Print
An Atheist Responds
by Christopher Hitchens
Thanks to Andrea Mummert for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301461.html
It's uncommonly generous of Michael Gerson [" What Atheists Can't Answer," op-ed, July 13] to refer to me as "intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind," since (a) this might be taken as proof that he hardly knows me and (b) it was he who was so kind when I once rang him to check a scurrilous peacenik rumor that he was a secret convert from Judaism to Christian fundamentalism.
However, it is his own supposedly kindly religion that prevents him from seeing how insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship, which could read and condemn my thoughts and which could also consign me to eternal worshipful bliss (a somewhat hellish idea) or to an actual hell.
Implicit in this ancient chestnut of an argument is the further -- and equally disagreeable -- self-satisfaction that simply assumes, whether or not religion is metaphysically "true," that at least it stands for morality. Those of us who disbelieve in the heavenly dictatorship also reject many of its immoral teachings, which have at different times included the slaughter of other "tribes," the enslavement of the survivors, the mutilation of the genitalia of children, the burning of witches, the condemnation of sexual "deviants" and the eating of certain foods, the opposition to innovations in science and medicine, the mad doctrine of predestination, the deranged accusation against all Jews of the crime of "deicide," the absurdity of "Limbo," the horror of suicide-bombing and jihad, and the ethically dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice.
Of course Gerson will -- and must -- cherry-pick this list (which is by no means exhaustive) and patter on about how one mustn't be too literal. But in doing this, he makes a huge concession to the ethical humanism to which he so loftily condescends. The game is given away by his own use of G.K. Chesterton's invocation of Thor. We laugh at this dead god, but were not Norse children told that without Valhalla there would be no courage and no moral example? Isn't it true that Louis Farrakhan's crackpot racist group gets young people off drugs? Doesn't Hamas claim to provide social services to the downtrodden? If you credit any one religion with motivating good deeds, how (without declaring yourself to be sectarian) can you avoid crediting them all? And is not endless warfare between the faiths to be added to the list of horrors I just mentioned? Just look at how the "faith-based" are behaving in today's Iraq.
Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain.
Essentially conceding that philosophy and secularism do not condemn their adherents to lives of unbridled selfishness, and that (say) the Jewish people did not get all the way to Mount Sinai under the impression that murder and theft and perjury were okay, and also that we could not have evolved unless human solidarity was in some way innate, Gerson ends weakly by posing what is a rather moving problem.
"In a world without God," he writes, "this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution but designed for disappointment." Again, he substitutes the wish for the thought. We very probably are, as he admits, not the designed objects of the Big Bang or of the process of natural selection. But this sober conclusion, objective as it is, is surely preferable to the delusion that we have been created diseased, by a capricious despot, and then abruptly commanded to be whole and well, on pain of terror and torture. That sick joke is one that we can cease to find impressive, that belongs in the infancy of our species, and gives a false picture of reality that we would do well to outgrow.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of "God Is Not Great."
Reposted from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301461.html
It's uncommonly generous of Michael Gerson [" What Atheists Can't Answer," op-ed, July 13] to refer to me as "intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind," since (a) this might be taken as proof that he hardly knows me and (b) it was he who was so kind when I once rang him to check a scurrilous peacenik rumor that he was a secret convert from Judaism to Christian fundamentalism.
However, it is his own supposedly kindly religion that prevents him from seeing how insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship, which could read and condemn my thoughts and which could also consign me to eternal worshipful bliss (a somewhat hellish idea) or to an actual hell.
Implicit in this ancient chestnut of an argument is the further -- and equally disagreeable -- self-satisfaction that simply assumes, whether or not religion is metaphysically "true," that at least it stands for morality. Those of us who disbelieve in the heavenly dictatorship also reject many of its immoral teachings, which have at different times included the slaughter of other "tribes," the enslavement of the survivors, the mutilation of the genitalia of children, the burning of witches, the condemnation of sexual "deviants" and the eating of certain foods, the opposition to innovations in science and medicine, the mad doctrine of predestination, the deranged accusation against all Jews of the crime of "deicide," the absurdity of "Limbo," the horror of suicide-bombing and jihad, and the ethically dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice.
Of course Gerson will -- and must -- cherry-pick this list (which is by no means exhaustive) and patter on about how one mustn't be too literal. But in doing this, he makes a huge concession to the ethical humanism to which he so loftily condescends. The game is given away by his own use of G.K. Chesterton's invocation of Thor. We laugh at this dead god, but were not Norse children told that without Valhalla there would be no courage and no moral example? Isn't it true that Louis Farrakhan's crackpot racist group gets young people off drugs? Doesn't Hamas claim to provide social services to the downtrodden? If you credit any one religion with motivating good deeds, how (without declaring yourself to be sectarian) can you avoid crediting them all? And is not endless warfare between the faiths to be added to the list of horrors I just mentioned? Just look at how the "faith-based" are behaving in today's Iraq.
Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain.
Essentially conceding that philosophy and secularism do not condemn their adherents to lives of unbridled selfishness, and that (say) the Jewish people did not get all the way to Mount Sinai under the impression that murder and theft and perjury were okay, and also that we could not have evolved unless human solidarity was in some way innate, Gerson ends weakly by posing what is a rather moving problem.
"In a world without God," he writes, "this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution but designed for disappointment." Again, he substitutes the wish for the thought. We very probably are, as he admits, not the designed objects of the Big Bang or of the process of natural selection. But this sober conclusion, objective as it is, is surely preferable to the delusion that we have been created diseased, by a capricious despot, and then abruptly commanded to be whole and well, on pain of terror and torture. That sick joke is one that we can cease to find impressive, that belongs in the infancy of our species, and gives a false picture of reality that we would do well to outgrow.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of "God Is Not Great."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 99 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #56214 by Thor on July 14, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I totally understand where you are coming from, but ultimately it really is a matter of taste, isn't it?Personally, I am a fan of Hitchens and I very much enjoy his flowery and very embellished prose. Then there are those, like you, who prefer the clear, crisp style Harris uses (this ability of his to make concise and logical points is especially effective in debates whereas Hitchens - although a highly effective debater - sometimes has the tendency to ramble on about tangential matters)
But then there are also those who accuse Hitchens of deliberately using his writing style to show off, to make a point about his great skill with the English language.
That's really an argument I can't follow. Liking or disliking Hitchens' position on various topics is one thing, preferences in literary style another, but inferring character traits from his style is going into irrational-dislike territory...
Other Comments by Thor
3. Comment #56216 by serrano on July 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm
"...name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever."Simple:
"I believe in God and I think murder is wrong," "I believe in God and I think stealing is wrong," etc. There list could go on and on!
I think this proves I am smarter than Christopher Hitchens.
Other Comments by serrano
4. Comment #56225 by bungoton on July 14, 2007 at 2:35 pm
serrano, you have no idea what an ethical statement is. Saying you believe in god is not a statement of ethics. You need to learn how to think clearly. Perhaps a few years away from the mind numbing effects of religion will help clear your brain.Other Comments by bungoton
5. Comment #56226 by D'Arcy on July 14, 2007 at 2:42 pm
serrano may well be smarter than Hitchens, who cares? Certainly not me. Surely what Hitchens is saying is that you don't have to be religious to disapprove of murder.Depending on the circumstances, e.g. 2nd world war, Christians on both sides were very happy to wish the worst for the other side. If war is not murder on a massive scale then what else is it? Like priests, soldiers are trained in obedience to a higher power. They are trained that when commanded they must kill the opposition. The impersonal act of pressing a button to launch a missile which will eventually kill when it explodes some miles away, is no less murder than thrusting a knife into some-one's heart. It may be impersonal, but it's still state sanctified murder. As far as the dead person(s) is concerned, the legal definition of murder is irrelevant.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
6. Comment #56227 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 2:43 pm
serrano, even though I don't believe, I can say "I believe in God and I think murder is wrong".You can't even claim that a christian was the first to assert that murder is wrong.
Not only have you failed to demonstrate that you're smarter than Hitchens, I'm currently doubting whether you're smarter than a rock.
Other Comments by robert s
7. Comment #56228 by AcadianaAtheist on July 14, 2007 at 2:45 pm
serrano, I am making an assumption (without you having provided any evidence) that you are an adult and are familiar with english. If neither of these are true, please except my apology. I don't mean to pick on a child.Hitchens says,"name one ethical statement..." You have provided the following example:
"I believe in God and I think murder is wrong." You are correct in that a non-believer would not utter such a statement. You are incorrect, however, when you posit that it is an ethical statement.
One who makes such a statement is saying that he believes murder is wrong only because he fears retribution from a God if he murders. That is hardly ethical.
If that is not what is meant by the statement, then the "I believe in God" portion is superfluous and the ethical statement "I think murder is wrong" is something that could certainly be said by a non-believer.
While you may be smarter than Hitchens, the evidence you give in this instance is fundamentally flawed.
Other Comments by AcadianaAtheist
8. Comment #56229 by Tobbe on July 14, 2007 at 2:48 pm
What a strange logical mistake by serrano. It´s almost impossible to believe anyone could make such a mistake without years and years of religious indoctrination.Other Comments by Tobbe
9. Comment #56231 by PaulJ on July 14, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Comment #56210 by marcdesmOf course I agree with Mr. Hitchens. But I find his style difficult to follow. Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Harris have a more concise communication style.Christopher Hitchens is a master of prose, and Richard Dawkins' literary style in The God Delusion is precise, concise and direct - suited to the audience for which he's aiming. But for me Sam Harris tops them both. He's good in front of an audience, but on the page he's unsurpassed.
Other Comments by PaulJ
10. Comment #56232 by Serious on July 14, 2007 at 2:54 pm
marcdesm: "Maybe Mr. Hitchens' style is better suited for reaching a different segment of the population".It is, and that's excellent. It is essential that the different "greats" differ dramatically in style and emphasis. Each can reach only a small minority of people.
Other Comments by Serious
11. Comment #56233 by IainM on July 14, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Comment #56210 by MarcdesmI design rockets for a living and I find Mr Hitchins' style perfectly understandable. You can't be a very good aerospace engineer.
Other Comments by IainM
12. Comment #56234 by Friend Giskard on July 14, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I thought serrano was making a rather clever joke based on the idea in logic that given propositions A and B , A AND B also qualifies as a proposition.If
A = I believe in God
and
B = I think murder is wrong
then
A AND B
is a proposition that may only be truthfully uttered by a theist.
Let's give serrano the benefit of the doubt.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
13. Comment #56237 by IQHQ on July 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I have long been a follower of Hitchens' journalistic career, and have much praised him in many circles. His latest offering, obviously of particular interest to this website's contributors, did not disappoint, and was exactly the type of treatment I expected from him. It was a joy to read; bold, forthright, and uncompromising.Yet this "challege" of his seems to be missing a crucial point. Of course there is no ethical "act" which is capable of performance only by the religious! Such ethical acts are the province of our humanity, and exist universally (at least in potential). The self-satisfaction which Hitchens seems to be enjoying from the lack of a "convincing reply" is odd for this very reason. The challenge is rhetorical in its essence, and lacking in any sort of substance. For this reason it is a bit lame, and counter-productive in the ears of his religious listeners.
But this seemingly clever rhetorical ploy misses out on something much more important, and that is that latent in each ethical act is a motivation, a reason for acting in that way. The religious would not claim that any particular act "could not" be performed by an atheist, but rather that it "probably wouldn't" or would be "less likely" to be performed. They would argue that the religious framework they advocate provides the aforementioned motivation. It provides fuel for the ethical engine, so to speak, and inspires people to do "more often" the good acts which they could easily avoid doing, for reasons of convenience, self-advantage, etc.
No doubt following this post, I will be flooded with objections, such as:
"Such celestial coercion is hardly a good framework for morality. If the only reason you do good is to be rewarded (or avoid punishment) then you may as well not bother".
Such sentiment is noble in that recognises the importance of "intention" in determining the inherent morality of a given act. Yet would we really prefer people "not to bother"? Consider this long and hard, for your answer will determine a lot about how you proceed in this "God Debate". The simple fact is that many people DO act morally for these reasons, and may not act the same way otherwise. But we need not be just as skeptical about it as some have suggested.
Those of us who have become Atheists through introspection and analysis have not done so by chance, but rather because that is who we are. We hold reason higher than myth, and could not, in good conscience, do it any other way. We do not respond to the "Death of God" by having the free-for-all that Dostoevsky predicted, for precisely the very same reason we discarded him from our world-view in the first place! Reason affords us a glimpse into the Social Contract, and from there we will have our own motivations for acting responsibly and reasonably towards our fellow man.
Unfortunately, for the forseeable future (and beyond) there will always be less cerebrally-oriented members of our species to whom fuzzy feelings and an easy life will mean more than any proof or any rational theory based on solid evidential foundations. It is too simplistic to expect these people (who, need I remind you, out-number us in nearly every part of the globe), with their attendant emotional attachments, to respond to God's death in the same way we do. Reasons for irrational belief in the divine are myriad, and the reactions to removing Him would be equally as varied. But it is naive to suggest that nihilism would not form a certain part of the result, simply because it has not been so for us. These people "believe" because they have a need, a deep longing need, which we evidently do not have. To remove from them their solace may just open the floodgates of a very evil part of our humanity. Would such a straight-thinking, cruel world be preferrable to the one we already inhabit?
p.s:~ And I mean this, please do not respond with some Harris-esque "What about Suicide Bombers???" The vast majority of religious people condemn such atrocities, just as we do. It is a plea of desperation to resort to such an argument, especially when the issue I have raised is so important.
Other Comments by IQHQ
14. Comment #56239 by Friend Giskard on July 14, 2007 at 3:14 pm
What about Suicide Bombers??? Other Comments by Friend Giskard
15. Comment #56242 by ricey on July 14, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Hitchens is too flowery; Dawkins is too dry ..."And so between them they conspired to lick the platter clean"
There is room for everybody if the truth is being told, and the more divergent the authors' style, the more divergent the audience. Hurray for Dawkins and "the Hitch"; the best double-act since Peter and Paul.
I am worried about Harris. Please see recent correspondence on James Randi's excellent website (you are probably already a subscriber). Harris seems to have some rather "woo woo" ideas about spirituality.
I have Dennet's book "Breaking the Spell" which I will read in Turkey on my annual vacation in revenge for the dreaded "call to prayers"; that awful rackett that sings out, by recorded message, at sunrise from every ivory tower in every shithole in that otherwise marvellous country.
Why didn't they stick to cooking?.
Why do we (and "we" means us - you and I) allow religion to poison everything?
Other Comments by ricey
16. Comment #56247 by NormanDoering on July 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Christopher Hitchens wrote:That sick joke is one that we can cease to find impressive, that belongs in the infancy of our species, and gives a false picture of reality that we would do well to outgrow.
Speaking of sick jokes we'd like to see outgrown by humanity... I'm having a little contest over at my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/
Can you find a blogger that is more of an ignorant twit, more delusional, more lied to, more of pathetic excuse for a thinking human being than Tristan J. Shuddery?
Enter contest here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/07/blogospheres-most-pathetic-excuse-for.html
Other Comments by NormanDoering
17. Comment #56249 by EndlessForms on July 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm
"...name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever."Simple:
"I [don't] believe in God and I think murder is wrong," "I [don't] believe in God and I think stealing is wrong," etc. There[sic] list could go on and on!
Other Comments by EndlessForms
18. Comment #56250 by serrano on July 14, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Haha dudes I was kidding. Sorry I didn't clearly state that.Other Comments by serrano
19. Comment #56251 by EndlessForms on July 14, 2007 at 4:00 pm
You should know sarcasm is lost in print! Hence emoticons. ;) Other Comments by EndlessForms
20. Comment #56252 by serrano on July 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm
No I know, I just thought I was being too silly to need it.Other Comments by serrano
21. Comment #56253 by EndlessForms on July 14, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Well, if you've ever visited the forums, you would be surprised! :) Other Comments by EndlessForms
22. Comment #56255 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Serrano, it's about a week since Hitch debated with someone who claimed, in all seriousness, that praying with his kids was something that could not be done by a non-believer.To misquote JBS Haldane, believers say things that are sillier than you can imagine.
Other Comments by robert s
23. Comment #56256 by roach on July 14, 2007 at 4:23 pm
ricey,Could you provide a link to Harris' "woo woo" ideas on spirituality? I couldn't find it on Randi's site. Thanks
Other Comments by roach
24. Comment #56257 by jonecc on July 14, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Hitchens had a very similar argument with his brother Peter recently on the radio, which was linked to from here (I can't find it - can anyone else oblige?). His brother, an extremely vain, shallow and annoying man, argues that permissiveness in the Sixties has caused a moral decline, due to the undermining of 'absolute' moral values, as supplied by the Church. Hitchens C carved him up and served him with fava beans and a nice chianti, as you might expect.Whether you think morality is absolute or not, only a fool would think it was easy. It's the struggle of a lifetime to understand the ethical import of one's actions. Gerson claims that atheists have no answer to the question of how to do this without God, without considering any of the huge amount of secular ethical arguments accumulated over the centuries.
Other Comments by jonecc
25. Comment #56260 by Solarium Solaris on July 14, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Norman,HOW THE HELL DID YOU FIND SOMEBODY THAT UNBELIEVABLE!? That blog was both hilarious and frightening. There is no way, no way a more ignorant moron exists...I hope!
Other Comments by Solarium Solaris
26. Comment #56262 by PaulJ on July 14, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Comment #56256 by roachCould you provide a link to Harris' "woo woo" ideas on spirituality? I couldn't find it on Randi's site. ThanksTry these two:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/062207.html#i8
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/062907.html#i5
Other Comments by PaulJ
27. Comment #56264 by Martha on July 14, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Christopher Hitchens wrote:"But this sober conclusion, objective as it is, is surely preferable to the delusion that we have been created diseased, by a capricious despot, and then abruptly commanded to be whole and well, on pain of terror and torture".
Like all the other animals, we humans need very sensitive nurturing in the early stages of our life. We're not born diseased, we're just dependent on our parents and other adults for our very survival. What's "diseased" about that?
Other Comments by Martha
28. Comment #56270 by Hip_Priest on July 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Just look at how the "faith-based" are behaving in today's Iraq.
I think Iraq is one topic that Hitch should steer well clear of if he wants to be taken seriously, given his unwavering support for the war. I find it ridiculous the way he shrugs off the whole disaster with "well it would have worked if it wasn't for those pesky religious nutjobs!".
Other Comments by Hip_Priest
29. Comment #56271 by Big T on July 14, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Friend Giskard, Bravo. That was cool, man.Other Comments by Big T
30. Comment #56274 by robert s on July 14, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Martha, H is referring to 'original sin' - you seem to have missed the word 'delusion' in his sentence.Other Comments by robert s
31. Comment #56277 by willbonds on July 14, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Martha,I think he's talking about morally diseased, "the stain of sin" and all.
Other Comments by willbonds
32. Comment #56279 by Russell Blackford on July 14, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I'm not too worried about people falling into some kind of wanton nihilism if they lose their belief in God. It didn't happen to me or to anyone else I know. It looks to me as if there are very powerful reasons for us not to act like that, whether we believe in any supernatural beings or not. One is that such wanton nihilism is simply self-defeating: we are better off in the long run with a degree of kindness and altruism and genuine concern for others, rather than constantly thinking about our own pleasures or acting on whims. Another is that evolution seems to have equipped us with a healthy dose of altruism and capacity for sympathy quite naturally - you have to work quite hard to produce individuals who are prepared to hurt others who have not hurt them and who are not prepared to help out others in need, at least when it is easy to do so. A third is that society could not survive, at leaat not beyond a certain level, if we did not have laws regulating who owns what property, etc., with some means of enforcement, so there is always a powerful pull to create such laws, and to socialise people to honour them.We are essentially moral beings, for a range of reasons. We evolved to be social animals who respond emotionally to each other in various ways, to form various kinds of intangible bonds, to punish those who deviate too harmfully from our social norms, and so on.
That's not to deny religion sometimes helps socialise some people who might otherwise be irresponsible or vicious, but I doubt that we need it. In fact, I'd rather get by without it, which would enable us to stop revering the out-dated, or just plain irrational, moral norms that religion tends to foster, preserve and protect. I'd much rather we "did" morality and law without religion's contantly distorting influence.
Looking at how places like Scandinavia get along without much religious input, I'd say that the balance favours the continued debunking and gradual elimination of religion, rather than trying to preserve it into the future.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
33. Comment #56289 by krogercomplete on July 14, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I think Iraq is one topic that Hitch should steer well clear of if he wants to be taken seriously, given his unwavering support for the war. I find it ridiculous the way he shrugs off the whole disaster with "well it would have worked if it wasn't for those pesky religious nutjobs!".
Certainly we can evaluate all of Hitchens' claims about Iraq independently without impeaching his credibility on the entire subject area. Your caricature of his position notwithstanding, what role do you feel the pesky religious nutjobs are playing in Iraq?
Other Comments by krogercomplete
34. Comment #56297 by drichlin on July 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm
IQHQ,It seems to me that if Mr. Hitchens' challenge is rhetorical as you say, I find it "rhetoric" of considerable substance. In simple, elegant prose, theists are challenged by Mr. Hitchens to examine their "motivations" for good deeds and thoughts and asks whether their reasons are truly based on an absolute standard of ethics. Of course, they would say "absolutely!" It seems that a theist needs only to close their eyes, clasp their hands together, think of the ten commandments, envision the almighty and then tell themselves (and feel - an important constituent of which you also allude) that they are moral. Furthermore, it is their contention that without the aforementioned affectations any morality is impossible - not just improbable. Evidently, they contend and cannot imagine a consistently ethical mind without an absolute deity being involved.
I have had this very discussion with my religious friends and find that I have the exact same concerns about their moral foundation that they have of mine. Yes, the religious do find reasons in their theism to do moral things. But, the whole matter of the debate is to challenge the premise (or their truth, as Dawkins might say) by asking: Is the supernatural an adequate or necessary or true premise for moral thinking and doing? The challenge implies the thought experiment that if "the death of God" were to occur, would not now the (former) theists still do the right and ethical thing? Or, as you put it, is nihilism the outcome?
I think not and here's why: Years ago I used to ask those who were very religious what they would do if God came to them and said that "he" was leaving forever. No God, no Devil, no Angels, no nothing on the "other side." How would that affect them? Their reactions were quite interesting and similar to one another. First they would get a glazed look as if suddenly seeing mommy kissing Santa or something. Then their eyes would dart around looking for an answer somewhere, somehow. (After all, they never thought of this little experiment.) Finally they would answer with such uniformity that I began to suspect a collaboration. As one of my victims responded: "I would be tempted to stray from the path of righteousness, but would not because following the ten commandments (now 6 - no God) is still a good thing."
Quid pro quo.
As an atheist, I find earthly reasons and motivations not only rational but abundant, accessible and consistent. Reliance on the supernatural for ethical standards is non-rational, inaccessible and inconsistent, as is demonstrated over and over again in the writings of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al.
This reminds me of the often referred to quotation by Steven Weinberg that says good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. But to get a good person to do a bad thing, that takes religion. (In that regard I suppose it is also true that it takes religion to have a bad person do a good thing.)
I would like to say something about writing styles. I have read Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. And I say HITCHENS IS GOD! DEATH TO HARRIS, DAWKINS AND DENNETT! BEHEAD THE INFIDELS!
Other Comments by drichlin
35. Comment #56300 by IQHQ on July 14, 2007 at 8:16 pm
drichlinLOL - nice ending, but your penultimate point accepts (but makes light of) one of my central points in the post above. For Bad People to do good things . . .
I hate to burst your bubble here. It's great news that you find, with reason, abundant motivation for living ethically. So do I; that is not in dispute. but the fact remains that our world is filled with "bad people". It always has been, and always will be. And we all live with the consequences of these people's actions. So I ask you again; do we really think that it would be better for them not to bother (and hence give into their naturally-dictated perverse instincts?
Other Comments by IQHQ
36. Comment #56302 by Peacebeuponme on July 14, 2007 at 8:41 pm
I think Hitchens just dismisses the theist "absolute moral" argument as the apparition that it is. It seems to me that the intellectual theists these days are left with this last garrison in their defence - namely the existence of a "moral law" (Behe/Dembski we can dismiss, and maybe I simply do not have the capacity to understand Plantinga). An enormous amount of intellectual effort has been put in by theists from C. S. Lewis to Alister McGrath and I simply cannot understand why they spend so much time tying themselves up in knots over this. Their entire worldview seems to be based on two propositions:(1) We all have (well, lets exclude sociopaths here) a desire to help others, even in some cases if the aid causes direct harm to ourselves; and
(2) There must be an ultimate axiomatic arbiter to mandate right from wrong otherwise we cannot objectively judge the morality of any action.
Now I read the posts on here regularly and there are some extremely well educated and thinking people who write on this site. Am I wrong in thinking these questions are beyond boring?
I'm no biologist or psychologist, merely a bad accountant, but surely (1) is explained by fairly elementary evolutionary group theory, not to mention hard evidence of kinship and altruism amongst other creatures (I'm reminded of a youtube clip of a hippo trying to rescue an impala from a crocodile, but everything may not have been as it appeared, great bit of schmaltz though it was.) C S Lewis talks about a sort of "inner arbiter" who sometimes overrules our personal safety in situations where we, say, rescue another from a burning building. Well, we weigh up all sorts of situations and experience a whole host of emotions based on those genes that are good at replicating. This is just not surprising.
Which leaves (2). What problem does it cause to say that there is no objective morality? If an overarching rule is set up ("Do unto others….") that benefits each individual and society as a whole, then that is a good enough reason to live by that rule. Where is the problem? The classic religious "with no god, everything is permissible" may even be true if you clarify who is giving permission (the universe?), but is obviously a non-argument given our natural, evolved propensity for kinship (in the same way we feel hungry when we need food) and even self-interested level it is so, because individual survival rates in anarchy must be low.
Permission is given, or not given, by the simple golden rule statement. There is nowhere else to go, because that is the beginning of moral theory and the template for living fruitfully amongst other humans. The "ultimate right from wrong argument" doesn't even make logical sense, because you need a position up front – in our moral case it is the golden rule. A "right from wrong argument" may theoretically be started from any statement. We are rightly, rationally using the one that (i) allows us to live better together and (ii) gives us warm feelings because as usual nature got there before our intellect did. Maybe I'm missing the point here, but we only judge the morals of others by this simple (Golden) rule "treat others as you would like to be treated" or "cause the least possible amount of harm to others". It's pretty easy in most cases (very difficult in a relatively small few in our ordinary lives and I agree with Jonecc here) to see the best course of action on a based on this rule, which is generally backed up by our positive feeling generated by thousands of years of positive selection of altruistic genes. Unless McGrath and Lewis think god IS the golden rule, I just don't see what he brings to the party (except a fatherly face and a cool lightening trick with his fingers).
We don't even need to get on to how these theists turn "moral law" into "jesus died for our sins".
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
37. Comment #56303 by windfall on July 14, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Those Amazing Randi posts were interesting. I too raised my eyebrows when I read those lines about psychic phenomena and reincarnation in Harris' book. It's important to read both posts (the second is Harris' response to Randi's criticism). I think Harris is guilty only of not really reading the research (or its criticism) that he cited (which is a bad idea), but also, being too glib in order to make a point. His point in the book was that, if people are willing to investigate things undogmatically, and scientifically, and publish the results, he's at least willing to entertain the claims. He was trying to contrast dogmatic belief in seemingly improbable things with belief in seemingly improbable things based on at least SOME evidence (however flimsy it may turn out).
IQHQ, I like the end of your first post. These are important questions. This is the second 'spell' that Dennett wonders if we should break. I too wonder. I'm optimistic that things will be ok for several reasons: 1. highly 'atheistic' societies do very well, and they presumably have a similar distribution of attraction to religious ideas in the population as in the US. 2. Education. The primary vehicle for sustaining religious ties to morality is the educating children to believe there is a such a connection. 3. Many people have lived decades believing that morality depends on religion, but have eventually come to their senses. 4. This is why we have laws and courts: in the end, all we really have is our instincts and the social contract.
PS. drichlin, I think you meant to say 'quod erat demonstrandum', not 'quid pro quo' (or maybe I misunderstood you).
Other Comments by windfall
38. Comment #56305 by gr8hands on July 14, 2007 at 9:03 pm
What is being overlooked, is the little comment about the religious retreating to the idea that you shouldn't be too literal about the commandments, etc.If their source of morality is absolute, unchanging, the direct word of the supreme divine god -- which is claimed by theists -- then you would have to be literal. Anything else would be open to interpretation and confuse the absolute nature of the morality.
So anyone claiming that being too literal is bad is admitting they don't believe god's morality is absolute.
Other Comments by gr8hands
39. Comment #56306 by gr8hands on July 14, 2007 at 9:10 pm
As for the ethical statements/actions, my only question is what the theist thinks they should do in those cases where their religious teaching tells them to withhold help to someone that obviously needs it, against everything their natural humanity says they should do.Look at the story of the good Samaritan -- the jew walked by on the other side of the road to keep from touching someone obviously unclean. His religion told him that he would be committing a sin if he assisted someone who obviously needed help. But the person who didn't share that religion gave assistance, and was shown as an example of a good neighbor.
It seems clear that even jesus thought the jew should have helped the man beaten on the side of the road. Yet he was being a devout jew, trying to follow god's very specific unchanging laws.
Why don't the religious see the contradiction?
Other Comments by gr8hands
40. Comment #56310 by drichlin on July 14, 2007 at 10:47 pm
IQHQ,Hello again. No bubble bursting here, thank you very much. Of course, you and I are in agreement as to our reasons for ethical actions, as well as a world filled with "bad people" and the consequences of their behavior. However, I think there is a difference between bad people and, as you put it:
"...less cerebrally-oriented members of our species to whom fuzzy feelings and an easy life will mean more than any proof or any rational theory based on solid evidential foundations."
While I agree that there are folks like that, still it doesn't require an academic degree in ethics or science for one to do a good deed. My point was if religious people loose their belief, they will not loose the capacity for good, ethical behavior.
In that vein, a couple of sentences later you state:
"To remove from them their solace may just open the floodgates of a very evil part of our humanity."
I infer a "born in sin" meaning here. Call me Pollyanna if you must, but I disagree with this implication. Yes, religion can be a moderating force in some people's lives. Richard Dawkins tells of a radio show he was on (which I just happen to hear live) when a caller admitted that he would probably do harm to his neighbor if not for religion. Even Hitchens concedes that religion is here to stay - it just needs to be tamed and kept inside. But we mustn't refrain from challenging it for fear of the evil part of our humanity.
This is not to say one must not use good judgement when dealing in these matters. I for one would not engage the radio show caller in a face to face discussion like the ones found on Dawkins' website. Talk about the consequences of bad people. Good grief! This does illustrate that for the caller religion indeed has a moderating effect. But so would several psychotherapy sessions. So let's make a judgment call here: which would be better? Religion or head shrinking? Superstition or science?
P.S. windfall, you are correct in that "quod erat demonstrandum" is the appropriate phrase. In my enthusiasm to use a bit of latin I used "quid pro quo" but was thinking Q.E.D. Silly me!
Other Comments by drichlin
41. Comment #56314 by Bonzai on July 15, 2007 at 12:00 am
IQHQ wrote:but the fact remains that our world is filled with "bad people". It always has been, and always will be. And we all live with the consequences of these people's actions. So I ask you again; do we really think that it would be better for them not to bother (and hence give into their naturally-dictated perverse instincts?
Even from a practical standpoint, the threat of divine punishment is never a very effective way of keeping the "bad people" in line.
Quite the opposite, it seems that the worst people, the most perverted among us often exploit religion as a very potent weapon to their advantage. Religious coercion might be useful in deterring petty crimes. The perpetrators of such crimes are usually simple people or just basically decent folks falling on bad circumstances, but it is quite useless in stopping the truly wicked. On the contrary, religious exhortations are often the enabler of much worse evil. Through out history religion has been a powerful tool for mass murderers and genocidal maniacs to justify their atrocities and to coerce others to go along.
Threat is a way to make people obey rather than to make them well behaved. There is no reason why the obedient must behave well, it depends on who gives the order. An obedient person can act very badly if given very bad orders. Since God doesn't talk to us, "divine orders" are given by men pretending to speak for God. The authoritative positions of interpreting "God's will" are often occupied by very bad men as history amply shows.
Genuinely ethical behaviour can never arise through coercion and deception.On the contrary, people who respond primarily to the carrot and the stick are ideal for manipulations by the cynical and ambitious.
Other Comments by Bonzai
42. Comment #56316 by denoir on July 15, 2007 at 1:14 am
There is a good quote relevant for this subject, but I can't seem to find a reference. I think RD used it once in an interview. It was attributed to a greek philosopher - Plato if I recall correctly:He was accused of corrupting the morals of the people and replied something loke: "Do you take me for an idiot? I have to live with these people!"
Does anybody know the actual quote and who it is attributed to?
Other Comments by denoir
43. Comment #56321 by steve99 on July 15, 2007 at 2:25 am
I find it ridiculous the way he shrugs off the whole disaster with "well it would have worked if it wasn't for those pesky religious nutjobs!".
Why? It seems to me that the problem right now is primarily religious nutjobs. The majority of the Iraqis had the vision and courage to vote in democratic elections, even in the face of threats from extremists. I would say this backs at least some of Hitchens' views.
Other Comments by steve99
44. Comment #56323 by BicycleRepairMan on July 15, 2007 at 2:50 am
Peacebeuponme I totally agree, I've always thought of the "There must be some ultimate right or wrong" as a complete non-argument, along with the "We are not perfect so someone or something must be.." How these argument were ever any better than "My car is a rusty old shit, that couldnt do 60mph if hell froze over, therefore, it follows that the perfect car, capable of moving at the speed of light, must exist" But even if it ever was, evolution destroys any credibility this thinking once had, because it explains where we got "right from wrong" from in the first place, and ofcourse how our "near-but-not-perfect" bodies and minds came about. Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
45. Comment #56328 by Hip_Priest on July 15, 2007 at 4:18 am
steve99I find it ridiculous because one of the main arguments made for not going to war, not least by people with some expertise on the dynamics of the region, was that it would lead to sectarian chaos and provide religious extremism an opportunity to flourish.
Hitch was a hugely vocal supporter of the war that created this mess in Iraq but now, nausiatingly, uses the deaths of innocent Iraqis as handy bullet points in his athiest manifesto.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the interviews I have seen, Hitch still defends the decision to go to war. He simply passes the blame for its disastorous consequences to the zealots now running riot in the country, as if we had no idea that they existed before 2003. Thats not good enough; there's blood on Hitchens' hands too.
Other Comments by Hip_Priest
46. Comment #56341 by SMART on July 15, 2007 at 6:28 am
So what was your overall goal in writing this book? One reviewer, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education, wonders if your "grand strategy is to taunt religion so mercilessly that it packs its bags and storms, red faced, out of the cosmos."That's nonsense. I don't suggest anything of the sort. Religion is ineradicable. There shouldn't be any attempt to eradicate it. I wouldn't have asked people to come and debate with me if that's how I felt.
This is the first quote of Hitchins that I disagree with... and I find it very difficult to believe that HE believes this. Does this mean that if by some chance religion WAS eradicated Christopher would be disappointed and would try to reinstate it?!
Other Comments by SMART
47. Comment #56343 by MrEmpirical on July 15, 2007 at 6:50 am
I think it's important not to make too much of Sam Harris' comments regarding paranormal phenomena. When I read these comments, I understood them to mean that Harris will not dogmatically reject apparently implausible claims. In other words, Harris will not dogmatically reject the same sorts of claims that are dogmatically accepted by the faithful. As with all sorts of claims, the ultimate arbiter will always be the evidence. Essentially, I saw Harris' comments as reassuring his readers that he has not entered the debate closed to the possibility of the truth of supernatural claims. Rather, he entered the debate with an open - albeit rational and sceptical - mindset. And as it happens, the evidence for religious claims is non-existent.Other Comments by MrEmpirical
48. Comment #56344 by chezzyd on July 15, 2007 at 6:54 am
16. Comment #56247 by NormanDoering on July 14, 2007 at 3:44 pmhttp://normdoering.blogspot.com/
NormanDoering - I checked out the blogger you mentioned and you are right, it is sick and twisted - sorry, I don't think I could better it... I was especially concerned at the entry that talked about obsessive stalking and harrassment of a non-religious German family who commit the crime of not mowing their lawn and showing affection in public. The way the blogger talks about them is very scary - almost deranged. The worst thing is, they don't even sound like a lone oddball, sounds like systematic, community-led bullying. Brrrrr..... creepy...
Other Comments by chezzyd
49. Comment #56346 by steve99 on July 15, 2007 at 7:13 am
I find it ridiculous because one of the main arguments made for not going to war, not least by people with some expertise on the dynamics of the region, was that it would lead to sectarian chaos and provide religious extremism an opportunity to flourish.
Sectarian chaos would not have happened if not for a really dumb mistake by the invading forces - to disband the existing power structures and forces which had managed to keep control for decades.
Hitch was a hugely vocal supporter of the war that created this mess in Iraq but now, nausiatingly, uses the deaths of innocent Iraqis as handy bullet points in his athiest manifesto.
I fail to see why that is nauseating or wrong. Deaths of innocent Iraqis are certainly being caused by religious disputes.
He simply passes the blame for its disastorous consequences to the zealots now running riot in the country, as if we had no idea that they existed before 2003.
Of course he and we knew they existed. If the existing security forces had not been disbanded, they would have remained under control.
Thats not good enough; there's blood on Hitchens' hands too.
Don't be silly! As if Hitchens' influenced things one way or the other! The War was not his doing. He had his reasons for supporting it. They are interesting and complex. I disagree with them, but they are reasonable. This is not as black and white as you suggest.
Other Comments by steve99
50. Comment #56349 by cassdenata on July 15, 2007 at 8:04 am
Christopher Hitchen's rhetorical question answers the question of whether god is 'necessary' for religion but not whether he helps increase the number of moral actions or moral people. It is purely a numbers game, an empirical question. This could be solved by randomly surveying atheists and strong believers and comparing them to some standards of morality. Unfortunately, this kind of survey could bias the results because those who are atheists in this day and age could have strong correlations with some innate brain chemistry and family and social upbringing that allows them to be more considerate, intelligent and likely to not need coercion to do good in the world. We already know that there is a positive correlation between education and disbelief. For instance, we may all have friends who are atheists who are very moral but that is not a good test. We need to find the person who was abused as a child or was a drug abuser, or who doesn't have a good education in our surveys. The only true way to test this is to wave a magic wand and make everybody an atheist and see what happens.I don't know what the answer to this question is, whether religion does tip a few people in to the morally positive universe. But if I am to S.W.A.G. a little bit, I would say that it would make a very small difference. Although many people claim to be religious due to upbringing or the inability to think of a world without god, most people whether criminals or soccer moms don't think about god in their day to day actions. If they do resist the temptation towards criminal and immoral acts it is out of a duty to community, society, family, the fact that a fruitful life is more enjoyable and to stop going to prison and losing friends and lovers.
Other Comments by cassdenata
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
Bertrand Russell
"There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one-- the pulpit. It yielded last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession-- at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery texts in the Bible remained; the practice changed; that was all."
Mark Twain
"For the kinds of small animals we are talking about, we can assume one generation per year, so it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye."
Richard Dawkins
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Seneca the Younger
"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!"
Clark Adams
Other Recommended Reading
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Irreligion
John Allen Paulos
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
Genome
Matt Ridley
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #56210 by marcdesm on July 14, 2007 at 1:38 pm
But then, I'm an aerospace engineer. Maybe Mr. Hitchens' style is better suited for reaching a different segment of the population.
Other Comments by marcdesm