"An Atheist Responds" - Randigram - Questions?

[tsg]

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.

Hitchens addresses this in the article. There are parts of the bible which are considered unethical even by followers of the scripture. That they don't advocate those behaviors is evidence that they get their morality from someplace else.

2. Attacks and murder of homosexuals as "abominations."

I'm not sure I understand. Is this an act of evil caused by religion?

3. The practice of worshipping Satan has as much a right to exist as the worship of god.

That's very interesting. It is certainly true for some believers. Does it strictly meet the challenge that it could not be uttered by a believer? I'm not so sure.

 

[Jon.]

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.

The suggestion I heard recently from a very liberal Christian was that the Abraham/Isaac story was symbolic of the end of human sacrifice as a part of the religious ritual.

 

[tsg]

Here's my entry for #3:

The decision to prevent or punish a certain behavior should be based on evidence that the behavior is actually harmful, not because it angers some deity.

 

[ceo_esq]

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).

Given the wording of the second challenge, shouldn't the first challenge be to "name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, precisely because of religious faith"?

At any rate, what is the point of showing one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever? I kind of doubt whether Gerson suggested that there were any. He'd probably be content with the formulation that there are ethical statements the making of which, and ethical actions the performance of which, are rendered more likely because of religious faith (either the religious faith of the maker/performer himself, or more generally the religious faith which influenced the development of the ethics of his culture).

 

[tsg]

Given the wording of the second challenge, shouldn't the first challenge be to "name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, precisely because of religious faith"?

At any rate, what is the point of showing one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever? I kind of doubt whether Gerson suggested that there were any. He'd probably be content with the formulation that there are ethical statements the making of which, and ethical actions the performance of which, are rendered more likely because of religious faith (either the religious faith of the maker/performer himself, or more generally the religious faith which influenced the development of the ethics of his culture).

I can't read the op-ed by Gerson without registering, but the argument typically made, and the one Hitchens is apparently refuting, is that morality and ethics are not possible without religion.

From the article:

However, it is his own supposedly kindly religion that prevents him from seeing how insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship, which could read and condemn my thoughts and which could also consign me to eternal worshipful bliss (a somewhat hellish idea) or to an actual hell.

At the very least, Hitchens first challenge shows that morality can be had without the baggage of belief in and worship of a supernatural personal deity.

 

[ceo_esq]

I can't read the op-ed by Gerson without registering, but the argument typically made, and the one Hitchens is apparently refuting, is that morality and ethics are not possible without religion.

From the article:


At the very least, Hitchens first challenge shows that morality can be had without the baggage of belief in and worship of a supernatural personal deity.

Ah, I see. I think that's probably something of a strawman on Hitchens' part, if he's trying to show merely that it's possible for nonbelievers to act morally.

If Hitchens objects to the "insinuation" that he "would not know right from wrong if [he were] not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship", it's hard to see how his challenge defeats the suggestion. After all, it's technically possible that nonbelievers as well as believers know right from wrong through "supernatural guidance", so merely showing that nonbelievers can know right from wrong doesn't refute the "insinuated" proposition.

 

[Robin]

If Hitchens objects to the "insinuation" that he "would not know right from wrong if [he were] not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship", it's hard to see how his challenge defeats the suggestion. After all, it's technically possible that nonbelievers as well as believers know right from wrong through "supernatural guidance", so merely showing that nonbelievers can know right from wrong doesn't refute the "insinuated" proposition.

Unfortunately we have to register to find out just what it is that Atheists supposedly can't answer, but I don't think that either Gerson or Hitchens can have meant that, if believers and unbelievers got equal moral guidance from supernatural sources then religion would be clearly superfluous and I don't think Gerson is suggesting this.

The common claim made is that we derive our morality from religion - that without it we would not be moral, or be less moral.

A better response is to see how much religion follows morality rather than leads it. In the time of the old prophets it appeared to be morally acceptable for a conqueror to kill all the population of the lands they took over, or kill the men and sell the women and children into slaver, so we have a God depicted as ordering just this.

Torturing prisoners was not thought immoral in the Middle Ages so at this time religions use torture to combat heresy and the Hell imagery becomes even more violent - more like a torture chamber.

Today, when torture is largely considered immoral the Christian Church are busy playing catch-up spinning the whole Hell notion, downplaying the whole torment/torture theme, trying to paint it as a place to honour man's choices.

 

[H3LL]

Ah, I see. I think that's probably something of a strawman on Hitchens' part, if he's trying to show merely that it's possible for nonbelievers to act morally.

Interesting angle.

I thought he was more showing that believer claims that they are guided by scripture and/or that scripture is the source of moral/ethical behaviour is clearly not so and impossible where contradictions occur.

It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

To reinforce his suggestion he shows that there is no moral/ethical behaviour that is exclusively religious but all can be performed by the believer and nonbeliever alike.

My challenge indicates that the believer is restricted in what they can do, with restrictions increasing as more scripture is used, whereas the nonbeliever is not restricted (Pope and condoms above).

(Did that make sense?)

.

 

[VulcanWay]

I get you, H3LL.

 

[ceo_esq]

Unfortunately we have to register to find out just what it is that Atheists supposedly can't answer, but I don't think that either Gerson or Hitchens can have meant that, if believers and unbelievers got equal moral guidance from supernatural sources then religion would be clearly superfluous and I don't think Gerson is suggesting this.

It's not clear to me why religion would necessarily be superfluous if everyone's capacity to know right from wrong came from a (hypothetical) God, any more than religion is necessarily rendered superfluous by the fact that the rain raineth on the just and the unjust.

A better response is to see how much religion follows morality rather than leads it.

Religion is influenced by the prevailing culture just as religion influences it. It seems to me, though, that at least in the West, religion actually acquits itself reasonably well under the approach you suggest.

 

[Robin]

It's not clear to me why religion would necessarily be superfluous if everyone's capacity to know right from wrong came from a (hypothetical) God, any more than religion is necessarily rendered superfluous by the fact that the rain raineth on the just and the unjust.

I am not sure how to make it more clear for you. The fact that the rain raineth on the just and unjust makes religion superfluous with respect to planting a crop. Similarly if our ability to know right from wrong comes supernaturally from above irrespective of belief then religion would be superfluous with respect to morality.

If we get our morality direct from God then why do we need the middle man?

 

[VanillaCone]

If we get our morality direct from God then why do we need the middle man?

That is a really, really good question. I've never heard anyone ask it that way. God must be a big fan of middle management, and so he purposely created man without a built-in moral compass -- when he easily could have put it in there. That way we would need priests and such to show us the way. Oh, except they lack moral compasses, too.

It's all starting to make a lot more sense now.


ETA -- I almost forgot to mention. Hitchens is still a douchebag who defends the Iraq war to this day. And his challenge is stupid and doesn't prove anything. And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist.

 

[Robin]

ETA -- I almost forgot to mention. Hitchens is still a douchebag who defends the Iraq war to this day.

And who thinks poor old Paul Wolfowitz was hard done by. He got bad advice and as we all know, when you get bad advice there is no alternative to taking it.

 

[tsg]

Ah, I see. I think that's probably something of a strawman on Hitchens' part, if he's trying to show merely that it's possible for nonbelievers to act morally.

Like I said, I have no idea what Gersen was saying, but I have heard other believers make the statement that without religion there can be no morality. If need be I can search the forums and probably find one or two.

 

[ceo_esq]

I am not sure how to make it more clear for you. The fact that the rain raineth on the just and unjust makes religion superfluous with respect to planting a crop. Similarly if our ability to know right from wrong comes supernaturally from above irrespective of belief then religion would be superfluous with respect to morality.

Yet it seems to me that Christianity proposes that the capacity to know right from wrong is not much more a boon of religion than rain is. For example, the Catechism suggests that it's already there:

Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. ... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.

So the point of the religion must be something distinct from the faculty of conscience. Now, I gather that the religion thinks it has a moral part to play, in that the role of God's word in the education of the conscience (if not its existence), and a person's receptivity to God's will, is not fully replaceable. Thus, I daresay they probably think it has an effect on how often people actually choose the good. But the mission of making men holy, whatever that means, would appear to transcend making them merely ethical (or helping them to grow crops).

 

[Robin]

Yet it seems to me that Christianity proposes that the capacity to know right from wrong is not much more a boon of religion than rain is. For example, the Catechism suggests that it's already there:

So the point of the religion must be something distinct from the faculty of conscience. Now, I gather that the religion thinks it has a moral part to play, in that the role of God's word in the education of the conscience (if not its existence), and a person's receptivity to God's will, is not fully replaceable. Thus, I daresay they probably think it has an effect on how often people actually choose the good. But the mission of making men holy, whatever that means, would appear to transcend making them merely ethical (or helping them to grow crops).

Fine, now if only people would stop telling us that atheists must be less moral than theists or that religion is necessary to provide morality for the world or that religion has provided morality to the world then we would all be in agreement.

And does anybody know just what this question was that atheists couldn't answer? Anybody care to register and find out?

 

[Robin]

Ah, I got in, here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../07/12/AR2007071201620.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

and the question is this:

So I merely want to pose a question: If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?

Bit of an anti-climax really, it exactly what we thought it was.

 

[Robin]

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

And yet that God they love and respect once required the murder of unbelievers. Once required, even the murder of disobedient children.

This God has stated that unbelievers should lie in eternal torment.

Now that the human race has gone beyond these ideas, developed a better morality, we have backfitted them to our God.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Not only was it before the Commandments, but Abrahim actually did kill Isaac in that story. The ram was a later addition. Notice that Abraham and Isaac arrive, but Abraham leaves alone.

 

[tsg]

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."

Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not. (emphasis mine)

As much as he's pussy-footing around it, he seems to be making the argument that morality can't exist without religion, going so far as to quote George Washington to (apparently) support it. That makes Hitchens' argument about believers selecting the scriptures they choose to follow appropriate: they aren't getting their morals from scripture, so why can't atheists do the same thing?