1. Comment #64103 by Graham on August 17, 2007 at 6:31 pm

For science writing I love Dawkins, but for social commentary on religion, Hitchens gets my vote every time.

Other Comments by Graham

2. Comment #64104 by LeeC on August 17, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Good to see the fight continues...

Other Comments by LeeC

3. Comment #64108 by tieInterceptor on August 17, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Hitchens knows how to entertain and convey the message so well,

we can really count ourselves lucky to have brains like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens on our side, I almost feel sorry for the opposition :)

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

4. Comment #64109 by Oliver Leif on August 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Good article, his writing is very good.

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

5. Comment #64115 by Fouad Boussetta on August 17, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Hitchens is not just intelligent: he's hilarious, which makes him all the more effective.
I really love this guy.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

6. Comment #64116 by ? on August 17, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I loved the point that most people must be lying in these polls that "prove" that most Americans regularly attend church.

I occasionally go to services at a Unitarian Universalist church (a philosophical religion not requiring any supernatural beliefs) and I'm amazed at how little traffic there is on Sunday morning.

The trip would take me an hour or more on a weekday morning but is only about 20 minutes on Sunday.

And come to think of it, Sunday morning radio programs don't give detailed traffic information to help people get around traffic jams and accidents.

Why not? According to the "official story" almost as many Americans go to church regularly as work. Apparently not so!

Other Comments by ?

7. Comment #64118 by Sittingduck on August 17, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Hitchens is a master of oneupsmanship. You just have to love his quick wit.

..."when I am asked if I know the anti-Christian works of Friedrich Nietzsche. I say that I have my differences with Nietzsche, but that I know his stuff. Am I aware, inquires the questioner, "that when he was writing that very stuff he was suffering from terminal syphilitic decay? Slightly baffled, I reply that I have heard as much but don't know it to be true. Do I think, comes the next question, that there is a similar explanation for my own work? Should have seen that coming. My response is that I obviously can't be the best judge but that it's very compassionate of him to ask."

Thanks for the link. It was interesting to read about his book tour from his perspective.

Other Comments by Sittingduck

8. Comment #64123 by Tumara Baap on August 17, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Whereas Nietzsche's neurosyphilis had little to do with what he expounded (except perhaps he could've done it more extensively), the cases of intense religiosity I saw in patients during my psych rotations were certainly linked to psychoses. Schizophrenic paranoia (as depicted in A Beautiful Mind) -where there aren't disjointed thoughts as much as fabricated fragments of thought manifesting as weeks old memory- were uncommonly linked to sinister arrangements with the secret service and/or socialization with Jesus Christ. You'd think these guys would present as totally nuts, but they were actually polite, civil, and utterly convincing ... until they alleged a detail too incredible. At a point they would finally realize they were sick. This must've been unimaginably disconcerting, not knowing the real from the delusion, and this patient group was at very high risk of suicide. I can't think of a worse ailment to have than one's consciousness turned upside down. There have also been case reports of patients with epilepsy who go on a certain seizure meds and then become intensely religious. There have been other examples of brain injuries (strokes, tumours etc) which influence musical predilections and spirituality. I am not suggesting that all those who believe in Jesus (or any religion) therefore have a brain affliction. But the case studies are interesting nevertheless. I guess the take home point is the cognizance of delusion; the suffocation of perception, consciousness and thought, and to know it! Is it possible, with a little education and introspection, for the good listeners of Christian talk-radio or 700 Club to come to terms with their vitiated "god given" sentience to want to walk off a cliff?

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

9. Comment #64125 by monkey2 on August 17, 2007 at 10:16 pm

you can get away with anything in this country if you can shove the word "Reverend" in front of your name.

adj rev'erend worthy of reverence

n reverence high respect; respectful awe; veneration; the state of being held in high respect; a gesture or observance of respect.

What conceit on the part of the religious.

Other Comments by monkey2

10. Comment #64126 by Rhys on August 17, 2007 at 10:44 pm

I always wondered about those polls. I think because people equate religiosity with patriotism in America they feel obliged to pretend they are more religious than they are.

Other Comments by Rhys

11. Comment #64138 by Shuggy on August 18, 2007 at 1:55 am

I get to try out my latest slogan, echoing what Jefferson said about the "wall of separation" between church and state: "Mr. Jefferson—build up that wall!" Mr. Dobbs leans over and, on-camera, pins an American flag to my lapel.

You might like to wear the slogan next to your flag:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21867 but I like that point that the religious right is more concerned about keeping government out of the church (especially taxation) than the church out of government.

Other Comments by Shuggy

12. Comment #64142 by N. Fidel on August 18, 2007 at 3:08 am

The last line of the article (Blessed are the cheese-makers) is from Life of Brian. Even Hitch must have smirked when he typed that quaint, but witty allusion . . .

Other Comments by N. Fidel

13. Comment #64146 by Jopses on August 18, 2007 at 3:44 am

Schubert, too, was suffering from neurosyphylis and died as a result of it. Remarkably, he wrote the best work, like Winterreise, during his final illness. So much for the `detrimental` effects of this STD.

Other Comments by Jopses

14. Comment #64147 by scooternyc on August 18, 2007 at 3:53 am

"Schubert, too, was suffering from neurosyphylis and died as a result of it."

Love this! What a great retort.

Other Comments by scooternyc

15. Comment #64152 by MIDVALCRE on August 18, 2007 at 5:18 am

Another great job. His razor edged wit is really uncomparable. At first I disagreed with his unapologetic in your face and unpolitical stance, but am coming around. I was trying to save the feelings of friends and family from being hurt by trying a less agressive attack, but perhaps it is they who need to thicken their skins a bit and realize reality and reason. Though I dont recomend him for anyone reading their first atheism book, for he might be to much a shock to their systems. Reality and reason might need to be eased into for people who have been delusional for long periods of time.

Other Comments by MIDVALCRE

16. Comment #64154 by LB on August 18, 2007 at 5:57 am

What encounter with the Archbishop of Canterbury?

And Fouad Boussetta - why have you got a photo of Eamonn Holmes in the jungle as your avatar?

Other Comments by LB

17. Comment #64157 by Fouad Boussetta on August 18, 2007 at 6:28 am

LB: what are you talking about?
I never used an avatar in my entire life: that's a picture of me in St-Martin!
Who's Eamonn Holmes?

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

18. Comment #64158 by Wrought on August 18, 2007 at 6:35 am

Eamonn Holmes is a rather naff British television host. Honestly, FB, I wouldn't stand for that!! :)

Other Comments by Wrought

19. Comment #64173 by Zaphod on August 18, 2007 at 10:05 am

"May 14, Austin, Texas: A phone-in with WPTF ("We Protect the Family"), a conservative talk-radio station in North Carolina. The questions are very civil until the end, when I am asked if I know the anti-Christian works of Friedrich Nietzsche. I say that I have my differences with Nietzsche, but that I know his stuff. Am I aware, inquires the questioner, that when he was writing that very stuff he was suffering from terminal syphilitic decay? Slightly baffled, I reply that I have heard as much but don't know it to be true. Do I think, comes the next question, that there is a similar explanation for my own work? Should have seen that coming. My response is that I obviously can't be the best judge but that it's very compassionate of him to ask."

Perhaps Hitchens should have replied "Maybe Paul on the road to Damascus was suffering from a similar illness"

Other Comments by Zaphod

20. Comment #64182 by walk on August 18, 2007 at 11:48 am

Well said, Zaphod.
Party On, Citizen Hitch!!

Other Comments by walk

21. Comment #64190 by Diplo on August 18, 2007 at 2:32 pm

I love the "divine intervention" of Hitchens ending up next to the Archbishop of Canterbury at a restaurant! Then again, most Anglicans nowdays seem to be atheists who cling on to tradition by the skin of a metaphor.

Other Comments by Diplo

22. Comment #64192 by Shuggy on August 18, 2007 at 2:43 pm

13. Comment #64146 by Jopses on August 18, 2007 at 3:44 am

Schubert, too, was suffering from neurosyphylis and died as a result of it. Remarkably, he wrote the best work, like Winterreise, during his final illness. So much for the `detrimental` effects of this STD.

You beat me to it, but I was going to say (Frederick) Delius.

But what an extraordinarily rude question, and what an extraordinarily polite answer! You can take Hitchens out of England....

Other Comments by Shuggy

23. Comment #64195 by Shuggy on August 18, 2007 at 3:00 pm

A three-hour debate with the Reverend Mark Roberts ... I ask him if he believes the story in Saint Matthew's Gospel about the graves opening in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion ... He replies that as a Christian he does believe it, though as a historian he has his doubts. I realize that I am limited here: I can usually think myself into an opponent's position, but this is something I can't imagine myself saying, let alone thinking.

Suggested reply:

"I see only one head, Reverend."

Other Comments by Shuggy

24. Comment #64200 by Shuggy on August 18, 2007 at 3:49 pm

The archbishop's church is about to undergo a schism. More than 10 conservative congregations in Virginia have seceded, along with some African bishops, to protest the ordination of a gay bishop in New England. I ask him how it's going. "Well"—he lowers his voice—"I'm rather trying to keep my head down." Well, why, in that case, I want to reply, did you seek a job that supposedly involves moral leadership? But I let it go. What do I care what some Bronze Age text says about homosexuality? And there's something hopelessly innocent about the archbishop

Hopelessly guilty, rather of trying to have a bob both ways. Never mind what some Bronze Age text says, how dare he sacrifice millions of gay people (to homophobic attacks) on the altar of church unity? This is not just about gay bishops, it's about the right of gay people to live undisturbed (especially in countries like Jamaica, Nigeria and Zimbabwe). Both Anglican and Catholic churches are criminally weak on this issue.

Other Comments by Shuggy

25. Comment #64205 by Kakashi_monkey on August 18, 2007 at 4:16 pm

It's good to hear that teaching intelligent design in schools is very unpopular. There's no way I'd ever go to school and be taught that. And for people having shaky beliefs, well, it's all made up, so it can be hard to steadily believe their beliefs. Only makes sense.

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

26. Comment #64210 by Darwin's badger on August 18, 2007 at 4:48 pm

17. Comment #64157 by Fouad Boussetta on August 18, 2007 at 6:28 am
avatarLB: what are you talking about?
I never used an avatar in my entire life: that's a picture of me in St-Martin!
Who's Eamonn Holmes?
________________________________

Dammit though, man, you do look like the pie-friendly sofa-dweller. Here's a link:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/09/eholmes290906_700x476.jpg

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

27. Comment #64236 by eccles on August 18, 2007 at 7:58 pm

"I love the "divine intervention" of Hitchens ending up next to the Archbishop of Canterbury at a restaurant! Then again, most Anglicans nowdays seem to be atheists who cling on to tradition by the skin of a metaphor."

It must be remembered that, for the Anglican Clergy belief in God is an optional extra. The Church of England is only an "Old Boy's Club".

Other Comments by eccles

28. Comment #64237 by Zeta Sagittarii on August 18, 2007 at 8:22 pm

"Jerry Falwell [...] dies without being bodily 'raptured' into the heavens. The cable shows start to call and I have a book to sell: maybe someone up there does love me after all."
ROFL! I LOVED this part!

Other Comments by Zeta Sagittarii

29. Comment #64263 by bluebird on August 19, 2007 at 4:57 am

Non-verbatim quote of RM Rilke [1875-1926]

"If I lose my demons, I fear I may lose also my angels".

Other Comments by bluebird

30. Comment #64268 by Nebularry on August 19, 2007 at 6:28 am

I have procrastinated buying "God is Not Great" but after having read this article I'll move it to the top of my wish list.

Other Comments by Nebularry

31. Comment #64269 by Homo Incredulous on August 19, 2007 at 6:45 am

Oh, dear!
I would love to read this article, but it keeps closing down my Internet Explorer!
Am I the only one with this problem?

Other Comments by Homo Incredulous

32. Comment #64273 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 8:19 am

Hitchens wrote:
"My challenge: name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever. I have since asked this question at every stop and haven't had a reply yet."



Why does he think this is a good argument?

It's not. Worse, he's actively goading a counter argument to his bad argument, luring the whole debate toward irrelevance. Worse still in this case, a powerful retort to his challenge exists. A recent study indicates that regular church goers are more charitable than non-church goers. Some "redneck" (to use Hitchens terminology) is going to cite that study and think they have won a great victory, and they'll be right. Thanks to Hitchens. His flailing rants are music to the ears of the choir, but they are ultimately counter-persuasive and they profoundly confuse good arguments with bad --- and isn't such confusion at the heart of the "faith" problem to begin with?

People are unlikely to change their attitudes (see sociology studies on attitudes and cognitive dissonance). Because of this the winning strategy in political debate is counter-intuitive; it does not involve direct attempts to change opinions (e.g. attitudes), but rather it attempts to enlist specific support by controlling how political debates (religious debates included) get framed. The rational side of this debate will suffer immensely due to the way such a prominent figure as Hitchens has decided to frame this debate; specifically in this case around the misguided topic of "good works".

.

Other Comments by Riley

33. Comment #64275 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 8:25 am

Hitchens wrote:
"Again I notice two things: the religious types are unused to debate and are surprised at how many people are impatient with them, or even scornful."

Is he joking?


Far from being "unused to debate" it's one of the activities that the fully engaged 'religious types' are most used to doing! The chief claim to fame of Jerry Falwell's Liberty 'University' is it's debate team! According to one rating system (albeit flawed), it's the number one debate team in the U.S. !

Likewise, enduring scorn for Jesus is first tier Christian dogma! It's even formalized as a rite-of-passage ritual for many Christian sects. What self-respecting fundamentalist hasn't conspicuously boasted about being attacked for defending Jesus?

Sometimes listening to a Hitchens rant feels like listening to a John Belushi rant: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

... never mind that his characterizations of the facts are patently wrong (as usual), don't stop him, he is on a roll.

Other Comments by Riley

34. Comment #64276 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 8:52 am

Hitchens wrote on p.54 of "God is Not Great":
"Orthodox Jews conduct congress by means of a hole in the sheet"

What would compel Hitchens to write something like this to begin with?
To whom does he credit the source of such information?


How shallow is the level of critical thinking from Hitchens that such a conspicuously urban-myth sounding "fact" could rise-up to a level of credibility worthy of putting into print? In a book no less, which one would normally assume received his highest level of care and reflection.

...very typical Hitchens: sloppy, unreliable, and lazy - but loveable just the same.

-------------------------------------
edit: corrected Hitchens quote from "Congress" to "congress".

Other Comments by Riley

35. Comment #64280 by c3p0r2d2 on August 19, 2007 at 10:13 am

Good article. Always a pleasure to read Hitchens.

Other Comments by c3p0r2d2

36. Comment #64281 by David Blackwell on August 19, 2007 at 10:19 am

What a not only informative but highly entertaining piece. I found especially delectable the author's enlightenment of Marvin Olasky on points relating to the Revolutionary War and of a Roman Catholic host on a Fox radio station on Roman Catholic theology (the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth not being the same thing). One had better have their facts straight and have thought things through before taking on the redoubtable Christopher.

It's encouraging to note that Hitchens's god is not Great remains the #1 (hard copy, non-fiction) bestseller in Canada, while The God Delusion, which has been in the top ten for 42 weeks, still stands at #2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel, with its first-hand, nitty-gritty account of growing up as a female Moslem child in Africa and portrayal of the reality of Islam, remains in the top ten at #8 spot. Incidentally, the pope's book on Jesus, which Hitchens refers to in his Vanity Fair piece, has not (yet anyway) appeared among Canada's top ten bestsellers.

Yes indeed, God bless you, Christopher Hitchens!

Other Comments by David Blackwell

37. Comment #64284 by NJS on August 19, 2007 at 11:39 am

Riley:

Why does he think this is a good argument?

How many times are we told Atheists are cold/dead inside/immoral and that only theists do good works?

I have no problem with it and I would counter your argument about charity with the Gates/Buffet response.

I would also argue that many theists do "charity" for ulterior motives like self-smugness and recruitment.

Other Comments by NJS

38. Comment #64286 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 11:50 am

NJS,

First Point: I agree that it would be another bad argument to say: "atheists are cold/dead inside/immoral". It's also an empty and bigoted claim. My point is that the challenge posed by Hitchens does nothing to counter that presumed argument - he just responds with another equally bad argument (implied by the challenge). Worse, provocation of his challenge contributes to framing the debate generally around this fundamentally irrelevant topic. A serious problem that's far worse than simply making a bad argument.

Also, I'm curious, how frequently do you hear the claim being made that "only theists do good works"? And can you name anyone specifically? I'm accustomed to hearing Christians argue just the opposite. A leading argument for the existence of God in fact relies on both believers and non-believers possessing an innate sense of morality (see: Moral Arguments for the Existence of God. )

Second Point: What argument did you think I made? I simply cite a study which indicates that church-goers on average give 10% more to secular charities than non-church-goers. My main point is that this is a perfectly valid response to his challenge. My second point is that even if such facts did not exist, this entire line of argument in general is flawed and pointless because it's unresolveable. The fact that Hitchens makes this prodding challenge when such a strong retort to it exists, makes his challenge even more tragic. But no doubt he'll earn many television appearances as a result - good for him; bad for anyone who cares about promoting reason.

Third Point: Accusations of church-goer "ulterior motives" is speculative at best, and bigotry mongering at worst. I hope for your sake it hasn't progressed to the latter.

Other Comments by Riley

39. Comment #64293 by ? on August 19, 2007 at 12:20 pm

A few random thoughts on Riley's criticisms of Hitchens.

---Yes, Hitchens has an abrasive style that utilizes flamboyant rhetoric, warped humor and colorful insults.

Some people see it as entertaining, thought provoking and even charming; especially in the tough-minded less than scholarly arenas of newspaper opinion pieces and radio shows. Others obviously don't.

To a large extent its a matter of taste. I have a Christian friend who has met Hitchens a couple times and likes him, and finds his views stimulating.

----You raise a good point that there are Christians who are open to debate, and are even good at it.

----The charitable contributions issue is a tricky one. Curches are communities, after all, and they do often collect money for good causes and encourage members to give to charities outside the church. Christians have been known for their giving to the poor since Roman times, and it doesn't make sense to deny this.

However, Hitchen's point still has some validity. Does such giving *require* religion to back it up. Is there an essential connection between the two activities?

---Finally, I understand that the "being good for a reward" issue can lead to unwarrented insults against religious people who are genuinely trying to be good because they are benevolent people. However, is it fair to completely ignore the issue? Most religions do, in fact, promise some kind of divine reward for good behavior. It is not unreasonable to speculate about the likely consequences of such teachings.

Other Comments by ?

40. Comment #64310 by NJS on August 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Riley: My point on ulterior motives is mainly aimed at "missionary" type work. I'm sure that some theists in the past did see spreading the word as their duty but imo there was very much a recruitment angle with a power and monetary slant. The way the catholic church and the CofE worked hand in hand with the European empire builders from the 15th century onwards is proof of that.

The power angle especially I see in modern times with the conditioned aid sent by the US to Africa.

I generally have a problem with "personal" charity - I see it as the crumbs from the table fuelled by the guilty consciences of the rich - I would much rather see more governmental based aid programs (without said conditions).

Other Comments by NJS

41. Comment #64322 by Diplo on August 19, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Riley said:

Worse still in this case, a clear counter argument exists in the minds of every "religious type", most notably due to a recent study which indicates that regular church goers are more charitable than non-church goers. Some "redneck" (to use Hitchens terminology) is going to cite that study and think they have won a great victory, and they'll be right.

How does this study you refer to in anyway invalidate the point Hitchens is making? Here's what Hitchens states:

"name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer".

Are you saying that a non-believer is incapable of giving to charity? Because that would be the only way to invalidate Hitchen's argument. Whether religious people give more or less is irrelevant what Hitchens is saying - the point is that it's not impossible for atheists to give to charity. Can atheists donate money to charity? Yes, clearly they can - it's not unique to religious folk. His argument stands.

So, I'm afraid, your logic is very much flawed, Riley.

Other Comments by Diplo

42. Comment #64324 by mikethebike on August 19, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Regarding comment #64273 by Riley

Seems like a good argument to me. Simple, even. The religious claim that morality comes from the Bible. It doesn't. Perhaps you could explain why you think it's a bad argument and exactly how this would lead to "luring the whole debate toward irrelevance." Really, I would like to know.

Other Comments by mikethebike

43. Comment #64326 by chuckgoecke on August 19, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Riley, in comment #64275 said:

Far from being "unused to debate" it's one of the activities that the fully engaged 'religious types' are most used to doing! The chief claim to fame of Jerry Falwell's Liberty 'University' is it's debate team! According to one rating system (albeit flawed), it's the number one debate team in the U.S. !

I believe Hitchens is referring to many Christians being unused to debate with atheists; having to really defend their faith. This is central to both Christopher's and Richard's argument; that why should religion be given such a free ride and kid-glove handling when it comes to debates or criticism.
Debates within the religious factions are of course vigorous and frequent, but to outsiders, I'm sure most of them are irrelevant. For instance, a few years back, when the Southern Baptist Convention produced the wonderful nugget of turd; that a wife should be subservient to her husband. I'm pretty sure that that stand was fairly hotly debated within the church bureaucracy, not for its correctness, but whether to put it out explicitly as doctrine.

Most of the defense of their faith the fundamentalist Christians have had to engage in lately, if you listen to the 700 club or others, is to defend the right to prayer in schools (in other words the right to force prayer in schools)or to post the 10 commandments on public buildings or the right to force saying the religious VERSION(post 1950's) of the Pledge of Allegiance.

chuck

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

44. Comment #64327 by MilesSmiles on August 19, 2007 at 3:18 pm

check out this new hitchens website.....

http://www.buildupthatwall.com

good article. for those who haven't read this book, it is a must read. hitchens takes a completely different approach then dawkins, or sam harris and dan dennett for that matter. it is nice to see this sudden rise of anti-religious writing among some of our best contemporary polemicists and thinkers in the science community. look out for Mark Lilla's new book - 'The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West' coming next month. check out a preview at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Religion-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin...

Other Comments by MilesSmiles

45. Comment #64329 by Shuggy on August 19, 2007 at 3:29 pm

34. Comment #64276 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 8:52 am

Hitchens wrote on p.54 of "God is Not Great":

"Orthodox Jews conduct Congress by means of a hole in the sheet"

What would compel Hitchens to write something like this to begin with?
To whom does he credit the source of such information?

I suspect that the crumb of truth is that Orthodox husbands and wives may not touch for about two weeks of the month. It would be logical for them to sleep with a sheet between them during that time to prevent accidentally touching. Jokes about holes in sheets would follow.

But yes, it certainly was shallow of CH to swallow the full-blown urban legend version unchecked.

Notice that he has renounced that claim and removed it from future editions of the book.

Other Comments by Shuggy

46. Comment #64339 by Riley on August 19, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Notice that he has renounced that claim and removed it from future editions of the book.

Yes. The least a person could do is stop actively spreading misinformation on a massive scale. He did the least, and that's good. Now, as part of doing the least, it would be nice to see him take steps to limit future distribution of misinformation in his other publications. The guy has a historic and chronic problem with getting his facts right. Which ironically is what makes him so well suited to the religion debate in general -- there are so few relevant facts and everybody's an expert.

mikethebike wrote:
"Seems like a good argument to me. Simple, even. The religious claim that morality comes from the Bible. It doesn't. Perhaps you could explain why you think it's a bad argument and exactly how this would lead to 'luring the whole debate toward irrelevance.' Really, I would like to know."

First - the Hitchens challenge: "name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever"

Let's start by identifying the straw man Hitchens has created:
I've never heard a person of faith argue that believers perform good works that non-believers do not or cannot also perform. So to start off, it's a bad argument because it does not properly represent the other side. It would be helpful if we had a reference to someone who actually made this argument but Hitchens doesn't provide one. Hitchens apparently tasked several people directly with his challenge; do we have any evidence (quotes) of any one of his targets ever making such claims? I could be wrong, someone help me out.

Second: Even if Hitchens is not propping-up a phoney argument here (as I think he probably is, and doesn't it just piss you off when the "religious types" do that sort of thing?), such an argument is not even possible to resolve. At best I think such a debate is doomed (for good reason) to be mired in controversy over what is and is not considered moral behavior.

Third: The Hitchens challenge focuses squarely on posing the question: "Do believers behave better, or about the same?" A basically unresolvable question, but even if it could be resolved would not prove or disprove "God" as the source of all human morality (which is indeed the leading claim of theists) -- maybe you could make the argument for how answers to the question posed by Hitchens could prove or disprove this, but I can't see it - help me out. Just to be clear since there are a lot of theories being thrown around about what Hitchens really means, I want to specify that it's the debate over "who if anyone behaves better" that I believe to be pointless and irrelevant. Richard Dawkins has made similar comments to this effect as well. As I commented before, I think engaging this line of argument leads the debate to be framed around the topic of "good works" and "who does more of them" and "which works are the most worthy of praise", etc ... when the issue is better framed around winnable topics such as the credibility of the Bible.

.

Other Comments by Riley

47. Comment #64364 by Serious on August 19, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Religious people *often* make claims along the line of "there is no morality outside religion" or "morals come from God". It is good that Hitchens calls their bluff.

Experts in the field point out that conversions come from emotion, rather than logical argument. Hitchens provide plenty of that - and it's sorely needed. For this reason, I think Dawkins do more good when (on the rare occasion) he looses his cool than when he is his beautifully cool self. The contrast between the usual cool and the occasional heat can be most effective.

I don't think that Hitchens are particularly loose with his facts, but he is in the humanities (not the sciences) where facts are a bit harder to get perfectly hard and solid. He also debate people who appear to have a completely different view of what constitutes a fact.

Other Comments by Serious

48. Comment #64377 by event_horizon on August 19, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Homo Incredulous:

Oh, dear!
I would love to read this article, but it keeps
closing down my Internet Explorer!
Am I the only one with this problem?

Internet Explorer is *so* 5 minutes ago. Go get
yourself Firefox, you won't be sorry. ;-)

Other Comments by event_horizon

49. Comment #64386 by Quine on August 19, 2007 at 10:26 pm

"Blessed are the cheese-makers."

Or any other manufacturers of dairy products.

Other Comments by Quine

50. Comment #64390 by Wadsworth on August 20, 2007 at 12:32 am

A recent study indicates that regular church goers are more charitable than non-church goers.

Yes, but there is not enough information here; does the study say to whom the charity is directed,ie Christians only, or also pagans and unbelievers?--and if the latter, is the charity given mostly with the intention of converting them?
Does the comment apply to individuals, who may or may not attend Church, or collectively? If Church-goers give more to charity maybe that is because there are as yet, more of them than non-Church goers.

Other Comments by Wadsworth