"An Atheist Responds" - Randigram - Questions?

[H3LL]

From the Randigram An Atheist Responds by Christopher Hitchens.

Well? What can I say. An excellent response and fits my own thoughts disturbingly well.

This bit caught my eye:

Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not?

I would like to have some suggestions for:

[1] His first challenge, if you can think of any.

[2] Examples, with some supporting evidence, of his second challenge (use scripture to help if you want and we'll pretend it's evidence).

[3] And H3LL's third challenge, which is his first one reversed:

One ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a nonbeliever that could not have been uttered or done by a believer.

I have a few ideas on H3LL's challenge, but have not thought them through yet.

Have fun.

.

 

[tsg]

[2] Examples, with some supporting evidence, of his second challenge (use scripture to help if you want and we'll pretend it's evidence).

Well, there's this guy:

A Cypress man charged in the death of a Southwest Airlines flight attendant said Saturday that he was doing God's work when he went to a Montrose-area bar last month, hunting for a gay man to kill.

[3] And H3LL's third challenge, which is his first one reversed:

One ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a nonbeliever that could not have been uttered or done by a believer.

I'm not sure what this is intended to prove. Is it Hitchen's contention that atheists are more moral than believers, or just that religion does not make one more moral than atheists?

 

[VulcanWay]

...The Jewish people did not get all the way to Mount Sinai under the impression that murder and theft and perjury were okay...

TSG, I think that the point is not that Atheists are more moral than religious folk, rather that no celestial guidance is required to be a moral person.

H3LL, I was thinking a response to the first challenge could be "I do not worship false gods" since it was a Commandment, but then I realized that I could in good conscience say the same thing...

 

[tsg]

TSG, I think that the point is not that Atheists are more moral than religious folk, rather that no celestial guidance is required to be a moral person.

That's what I thought, which confuses me as to what purpose of the H3LL's third challenge is.

 

[Yiab]

Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.

I understand the point being made here (that no divine aid is necessary to be a moral person), but making the challenge in this fashion can backfire quite painfully.
Most religious people would consider praising god to be ethical and denying his existence unethical, therefore in their eyes the believer by definition is more ethical than the unbeliever. Obviously this will not sway the unbeliever, but this mode of thought means that making this challenge will not convince the believers either.

 

[tsg]

I understand the point being made here (that no divine aid is necessary to be a moral person), but making the challenge in this fashion can backfire quite painfully.
Most religious people would consider praising god to be ethical and denying his existence unethical, therefore in their eyes the believer by definition is more ethical than the unbeliever. Obviously this will not sway the unbeliever, but this mode of thought means that making this challenge will not convince the believers either.

But that raises the question "what makes praising god, in itself, ethical?" Unless they can answer that without resorting to a claim of it being self evident it would probably not be, as Hitchens puts it, a convincing reply. If it's not the praise of god that is ethical, but rather something else inspired by it, the argument can be made that praise of god is not necessary for the end result.

ETA: and I'm not sure that convincing the believers is the point. As the saying goes, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[H3LL]

That's what I thought, which confuses me as to what purpose of the H3LL's third challenge is.

I thought that Hitchens first challenge is difficult to answer, whereas the reverse not quite so much. Probably.

It depends on the believer, but the first one that sprang to mind was:

A nonbeliever can (and should) pursuade an HIV positive person to use condoms but could the Pope?

 

[VulcanWay]

Ethics is just a list of things that a person believes they "ought to" do. In the case of believer, they ought to worship the divine being that gave them life, created the world, etc.

A hitman who won't assassinate children, for example, is living by their own code of ethics (which doesn't say that murder is an immoral thing).

 

[tsg]

Ethics is just a list of things that a person believes they "ought to" do. In the case of believer, they ought to worship the divine being that gave them life, created the world, etc.

Usually, though, there is an underlying reason for believing they "ought to do" those things. It need not necessarily be a rational reason, but there will most often be one. Very often the reasoning against performing some act that a person believes is unethical (eg. murder, theft) is rooted in the desire not to have someone else do it to him.

A hitman who won't assassinate children, for example, is living by their own code of ethics (which doesn't say that murder is an immoral thing).

At the same time, though, I wouldn't consider a hypothetical hitman's superstition of kissing a lucky charm before a hit to be an ethical decision. He may believe it brings him luck, rationally or not, but it isn't rooted in any reason of "what is right". I think, in order for it to be an ethical decision, there has to be some consideration of the consequences of not performing the act (or performing it in the case of the ethics of not doing something) that is fundamentally, if abstractly, wrong.

In light of that, what would be fundamentally wrong about not praising god?

 

[H3LL]

Ethics is just a list of things that a person believes they "ought to" do. In the case of believer, they ought to worship the divine being that gave them life, created the world, etc.

A hitman who won't assassinate children, for example, is living by their own code of ethics (which doesn't say that murder is an immoral thing).

Shouldn't that be Ethics is just a list of things that a person or group believes they "ought to" do.

Hitmen, as a group, may believe one assassinates anyone they are paid to assassinate, regardless of age or gender. What if the despotic, tyrant is a child? Child heirs to power have been killed frequently in history.

Doctors comply with group ethics, for example, not their own personal "ought to do". There is a very high profile case on just that issue in the UK at the moment.

Anyway, this is not a debate on ethics vs. morals, that's for the philosophy forum and I'm singularly ill equipped to argue.

Hitchens' choice of the word ethics is a curious one. Perhaps worthy of a thread for you philosophers.

.

 

[tsg]

Shouldn't that be Ethics is just a list of things that a person or group believes they "ought to" do.

Yes, very frequently codes of ethics are shared by many people who define themselves as belonging to a group. Religious followers, lawyers and, as you point out, doctors, are very good examples.

Hitmen, as a group, may believe one assassinates anyone they are paid to assassinate, regardless of age or gender. What if the despotic, tyrant is a child? Child heirs to power have been killed frequently in history.

I don't think VulcanWay's example was meant as a judgment on whether or not it was right for hitmen to refuse to kill children.

Hitchens' choice of the word ethics is a curious one. Perhaps worthy of a thread for you philosophers.

The use of the word comes from the argument that religion inspires morality which he is attempting to refute with his challenge. And, while I agree that "what is ethics" is more appropriate for a philosophy discussion, some discussion of it, especially about what qualifies as ethics, is going to be inevitable if the challenge is going to be answered.

 

[H3LL]

I don't think VulcanWay's example was meant as a judgment on whether or not it was right for hitmen to refuse to kill children.

I never meant it to be so. Sorry if that's how it came out.

I hold the view that ethics are rarely individual but will be subject to comparison within a group, even very small groups, such as professional assassins (at least I hope they're small).

The use of the word comes from the argument that religion inspires morality which he is attempting to refute with his challenge. And, while I agree that "what is ethics" is more appropriate for a philosophy discussion, some discussion of it, especially about what qualifies as ethics, is going to be inevitable if the challenge is going to be answered.

Awwww! OK then. I'm always wary of philosophers. They will argue water is dry and sound convincing.

.

 

[tsg]

I hold the view that ethics are rarely individual but will be subject to comparison within a group, even very small groups, such as professional assassins (at least I hope they're small).

I don't doubt that it is largely true, but I suspect that a few individuals will have ethical codes that don't fully mesh with any particular group, or at least were not inspired by that group.

Awwww! OK then. I'm always wary of philosophers. They will argue water is dry and sound convincing.

They are wrong. Water is, quite clearly, loud.

 

[VulcanWay]

Usually, though, there is an underlying reason for believing they "ought to do" those things. It need not necessarily be a rational reason, but there will most often be one. Very often the reasoning against performing some act that a person believes is unethical (eg. murder, theft) is rooted in the desire not to have someone else do it to him.

I think that the problem lies in that "because god said so" is enough for believers. For example, we're all familiar with "Thou shalt not kill." Using a biblical example, however, when god tells Abraham to kill his son, had Abraham gone through with it/not been stopped scripture and believers would not see that as an immoral act. After all, it was an order from god.

Following on that, if believers can't provide a real-world reason for their ethics why should non-believers (or even between sects of the same general religion) be found immoral for not following them? Then again, one could say the same to differences in every single code of ethics that exists which leaves us back where we started.

 

[VulcanWay]

Awwww! OK then. I'm always wary of philosophers. They will argue water is dry and sound convincing.

First, a day or two would be spent arguing what "dry" is.

 

[tsg]

I think that the problem lies in that "because god said so" is enough for believers.

That kind of makes my point though. Hitchens' challenge is to provide an ethical statement or action by a believer that could not be uttered or done by a non-believer, with the qualification that it be convincing to Hitchens, a non-believer. The point is that Hitchens is looking for an act that is obviously ethical (or, at least, hard to argue against being ethical) that could only be inspired by a belief in god. I would consider "because god said so" to be very easy to argue against being obviously ethical.

 

[VulcanWay]

As to the challenges, here are my attempts. Again, it's all a matter of ethical codes, but I'll try anyway:
1. Teaching scripture to the world will make it a better place.
2. Attacks and murder of homosexuals as "abominations."
3. The practice of worshipping Satan has as much a right to exist as the worship of god.

 

[Jon.]

I think that the problem lies in that "because god said so" is enough for believers. For example, we're all familiar with "Thou shalt not kill." Using a biblical example, however, when god tells Abraham to kill his son, had Abraham gone through with it/not been stopped scripture and believers would not see that as an immoral act. After all, it was an order from god.

To be fair to the Bible, the Abraham/Isaac story occurs well before the Ten Commandments are made.

 

[VulcanWay]

That kind of makes my point though.

I agree with you. I think that it's thought provoking, though, and makes a point - in all the ways that we can see the world and interact with society non-believers are not, by virtue of being non-believers, morally deficient.

If anything, H3LL makes a good point in the challenge for the inverse. For ethics that have no basis/reason (as tsg points out) beyond faith without proof, believers may actually be limited in a moral manner overall as far as society in general is concerned.

If the Flying Speghetti Monster rules that I may not stop pirates from pillaging on days of the week beginning with a T, and I do nothing to keep Pirate Bill from taking all of your belongings on Thursday, have I helped or hampered society?

 

[VulcanWay]

To be fair to the Bible, the Abraham/Isaac story occurs well before the Ten Commandments are made.

Touche! I honestly hadn't stopped to think about that.

Though that brings us back to the question as to whether or not people at the time of Abraham realized that murder was immoral.