molecules.” It’s stupid to punish them. What we should do is say “This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced.” I can’t bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. ….
Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.
There’s a fuller explanation in the post – I just pulled out some parts to give you the idea.
This is something Christians need to get used to. Atheism should not smuggle in Christian beliefs. Atheism has to stand and fall on materialism, determinism, life ending at the grave, and moral subjectivism. There is no free will on atheism. There are no moral values or moral obligations on atheism. There is no rationality on atheism. There is no meaning in life on atheism. There is no purpose to life on atheism. There is no accountability for sin on atheism. There is no self-sacrificial love on atheism. There is no reward for virtue and self-sacrifice on atheism. It is a worldview
WINTERY KNIGHT 