1. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

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?

2. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73290 by drichlin on September 24, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I predict the Samson doll will be their best seller. He looks mighty bad!

3. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56366 by drichlin on July 15, 2007 at 9:58 am

Hi IQHQ.
You make the direct statement and it deserves a direct reply. My apologies if I have not made myself clear already in this matter.

Your question/statement (and forgive the cut and paste):

"Those who lose God may not lose their potential to do good, but may do it a lot less often."

My response: No. Of course, your proposition is general and so my answer is general. Certainly there are those that would not be so resolute in their morality if not for the "celestial surveillance camera." But in my opinion, and based on my experience, I think that in general, people as a whole, would do what ever it took to get along with one another.

If you require me to expand on this then I would be tempted to cut and paste from my previous posts. ;-)

4. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56310 by drichlin on July 14, 2007 at 10:47 pm

IQHQ,
Hello again. No bubble bursting here, thank you very much. Of course, you and I are in agreement as to our reasons for ethical actions, as well as a world filled with "bad people" and the consequences of their behavior. However, I think there is a difference between bad people and, as you put it:

"...less cerebrally-oriented members of our species to whom fuzzy feelings and an easy life will mean more than any proof or any rational theory based on solid evidential foundations."

While I agree that there are folks like that, still it doesn't require an academic degree in ethics or science for one to do a good deed. My point was if religious people loose their belief, they will not loose the capacity for good, ethical behavior.

In that vein, a couple of sentences later you state:

"To remove from them their solace may just open the floodgates of a very evil part of our humanity."

I infer a "born in sin" meaning here. Call me Pollyanna if you must, but I disagree with this implication. Yes, religion can be a moderating force in some people's lives. Richard Dawkins tells of a radio show he was on (which I just happen to hear live) when a caller admitted that he would probably do harm to his neighbor if not for religion. Even Hitchens concedes that religion is here to stay - it just needs to be tamed and kept inside. But we mustn't refrain from challenging it for fear of the evil part of our humanity.

This is not to say one must not use good judgement when dealing in these matters. I for one would not engage the radio show caller in a face to face discussion like the ones found on Dawkins' website. Talk about the consequences of bad people. Good grief! This does illustrate that for the caller religion indeed has a moderating effect. But so would several psychotherapy sessions. So let's make a judgment call here: which would be better? Religion or head shrinking? Superstition or science?

P.S. windfall, you are correct in that "quod erat demonstrandum" is the appropriate phrase. In my enthusiasm to use a bit of latin I used "quid pro quo" but was thinking Q.E.D. Silly me!

5. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56297 by drichlin on July 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm

IQHQ,
It seems to me that if Mr. Hitchens' challenge is rhetorical as you say, I find it "rhetoric" of considerable substance. In simple, elegant prose, theists are challenged by Mr. Hitchens to examine their "motivations" for good deeds and thoughts and asks whether their reasons are truly based on an absolute standard of ethics. Of course, they would say "absolutely!" It seems that a theist needs only to close their eyes, clasp their hands together, think of the ten commandments, envision the almighty and then tell themselves (and feel - an important constituent of which you also allude) that they are moral. Furthermore, it is their contention that without the aforementioned affectations any morality is impossible - not just improbable. Evidently, they contend and cannot imagine a consistently ethical mind without an absolute deity being involved.

I have had this very discussion with my religious friends and find that I have the exact same concerns about their moral foundation that they have of mine. Yes, the religious do find reasons in their theism to do moral things. But, the whole matter of the debate is to challenge the premise (or their truth, as Dawkins might say) by asking: Is the supernatural an adequate or necessary or true premise for moral thinking and doing? The challenge implies the thought experiment that if "the death of God" were to occur, would not now the (former) theists still do the right and ethical thing? Or, as you put it, is nihilism the outcome?

I think not and here's why: Years ago I used to ask those who were very religious what they would do if God came to them and said that "he" was leaving forever. No God, no Devil, no Angels, no nothing on the "other side." How would that affect them? Their reactions were quite interesting and similar to one another. First they would get a glazed look as if suddenly seeing mommy kissing Santa or something. Then their eyes would dart around looking for an answer somewhere, somehow. (After all, they never thought of this little experiment.) Finally they would answer with such uniformity that I began to suspect a collaboration. As one of my victims responded: "I would be tempted to stray from the path of righteousness, but would not because following the ten commandments (now 6 - no God) is still a good thing."

Quid pro quo.

As an atheist, I find earthly reasons and motivations not only rational but abundant, accessible and consistent. Reliance on the supernatural for ethical standards is non-rational, inaccessible and inconsistent, as is demonstrated over and over again in the writings of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al.

This reminds me of the often referred to quotation by Steven Weinberg that says good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. But to get a good person to do a bad thing, that takes religion. (In that regard I suppose it is also true that it takes religion to have a bad person do a good thing.)

I would like to say something about writing styles. I have read Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. And I say HITCHENS IS GOD! DEATH TO HARRIS, DAWKINS AND DENNETT! BEHEAD THE INFIDELS!