101. Comment #80169 by USA_Limey on October 20, 2007 at 11:29 am

Riley wrote:

They claim that Stalin & Hitler were atheist and as such one should not blame religion as the cause of great evil

No way no how was Hitler's Germany atheistic; and it is extremely unlikely from the evidence we have (though not proven - how can you?), that Hitler was an atheist. This absolute falsehood needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head.
Communist Russia was explicitly atheist so you are on firmer ground there; though again we simply cannot know if Stalin was or was not atheist, though he likely was.

So where are we after that? Precisely nowhere - of the two biggest mass murderers of the twentieth century one was, (probably), atheist and the other was ,(almost certainly), not. So that's a draw, tells us exactly nothing and lets move on.

(Apologies to Veronique, yes I know!)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

102. Comment #80170 by keith on October 20, 2007 at 11:35 am

Drichlin,

I think you're wrong on one thing. You say,

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.

If this were really how believers thought, they would have no qualms about voting for an atheist president now, after god has departed and left us all with his morality. However, they clearly feel that atheists can't be trusted.

Other Comments by keith

103. Comment #80174 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 11:53 am

Russell Blackford : "...But you are coming across as trying to win an argument, rather than trying to sort out why Hitchens might be motivated to use this ploy"

Russel, I make a point not to speculate about a person's motives. I consider that a good thing.

Russell Blackford : "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."

Be specific. Don't fall into the trap of adopting your opponent's ill-defined terms. Don't fall into the trap of responding to straw-man challenges.

Theists win with ambiguity. So do your best to undermine their attempts to sustain ambiguity.

The number one biggest mistake you could make in a debate with a theist (IMO) is to refer to "God" without qualification. If the person you're debating is Christian, then the topic of debate is not "God", it is "the god of The Bible". The question: "How can you have moral knowledge without God?" becomes the question: "How can you have moral knowledge without the god of The Bible?" Now you can focus on the specifics of the Bible and the moral arguments made in the Bible and point out (as Sam Harris does brilliantly) that we no longer consider most of The Bible's teachings to be moral (slavery being the most obvious point of attack) - Christians pick and choose their moral teachings from the Bible based on contemporary standards.

Hitchens himself does a great job of getting specific, and with the notable exception of his irrelevant and straw man-creating challenge, I think he's an excellent role-model. I wouldn't claim to be able to do better than Hitchens. Overall, I think Hitchens is very effective when he stays focused on the uniquely bad things that people do in the name of their religion. With Hitchens, the term "God" is always replaced with the more descriptive and specific: "celestial dictator" - this disambiguation of the term "god" serves a similar purpose to my own "god of the Bible" approach. No one has done a better job I think at debunking the "Hitler was an atheist" claim than Hitchens -- again I think this is because he effectively seeks out the ill-defined terms and pre-empts the straw-man arguments that theists are using and imbibes the ambiguities with vivid definition. The very fact that defenders of faith seek to surf on ambiguity is the weakness that Hitchens uses to exploit them - and he does it so well.

Sam Harris is another role model, and I think he's the best debate role model. Sam debunks the claim that we get our morals from the god of the Bible better than anyone else I have witnessed. Again, I think he's effective because he wont suffer the use of ill-defined terminology like "morality" (Harris defines "morality" in terms of suffering). Like Hitchens, Sam also poses a rhetorical challenge to theists. Sam's challenge goes something like this: "Can you think of a way to improve upon the moral code found in the Bible"? Sam answers his own challenge with specific examples that demonstrate it's not very hard at all. Sam was also the first person I was aware of to recognize and address the "atheist" straw-man created by theists. He did this when he wrote several years back: "It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist."

that's it for me. cheers.


RD troll since Sep 30, 2006

Other Comments by Riley

104. Comment #80176 by chauvinj on October 20, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Okay, I'm confused Riley....

You said in your response to Breadbin, "I take Hitchens at his word, much the same that I take the Bible at its word." And then you responded to Russian Freethinker saying "I have not ever claimed to speak *for* Christians, nor even claimed to be a Christian." SO, you're not a Christian but you take the Bible on its word??

Perhaps some clarification is in order?

Either way, you're argument is frivolous. Hitchens' querry is done with the intention of showing others that theists are no more moral than atheists (and perhaps theists are even less moral). This line of argument is always surrounded with the context of theists making the claim that atheists have done many immoral deeds (ex. Stalin, Hitler, etc.). Hitchens' argument only serves to emphasize that religion is POISON. That's the purpose of his book to back up that claim after all...The second part of that question is, to paraphrase "Then give me an immoral deed that can be performed by a theist and not by an atheist. To which you can think of many."

You've missed Hitchens' point entirely and I'm very surprised no one has yet called you on it.

Other Comments by chauvinj

105. Comment #80177 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I take the Bible at it's word. Absolutely.

For example, the Bible says in Peter 2:18
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

As such, I will not tolerate someone trying to make the claim that the Bible does not condone slavery. I will not tolerate someone saying: "well, that's not what it really means" or "this was done with the intention of showing others some greater lesson" or "you need to take that quote in the larger context" or "this passage only serves to emphasize that x is y". No. I wont have such BS.

Likewise, I wont tolerate your in-kind massaging of the Hitchens Challenge. Take the Hitchens Challenge at its word. Don't try to re-interpret what Hithcens really means based on what you think his intent was or claim that the larger context changes the meaning of his actual words. I understand the point of the Hitchens challenge - it's his argument that I find flawed and the introduction of the implicit and contentious straw-man that I find intellectually dishonest.

Read my response to Vendetta for further clarification on why this challenge is intellectually dishonest.
-

Other Comments by Riley

106. Comment #80179 by zoltix on October 20, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Riley

Your remark (below) has made an illogical jump.

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

Hitchens has never asserted this. His challenge was made in response to the recurring question he gets about 'good morality' residing/originating in believers. There are variations on this question, of course, but the challenge is designed to expose their weakness.

I'm with Dr. Benway on this (message 48)

Other Comments by zoltix

107. Comment #80180 by zoltix on October 20, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Other Comments by zoltix

108. Comment #80181 by chauvinj on October 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm

This is the problem with theist lines of thought. You MUST take an argument in context always. The minute you take it out of its context you muddle up its meaning or intention. This is exactly what you are doing Riley. His intention was to prove that many immoral deeds can be committed by the religious that atheists just wouldn't dream of doing. Largely, Hitchens argument grows off of Weinberg's quote: "With or without religion, you will have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. For good people to do bad things you need religion."

This is the same line of argument people use when saying Hitler was an atheist or Einstein was an atheist. You've been overly fastitidious. The challenge was submitted to prove the toxicity of religion. If you can't see that, then I encourage you to read Hitchen's book "god is not Great" and then come back and argue perhaps better informed.

If on the off chance you have read it, then you've misunderstood it and should read it again.

Best of luck ~

Other Comments by chauvinj

109. Comment #80182 by USA_Limey on October 20, 2007 at 1:14 pm

take the Bible at it's word. Absolutely.

You don't often get a theist to admit that. So I actually want to say thank you. You deserve credit in that respect.

But I am intrigued; if you take the bible at its word, how do you function. Surely there has to be a degree of cherry picking. You won't even get a young earth creationist who states the world is only 6,000 years old to say they believe in Slavery.

Always fascinating stuff this duality of mind business.

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

110. Comment #80183 by BMMcArdle on October 20, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Riley #70:

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

Riley #105

Don't try to re-interpret what Hithcens really means based on what you think his intent was or claim that the larger context changes the meaning of his actual words.

Priceless.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

111. Comment #80187 by Peacebeuponme on October 20, 2007 at 2:04 pm

USA_Limey

You don't often get a theist to admit that.

Ummm...am I missing something? Riley doesn't sound like a theist to me. Just someone with a particular disagreement with the Hitchen's Challenge.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

112. Comment #80191 by USA_Limey on October 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm

by Peacebeuponme wrote:

Ummm...am I missing something? Riley doesn't sound like a theist to me

Yes, Riley is being very careful not to sound like one. But me thinks he doth protest too much, if you know what I mean.

Fee-fi-fo-fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman! theist!

Other Comments by USA_Limey

113. Comment #80194 by denoir on October 20, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Riley, you are both right and wrong. One claim presented by Christians is indeed that god has instilled moral values into all human beings. Had that been the end of the story then you would have been right that Hitchens' challenge was bogus.

In reality however it is quite common that religious people claim that moral values come from religion and not as an a priori given for all human beings. It is not uncommon for theists to call atheists amoral or immoral - it's one of the more common accusations. Indeed if you look at the Hitchens vs McGrath debate, the first question that Hitchens got from the audience was exactly to that effect. Trying to look for consistency is theist beliefs is futile and Hitchens attacks a common claim. It may be contradicted by other claims that they make, but it is still a common one.

What I think that Hitchens (and Dawkins, Harris etc) misses is the broader implications of an ethical system based on irrational beliefs. If we threw away our reason and did it their way we would not survive for very long. A rational system of values is needed for survival as we live in a universe with consistent natural laws. Life is conditioned an taking rational actions in response to the environment. Behave irrationally and you die. The theists have survived thanks to people of reason while at the same time attacking them when they could. If we actually implemented fully what they urge us to implement we would go extinct. Life is the most fundamental value which all morality must build on (self evident as no life=no values to have). What they have is a cult of death because death is what their desired policies would lead us all into. And that is why their system is as immoral as it can get. By adopting an irrational system of values they have thrown out morality altogether.

For the reasons above atheists can be both moral and immoral but theists and other mystics can just be immoral - and not in a trivial sense but on a very fundamental level.

Other Comments by denoir

114. Comment #80196 by Pandemonium on October 20, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Hitch, while linguistically gifted, has serious defects, hypocrisy among them. While espousing the Golden Rule, he encourages the heinous crime of war; while condemning anti-Semitism, he freely lets anti-Muslim sentiments pour forth. His war apology is full of holes -- Saddam could have been taken out in a plane crash on the way to an OPEC meeting -- there was no need to murder a nation unless there was a darker purpose in mind, that of occupation and control over that nation's resources which is now exposed as the true reason for war. He does not address Abu Ghraib, Blackwater, and the numerous US military massacres that heighten nationalistic resistance. Reliable estimates indicate that ~200,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of US action. The vast majority of Iraqis want the US out of their country. If Hitch has any regard for democracy at all, he must take that into account.

Hitch, scion of a British military line, has imperialism so deeply ingrained that he is unaware of it. I have seen this in many Europeans -- they cannot quite rid themselves of millennia of deference to royalty. We who have never had kings chafe at imperialism when we realize it is our own.

Other Comments by Pandemonium

115. Comment #80197 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Yes BMMcArdle, my claim is that the Hitchens Challenge contains that straw man (e.g. "The Hitchens Straw Man") which you've quoted.

I based that claim on the actual words taken from the Hitchens Challenge, which are:
"Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever".


As such, the outcome of the Hitchens Challenge is either:

1) "believers make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."
or
2) "believers don't make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

Outcome 1 is not used by his debate opponents to support any of their claims, and outcome 2 is not controverted by his debate opponents. And yet Hitchens acts as if they are. That's why I call it the "Hitchens Straw Man".

If you think I have misrepresented the Hitchens Challenge, make your case.




Other Comments by Riley

116. Comment #80200 by Vinelectric on October 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Further to Riley's criticism I may add that Hitchens' challenge is unlikely to raise any eyebrows among the followers of Islam.

The Qur'an talks about non-believers who do all sorts of good and virteous deeds. According to the book, God even gives them an appropriate reward on Earth only to 'KICK THE SHIT OUT OF THEM' (to paraphrase a famous sketch) in the hereafter.

So that effectively narrows Hitchen's audience to theists who insist that God is the source of all morality. It seems that the majority of Christians do.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

117. Comment #80201 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 4:55 pm

chauvinj: This is the problem with theist lines of thought. You MUST take an argument in context always. The minute you take it out of its context you muddle up its meaning or intention.

If you "MUST take an argument in context always" , then must you buy-into the theist argument that Peter 2:18 needs to be interpreted in the context of Genesis and as such accept the theist conclusion that Peter does not condone slavery?

My point concerning context is this: the Hitchens Challenge, like Peter 2:18, is a complete statement. If you want to know the intent of the writer, you may need more context, but that's not necessary to analyze the validity of the statement itself. Of course you can use the outcome of the Hitchens Challenge and apply it in other contexts and in larger arguments, but it must still stand on it's own merits.

chauvinj: His intention was to prove that many immoral deeds can be committed by the religious that atheists just wouldn't dream of doing. Largely, Hitchens argument grows off of Weinberg's quote: "With or without religion, you will have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. For good people to do bad things you need religion." ... The challenge was submitted to prove the toxicity of religion.

If the Hitchens Challenge is being used to prove the toxicity of religion, then in that context, I assume it must demonstrate that believers behave no better morally than do non-believers. And then I assume it is used in combination with the claim that believers are far worse when it comes to immoral behavior. Does this accurately reflect how the Hitchens Challenge is being used to make the case that religion is toxic? Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.

The problem with the use of the Hithcens Challenge in this context is that it fails to address the actual arguments being made by theists concerning moral behavior. If Christians as they do, claim that following Jesus leads believers to engage more frequently in moral behavior (e.g. giving to charity) and less frequently in other immoral behaviors, then Hitchens needs to address that actual position (and if not this, then some other relevant position of his opponent), not a position of his own choosing.

The whole structure and presentation of the Hitchens Challenge and the fact that Hitchens publicly brags that those he confronts are unable to respond to his challenge is powerful evidence that Hitchens is intentionally trying to make it seem as if his challenge is actually addressing a real theist position (Jerry Falwell eat your heart out). This misrepresentation of his opponents' position is what makes the Hitchens argument a strawman.

.

Other Comments by Riley

118. Comment #80202 by Dr Benway on October 20, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Some people react to words primarily. Some people have a feeling they struggle to put into words.

When I was a Christian, I had an immediate feeling of trust and solidarity with other Christians. I felt lonely with non-Christians. The in-group/out-group division was profound, pervasive, and moral in nature.

Without thinking it through, I intuited that non-Christians were not trustworthy. I felt that something dark or blind was inside them. I believed that they weren't open to the touch or guidance of the Holy Spirit. They weren't "of the Lord."

Hitchens' challenge breaks that sort of hypnotic spell, and for that reason I like it.

Keith, I still think any noble act a Christian performed vastly more often than a non-Christian would be a significant answer to Hitchens' challenge. This isn't a legal game here. It's about who can be trusted.

Mistrust is what divides us.

Riley: That claim taken in combination with the claim that believers are far worse when it comes to immoral behaviors is what I understand is being used to make the case that religion is toxic. Correct me on this if I'm wrong.

"Far worse when it comes to immoral behaviors" makes it sound like believers aren't basically good people. The problem is more specific than that: there are a few acts that good people wouldn't normally do, except for religion. Mutilating the genitals of babies might be one example.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

119. Comment #80205 by BMMcArdle on October 20, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Riley, the only strawman is the one you seem hell-bent on crafting.
As many others have responded, Hitchens is merely addressing the fact that you don't need to be a believer to act morally or ethically.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

120. Comment #80207 by phil rimmer on October 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Riley

Here is a quote from another thread by one of the nicest, most informed, moderate, modern Christians you could wish to meet.

I don't know if you've seen a program called House. I can really recommend it. It shows, as I see it, what a rational approach to human behaviour would be without believing in God. House is an atheist, doesn't believe in the existence of objective morality, so he does whatever works out best for himself.

House is an atheist, doesn't believe in the existence of objective morality, THEREFORE he does whatever works out best for himself.

So we atheist, moral relativists are self centred and by implication less moral. Its not the latest, "official" doctrine, but its how most religious people think and act. When challenged on it (a la Hitchens) they suddenly remember the religiously PC thing to do and act humble....But secretly...

Other Comments by phil rimmer

121. Comment #80209 by Russell Blackford on October 20, 2007 at 6:38 pm

The trouble is that the Hitchens ploy responds to something that's very vague and unsatisfactory, such as the rhetorical question, which we've all seen theists use, "Where do you get your morals from without God?" or "Doesn't morality need a metaphysical basis?"

In fact, this is multiply ambiguous. On some interpretations, there is no simple and accurate answer to the question: there are contentious fields of philosophy and psychology largely devoted to examining the naturalistic bases of morality. Someone who wants a simple answer now may well be emotionally unwilling to give up theism if she wrongly thinks it can provide the answer.

Of course, theism fails to do so. First, its attempts are technically inadequate (would that it were rhetorically sufficient for Hitchens to say the one word "Euthyphro"). Secondly, the actual morality it provides is typically pretty nasty, once you step outside it. I've become fond of saying that Christian morality stands to genuine morality as cancer stands to health.

I still like Hitchens' ploy. Yes, it's a bit of rhetoric, a bit of a tactic, but it does force the theist to clarify what is really being put ... and any answers given to it will show how the religious ideas of morality are not necessarily the commonsense ones. If the only supposedly "good" things they can do that we can't are things like praying for others, we don't seem all that badly off without their deity.

I'm getting some good discussion of the Hitchens/McGrath debate, where this also came up, over on my own blog now if anyone is interested. http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/10/hitchens-at-his-best.html We have the leisure there to try to tease out some of the associated philosophical issues.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

122. Comment #80211 by BAEOZ on October 20, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Totally off topic, but I think we need to start a petition or something to save the Tassy devil. I posted this link to Josh, hopefully he'll put in a unique thread.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/devil-of-a-problem/2007/10/20/1192301096591.html

Other Comments by BAEOZ

123. Comment #80219 by windweaver on October 20, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Pandemonium, you make some very salient points about the hypocrisy of Hitchens. He's actually made some comments in the past which could be construed as anti-semitic. Check out this article:

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Zundel1/cockburn.htm

Other Comments by windweaver

124. Comment #80220 by windweaver on October 20, 2007 at 8:05 pm

On another point Pandemonium, the estimated death toll in Iraq is much higher than 200,000. The latest statistics put the figure at around 1.2 million. Check this out:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Other Comments by windweaver

125. Comment #80230 by keith on October 20, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Pandemonium,
For the umpteenth fucking time. This thread is not about Iraq. Hitchens talks about religion, someone hears the name Hitchens, he then gets on his hobby horse about Iraq, I respond, I am told that I'm off topic. Please don't start.

The golden rule says do unto others as they would do unto you. Hitchens thinks the Islamists want to kill us. 9/11 was a manifestation of that desire. Therefore he is following the golden rule, not breaking it.
I would say that Hitchens is anti-Islamist rather than anti-Muslim. As long as what people believe doesn't affect him or other right-minded people, I think he is happy to let them believe what they like. This is sometimes true of Muslims but not true of Islamists and not true of Islam as a religion. As Sam Harris points out, it all depends how seriously you take your religion.
Hitchens is against antisemitism as I hope all of us are here, or do you want to wear the mantle of racist? Hitchens is very critical of the Zionists of Israel and he is a champion of the right of the Palestinians to their land. These people often happen to be Muslims.
Yes, the Americans could have taken out Saddam's plane. What about the pilot? What about Saddam's two equally ruthless sons waiting in the wings? What about any future politician that happened to fly to another country or through its air space? By your argument, the best thing to have done was for the American representative to sneak up behind Saddam at a UN Council meeting and slit his throat. Good idea?
Incidentally, it's not that I think the war was a great idea. I just feel obliged to put forward the other side of the story when someone wades in with the tired old sanctimonious "We shouldn't trust Hitchens because bla bla bla Iraq bla bla bla Neo-con bla bla". You don't have to trust him. Just agree or disagree with his arguments.

Other Comments by keith

126. Comment #80234 by windweaver on October 21, 2007 at 12:04 am

Keith, that was quite a rant. It's legitimate to discuss Iraq in this thread because Hitchens talked about it in his speech. There are a lot of people on this site who almost hero worship the Hitch and I, for one, think it's important to expose the flaws and biases in his arguments. That's what a "clear thinking oasis" should be all about-the free exchange of ideas and analyses regardless of whose toes you're stepping on. Hitchens also expressed his strong support for the (coming?)war in Iran during his speech. I'm not going to sit back and let him have a free ride on that issue either:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11963

Other Comments by windweaver

127. Comment #80238 by keith on October 21, 2007 at 12:27 am

Riley,

I think I've worked things out and I think you might even be satisfied with the result! After re-reading your posts I realised you had been misunderstood, certainly by me, though you do bear some responsibility for this (to say you 'take the bible at its word' without any further explanation was just asking to be misinterpreted). You were also labelled a troll, completely unfairly. I can now see that you felt that Hitchens had set up a false challenge as a means of tricking believers into refuting something they had never said in the first place. Had a believer pulled such a trick, we would have been up in arms on this website. As it was, nobody seemed to notice, or care, that one of our own had engaged in such dirty dealing. You felt this was hypocritical of us not to hold Hitchens to the same standards that we would have held, for example, the Reverend Al Sharpton. The reason you were taking Hitchens to task was because you felt he was muddying the waters, though you would have been more than happy if he had genuinely been onto something i.e. if his challenge had been a legitimate one. Is this right?

Okay, I think I have the solution. Imagine a conversation between Hitchens and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Hitchens: Reverend Sharpton. I have a challenge for you. Can you name an ethical statement or deed that could be performed by a believer and not by an atheist.

Sharpton: No, I can't, but then I've never claimed that and I would never claim that. That's a straw man you've just erected.

Hitchens: No reverend. Whether you have ever claimed it is neither here nor there. I never said that you had claimed it. My challenge is simply whether you can name such a statement or deed.

Sharpton: I told you already, no.

Hitchens: In that case you'll concede that a belief in god has nothing to do with morality?

Sharpton: On the contrary, it was god who gave us morality in the first place, the morality that atheists and the faithful alike abide by.

Hitchens: No, reverend, you must have misheard me. I didn't say that god has nothing to do with morality. I said a belief in god has nothing to do with morality. Do you concede that?

The reverend thinks for a while. He has two choices. If he answers 'No, I don't concede it', then Hitchens will repeat his challenge to name the ethical deed that only a believer etc. etc. So, he chooses 'Yes'.

Hitchens: Wonderful reverend! So we are in complete agreement that morality has nothing to do with a belief in god. We have at least some common ground! So, if you ever hear one of your congregation claim that they are more moral due to their faith, I can rely on you to put them right?

Sharpton: Er…I suppose so.

Hitchens has actually won some ground here because the spurious link between morality and a belief in god has been exposed. Your point about whether or not one of the people Hitchens has challenged has ever actually made the claim of unilateral morality turns out to be a red herring.

What do you think?

Other Comments by keith

128. Comment #80240 by keith on October 21, 2007 at 1:04 am

Dr. Benway,

Keith, I still think any noble act a Christian performed vastly more often than a non-Christian would be a significant answer to Hitchens' challenge. This isn't a legal game here. It's about who can be trusted.

In a way doctor, you are arguing my point here, i.e. the difference I pointed out to Riley between 'can' and 'do' that should have been the way he was arguing. I'm quite happy to believe that there are some ethical deeds that the religious perform more often than atheists, though I'm not sure that evidence backs this up. I suspect that Christians raise more money for church-funded charities while atheists give more to Oxfam (I'm just guessing here). Even so, even if the faithful do more ethical deeds this does not, taken literally, answer Hitchens' challenge. His challenge is 'could do', not 'do do'.
Incidentally, if you really felt inclined to this line of argument, though I don't think you do, the claim that the religious do more moral deeds than atheists in a way (in your way) answers Hitchens' challenge to precisely the same degree that it negates your previous claim to Riley that 'We don't need god to be good'. Perhaps Riley was right to hold off on the tea and blueberry pie and continue re-arranging the deckchairs for a while!

Other Comments by keith

129. Comment #80241 by Diacanu on October 21, 2007 at 1:25 am

Posted by 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".

Yeah, but you can't know all that, because of that pesky Heisenberg principle.

So, poof, there's random chance enough to bring back free will.

Oh, that was easy, *tries to prove black is white, gets trampled at the next zebra crossing*

Other Comments by Diacanu

130. Comment #80245 by keith on October 21, 2007 at 1:41 am

Diacanu,
Read Dan Dennett. Random chance cannot give you free will. If things simply happen at random in the universe, on what can you base a decision? If you can't know what the results of an action are likely to be there's no point in even trying to choose. You're more likely to have free will in a deterministic universe. At least here you can predict that when you decide to pour yourself a glass of water the chances are that it will end up in the glass rather than randomly flowing out of the tap, snake randomly around your glass and end up on the floor. Where's the free will in that?

Other Comments by keith

131. Comment #80255 by Diacanu on October 21, 2007 at 2:33 am

Eh, I was mostly goofing, but quantum effects on the brain would seem to give a little bit of wiggle room to counter Scooternyc's rigid view of determinism.

Course, you seem to be going to the opposite extreme of translating quantum phenomena all the way up to the macroscopic universe.

Other Comments by Diacanu

132. Comment #80262 by epeeist on October 21, 2007 at 3:09 am

Comment #80241 by Diacanu

Posted by 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".

Yeah, but you can't know all that, because of that pesky Heisenberg principle.

You don't even need that. The Laplacian dream falls apart at the classical level once non-linear systems come into play.

I can't find the quote - but I believe it was Lord Rayleigh that said the thing he would ask God about was turbulence, he wasn't convinced God could explain it.

Other Comments by epeeist

133. Comment #80264 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:12 am

Course, you seem to be going to the opposite extreme of translating quantum phenomena all the way up to the macroscopic universe.

That isn't extreme; it is reality.

Other Comments by steve99

134. Comment #80265 by Bonzai on October 21, 2007 at 3:33 am

That isn't extreme; it is reality.

What is reality?

Other Comments by Bonzai

135. Comment #80266 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 3:37 am

Comment #80238 by keith

Exactly!

Further, the plea that the argument should be about QUANTITY of goodness, not the "degree" of goodness of any single act, is to get things out of order. Only by blocking off the possibility of a category of acts denied to atheists can you go on to argue any case regarding quantity or net contribution.

"Saintliness" is popularly regarded as just such a restricted category. Hitchens, the Devil's Advocate in the case for Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization, is exactly the person to nail this one.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

136. Comment #80267 by windweaver on October 21, 2007 at 3:40 am

Steve,
I've read a number of articles in New Scientist that point out that the consensus view is that quantum effects wash out at the macro level. And quantum theories about the brain have never been proven.

Other Comments by windweaver

137. Comment #80268 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:50 am

Steve,
I've read a number of articles in New Scientist that point out that the consensus view is that quantum effects wash out at the macro level. And quantum theories about the brain have never been proven.

I'm not talking about quantum effects in the brain leading to consciousness. I am talking about quantum mechanics leading to uncertainty at the macroscopic level.

What washes out at the macro level is the situation where the wave function has not collapsed. In other words, you don't (except for extreme conditions) get 'different simultanous possibilities' at the macro level.

However, the randomness (what you get when the wavefunction collapses) of quantum mechanics does influence the macro level. When molecules interact, they do so via the laws of quantum mechanics. When atoms absorb or give off light (and other radiation) the do so via the laws of quantum mechanics. And we know from chaos theory that even the smallest differences in possibility can have significant macroscopic consequences. If a molecule bounced off another *that* way instead of *this* way, it can have effects.

Personally, I am not that convinced that quantum uncertainty has anything to do with the issue of whether there is free will or not. It may have, but to me the issue is about randomness vs. determinism. Scooternc seemed to me to be discussing lack of free will due to determinism - everything could be predicted. My point is that there may or may not be free will, but there certainly isn't determinism.

Other Comments by steve99

138. Comment #80269 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:53 am

What is reality?

In the spirit of Dr Johnson, what I new existed when I banged my leg on the edge of a bed earlier this morning.

Other Comments by steve99

139. Comment #80273 by Peacebeuponme on October 21, 2007 at 4:25 am

Keith

Okay, I think I have the solution. Imagine a conversation between Hitchens and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Hitchens: Reverend Sharpton. I have a challenge for you. Can you name an ethical statement or deed that could be performed by a believer and not by an atheist.

I can imagine that conversation fine, except for Hitchens addressing Al Sharpton as "Reverend"...

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

140. Comment #80281 by keith on October 21, 2007 at 6:00 am

Diacanu,

Course, you seem to be going to the opposite extreme of translating quantum phenomena all the way up to the macroscopic universe.

If I had any idea what this meant I'd be happy to claim that that's what I was doing. However, I was trying to make a much more prosaic point, one that doesn't require a degree in physics. It was simply that there is probably less probabilty of free will existing in a deterministic universe than in an undeterministic one, the reason being that you can rely on things doing what you expect them to do in a deterministic universe so are better able to judge what to do.
I know very little about the subject, but using quantum phenomena to try to explain free will sounds to me like using Relavity Theory to decide whether to have another piece of cake or not.

Other Comments by keith

141. Comment #80284 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 6:04 am

I know very little about the subject, but using quantum phenomena to try to explain free will sounds to me like using Relavity Theory to decide whether to have another piece of cake or not.

I think people sometimes try and bring in quantum mechanics pretty directly to explain free will because one interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that quantum possibilities collapse into one when things are 'observed'. This seems to some to suggest that our 'free will' somehow has control over what is 'observed'. This is pretty wild when you think about it.

What seems a little more reasonable is that a non-deterministic universe somehow allows room for free will.

Other Comments by steve99

142. Comment #80286 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 6:23 am

It is rather chaotic behaviour (epeeist's point) more than randomness that defeats determinism. Simply, the complexity of loosely coupled systems (society, most of the universe etc.)derives from the extreme sensitivity to the "start" conditions.

The universe itself is the most elegant computer that can be conceived for determining its own future. Sadly its clock speed cannot be increased so we can get a sneak preview..

The evolutionary drive underpinning the phenomenon of free will is I suspect entirely societal. We gain advantage from being able to wrong-foot our enemies and our competitors. Our future actions must, where necessary, be unpredictable to others yet not be a complete surprise to us. Imagining the future and rehearsing our possible actions is the core of free will (also that these details are not available to outsiders). Free will is not spontaneous random action, which has no value whatsoever. Free will results in directed, purposeful action (mostly)and must, therefore, be rooted in pre-existing brain states. (There is no other place for information to reside.)

This chaotic behaviour is both specifically unpredictable and generally predictable, the latter because of the pattern forming potential of chaotic systems. (Humans tend to do this...republicans tend to do that etc.)

Free will's elevated status is a cultural artifact. (Memetic) Simply, reifying it and discussing it, encourages us to use the processes it entails and become more adept at it.

Free will in no practical sense whatever is susceptible to determinism (Steve99's point).

Its fascinating to think that human brains have perhaps become the most concentrated nodes of chaotic behaviour in our neck of the universe.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

143. Comment #80290 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 6:37 am

Keith: Riley, After re-reading your posts I realised you had been misunderstood, certainly by me, though you do bear some responsibility for this (to say you 'take the bible at its word' without any further explanation was just asking to be misinterpreted).

Keith, if you look back at the beginning of this thread it appears that I had already been profiled as a Christian Troll by some before I even mentioned that I take the Bible at its word. This entire off-topic conversation on quantum effects at the molecular level was started by someone who thought I was defending the Christian doctrine of free-will. It's very amusing.

I think you were misled (at least in part) by erroneously interpreting my "I take the Bible at its word" post in the context of those other posters. This whole thread I think serves as a lesson in pack-minded profiling and the knee jerk emotional reaction people instinctively feel when their pack leader (e.g. Hitchens) gets attacked.

Keith: Had a believer pulled such a trick, we would have been up in arms on this website. As it was, nobody seemed to notice, or care, that one of our own had engaged in such dirty dealing. You felt this was hypocritical of us not to hold Hitchens to the same standards that we would have held, for example, the Reverend Al Sharpton. [...] you would have been more than happy if he had genuinely been onto something. Is this right?

You've got that part down perfectly Keith. Thanks for taking the time.

Keith: Okay, I think I have the solution. Imagine a conversation between Hitchens and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Keith, I think your hypothetical conversation is fantastic and very entertaining. I especially enjoyed your Hitchens imitation; I can almost hear his voice speaking - I love it! But I think you're wrong about how it would end. I think it would go more like this:

Sharpton: On the contrary, it was god who gave us morality in the first place, the morality that atheists and the faithful alike abide by.

Hitchens: No, reverend, you must have misheard me. I didn't say that god has nothing to do with morality. I said a belief in god has nothing to do with morality. Do you concede that?

---------- my continuation starts here ---------------

Sharpton: No, of course not. Even though all human beings -- not just all believers -- are created in God's image, we are still human and easily distracted from following a moral path. It's belief and faith in God that inspires us to dedicate our lives to a moral path.

Hitchens: Reverend, with or without religion, you will have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. For good people to do bad things you need religion.

Sharpton: Let me turn your challenge around on you. Can you name an un-ethical statement or deed that could be done by a believer and not by an atheist?

Hitchens: I can think of many. Genital mutilation to name ... just .... one.

Sharpton: No, Hitch, you must have misheard me. I did not say do not. I said could not. My point is that both believers and non-believers have an equal opportunity to choose good or to choose evil.

Hitchens: Ah, yes but believers commit immoral deeds that non-believers just wouldn't dream of doing.

Sharpton: For every example of some evil that you say was uniquely motivated by belief in god, I can name you more acts of goodness and kindness uniquely motivated by belief in god. Faith may lead people to make extreme choices, both for the good and the bad, but the good outweighs the bad.

.... you can see this line of argument leads you into a quagmire.

Keith:the claim that the religious do more moral deeds than atheists in a way (in your way) answers Hitchens' challenge to precisely the same degree that it negates your previous claim to Riley that 'We don't need god to be good'.

Yep. Thanks again for handling that for me.

In addition to that and the fact that the challenge doesn't counter any actual theist arguments, the context with which Hitchens has been said to want to use (and perhaps in his book actually does use) the challenge doesn't work either. It doesn't logically support any part of a positive argument that theists are no better and perhaps even less moral than non-theists(re: chauvinj). The argument that believers are no more capable than non-believers is a non-sequitur. It has no relevance in a debate over weather or not believers are more moral. Morality depends on the choices you make not the choices made available to you.

Granted this could be the first step toward completing an argument that I am unaware of, but even if that were the case, how would that justify publicly grandstanding and admonishing his targets for not responding to his challenge? His challenge is used as part of a theatre that makes it appear as though he is actually addressing a real theist position - he's not.

Has no one else on this thread ever had the opportunity to listen to a cult-of-personality theist pull this same tactic with his own devoted followers? And have none of you ever felt sick watching those followers eat it up uncritically? --- he's telling you what you want to hear.
.

Other Comments by Riley

144. Comment #80291 by denoir on October 21, 2007 at 6:46 am

steve99:

And we know from chaos theory that even the smallest differences in possibility can have significant macroscopic consequences. If a molecule bounced off another *that* way instead of *this* way, it can have effects.

Well, first of all, quantum effects on a molecular level are extremely unlikely. You get relevant quantum effects on an elementary particle level. Already at the atom level the probability density functions average out. Hence the stability of most elements. There are exceptions of course such as radioactive elements but they are not used as functional blocks in the brain. On the molecular level you can for all practical purposes forget about quantum effects. The name of the game there are the chemical bonds which have effects many orders of magnitude larger than the quantum ones.

The second issue is that even if by some incredible coincidence a set of quantum fluctuations would affect the movement of a molecule in say a neurotransmitter it would make zero difference. If and how much a neuron fires depends on the concentrations of neurotransmitters - again a question of averages. A few tray molecules will make no difference. And at this point the system is quite linear.

The über-nonlinear complex part comes at a level above that and it's the interactions between the connected components. There you may apply chaos theory. And sure a small number of activations can produce large effects. It has however nothing to do with quantum uncertainty.

Other Comments by denoir

145. Comment #80296 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 21, 2007 at 7:29 am

Riley,

hasn't Hitchens made his infamous challenge at every single debate that he has had for probably the last six months?

Doesn't this inform his position that he hasn't received a reply? I've watched a lot of his debates I cannot remember a reply from any theist either!

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

146. Comment #80299 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 8:13 am

Well, first of all, quantum effects on a molecular level are extremely unlikely. You get relevant quantum effects on an elementary particle level. Already at the atom level the probability density functions average out.

I disagree. As I have worked on statistical mechanics models of molecular interactions, I can confirm that all kinds of quantum effects occur above the level of molecules. Just to take one example everyone would have heard about, superconductors would not work if this were not the case. Another case is vibrations in macroscopic systems like crystals, which are described in quantised states called phonons. In that case quantum effects can influence macroscopic properties.

The second issue is that even if by some incredible coincidence a set of quantum fluctuations would affect the movement of a molecule in say a neurotransmitter it would make zero difference. If and how much a neuron fires depends on the concentrations of neurotransmitters - again a question of averages. A few tray molecules will make no difference. And at this point the system is quite linear.

I know... I am not talking about quantum mechanics and brain function.

The über-nonlinear complex part comes at a level above that and it's the interactions between the connected components. There you may apply chaos theory. And sure a small number of activations can produce large effects. It has however nothing to do with quantum uncertainty.

Sorry, but you are wrong. In general physical systems that are chaotic, effects on any scale are quickly amplified.

I am not saying that quantum effects directly effect general mental events. That is clearly nonsense. However there are plenty of physical systems where the non-linearity is such that even differences in quantum effects can cause differences at the macroscopic level. There is no barrier isolating these levels.

Just to give a single dramatic example: a single cosmic ray can cause sufficient biological damage to be detected, and that damage can be sufficient to cause a tumour. Yet, the production of each cosmic ray is entirely a matter of quantum mechanics.

Other Comments by steve99

147. Comment #80300 by Wilstar on October 21, 2007 at 8:17 am

Scotternyc: Haven't you ever heard of Quantum Theory? It says that nothing at the quantum level is determinant. Our mind isn't clockwork physicality, but quantum leaps that are random.

Other Comments by Wilstar

148. Comment #80308 by Frankus1122 on October 21, 2007 at 9:08 am

This whole thread I think serves as a lesson in pack-minded profiling and the knee jerk emotional reaction people instinctively feel when their pack leader (e.g. Hitchens) gets attacked.

I was thinking along these lines as well. I was part of the knee jerk reaction. I came to see your point midway through a post and said so. There have been excellent counter-arguments looking more broadly at the 'challenge'.

I would be interested in seeing an analysis of the type of arguments in this thread.

There are many here who 'believe' in their disbelief, and as a result are preemptively dismissive of challenges. I would like to point out, however, that there seems to be more of an openness to be persuaded by argument in this forum than you would be likely to find on a Christian site.

It has been interesting and fun. Thanks.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

149. Comment #80311 by epeeist on October 21, 2007 at 9:30 am

Comment #80291 by denoir

Well, first of all, quantum effects on a molecular level are extremely unlikely.

Got to agree with steve99 on this one. My Ph.D. involved looking at the potential barriers to rotation in small molecules. Observation of the microwave spectrum shows splitting due to quantum mechanical tunnelling through the barrier.

For some molecules you get additional effects due to nuclear quadrupole coupling.

Other Comments by epeeist

150. Comment #80312 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 9:38 am

Granted this could be the first step toward completing an argument that I am unaware of, but even if that were the case, how would that justify publicly grandstanding and admonishing his targets for not responding to his challenge? His challenge is used as part of a theatre that makes it appear as though he is actually addressing a real theist position - he's not. Has no one else on this thread had the opportunity to listen to a cult-of-personality theist pull this same tactic with his own devoted followers? And have none of you ever felt sick watching those followers eat it up uncritically --- he's telling you what you want to hear.

So why has no Christian apologist responded as you have imagined? Because Hitchens is actually addressing a real theist MINDSET and no-one wants to unpick it. Its part of what makes theists feel good.

I have encountered this mindset many times. "Give no thought for yourself" is a proposition many, many theists believe is not accessible to an atheist mind. When they encounter an atheist being self-sacrificial they muse that she must have been very spiritual, or some such.

It is absolutely this mindset that underpins the rabid belief that an atheist could never become president of the United States. It is not that atheists might put less money in the tin. Its that atheists can NEVER do the Big Stuff, the self-sacrifice stuff. Its not doctrine, but since when did theists study the fine print of their rules?

I was always of the opinion that the practicalities of everyday morality were what it was all about. Leading an ethical life, caring for others etc. I was always happy to argue that voting to increase tax to pay for a better national health service, let us say, was more moral than giving to a religious charity for a local hospice (thereby relieving society of its proper obligations). That working as a teacher was more moral than working as a trader in futures. Giving a commitment to truth rather than parochial tradition. In short, how you live your life is of far greater moral significance than how you often you "give", and that statistics on charitable giving were of little consequence. This argument I was prepared for. Hitchens' question was not what I expected. It is cleverer. It is a scalpel driven between the espoused dogma and the actual mindset of theists. It is about the very essence of discrimination against atheists.

Other Comments by phil rimmer