Part 3 of the ongoing debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.
posted 5/15/2007 07:42AM
Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens, authors whose books are already part of a larger debate on whether religion is pernicious, agreed to discuss their views on whether Christianity ...
If belief in God strengthens my morals, then I should believe. That seems to be a popular argument here. Now...substitute "the invisible unicorn" for God. Suddenly, the idea seems ludicrous. Why? Because SOME of us find it difficult to take on an absurd belief just because it might make us nicer and the world safer. In fact, such an approach to life is, by many definitions, immoral...it's a lie.
Ken
Posted: May 25, 2007 12:42 AM
"If we are not transcendent, why should I give a fig about him, why should I care at all?"
Use your imagination...there are plenty of possible answers that don't depend on some unproven, immaterial essence that occupies your body. A Buddhist might care because he has tamed his ego to the extent that he simply has a clear understanding that other folks aren't utterly separate entities that we're free to use and abuse. An existentialist will say he cares because he chooses to care. A biologist might say that a good chunk of morality is either ingrained. A game theorist might say it emerges when intelligent creatures debate how to allocate resources and mates. And on and on.
The above views don't necessarily result in belief in an absolute, universal morality that wafts in the air...but maybe that's just the way it is.
DrZaius
Posted: May 24, 2007 5:50 PM
From my vantage point, Wilson is too humble when he states he may be Hitchens's intellectually inferior. Hitchens continually avoided all the difficlut questions. He seems somewhat lightweight to me in terms of his thniking depth. Of course I believe in God, so I may be biased, but I've given much thought about this over the years being scientifically and mathematically trained.
Konstantin
Posted: May 22, 2007 1:11 PM
Kosmiceggburst, once again, the development of morality is an extremely complex question, and there is no simple answer to it. Some of it has to do with evolutionary processes; other aspects involve the evolving social consensus on morality; yet others are a matter of personal choice. But you want to oversimply it and to pretend that Christians have a solid moral foundation while atheists do not. That is simply false. You may like to believe that Christianity provides a set of objective moral principles, but that is not true. Go read the attitudes of St. Paul or Church Fathers toward women. You'll be appalled. Read God's commands to wipe out nations, including women and children. Read the Mosaic law regarding punishment for apostacy or disobedience. Read the biblical passages of slavery. Ancient Christianity (and the Bible) got all of these moral issues wrong. That is clear to you now, but it was not clear to those who wrote things things. Christians and atheists are in the same boat.
Lee (the Buddhist, again)
Posted: May 22, 2007 1:01 PM
One of the Humanist views on Christianity are some of the more apostate musings of those who've lurked in the back pews, that - at the time of Jesus - the Jews were confronted by a Roman occupation that fused state and religion. The Trinitarian legend of Jesus was a natural rejoinder to the Greco-Roman myths of deities procreating with mortals.
Not just a unitarian rejectionism from the back pews (and I hope no one takes offense) the tale of Mary and Joseph's homeless exile to Bethlehem is just as easily taken as a story of two young lovers having conceived a child out of wedlock (a terrible offense back then). Jesus' later mission to preach forgiveness and avoid judgement is readily seen as his defense of his own value as a human.
As for the Biblically minded falling back to a less interventionist creationism, it's perfectly understandable even to a secular Humanist that evolution is, prima facie, just as improbable as an intervening deity. Evolution is a miracle, too.
Kosmiceggburst
Posted: May 22, 2007 7:09 AM
Hitchens betrays the glory of his own humanity - downplays and suppresses it even in front of others - to commit a virtual suicide with Wilson's interrogatory about a reliable moral foundation. Wilson is not saying that Hitchens has a protoplasm jell ancestry, on the contrary, Wilson is highlighting the obvious, that Hitchens himself has bought that line. Only Hitchens can explain whether he affirms it or not at this point. It can only be taken by the reader that Hitchens desires to communicate such an irrational problem set to begin his claims with. The absurdity of the situation is entertaining, that is, for an irrational premise to then appeal to logic.............. Nowhere has Hitchens directly answered the question put to him about where moral convention originates, maybe because to fit the definition of atheism, it is more fitting to that definition be ammoral, as in, a denial of moral existence. But Hitchens does no such thing. Hitchens concedes moral things exist. Why?
Konstantin
Posted: May 22, 2007 1:35 AM
Jeremy, let's not pretend that the Bible provides a solid moral framework that you so desire. Whether we take the issue or genocide, slavery, or women's rights, the Bible consistently supports the wrong side of the debate. You and I will agree that genocide is wrong, but Moses and Yahweh disagree with us. You and I will agree that slavery is wrong. But Moses and Paul will disagree. You and I will agree that women are equal to men, but Paul has a different opinion. So here's my question: why do you and I agree on the crucial moral issues, but the Bible takes a position that seems poisonous to both of us regardless of our belief? You will, no doubt, try to reinterpret the embarrassing teachings of your scriptures. But isn't it easier to admit that morality develops over time, and you and I live in a different era of morality when compared to the ancient world when the Bible was written? Men who wrote the Bible got genocide, slavery, and women's rights wrong. It's just a human book.
Peter
Posted: May 20, 2007 11:23 PM
"And last, does innate human solidarity believe in God?"
Lol. Good one.
jeremy
Posted: May 18, 2007 12:03 PM
Iscariotpunk wrote: "I don't see the need for a single authoritative person who tells us what is right/wrong."
Perhaps, but like the rest of us, you (and Hitchens) do *want* a place to plant your feet, because you *want* to be able to say you are right and others wrong. For example, Hitchens needs--and is looking for--a foundation on which to insist that Christianity is bad for society. Of course, he keeps landing in midair. To wit: Innate human solidarity, it turns out, has evolved in such a way that an overwhelming majority of humans in recorded history have believed in deity and afterlife, so I can't imagine how an appeal to humanity's solidarity could ever demonstrate, for example, that it is evil to tell children stories about divine judgment in the afterlife. In other words, Hitchens would need to argue *against* innate human solidarity here. So he's right back into the subjectivism and utter relativism out of which he tried to climb in his appeal to innate human solidarity.
Iscariotpunk
Posted: May 18, 2007 10:28 AM
Wilson states: "...ethical imperatives are 'derived from innate human solidarity.' A host of difficult questions immediately arise, which is perhaps why atheists are generally so coy about trying to answer this question. Derived by whom? Is this derivation authoritative?" And so on.
Why are these viewed as difficult questions? They sound rather ignorant and inane. In fact, the answer is basically in the question, by the definition of solidarity alone: union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc.
We as members of a society determine right and wrong, good and bad...as a non-believer, I don't see the need for a single authoritative person who tells us what is right/wrong. That's a theists simple-minded presupposition. I know sundry atheists/non-believers who are ethical, humanitarian, well-wishing folks, who never grew up in a religious household.
Tickletext
Posted: May 18, 2007 9:55 AM
It may be pure coincidence, but I wonder. Compare what Wilson says:
"Take the vilest atheist you ever heard of. Imagine yourself sitting at his bedside shortly before he passes away. He says, following Sinatra, 'I did it my way.' And then he adds, chuckling, 'Got away with it too.'
with what Hitchens said about Jerry Falwell on Anderson Cooper's show on CNN (on 5/15/07 22:00ET:
COOPER: Do you believe he believed what he spoke?
HITCHENS: Of course not. He woke up every morning, as I say, pinching his chubby little flanks and thinking, I have got away with it again.
Mark Brown
Posted: May 18, 2007 9:36 AM
It is my opinion that requiring a deity to define morals and ethics is to give us little credit as a species. I would like to think that we have the ability to observe the effects of certain actions and be able to determine those actions as either good or bad. If there is a creator, and we were created in his image, then I would absolutely expect us to have that ability.
As for Mr. Hitchens' comment about wanting to be left alone, I can certainly sympathize with that. However, he (like myself on a much smaller scale) has invited this sort of attention. He has written books and made television appearances and are involved in this debate. He has taken up the good fight of exposing religion for what it is, I don't think we can honestly expect to be left alone on this issue because of that.
jjj
Posted: May 18, 2007 7:44 AM
apologia, you ask if reason and logic set principles/fixed laws. Unfortunately, atheism is no better than theism at setting fixed principles. Just as theists have disagreed through time as to whether the Bible supports slavery, whether the Pope is the final authority, whether segregation, homosexuality, abortion, Jews, and taking oaths should be supported, tolerated, or banned, whether women should be able to vote, whether environmental concerns are worth engaging, whether the gods are pleased by human or animal sacrifice, whether baptism is necessary for salvation, whether our post-death destination is predetermined, which books should make up the Bible, whether Jesus was a mere prophet or the incarnation of the OT God, and whether eating shellfish puts your eternal soul in peril, atheists, too, have no reliable way to settle disputes. Unlike theists, atheists do not try to convince themselves that morals believed by humans reflect the unverifiable will of an invisible being.
mcheebert
Posted: May 18, 2007 12:44 AM
ex-preacher asks: "Is it wrong to torture people? Then explain hell." OK, I will. The Bible makes very few specific claims about the nature of hell. Hell must exist because we humans have free will, and are thus free not to choose God. I see hell as the inability of the sinner to face divine scrutiny. That is, a person who sins for a lifetime has to face a perfect being after death. For a person inadequately prepared, this is an impossible task. God does not damn people to hell. They choose hell, rather than face the consequences of what they have done. Jesus, as a redeemer, offers us an alternative. Though we are not perfect, if we trust in divine grace we can face God without being completely destroyed by our shame. Thus hell is the torture we choose to inflict on ourselves. The only thing God has to do with it is that God offers us goodness. If we cannot accept goodness, we punish ourselves. This is the failure of atheism: It presumes that the best outcome is not possible.
legosoi
Posted: May 17, 2007 8:07 PM
Yes it is greek- lego and soi meaning "I say to you. "
Bivium
Posted: May 17, 2007 7:27 PM
"legosoi"? Is that Greek? I can't figure out "soi" if it is. In any case, I agree - the atheistic worldview can no more account for induction and logic than it can for objective morality.
legosoi
Posted: May 17, 2007 7:11 PM
Bivium and Matt: I also agree. The Athiest may claim that moral standards are not objective, but like Matt said, as soon as you put a gun to someone's head, the Athiest will be quick to contradict himself. I know that many here are discussing morality, but what about logic and inductive reasoning? Are they set principles? Just like the Athiest has no justification for morality and conscience, the Athiest also has no basis for his logical reasoning. Yes?
Bivium
Posted: May 17, 2007 6:07 PM
Is this the same Matt that was posting earlier? Because if it is, then I completely misunderstood your position earlier. I thought you were supporting moral relativism. In any case, I fully agree with what you are saying now: we all know at some level that moral relativism is false, because we all have consciences that tell us what is good and what is evil.
Matt
Posted: May 17, 2007 5:14 PM
Moral relativism is all well and good until I put a gun to your head. Then all of a sudden it's wrong for me to do that. But the fact is, if moral relativism is right, then there is no reason I should not blow of someone's head or molest children. Moral relativists are fine until they are the victim, then all of a sudden, it was wrong to do whatever was done to them.
Kosmiceggburst
Posted: May 17, 2007 12:38 PM
First of all, God is love. These articles raise a lot of questions, which is a good thing. I sense that Hitchens believes he is on the verge of a great breakthrough of some sort though. However, due to the anguish Hitchens frequently conveys to readers about a theism that supposedly does not exist, atheism is probably best considered to be some form of idolism -- idolism defined as a replacement for God -- when this "leave me alone" argument is examined under a microscope. What person in their right mind rejects love? On the one hand, there really is no such thing as atheism, not in reality, but some folks seem to get a jolt out of using it to communicate things, so some people certainly satisfy a need in contemplating atheism. This satisfaction does not validate atheism though. Atheism could be a self-delusion or coping mechanism. Since freedom of religion is the law of the land, should atheists be locked up for bothering folks and attempting to erode freedom, one might ask?
apologia
Posted: May 17, 2007 11:43 AM
expreacher: Thank you for responding. Now that you have confirmed that logic and reason are set principles/fixed laws, let us grant for a moment that these laws determine objective laws of morality, the question is, what evidence do you have that laws of logic hold true in a world that evolved from nothing and that continues to evolve? What is the nature of these laws of logic? Are they part of nature? Are they tangible things? Have they always existed, or did they evolve as well? Please explain further the nature of these laws, because I fail to grasp how they can function in a world where there is nothing but matter in constant change. If ex-preacher has left, then I'll take an answer from any atheist who would like to take up his position.
Robert
Posted: May 17, 2007 7:52 AM
Anti-Semitic--Thank you Kurtis. If I may: “I think Hitchens is terrible, perhaps reminiscent of the bloodthirsty Bolsheviks.” Hitchens seems to say that that teaching children(infants) about Hell is child abuse, and should be outlawed. Is it a leap to say that teaching children Christianity should be outlawed? And that Christianity itself should be outlawed. Where’s the flaw in my logic? Other comments that he has made would lead one to conclude that Christians are all crazy. Kurtis’s comparison to Bolsheviks seems on the mark to me. Some of these fundy atheists are creepy and scary. Of course the Bolsheviks were really Jesuits, or so Hitchens claims in his book.
BlackAndTanInTheAM
Posted: May 17, 2007 6:03 AM
While this tennis match is a good read, it misses the point of debate. In each exchange there is an echo of repeated faults and nets. Each author ought to limit his thought to one serve while the opponent returns serve. Instead, we have both sides serving and returning and not one of us knows which ball is in play. Wow, that worked better than I had planned.
Boz
Posted: May 17, 2007 1:44 AM
"Though it is not strictly relevant to the ethical dimension, I would further say that neither the fable of Moses nor the wildly discrepant Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth may claim the virtue of being historically true."To the preceding quote,I respond.Who is one to say that anything the writers of the New Testament wrote was just a fable.This is short sighted to say the least.The writers give names,dates ,places and far more facts one needs to know if the writings were there for one's reading enjoyment.As archeology has proved and will continue to show, is that nothing from the New Testament has been proven factually wrong.It is a biography from eyewitness accounts written shortly after the event transpired.If we are to believe accounts of other historical figures,some written hundreds of years after the facts,what makes these biogaphy(s) any less believable
Lone Wolf
Posted: May 17, 2007 1:05 AM
pH: Of course what God wants is good, that is because it is impossible for God to go against His nature. God is all good, not partially good. Don't even think about bringing up the "problem of pain" argument, because in your world view there really is no evil; death is just a fact. If anyone doesn't have a universal standard of what is good, then they can't have a universal standard of what is evil.
Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.
Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.
If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.
RSS Feeds
Audio
Twitter
E-mail
Print
Post
Subscribe to Christianity Today magazine today!
