51. Comment #80069 by alovrin on October 19, 2007 at 8:14 pm

It's good to hear Hitchens expound a liitle more on his views about Iran and the looming conflict with the Muslim world. I guess time will tell if he's correct. As lazy as that sounds.
I am curious about the background to Saddams rise to power, was he aided by the west at some stage and just went bad. If anyone knows where there is a backgrounder please let me know. I havent read Robert Fisk's book but if it gives details and anyone has read it LMK.

And again there is the annoyance of varying audio quality. I suppose the speakers are radio mic'd, but no feed from the PA for the questions just relying on a camera mic to pick them up. And did the mic's batteries go flat at one stage. These are all problems which are easily solved. Is it just an availablity of equipment issue? Admin If you want advice just ask.
But its good to see this website get rightly deserved praise from RD and Dan Dennett elsewhere on the AAI07 posts.

Other Comments by alovrin

52. Comment #80070 by Frankus1122 on October 19, 2007 at 8:18 pm

name a moral act that believers are capable of performing that non-believers are not capable of performing.

Whenever Hitchens has made this challenge it is in response to, or a pre-emptive strike against the "If we don't get our morality from God then where do we get it from? There is no moral foundation without God." idea. This idea has come up in virtually every Christian response to Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins. It has been answered again and again and again. The Hitchens challenge is an answer to this belief.

Riley's claim:

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

is false.

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

That may be. However, the challenge is an ANSWER to 'we need God to have a moral compass. The Bible provides us with that moral compass. It is from the Bible- the Word of God- that we are told what is right and wrong action.' If Riley claims that this has not been asserted by Christians I will provide links where this claim is made.


Hitchens challenge is saying we do not derive our morality from the Bible or the Koran or God. It is obvious that all people can act in ways that are good. We can be good without God.
Hitchens goes on to say that horrendous acts are committed in the name of God. We can be good without God, but it takes belief in God to crash a plane into a building or blow yourself up in a marketplace.
I don't agree with the latter part of his claim. There are lots of crazy beliefs that cause us to do bad things.

I'll have some tea now good Doctor.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

53. Comment #80073 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Frankus,

I agree that Hitchens is responding to the : "If we don't get our morality from God then where do we get it from?" arguments and the "There is no moral foundation without God." idea, but his challenge doesn't address those arguments. His challenge tactfully avoids those arguments through a non-sequitur. That's the problem.

The Hitchens Challenge is an ambush tactic, like asking a stranger: "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - huh? Christians don't claim that you need to believe in God in order to have God-given knowledge of right and wrong. And they certainly aren't claiming you need to believe in order to be capable of doing right.

Secondly, there are important differences between claiming: "We can be good without God", "we can be good without believing in God" and "believing in God necessarily makes you good". You've conflated these claims together. The only claim that Christians make is that God is the source of our goodness (as irrational as that claim is, that is the claim). They do not to my knowledge claim that belief in God necessarily makes you good, or that you need to believe in God in order to choose to do good works. And of course, the Hitchens argument suggestively mischaracterizes the Chrisitian belief as being still more extreme.

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

Frankus1122: "That may be."

"That may be" !?!?!?!

If the targets of the Hitchens Challenge have never asserted this claim, then you must acknowledge that the Hitchens Challenge relies on a false premise. That's the whole point!

I don't dispute that this challenge is a tactic in response to wretched theist arguments. You are right to point these things out ... but it doesn't make the challenge any less wretched itself.

.

Other Comments by Riley

54. Comment #80076 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Christians don't claim that you need to believe in God in order to have God-given knowledge of right and wrong. And they certainly aren't claiming you need to believe in order to be capable of doing right.

Oh yes, they really, really do. I have spend a long time on this site (as have many others) dealing with specific Christian individuals who have claimed precisely that

Other Comments by steve99

55. Comment #80077 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 9:33 pm

I'd love to see a quote.

I'm used to hearing Christians make this argument:
"The existence of a moral compass in both believers and non-believers is evidence for the existence of God!"


read this: "Proof That God Exists"
read the section called: "Is there any proof that God exists? Take a good look inside yourself". I've been subjected to this "we are all born with an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong" rationale as evidence for the existence of God countless times.

Other Comments by Riley

56. Comment #80078 by Morro on October 19, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Wow. Is this the speech that PZ was referring to when he said that Hitchens argued for genocide?

Man. I always knew that bits of PZ's brain flew out his ear when politics was the topic of discussion but I had no idea that what a large fraction it was.

[edit] - Ah, that explains it, then. Thanks for the correction. Still, I have a hard time believing PZ's account of the speech. Is there a recording of that one that I can check out for myself?

Other Comments by Morro

57. Comment #80081 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 10:03 pm

No, Morro. PZ was commenting on a speech at another conference in the midwest.

Riley, after the moral compass bit, you get the "new man in Christ" bit. There's the dichotomy between those who are "of the Lord" and those "of the world." Read your Bible.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

58. Comment #80084 by Frankus1122 on October 19, 2007 at 10:26 pm

If the targets of the Hitchens Challenge have never asserted this claim, then you must acknowledge that the Hitchens Challenge relies on a false premise.That's the whole point!

That is not the point at all. It may be your point but it is not the point of the challenge.

The only claim that Christians make is that God is the source of our goodness (as irrational as that claim is, that is the claim).

That is the point.

Christians claim that I can't be good without God. I can be good without believing in God but that is only because I have a "God-given knowledge of right and wrong."

Where do I get this "God-given knowledge"? Is it from the Bible? That can't be because I read many things in the Bible that I believe are bad. Things that god has done and sanctioned in the Bible are bad (according to the moral compass he has given me). Has God given me knowledge of good and evil that leads me to believe he is evil? God has put a moral compass in me that points to him being a bad god. That is stupid.

That is the point.
.....

You know what? I am beginning to understand what you are getting at: Christians claim that we can all do good things, believers and non-believers, because God has given us the gift of knowing what is good and what is bad. Just because you are a non-believer does not make you incapable of goodness. No Christian ever claimed this. Hitchens is bad for challenging Christians or believers of any sort to give an example of goodness or kindness that could only come from a believer. We can all do good -thanks to God.
No. Not thanks to God. Because of the problem of the evil that comes from belief. Really really bad stuff can happen because you believe. Belief in God poisons everything.

We do good in spite of God not because of God.

That's the point.

I am rambling a bit here. It is 1:30 AM. I am off to bed.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

59. Comment #80085 by denoir on October 19, 2007 at 10:29 pm

steve99:

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...

Qualia are not experiences, but the alleged essence of sensory experiences. They are supposed to be qualities independent of both their cause and effect.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

It's religion quality nonsense, completely unscientific and very bad philosophy. For a good, albeit rather obvious critique of qualia, see Dennett's "Consciousness explained" or the more recent "Sweet dreams".

Other Comments by denoir

60. Comment #80086 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Dr Benway: "Riley, after the moral compass bit, you get the "new man in Christ" bit. There's the dichotomy between those who are "of the Lord" and those "of the world." Read your Bible."

I fall asleep listening to my Bible on mp3 - Leviticus puts me to sleep every time.

But you're absolutely right Dr Benway. It's part of the emotional torture that is Christianity. The inherent knowledge of good and evil (i.e. our God-given moral compass) and the presumed freedom to choose between the two creates the foundation for guilt and justification for earthly and eternal punishment. While at the same time, the "we're all inherently evil sinners" creates the requisite shame and self-loathing necessary to inject the need for a savior - and the opportunity for someone to put words into the saviors mouth.

brilliant!

Other Comments by Riley

61. Comment #80087 by Dr Benway on October 19, 2007 at 10:38 pm

So true, Riley, so true.

I just pulled a fresh, homemade blueberry pie from the oven. I'm not kidding.

Ah, life is good.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

62. Comment #80088 by Lauregon on October 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm

And they certainly aren't claiming you need to believe in order to be capable of doing right. - Riley

It may be true that not all christians are claiming that, but it is true that many do argue just that. I've experienced the claim many times. Further, carrying the claim to another level, many believers I've encountered have argued that benevolent acts not done in Jesus' name don't "count."

Other Comments by Lauregon

63. Comment #80089 by joshcaudill on October 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Riley,

Christians claim that our moral foundations are laid out in the Bible.

Hitchens is speaking on behalf of us that do not believe that. We are equally moral without this supposed Biblical foundation.

Therefore, his argument does make sense.

Other Comments by joshcaudill

64. Comment #80092 by keith on October 19, 2007 at 11:31 pm

I hate to offer Riley a get-out clause now that he's been boxed into a corner. The bluster and bravado were quite comical: first rationalising, then saying that the belief itself is irrational, no, I don't think is true, I'm just reporting what Christians believe, no, I'm not claiming to speak for the consensus, no, just maybe, 85%, perhaps, I think it is, no, what gave you the idea that I'm a Christian, how could you jump to such a ridiculous conclusion bla bla.
He took the rather subtle, well-expressed points of 'breadbin' and beat them to a pulp with his sledgehammer answer to all questions: "Christians have never said they have a monopoly on moral acts", something he will continue to chant, even when we come up with a Christian who has claimed precisely that. Pat Robertson? Bah, he's not really a Christian. The pope? Ah, he isn't representative of the consensus. And there we are, back at square one.
Yet there is a loophole that he has so far failed to squeeze through, the one that lies between Hitchens' claim on the one side and Dr. Benway's 'Then you agree that we don't need god to do good'. The loophole exists in the difference between 'can' and 'do'. Your argument Riley, should be this:
Atheists can act as morally as believers but in general, they don't. This is why Hitchens' challenge is false but why we need god to do good.
Riley, you owe me one, though I think you'll claim that you would never for one moment claim that believers generally act more morally than atheists and no self-respecting Christian would ever say such a thing and find me one who has ever said this etc. etc., (exit stage left, riding hobby horse into sunset...)

Other Comments by keith

65. Comment #80094 by fonex_86 on October 20, 2007 at 12:01 am

From a fellowship I was forced to attend (the topic was Love, 1 Corinthians 13):
"God is Love, and Jesus is part of God, and so only those who know Jesus can Love(TM)."
"Non-Christians can be patient, nice, kind, caring, etc., but since they do not know Jesus personally, they cannot Love(TM)"
At no point did the speaker (nor the other people) try to define what is this "Love" they were talking about. Standard Christian bullshit.

Of course they'll never admit that atheists can act as morally as them, that would make their Holy Spirit(TM) pretty much superfluous.

Other Comments by fonex_86

66. Comment #80095 by Russell Blackford on October 20, 2007 at 12:06 am

All right, Riley, if you're on our side I apologise to you. I was unnecessarily mean.

But you are coming across as trying to get your point accepted and win an argument, rather than trying to understand why Hitchens might have good reasons to use this ploy, and what might be a better ploy if there's a problem with this one. You say that there are various distinctions. I agree. But that makes life almost impossible for the atheist debater, as the theists know. By the time you sort out what the hell the theist challenge means, out of all the things it might possibly mean, the attention span of your audience is up, as is your fifteen seconds. And if you answer the question "How can you have moral knowledge without God?" they'll say they really meant "How can morality have a metaphysical underpinning without God?" If you answer that, they say they really meant something else again, such as "How can you explain people's sense of obligation without God?" or "How can you guarantee there won't be dramatic moral breakdown without God?" And of course if you can be seen to be "misinterpreting" the question, it shows you don't get it.

It seems to me that Hitchens has a debating tactic that at least throws the onus back onto the believers to explain themselves. It may not be entirely fair - though you still have to convince me of that - but in any event, neither is the tactic that it answers. The theists know very well how shaky their meta-ethical position is, and that all they are doing is causing confusion by asking a massively ambiguous question. It's a cynical tactic.

Please tell us how you would handle it. I'm not just being rhetorical, though I do wonder how much better at this you'd be than Hitchens; I genuinely want to know.

Some of us may well find ourselves playing the same role as Hitchens does in these public debates, albeit at a more local level rather than strutting the world stage like he does, and every genuine tip helps.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

67. Comment #80096 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 12:07 am

Frankus1122,

What I hear you saying is that even if the Hitchens Challenge is based on a false premise, it's still useful as a retort to claims made by theists. Do I have that right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you could actually use the Hitchens Challenge as the basis to retort any one of those theist claims, then I would agree that a case could be made for the Hitchens Challenge. But I don't think you can employ the Hitchens Challenge to support any of your points.

For example, pointing out that non-believers possess an equal ability to do "good works" does nothing to counter the theist claim that following "God's Word" leads people to do good works more often. There are plenty of other good arguments to counter this claim, most of which I have no doubt you're aware, but the Hitchens Challenge isn't one of them.

Why does the Hitchens Challenge bother me as much as it does? It's because I hate hypocrisy. Not only does the Hitchens Challenge misrepresent the position of others, it's the exact type of intellectual dishonesty for which we rightly condemn theists.

.

Other Comments by Riley

68. Comment #80101 by Bueller_007 on October 20, 2007 at 1:10 am

I guess that Dawkins isn't taking part in Hitch's boycott. There's a link to buy The God Delusion from Borders on the right column of this website.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

69. Comment #80109 by BMMcArdle on October 20, 2007 at 2:44 am

Riley 67:

Why does the Hitchens Challenge bothers me as much as it does? It's because I hate hypocrisy. Not only does the Hitchens Challenge misrepresent the position of others, it's the exact type of intellectual dishonesty for which we rightly condemn theists.

It's hypocritical to be right?

Clear as mud.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

70. Comment #80111 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 3:23 am

The Hitchens Straw Man:
"believers make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

It's real simple BMMcArdle. Let's see a quote from from one of the people challenged by Hitchens (e.g. Michael Gerson, Mark Roberts, or any of the others) making the "Hitchens Straw Man" claim or making an argument that relies upon the "Hitchens Straw Man" claim.

Until someone can either do this or show how the outcome of the challenge can be used in some other relevant argument, then the Hitchens Challenge remains, by definition, a straw man argument.

put up or shut up.

Other Comments by Riley

71. Comment #80112 by steve99 on October 20, 2007 at 3:46 am

Qualia are not experiences, but the alleged essence of sensory experiences. They are supposed to be qualities independent of both their cause and effect.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I know what qualia are. I have been researching this for decades.

It's religion quality nonsense, completely unscientific and very bad philosophy. For a good, albeit rather obvious critique of qualia, see Dennett's "Consciousness explained" or the more recent "Sweet dreams".

Don't you think I haven't studied those? Like many others, I find Dennett's explanation (or rather non-explanation) of qualia to be highly problematic. Qualia are a matter of serious debate. They are certainly not 'religion quality nonsense'.

Other Comments by steve99

72. Comment #80114 by Enlightenme.. on October 20, 2007 at 4:12 am

It's a long time since I was at sunday school - so please correct me if I'm wrong here; I thought this is what the good samaritan tale was partly about - a man made by God who acts good simply because he's made by God - not because he's a believer, nor has any knowledge of God, only knowledge of good and evil (from sin of Adam (!)).

So I have to agree with Riley, much as I admire The Hitch, he needs to drop this conceit because of its fallaciousness.

I certainly get pissed off hearing McGrath claiming a 10,000 to one superiority of good acts to Xtian genocidal campaigns, as much as the next man, but Hitch shouldn't be allowed to get away with hypocrisy either - we need to hold him to a morally superior standard, don't we !

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

73. Comment #80115 by phil rimmer on October 20, 2007 at 4:14 am

Hitchens, I don't believe, has EVER stated that Christians CLAIM to be motivated to moral acts that an atheist will never be inclined to do. He never phrases it in that way. He merely poses a question.

Any reply, including Riley's, would be equally welcome to him. I suspect he would happily acknowledge the modest and self-effacing claims of modern, moderate theism, but delight in demonstrating the wealth of implicit theistic material demonstrating moral elevation and theists tacit acceptance of this "blessing".

There is no hypocrisy in posing the question. It is a baited hook Christians wisely swim clear of. Its a rhetorical device that subverts the "So, where do you atheists get your morals from?" question.

Arguments about the QUANTITY of moral behaviour are quite another issue. Hitchens, here, wants to say not merely that humans can be good without God, but that humans can be "Saintly" without God.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

74. Comment #80119 by windweaver on October 20, 2007 at 4:46 am

It's interesting to observe the language Hitchens uses when talking about the "Islamo-fascist" enemy. At one point in his speech, he makes reference to a "verminous" mullah. That's exactly the sort of language that Hitler used in talking about the jews and it demeans Hitchens' claim to be representing the forces of civilization and justice. Whatever one may think about the mullahs in Iran, surely they are not vermin to be exterminated.


"Returning to the Middle East, US policies--in conjunction with its client regimes--have so devastated the region that the fanatical vision of Islam that arose in the 1970s in response to struggles against the Shah of Iran's regime resonates all too unfortunately with all too many people. This type of "Islamic fascism"--as Hitchens calls it--made its first contemporary appearance among Iranians opposing the Shah: the US client in Iran. At the time of the US Hostage Crisis in 1979 President Jimmy Carter was approached with the reasons why US policy created such hostility among Iranians. He reportedly dismissed those historical lessons as irrelevant to solving his immediate problem. He was right. Taking those hostages was neither justified, nor would have addressing US foreign policy errors have pacified those already in the throws of Islamic fundamentalism. Yet, he was wrong in assuming that this crisis was hermetically sealed off from US foreign policy, or from the potential of that policy to create future problems. The future has arrived.
In sum, changing US policy will do nothing to stop those currently possessed by "Islamic fascism"--as Hitchens terms it. Yet, a more just foreign policy for the region will begin to starve these fanatical groups of the rage and destitution that provides them with new bodies to carry forth their "struggle." While we must address the short-term problem of terrorist threats, we would be wise to also look into medium to long-term solutions for a changed foreign policy that works against creating an environment in which extremist groups thrive, rather than one which nourishes them. Yet, Hitchens wants none of it in his jihad against those who do not see the problem as "clearly" as does he." -Jeff Sommers

Other Comments by windweaver

75. Comment #80122 by Enlightenme.. on October 20, 2007 at 5:05 am

^ Windweaver,
I don't suppose I can call you on Godwin's law since we aren't actually engaged in a debate!

anyway, the operative word is 'mullah' (ie not muslim) geddit?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

76. Comment #80128 by windweaver on October 20, 2007 at 5:32 am

Enlightenment, I am not comparing Hitchens to Adolph Hitler or the nazis. I am just pointing out that some of the language that he uses when talking about his loathed enemy is extremely intolerant and contemptuous and indicative of a belligerent mindset. Surely, in our fight against islamic theocracy, it is important to maintain a civilized discourse and not resort to dehumanising the "other".

Other Comments by windweaver

77. Comment #80129 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 20, 2007 at 5:34 am

I have always thought that Hitchens's answer is always a slight sidestep, because the believers can answer: 'Yes, granted that any - or almost any - moral action performed by a believer can be performed by a non-believer, and granted that there are many acts of wickedness that can only be performed by a believer..

That does _not_ change, _in fact_ the premise that you can only measure the morality or immorality of a human being by a religious yardstick."

They're technically true; Hitchens isn't answering them completely.

And let me point out that this dilemma doesn't exist for those of us who have read Atlas Shrugged, and know that there is such a thing as a scientific, rational, provable system of ethics and morality.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

78. Comment #80130 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 5:51 am

Riley, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I do not view Hitchen's question as a strawman. Note that the banal question about good deeds is a set-up followed by a punchline: name an evil act that a believer would do that an atheist would not do.

The intent of the device is simply to drive home the point: we do not get our morals from religion.

Religionists do have a habit of splitting humanity into two camps: believers verses infidels, saved verses unsaved. Goodness ain't evenly spit between the two groups. Some religionists are quite explicit about which sort of human you ought to trust; some are more murky. But that divide is a major part of religion's poison.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

79. Comment #80131 by d4m14n on October 20, 2007 at 5:53 am

Riley,

Damn you're an idiot! The whole point of Hitchen's silly little challenge [sic] is to hook them in for the second part!

Other Comments by d4m14n

80. Comment #80133 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 6:05 am

it is important to maintain a civilized discourse and not resort to dehumanising the "other".

In general that's true. But real combat requires killing, which is hard. There's an ever present danger for most decent, ordinary people, of mistaking the courage of the knife for the courage of the blood.

If you can call someone "vermin" without wavering, you might be capable of slitting his throat. If you can imagine feeling relief and even pleasure at his death, you might be able to kill him. It's not an easy thing to do. The conditioning against murder for most of us runs pretty deep, thankfully.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

81. Comment #80136 by phasmagigas on October 20, 2007 at 6:33 am

The intent of the device is simply to drive home the point: we do not get our morals from religion.

good point.

by attempting to make hitchens challenge a false one through the metaphysiscs of argument is absurd.

He is making a statement that stands alone.

It would be a bit like james randis million $ offer for a display of paranormal phenomana in tested conditions being laughed at because the proponents of the paranormal said they never asked to be tested. (well i think it might work like that, logic isnt my strong point).

Other Comments by phasmagigas

82. Comment #80140 by BMMcArdle on October 20, 2007 at 6:59 am

Riley 70:

The Hitchens Straw Man:
"believers make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

This quote came from the same place a huge bug currently occupies.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

83. Comment #80142 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 20, 2007 at 7:10 am

>>it is important to maintain a civilized discourse and not resort to dehumanising the "other".<<

This is one of those things that is thrown out with the expectation that it will not be challenged. Well, I am going to challenge it here.

There is no need to dehumanise the scum that shoot twelve year old girls in the head for not being veiled, or who use children as human shields, or who would hack a woman's fingers off for having nail-polish on, or who commit any of the thousand and one horrors and abominations demanded and sanctioned by the wretched tenets of the world's most evil religion: Islam.

Such creatures have long since dehumanised themselves.

And if we have any scrap of natural justice, any of the instincts of a healthy organism we will recognise such creatures for what they are and call for their eradication.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

84. Comment #80143 by Enlightenme.. on October 20, 2007 at 7:26 am

Sheesh why is this so hard.

[1] Proposition; God made all men.
Name something good...
You can't, see [1]

Hitch's 'punchline' always rings pyrrhic when I hear it delivered.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

85. Comment #80144 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 7:28 am

keith:

Yet there is a loophole that he has so far failed to squeeze through, the one that lies between Hitchens' claim on the one side and Dr. Benway's 'Then you agree that we don't need god to do good'. The loophole exists in the difference between 'can' and 'do'.

I think a probablistic answer would count. If a believer argued something analogous to, "sure, the Chicago Cubs could win the series*, but how often does that happen?" I would take note.

In any event, Christians have offered a couple of answers to the challenge:
1. pray for someone
2. love one's enemies

Enlightenme: [1] Proposition; God made all men.

Whether humans are often good because they've evolved thus, or because God wrote His law on the heart, or some other reason, is not relevant to the matter at hand.

Hitchens could have made his point without the rhetorical device of the challenge, perhaps like this: "I presume we all agree that atheists are just as cabable of noble, kind, and generous deeds as believers. But note that many believers do a number of harmful things for the sake of their religion that no atheist would ever dream of doing."

*Outside US, substitute appropriate football club and league.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

86. Comment #80147 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2007 at 7:47 am

scooternyc

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.

Is that statement consistent with quantum mechanics?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

87. Comment #80148 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 20, 2007 at 7:55 am

Nicely done, everyone.

My two cents worth, tongue in cheek:

Can I be good without God?
Can I be bad without the Devil?
Can I make tea without the Celestial Teapot?

Can there be dialogue between Reason and Christ-inanity?

Can there be there truth without the Trooth Fairy ©?

Can I exhibit the essence of an invented (accepted) quality without invoking the other thing I invented (accepted)?

Can I continue getting dressed in the morning, knowing that massive black holes in an infinite, indifferent universe are eating light itself, even as I pour my cereal and read the paper?

Never mind getting up in the morning – how can I even sleep?
And yet I do, very well.

It's the weekend, and watching Hitchens rise to the challenge of words is one of my favorite things! Playing guitar is another - music without words - the antidote, or the expression? Don't know that either.

I think I'd like a cup of tea, Doctor.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

88. Comment #80149 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 8:03 am

One lump or two, good monkey?

Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

89. Comment #80150 by denoir on October 20, 2007 at 8:21 am

steve99:

I know what qualia are. I have been researching this for decades.

Now there's a contradiction in term. How exactly do you go about researching qualia?

Qualia are a matter of serious debate. They are certainly not 'religion quality nonsense'.

Qualia are a substitute to and equal in validity to the christian concept of the 'holy spirit'. The philosophers that advocate it are the ones that are equally terrified of a naturalistic explanation of the human mind as the religious people are. Given that qualia can't be measured or described in empirical terms it is really not in any way better than various supernatural claims.

The philosophers today who advocate the existence of qualia do it primarily in opposition to AI. They are terrified of the idea that the brain is simply a complex computational device and that there are no mystic qualities to it. So they invent a mystic quality. In fact they are no better than the people who tried to invent a wide array of metaphysical reasons to why the earth is supposed to be the center of the universe.

Other Comments by denoir

90. Comment #80151 by Vendetta on October 20, 2007 at 8:41 am

Riley, are you still here?

I can't believe you think that Hitchen's challenge is hypocrisy. Oh my god. It is a CHALLENGE. He does not supply a quote because he is not quoting anyone. If someone were to actually respond to the challenge, THEN he could quote them. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Dennis Prager (a religious apologist) has his own 'challenge'. It basically says if you were walking alone at night and came upon a group of men, would you be comforted by the knowledge that they had just left a bible meeting? He asserts that yes, a person should be comforted by that knowledge. He challenges people to deny that. Strangely enough, just like Hitchens, he does not QUOTE anyone. Bizarre. It's because he's issuing a challenge, not quoting atheists. Is he asserting that atheists are running around saying that if you came upon a group of men that you somehow knew were just in a bible study meeting you would be less comforted? Of course not, because Prager is the one framing the argument. He can't quote atheists asserting the negative because no atheists are saying that, just like no christians are claiming what Hitch is challenging them to.

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because I am. But this is such an obvious point that it makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

Other Comments by Vendetta

91. Comment #80153 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 9:03 am

Vendetta,

The Dennis Prager challenge does not contain a contentious implicit assertion. The "Hitchens Challenge" does. That's the important difference between the two.

For example: I challenge you to stop beating your wife.

Implicit in my challenge is a contentious assertion that you have a wife and that you beat her. If you're neither married nor beat your wife then my challenge is based on a false premise. The burden of proof is upon me to provide evidence (e.g. a video of you beating your wife) to demonstrate that my implied assertion is true.

Implicit in the "Hitchens Challenge" is the contentious assertion that believers claim to be able to perform moral acts that non-believers are incapable of performing. The burden of proof is upon Hitchens (or someone) to provide evidence (e.g. a quote from a theist making such an argument) demonstrating that the implied Hitchens assertion is true.

It would also be unfair to consider a response to such a challenge as an admission that the contentious assertion was true. that's the real trap -- get someone to respond and then claim that the contentious implicit assertion in the challenge was true: e.g. "Ah ha! so you admit that you beat your wife!"


--------------------------

I understand that Hitchens is using his challenge as a rhetorical device. The fact that it's useful as such however, doesn't excuse its straw-man assertion and the fact that he attempts to publicly shame those who do not respond to his challenge should clearly demonstrates to everyone that Hitchens does not use his challenge merely as a rhetorical device.

Other Comments by Riley

92. Comment #80154 by Veronique on October 20, 2007 at 9:09 am

One of the things about debates, speeches and/or Q&A sessions is whether or not the combatants or questioners can engage the audience. If the arguments put forward by both combatants and/or questioner and answerer can engage the audience intellectually, then, as far as I am concerned, one has a good exchange of views.

A great example of this was the email debate between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris, posted in its entirety, as it happened, on this site. The reader (us) was persuaded by the arguments of both Sullivan and Harris to the extent that there was an engaging questioning and rational persuasion from both authors of this debate. This delineates the very core of a reasonable debate.

Now Hitchens, here, was not involved in a debate but more in the delivery of his stance. The Q&A that prompted his responses was argued well by him. It is the first time I have listened to cogent arguments in favour of the war in the Middle East. I have been looking and waiting for these arguments since forever. The Hitch delivered enough for me to sit back and cogitate on what he said. I am also reading Mark Lilla's book on political theology so I am keeping an open mind on the essential differences between theocratic imperatives as expressed by Ahamdinejad and those implied by the US via its stupid, short-sighted and theocratically blinded leader, commonly known, inter alia, as the Shrub.

It doesn't matter whether or not I agree or disagree with Hitchens' arguments for the continuation of the 'war' on terror in which the US is engaged. Hitchens' arguments are persuasive and that is the mark of a good debater. A bit like a tennis match really. One's eyes follow the ball that is being tossed between the combatants and (even though one may have a favourite) each rally and/or volley allows for an exclamation of appreciation for the way in which the ball is delivered.

This is how I see the Hitch. He is an excellent volleyer. He proposes arguments that give me pause and make me think. I have always been against this appalling war of attrition in the Middle East. However the Hitch has made me start to think from his side of the net and I don't find him wanting. The way in which he delivers his arguments for the theocratic dominance that faces the world is cogent. Hats off to him. He is the only one I have listened to who is able to express his reasons for his stance with any sort of logic, as distinct from hyperbolic rhetoric.

I will have to think further on this and also read Jan's The Ultimate Tragedy.

I have to say that I love his inability to suffer fools gladly:-). The expressions on his face were priceless. He really is fearless and I appreciate that with knobs on.

I have to agree with you Russell, I suspect we have a new troll. Don't feed him anyone. He will attempt to hijack this thread. Don't try to engage Riley in any meaningful debate. It will turn to mush and waste our time. We have seen it all before:-).

We should be getting good at recognising trolls. We have been here for quite some time. They are not that difficult to suss any more. Don't feed them. And thank you Russell for teaching me, months ago, how to recognise them:-). If you guys get sucked in, be it on your own head:-). Steve Zara I can see you, dear man:-). Addicted as always – I really love your posts, but I know you will be frustrated with this one:-).

I love the non-Quetz hour(s) of a good red.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

93. Comment #80157 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer on October 20, 2007 at 9:29 am

Unlike most others, Hitchens is very vocal in expressing his views on Islam. He has enemies everywhere, so there are people on all sides who wish him harm. It is very important that such people are protected. Society needs such people to question every established authority.

I hope we keep him alive and allow him free expression even if we disagree with him.

Other Comments by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer

94. Comment #80159 by GSP on October 20, 2007 at 9:44 am

I think Riley and the one, maybe two, others on this forum are coming close to a valid criticism of Hitchens. His absolutism.

Statements such as "religion poisons everything" is an absolutist statement. None of the other "Big Three" have made such a claim. Dawkins refuses to claim absolutism even in a non-belief of God, and has said, in the God Delusion and in speeches, that religion can motivate people to do good things.

Hitchens makes himself an easy target with absolutist statements. He's fun; to read, listen to, etc. But I think atheists main allegiances should lie with Harris, Dawkins and Dennett. Hitchens loves to argue, it is obvious, and nothing produces confrontation faster than absolutist statements.

The interesting thing about this is that atheists decry as one of the pitfalls of religion its absolutism and then claim Hitchens' side when he makes absolutist statements. I see an irony here, does anyone else?

Other Comments by GSP

95. Comment #80161 by drichlin on October 20, 2007 at 9:53 am

I believe that I understand what Riley (comment #8000) is saying. It's not that religious folks don't think that atheists cannot make moral decisions, it's that they think if there were no god in the first place we wouldn't know what is moral or how to be moral.

The theist reasoning is circular: if atheism were true there would be anarchy. But there is not anarchy, so god must exist. It just presupposes that morality can only come from god, not that nonbelievers cannot be moral.

From this perspective Hitchens' challenge seems to be off the mark. But, I have heard plenty of people (believers) ask Hitchens and others that if not for the existence of god how then do atheists know what is moral. That is, morality can only come from god.

Another approach would be to respond with the premise that god doesn't exist and that morality, defined simply as not causing suffering in fellow human beings, would be that which would promote the continued existence of our fellow humans (on the whole, since we do kill each other) - as well as ourselves. And, by extension, if we were not moral, we wouldn't be here now having long ago caused our own extinction.

Now having said that, Hitchens' "challenge" does just that, does it not? A nonbeliever can do moral things NOT because there is no god, but for reasons other than supernatural ones.

What do you think?

Other Comments by drichlin

96. Comment #80163 by keith on October 20, 2007 at 10:15 am

Dr. Benway,

I think you're confusing the two uses of 'could'. It is used for both ability (I could do this if I tried) and probabilty (the Bears could win this year). You have changed Hitchens challenge from ability to probability.
I agree that the two answers given by Christians could constitute an answer to Hitchens' challenge since he didn't actually include the rider '...a moral act that isn't vacuous and ineffective'.

Windweaver,

While we're on the subject of love thy enemy (this should, I'm sure you'll agree, be 'pretend to love thy enemy'), someone once said that although PC is hard to pin down, you know when you're in its presence. When you hear both 'dehumanize' and 'other' in the same sentence, you can be pretty sure it's in the room. I was a little surprised that 'unhelpful' wasn't in there too. Yes, Hitchens called the mullahs vermin. It's a figure of speech. Technically they aren't vermin so he is dehumanizing them. And if he had called them scum, this would also not have been right because technically they aren't made of dirty, frothy non-human stuff. And if he had called them rotten devils, a fairly harmless term, technically this would also have been wrong because we have no reason to think they aren't healthy or that they are really devils i.e. not human. These are all figures of speech, and some are unpleasant ones, but Hitchens feels we are dealing with some unpleasant people. How bad would atrocities have to get before you would feel it was acceptable to use something less than the language of diplomacy? Never? Even as they were cutting off the head of some poor sod, would you never stoop to that hideous crime of 'name calling'? I have to say that the Hitchens's 'crime', when juxtaposed with those of the mullahs, looks decidedly innocuous.

Although I agree with you that it's best to keep as much decorum as you can, there surely comes a point when this borders on sanctimoniousness, a kind of self-aggrandizement as though one were trying to be Jesus himself, and rather than eliciting respect, it can easily become quite nauseating.

Other Comments by keith

97. Comment #80164 by Johnny O on October 20, 2007 at 10:19 am

Until someone can do this, the Hitchens Challenge remains by definition, a straw man argument.

put up or shut up.

Try this mate: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1291,The-Great-God-Debate,Hugh-Hewitt-Show-Christopher-Hitchens-Mark-Roberts

You can hear Roberts and Hewitt make the old, "Stalin & Hitler were evil because they were Atheists" arguement. Now if that is not implying that you need belief in a God to be moral, exactly what is?

Roberts does give an answer to Hitchen's challenge too, neither of those can see your straw man arguement.

There are plenty of believers that also think there would be anarchy if there was no belief in gods, read a few of the older posts and you will see that they have commented on here.

If you want the proof you say it is on Hitchens to provide, you only need to look on this website...

Other Comments by Johnny O

98. Comment #80166 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 11:02 am

Johnny O: 'You can hear Roberts and Hewitt make the old, "Stalin & Hitler were evil because they were Atheists" arguement. Now if that is not implying that you need belief in a God to be moral, exactly what is?'

Johnny,

Did they really say that "Stalin & Hitler were evil because they were Atheists"? - I don't think so. They claim that Stalin & Hitler were atheist and as such, one should not blame religion as the cause of great evil. It's human nature (they would argue) that is to blame. Of course they then (if challenged to do so) would argue that this is why we need more religion in the world: to curb our natural human tendency toward evil.

Even if they had claimed what you say they had claimed, and even if you can infer from that supposed claim the assertion that: "you need belief in a god to be moral". The state of "being moral" is not part of the Hitchens Challenge. The Hitchens Challenge has to do with the ability to perform an action that is deemed to be moral. Can you not see the difference?

The fact that Roberts is too stupid to see the straw-man trap set for him by Hitchens, does not mean that the straw-man was not there. Re-watch the exchange; not only does Mark Roberts not ever make the claim that "you need belief in God to be able to perform a moral act" - he explicitly rejects it.

.

Other Comments by Riley

99. Comment #80167 by steve99 on October 20, 2007 at 11:20 am

The interesting thing about this is that atheists decry as one of the pitfalls of religion its absolutism and then claim Hitchens' side when he makes absolutist statements. I see an irony here, does anyone else?

Not me. I think you are confusing absolutism and fundamentalism. Rational people make absolutist statements all the time, but they don't treat those statements as unquestionable dogma.

Other Comments by steve99

100. Comment #80168 by keith on October 20, 2007 at 11:22 am

Veronique,

A great example of this was the email debate between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris...The reader (us) was persuaded by the arguments of both Sullivan and Harris to the extent that there was an engaging questioning and rational persuasion from both authors of this debate.

Veronique, I can't believe you thought Andrew Sullivan had any persuasive arguments or that he was rational! Like you, I found the debate incredibly entertaining, but I also thought Andrew Sullivan just talked drivel followed by some meta-drivel. His argument amounted to being pleased that god had made him gay because this had made him a stronger person. At no point did he question that it might not have been god who had done this. However, he did say that he didn't expect his 'arguments', which were purely subjective, would, or even should convince Sam. As Sam went on to say, he felt as though he had thrown a tennis ball up in the air ready to service, only to see that his opponent wasn't holding a racket! I thought Sam was at his best and Sullivan, though very articulate, didn't really have any arguments to speak of. I felt the intellectual mismatch between the two was really quite striking.

Other Comments by keith