1. Comment #79989 by Matt7895 on October 19, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Excellent, thanks very much. I always like listening to Hitchens.

Other Comments by Matt7895

2. Comment #79997 by SilentMike on October 19, 2007 at 1:46 pm

This is going to be a lot of fun.

Other Comments by SilentMike

3. Comment #80000 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 1:53 pm

The reason Hitchens never gets a response to his silly challenge
is that Christians don't make that claim!

Christians have never asserted that believers are capable of performing moral acts that non-believers are incapable of performing. Not only is that claim not made by Christians, the exact opposite claim is the basis for much of the Christian moral thesis. Christian theology REQUIRES that the free-will and the ability to act morally or immorally exist in all people.

Hitchens is manufacturing a bogus argument. He "wins" his arguments by misrepresenting his opponents and then he grandstands on his vapid conclusions. He is no better in this respect than the worst of the Christian right. It disgusts me when I hear the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world do it. Such behavior deserves just as much condemnation when non-theists do it.

.

Other Comments by Riley

4. Comment #80005 by PeterK on October 19, 2007 at 2:02 pm

"The reason Hitchen's never get s response to his silly challenge, is because Christians don't make that claim!"

A few recent presidents of the USA have:

G. Bush senior:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.


Other Comments by PeterK

5. Comment #80007 by oxytocin on October 19, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Riley,
Hitchens is responding to claims by the faithful that they are morally superior, or at least that morality comes from the clouds. There are some extreme folks who believe that in the absence of xianity, the world would lapse into amorality. I think the challenge is mainly aimed at this latter group. The problem you identified emerges when xians, in their vicissitude, claim that we fail to understand their unique blend of xianity.

Other Comments by oxytocin

6. Comment #80010 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 2:16 pm

oxytocin, He's as clear as a bell on this. He has made and smugishly repeated his challenge at every opportunity. Don't put words into his mouth that he hasn't spoken. He specifically challenges believers to name a moral action a non-believer couldn't perform.

What believer has made that claim? What Christian argument relies on that claim? Give me a quote from a noteworthy Christian.

Other Comments by Riley

7. Comment #80012 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Further to PeterK

Take a look at the current encumbant, banning stem cell research on 'religious grounds' when he has absolutley no idea of the science behind it; I bet you Bushy couldn't tell his guanine from his cytosine!
As a result this potentially millions of people will suffer unecessarily. Don't beleive me? In the progressive UK (never thought i would say that) we may have a treatment for muscular dystrophy as a direct result of such experiments...

Other Comments by newskin

8. Comment #80013 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Riley:

Christians have never asserted that believers are capable of performing moral acts that non-believers are incapable of performing.

So we don't need God to be good. Glad that's settled.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

9. Comment #80014 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Touche Dr Benway (a little dissapointed i missed that sitter!)

Other Comments by newskin

10. Comment #80015 by oxytocin on October 19, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Riley, let me get my quote book out....

Other Comments by oxytocin

11. Comment #80016 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm

"noteworthy Christian"

That's comedy in itself. Is that like another name for "true Christian"?

Other Comments by notsobad

12. Comment #80017 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Hitchens is manufacturing a bogus argument. He "wins" his arguments by misrepresenting his opponents and grandstanding.

I would be terribly interested in exactly how Hitchens misrepresents his opponents. I mean, if the representatives of each religion could just get together and come up with a nice definite summary of what they believe, that would be just so useful.

Other Comments by steve99

13. Comment #80019 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 2:31 pm

This thread stands as proof that you can be an atheist and still be ruled by irrational thinking.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

steve99, did you read my first post?

notsobad, have ANY of the theists challenged by Hitchens in print or on air made the claim that Christians perform moral acts that non-Christians cannot?


Other Comments by Riley

14. Comment #80020 by Martha on October 19, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Christopher Hitchens: "This is a very fair-minded and decent and polite and open-minded society, the United States - of which I'm so proud to have become a citizen..."

Really? Is that why MOST Americans live in fear of not having health insurance? Is LIVING IN FEAR indicative of an a fair and decent society?
I don't so, Mr. Hitchens.

Other Comments by Martha

15. Comment #80022 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Riley, never mind that nasty blowhard Hitshins, or whatever. It's so refreshing to meet a Christian who agrees that we don't need God to be good.

Here, allow me to pour you some tea.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

16. Comment #80023 by Smythe on October 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Hitchens' challenge takes Steven Weinberg's famous statement, (Good people will do good things, evil people will do evil things, but for a good person to do an evil thing, it takes religion) and phrases it in the form of a challenge.

In an ideal world, Weinberg's statement would stand alone as an absolute knockdown argument against any religiot who seeks to equate wish-thinking with morality.

Unfortunately, religious people seem to be, on the whole (I'll be unnecessarily kind here as I'm in a good mood watching Hitch) a little 'slow'.

So, the statement of Weinberg has been rephrased as a challenge in order to FORCE the religious to realize the fallacy of their argument, and hopefully give it up once and for all.

It should amaze me that someone could come on this thread and still not get it, but I've been exposed to too many religious people to amazed by any amount of idiocy.

Other Comments by Smythe

17. Comment #80024 by notsobad on October 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Riley, there are thousands of religions and within those religions thousands of interpretations. It's funny when a single theist tries to speak for others or even a majority.

Other Comments by notsobad

18. Comment #80025 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Martha,

If living in fear of not having health insurance is your only concern you are indeed blessed! Hitchen's does not imply America is a eutopia, merely a country where a person is not persecuted because of their ideals (by the state, there is no accounting for the inevitable bigotted individual0.
As an aside, as a UK citizen who does not have to worry about health insurance, i have to say that such a position is not as perfect as you may imagine. What use is free medical care if it is seriously delayed, underfunded and generally downright substandard?

Other Comments by newskin

19. Comment #80026 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm

steve99, did you read my first post?

Actually, yes:

Christian theology REQUIRES that the free-will and the ability to act morally or immorally exist in all people

That is because Christian theology is inconsistent. Free will is not consistent with an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Perhaps before Christians come up with a consistent summary of what they believe, they could come up with a consistent theology.

If you can make a definite statement about theology, I am impressed.

Other Comments by steve99

20. Comment #80028 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 2:55 pm

That is because Christian theology is inconsistent. Free will is not consistent with an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Cheque please!

Not only that but god is not needed to explain anything and indeed explains nothing. If we accepted Christian dogma, there would be no medical research (Why? Because to intervene medically is surely against god's will) As a result, millions of people die needlessley each year (beleivers or otherwise). Where does your ethical arguement from religion stand then?

Other Comments by newskin

21. Comment #80029 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Humans can be good without God.

The merry quibblers slowly fell silent as each considered the implications of the proposition on the table, agreed to by all.

Suddenly their remaining items of dispute seemed trivial. The impetus for the fight between the God fearing and the godless was behind them. Everyone could now go home for a bit of dinner.

Hurrah!

Other Comments by Dr Benway

22. Comment #80031 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm

steve99, The basis for the argument of "free will" may be flawed - as you point out - but none-the-less, that is the basis for the Christian moral thesis as accepted by a consensus of Christians from all sects. You'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that this bit of dogma is not a fundamental pillar of Christianity.

But why quibble when you can be specific? Lets just deal with the individuals that Hitchens has directly challenged on stage. Have any of those people made the claim that Christians are capable of performing moral acts that non-Christians are incapable of performing? Have any of their arguments relied on such a claim?

It's really that simple. Either they have or they haven't. Since Hitchens is the one challenging them and gloating over their non-response to his challenge, then I should think Hitchens could procure a quote from one of these individuals. Why hasn't he? Can anybody do this?

Other Comments by Riley

23. Comment #80033 by papavb on October 19, 2007 at 3:14 pm

In support of steve99's assertion, I think a quote from Sartre is in order

"If god exists, man is not free, and if man is free, god does not exist"

you're either a fatalist, or you're not

Other Comments by papavb

24. Comment #80034 by Bonzai on October 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Riley,

Christian theology REQUIRES that the free-will and the ability to act morally or immorally exist in all people.

Free will doesn't exist if the capacity to make "immoral" choices is absent. So if as some Christians claim the moral instinct is a planted in the human heart by God the same would be true for human wickedness. So why should we be punished for our "sinfulness" if that is part of our built in feature by deliberate design and what do we need Jesus for?

The believers want to have it both way. If we act morally God takes the credit, if we behave badly we take the blame. What a nice deal for "God'.

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #80036 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 3:25 pm

The basis for the argument of "free will" may be flawed - as you point out - but none-the-less, that is the basis for the Christian moral thesis as accepted by a consensus of Christians from all sects.

Well, I don't think I could have put it better myself. The consensus belief of Christians is flawed.

(I have to admit in all honesty that all logical frameworks we know of are flawed. The problem is that Christians claim to know the mind of the perfect God).

Since Hitchens is the one challenging them and gloating over their non-response to his challenge, then I should think Hitchens could procure a quote from one of these individuals. Why hasn't he? Can anybody do this?

I am having trouble both parsing and understanding this statement. Hitchens put forward a challenge, and we are supposed to quote "non-responses"? Or quotes from people who have not responded?

OK, I realise that was a bit of a cheap shot. But, what you need to realise is that Hitchens has been putting forward this challenge for some time, including during a widely reported and televised book tour. If anyone had responded, you can bet that would have been widely publicised.

Other Comments by steve99

26. Comment #80037 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Good point Bonzai --- and yet Christians believe in free will anyway. They believe that all people are equally capable of performing moral acts.

Their belief may be irrational, but that's the belief. Don't go trying to claim that they believe in things that they explicitly do not believe in.

Other Comments by Riley

27. Comment #80038 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Riley: Have any of those people made the claim that Christians are capable of performing moral acts that non-Christians are incapable of performing?

Ah, so you'd like to re-arrange the deck chairs for a bit longer.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

28. Comment #80040 by denoir on October 19, 2007 at 3:27 pm

That is because Christian theology is inconsistent. Free will is not consistent with an omnipotent and omniscient God.

That's my personal favourite: omniscience. If Bob up in the sky knows for certain what you will be doing in the future then all is predetermined i.e no free will. It's really über-determinism.

What the Christians usually claim is that you do have free will, but that you need to be a christian to be really moral. Ignoring the omniscience problem that would perhaps be fine if they claimed that the moral value would lie in being christian. They do not however - they claim that being a christian makes them more moral in other respects.

This is really a preposterous thing to claim. It is in fact exactly the opposite - atheists, or at least those that subscribe to a rational set of moral values are morally superior to the mystics.

Morality is not arbitrary because life is not arbitrary. For an organism to survive it has to perform a number of interactions with its environment and in some cases with other organisms. The fundamental moral value is life. It is a fairly easy to understand axiom - if it wasn't, we wouldn't be around talking about it. Any biological system that did not consider life as its primary value would be soon extinct.

Life is dependent on a real world that follows natural laws. Rational actions are conditions for survival. In raw nature irrationality equals suicide. Celebrating irrational behaviour in a world directed by natural laws is celebrating death. It is fundamentally immoral.

Human societies have as far back as we know been arranged in such a way that irrational people have lived on the products of the rational ones. The mystics have always lived on the products of the ones that actually applied rational methods to create something. And at the same time they condemn rationality. They need it to survive while at the same time preaching that the rational and the material are evils. If they had their way, if everybody accepted their position, first the rational people would die out to be followed by everybody else. People of whatever religion are in fact part of a death cult. If we fulfilled their wishes and followed their irrational values we'd all be dead soon.

And they have the stomach to call themselves more moral?

Other Comments by denoir

29. Comment #80041 by newskin on October 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Good point Bonzai --- and yet Christians believe in free will anyway. They believe that all people are equally capable of performing moral acts.

So why attach the rest of the stipulations? What's with the obsession with peoples sex lives etc? If you deprive christianity of the moral high ground, I'm afraid all it boils down to in todays world is hedging your bets regarding death and the afterlife. In which case you have an 1/n (where n = every religion ever postulated in the history of humanity) chance of going to heaven. Well, it could be you...

Other Comments by newskin

30. Comment #80042 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Their belief may be irrational, but that's the belief. Don't go trying to claim that they believe in things that they explicitly do not believe in.

I think you need to learn a lot more; both about formal logical systems and about human psychology.

Other Comments by steve99

31. Comment #80043 by Breadbin on October 19, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Riley:

Is it at all possible that the question he poses is rhetorical, a way of refuting the persistent suggestion from the religious that belief makes people act morally and non-belief leaves them without a moral compass?

This claim is indeed made by many who would argue the benefits of religious belief. God makes people do good things, they say. Without God, they say, those people would probably be immoral and selfish. This argument is mainly aimed at those who already believe, in my opinion, as a way to encourage them to continue with their belief and to indoctrinate their children to save them from the wicked atheist lifestyle that they love to caricature.

The people who are on the stage at the time may not have said precisely "religious people can do moral things that atheists cannot" but his question simply points out the disingenuous way that many religious apologists hijack morality for their team exclusively. It's a good reply when they've fallen back to their rock bottom argument that faith-based charitable works make up for everything else they can't justify.

Other Comments by Breadbin

32. Comment #80045 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Breadbin, I take Hitchens at his word, much the same that I take the Bible at its word. It says what it says and Hitchens makes no bones about what he is saying and he would never accept a similar argument about what the Bible is "really saying" from an opponent in a debate. It's fair to hold him accountable to the same standard he holds everyone else - and to Hitchens' credit, I think he would agree with me on that point.


As for my logic steve99,
Maybe I don't understand much about logic, but I appear to understand at least this one aspect better than you:
The burden of proof is on the claimant.

The validity of the "Hitchens Challenge" relies upon its implicit assertion that:
Christians claim to perform ethical acts that non-believers can not.

The burden of proof is upon Hitchens (and you if you are defending his challenge) to show that this assertion is true. Where's your evidence?

If you want to avoid the problem of "re-arranged deck chairs" Dr Benway, then the solution is to quote one of the people that Hitchens has challenged directly - there's no squirming out of that. Hitchens beams about the fact that he's challenged numerous theists directly in print and on air, and he never fails to take the opportunity to gloat that no-one has been able to respond to his claim. Michael Gerson is one of the victims of the Hitchens challenge. Tell me, has Michael Gerson ever made the claim?

I honestly am not sure - I can't prove a negative. But knowing what I know about the Christian doctrine of free-will, I would be shocked if you found anything in the positive. Nevertheless, I stand ready to be convinced by the evidence.

put up, or shut up.

Other Comments by Riley

33. Comment #80046 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Riley, it's not my impression that Hitchens is quoting any believer with his challenge.

I remain pleased as peaches that you and I agree one does not require God to be good.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

34. Comment #80047 by Russell Blackford on October 19, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Hitchens' point is clear enough, and I'm starting to think we have a new pet troll that y'all are feeding. Or at least someone so literal-minded and pig-headed that talking to him intelligently is like talking to a brick wall. Sometimes the point is made and there's no more to say; the interlocutor either "gets" it or doesn't.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

35. Comment #80048 by mjwemdee on October 19, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Comment #80037 by Riley
Their belief may be irrational, but that's the belief. Don't go trying to claim that they believe in things that they explicitly do not believe in.

I can only suppose Riley is a troll. How can he not see the circularity of his arguments?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

36. Comment #80050 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Russell Blackford:

Sometimes the point is made and there's no more to say; the interlocutor either "gets" it or doesn't.

And what a point it is: we do not require God to be good.

More tea?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

37. Comment #80052 by toomanytribbles on October 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm

russell: nor to enjoy a cuppa. i'll have one, thanks.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

38. Comment #80053 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Indeed it is. The claimant for millenia has been the religious, who have claimed that the religious are morally superior. Hitchens has asked them to provide evidence to the contrary.

Other Comments by steve99

39. Comment #80054 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 6:49 pm

mjwemdee, do you really think this is circular logic on my part?

Maybe you misunderstand. I'm not defending the Christian doctrine of freewill. I'm not claiming it's rational. I'm simply claiming that the doctrine of freewill is in fact a Christian doctrine. It is a consensus Christian belief.


My larger point is that this doctrinal Christian belief is incompatible with the assertion implied by the "Hitchens Challenge" that Christians claim to perform ethical acts that non-believers can not.

Other Comments by Riley

40. Comment #80056 by scooternyc on October 19, 2007 at 7:03 pm

"Christian theology REQUIRES that the free-will..."

There is no such thing as free will. The very idea that you think you have free will is merely more denial that who you are inherently is what motivates your natural drives. You may think you are "choosing" but you are merely behaving as you would rooted in the natural wiring from within.

This is the best explanation:

Humans are composed of physical matter. This physical matter follows all the laws of physics. There are no components of human consciousness or decision-making abilities in addition to physical matter. The terms mind and soul are spiritual wishful thinking and mystical explanations for the unknown.

Looking at a general overview of physical laws gives a better understanding of human free will. Our brain is composed of chemical and electronic circuitry. This circuitry is a system of cause and effect. An internal or environmental stimulus results in a predictable effect. If one were to know every stimulus a newborn would experience and the exact physical arrangement of the newborn's anatomy, then one would be able to predict every choice the newborn would make until death.

We can see the existence of cause and effect throughout life on planet Earth. We do not question that a plant does what it was destined to do. If the sun is to the East, then the plant will bend due to a phototropic response to the East. At no point do we contemplate that the plant has a choice to bend to the West.

If a charge is introduced to one end of a neuron, then the charge will propagate to the other end of the neuron. The animal that possesses the neuron has no choice in whether the neuron transmits or not. Everything the human animal thinks or decides is output generated by the physical brain supported by all its other physical organ systems.

With this in mind, one can only conclude that free will as defined by many religions is a fallacy. How can we hold a person accountable if there is no choice? How can there be a heaven and hell if there is no soul? Both of these questions are rooted in a religious morality.

The succinct answer is that nature does not have judgment. Nature does produce outcomes, effects and consequences. We humans want to feel superior to all other living organisms. We want to be validated by the love and acceptance of a creator. We have fabricated a soul, a mind and gods in order to substantiate the existence of free will.

So, why have laws? We humans have evolved into a very complex organism. In order to maximize our ability to survive and reproduce, we have developed societies, civilizations, cultures, ethics and mores. We are wired to desire order. We are wired to desire a peaceful existence. Ultimately, this can only be accomplished through law creation and enforcement. Any omniscient being would have seen this development long before the beginning of time.

Other Comments by scooternyc

41. Comment #80057 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 7:07 pm

steve99: "The claimant for millenia has been the religious"

...but in this case the claimant is Hitchens and you, apparently.


You lack evidence to back your claim. Without it, I wouldn't expect you to be able to respond any further.

Hopefully one of you will read back through this thread and count the number of logical fallacies (mostly ad hominems, hasty conclusions, and non-sequitors) that so many of you have committed in such a short span of text.

It was a surprise to me to be treated this way, but very educational.

Thanks.

Other Comments by Riley

42. Comment #80059 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm

There is no such thing as free will.

Many, many philosophers, including Daniel Denett will disagree with you about this.

Humans are composed of physical matter. This physical matter follows all the laws of physics. There are no components of human consciousness or decision-making abilities in addition to physical matter. The terms mind and soul are spiritual wishful thinking and mystical explanations for the unknown.

Personally, I don't think they are mystical. Mind and soul describe what we feel ourselves to be. Physical matter and the laws of physics are the best objective models we happen to have come up with to descrive reality. There is no reason to believe either point of view to be anything like complete, so we really can't link one to the other. Until we have a better understanding of consciousness, and the physical nature of reality, it is far too soon to start to talk about free will.

If a charge is introduced to one end of a neuron, then the charge will propagate to the other end of the neuron. The animal that possesses the neuron has no choice in whether the neuron transmits or not.

But such changes seem to produce qualia. But we have no idea what qualia are, or why they are experienced. Until we can deal with this, we have to admit that the process of charge transfer in neurons has implications beyond anything we can understand.

I have a lot of respect for your views. What I am trying to say here is that discussions of the true nature of free will are probably beyond our current level of understanding of reality and the nature of mind. I feel uncomfortable with definitive statements about this.

Other Comments by steve99

43. Comment #80060 by Russian Freethinker on October 19, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Riley: "The basis for the argument of "free will" may be flawed - as you point out - but none-the-less, that is the basis for the Christian moral thesis as accepted by a consensus of Christians from all sects. You'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that this bit of dogma is not a fundamental pillar of Christianity."

Riley, I am surprised that you claim to be a Christian and speak for the "consensus of Christians" and yet you know so little about Christian theology. Have you never read Augustine or Luther or Calvin? All of them denied freedom of the will, and yet they are foundational thinkers of the Western Christian tradition. If you ever get some free time, I'd encourage you to read Luther's "The Bondage of the Will".

So please do not speak for all Christians. There are plenty of Christians out there, especially in the Reformed tradition, that believe in God's absolute dominion over the human will. In fact, the doctrine of free will is incompatible with Christian soteriology, because it would require that faith be an act of human works. That would completely obliterate the concept of grace.

Other Comments by Russian Freethinker

44. Comment #80061 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Russian Freethinker, I have not ever claimed to speak *for* Christians, nor even claimed to be a Christian. I have no idea how someone got that impression. What I have claimed is that there is a consensus among Christians based on the evidence that I have available to me. But I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong on that point - I haven't crunched the numbers - have you? (If 80-90% of Christians believe in the doctrine of free-will could we call that a consensus?) You sound like you have some solid arguments for your case that there is not a consensus. Great!

I will check out: "The Bondage of the Will".
thanks!

Other Comments by Riley

45. Comment #80062 by scooternyc on October 19, 2007 at 7:30 pm

The "subjective nature" of qualia, such that it would be, is irrelevant in observation. It is what it is - the experience is the experience. To which an intellectual should say, "so what?".

The observation of action done without "thought" is merely the stepping stone to understanding that the action "with thought" is an awareness to create the action from within a hardwired trigger which would seek the action even without the "thought". In other words - you would do it anyway.

Example: if you keep eating improperly and gain weight, your "choice" to finally stop is the very "natural choice" you would have made given your propensity of certain genetic behaviors inherited from your lineage.

Your desire to stop eating poorly only to fall back time and again, is your natural "choice" at failure rooted in your lineage genetics. And so on.

You act on it because you would act on it anyway.

You don't act on it because you wouldn't anyway.

You act on it and fail because you would fail anyway.

The shift in the firing comes when you "teach/train" the brain to "act" differently through repetition. Thus the new "action" performed is the updated circuitry which now seeks the new action without thought.

Consider how many times you already do this in your life.

Notice those who say, "why do I keep choosing the same _______ all the time" - because they are hard wired rooted in their lineage, to do so. They have to force the effort of the restructure/firing of the natural choice, in order to create a more well-adjusted choice.

Other Comments by scooternyc

46. Comment #80063 by ChrisMcL on October 19, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Riley:

Thanks for your explanation. I've always felt uncomfortable with Hithen's challenge. You explained well how it is contradicted by Christian belief. I wonder if Hitch knows this and is baiting them.

BTW Christian moral superiority has been undermined by the evidence collected by George Barna (an evangelical) showing that U.S. god-believers have higher divorce rates, are more probably in prison, and so forth, than non-believers.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

47. Comment #80064 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 7:44 pm

The "subjective nature" of qualia, such that it would be, is irrelevant in observation. It is what it is - the experience is the experience. To which an intellectual should say, "so what?".

My personal view is that as the only contact we have with reality is qualia, anyone who says "so what" is attempting to delude themselves... reality is nothing but experience.

And, I am afraid, I need to read a lot more of Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers and Roger Penrose before I can reply in detail...

But, I will if you wish.

Other Comments by steve99

48. Comment #80065 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Riley:

The Hitchens Challenge relies on that false claim about the Christian faith.

Well you're falsely claiming he's falsely representing some Christian assertion. So that makes you both even.

But whence this Hitshins obsession of yours? Forget that silly git.

You're among friends. Look, I've made a cake of goodness. You may have a slice, if you like. Have a cuppa.

I've no quarrel with anyone who agrees we don't need God to be good.
_____________________
Epilogue:

Riley pulled a Barney Fife. He hoped to collar Hitchens for jaywalking. But while fumbling with the cuffs, he handed over his gun, badge, and kindly deputized the Hitch.

If we do not need Jesus to be good, we do not require the atonement, the resurrection, the Bible, the 72 virgins, Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, or any of the rest.

BTW, Hitchens wasn't jaywalking. His challenge is not a representation of a particular Christian claim, but a test of the widely held belief that our morals come from religion.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

49. Comment #80066 by chileman on October 19, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Where's Sam's speech?

Other Comments by chileman

50. Comment #80067 by LoneStarTravis on October 19, 2007 at 8:03 pm

It's always a blessing to hear Hitchens.

Other Comments by LoneStarTravis