All Comments for: "Is Christianity Good for the World?" | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > May (Web-only)

Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2007 |

"Is Christianity Good for the World?"

Part 4 of the ongoing debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.

posted 5/18/2007 03:30PM

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 ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 192 comments.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ...

Show All

Lee	Posted: May 28, 2007 4:45 PM

Hasty, all I know about your objection is that you don't like my explanation. You claim it is a non sequitur, but I thought I explained it. I'll try again: 1. We agree that humility is a sign of a high character; 2. Therefore, we would expect to see that character trait in the creator of all morality;' and 3. It is unreasonable to expect God to be less than his creation, so find me another religion that features an absolute creator who displays this particular character trait. You immediately caracatured this by speaking of a god who abases Himself before his own creation -- a neurotic god -- without explaining how a neurotic god could be the source of all goodness. Then I showed how Islam is not up to the task of showing a humble god, and your response is, 1. Nonsense, and 2. What about Hinduism? Hinduism is not monotheistic. Its gods are inhabitants of a higher continuum, perhaps, but they did not create that continuum, ergo they are mere creatures themselves.

Hasty Toweling

Posted: May 28, 2007 1:48 AM

Lee, sorry to wait so long to get back. The see-saw metaphor was a bad one, because it assumed that Christianity and Islam were the only 2 possibilities. A better way to phrase it would have been to say that the see-saw must fall to the Christianity side *before I will even consider it*. Here's the deal: Lee, you and your co-religionists claim to have a special understanding of the universe. I know you wouldn't phrase it like that, but that's what it is. My position is this: *no you don't*. When pressed why I should believe your particular "special understanding", as opposed to the "special understanding" of Scientologists and the others that contradict yours, what I get is "my version is humbler". Lee, this is a ludicrous non sequitur by any reasonable standard. I'm not trying to be mean, but Lee, you don't have any special understanding that Hindus don't have. Quite simply, you are kidding me and yourself, and I can't take this seriously anymore.

Lee	Posted: May 25, 2007 9:59 PM

Duff, well, once again, *somebody* isn't listening. I don't think I have spent *most* of my time claiming, as you say, that my ethics derive from something divine (thought that is what I believe). I have, rather, spent *most* of my time asking you why you think ethics derived from the premises of atheism carry any authority since they are *not* derived from something divine? Oh well, Hitchens has missed this point for five posts now, so you are in excellent company. But it's like pulling hippo teeth to get an answer. I'll just stop with that, because I don't think the conversation can progress until you, or someone, explains it. I'd rather hear an answer to that, than be sidetracked into some other area of contention (such as creationism).

Kosmiceggburst

Posted: May 25, 2007 9:17 AM

I am hoping not too many are losing confidence in Hitchen's ability to survive Wilson's next response due to a cumulative effect of, as Wilson states, "insurmountable problems" with Hitchen's lack of authoritative innateness. Innateness is a gimmick used only to forestall with, in not having an adequate answer to the logical mystery that atheism essentially arrives at. Hitchens then relies on individual choice each time for coping with this, which is a fallacy of the relevance paradox. Atheism, by sheer definition, is irrelevant to the problem it purports to resolve. Atheism never fails in missing the paradox, where transcendent information would necessarily guide one to better decisions. It becomes extremely entertaining to observe this atheist dilemma of the relevance paradox manifesting itself in all the clutter. Hitchens is stalling on the questions which Wilson clearly articulates in this exchange, which Hitchens realizes must be striking at the very vitals of atheism.

Duff	Posted: May 25, 2007 6:57 AM

Lee: You just aren't listening, or if you are listening, you truly don't get it, and that's too bad, since it seems like you are trying. I'll try to put it again, in as simple terms as possible: Neither you nor Wilson have demonstrated any (as in zero) basis for your repeated claims that your ethics derive from something divine. You believe it, that's fine, but it is no statement about ethics in general. Jacob: Thanks for finding that out! That means I'm done here. I guess I didn't fully realize we had visited a place where proponents of creationism get real respect - most christians are smarter than those literalists. I'll leave it to my brother atheists to continue the Good Fight - but don't stay too long, fellas! I'm already getting the feeling that the theists here are just being polite so they can continue to fool themselves that they have a chance at suborning a free atheist mind! Never!! :-)

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: May 25, 2007 3:50 AM

As a long-time student of the Gospel(s), I do not know at all how Christianity, without an indepth look at the whole teaching of Jesus Christ, can be good for the world. As a religion, it is no better (if not worse) than other religions simply for claiming the most and making the least difference in the quality of life and degree of commitment of its followers. Christianity is not Christ not even approximately! Yours truly, Ephrem

Jacob

Posted: May 25, 2007 3:18 AM

Um, bad news my thoughtful atheist and agnostic brothers and sisters...Have you checked out Doug Wilson's blog? It appears he's a creationist. Yeah, we're in tinfoil hat philosopher area. Arguments with the kind of guys whose thinking skills allow for Tyrannosaurus Rex on Noah's Ark with hamsters, fruit bats, and grasshoppers. And humans first showed up on Earth 6,000 years ago. How much more time do you want to spend on seriously arguing philosophy with the type that think fossils are God's little joke on geologists, and carbon 14 dating is as reliable as dating Paris Hilton?

Bill	Posted: May 25, 2007 12:30 AM

Wilson’s demand for a rational basis for human behavior is similar to a demand for a reason why man walks upright. We walk upright because it is a successful strategy for our survival. The same holds for human behavior. Humans have no ferocious means of protection so we must stick together to survive. This forms the basis for human behavior and a shared morality. Normal humans, similar to other higher primates, have a deep desire to condemn members of the tribe who behave outside accepted norms. There is little doubt that these sophisticated social networks were a major reason for our rise. This explanation is credible because it has a mountain of scientific evidence and it actually explains things. Wilson’s rationale relies on rhetoric and wishful thinking. He rejects the scientific evidence for human behavior because he is convinced, with little evidence, that the entire universe was created so that the members of a small Jewish sect could adequately judge the actions of others.

Mike	Posted: May 24, 2007 8:15 PM

Why can't both Atheism and Christianity exist on a level playing field, which is to say, why can't personal beliefs be just that? The real problem seems to occur when your personal belief isn't enough and that others must join you or else face a horrible supernatural truth. Belief, in it's essence, is personal...there is no such thing as a group belief. To say that two people can believe the "exact" same thing is a falacy. Hitchens and I wouldn't agree on everything, nor would Wilson and I...but why is that wrong. The basic tenants of morality exist with or without a belief in a deity. Atheists merely put out a preposition that you don't have to believe in God to be good. Christians believe that "only" a belief in god makes you good (and every religion has their own standard as to what that is) and that is no doubt bad for everyone else who doesn't believe it and is yet ruled over in someway shape or form by those beliefs.

Lee	Posted: May 24, 2007 7:33 PM

So, Hasty, that's it in a nutshell. If there is an absolute being, we would expect him to comprise the best personality traits, so I would (in your hypothetical shoes) look for the god who can wear those shoes. To worship any god is to humble oneself, and the interesting thing here is that while Muslims are never less like their god than when they are worshipping him, Christians are never more like their God than when they are worshipping Him. I found your analogy amusing, by the way, about a hypothetical god who grovels before his creation. All I can say is, if it went that far, God would be psychotic, and psychosis is not one of the "good" personality traits. Would it be very loving of God to abase Himself before sinful, rebellious images of His own creation? How could He then help us out of our sinful condition?

Lee	Posted: May 24, 2007 7:21 PM

Hasty, we agree then that humility is a sign of high character. If we were "shopping" for a god, I would say you might be on the right track if you were looking for a god who reflects the goodness or morality that he presumably created. At least, to me, it would seem counterintuitive to accept as god someone who is somehow less than his own creation. With this in mind, the Islamic concept of Allah is not as a loving father. Allah shares the "power" attributes of Yahweh, but seemingly without the approachability. Yahweh is the same yesterday, today, and forever, as befits an all-knowing God; however, Allah is capricious, and changes his mind. That's one of the reasons a Muslim has no assurance of salvation (other than martyrdom). Since Allah can change his mind, it follows that an Islamic moral system is relative. For me, that would be a deal-breaker. Though the Christian perspective changes, the moral foundation in Christianity does not.

Hasty Toweling

Posted: May 24, 2007 7:04 PM

(cont. from below). Imagine a see-saw with 2 boxes on the ends. In one box are all of the reasons why Christianity is the One True Religion, in the other box, the reasons for Islam. When one end hits the ground, then I will believe in that faith. You could use Pascal's wager to put the threat of eternal damnation in each box, but the see-saw is still perfectly balanced. As I've said before, "Humble God" is not a reason, so it stays out. You've mentioned that I can't disprove your version of God, so we can put that in the Christianity box. But I can't disprove Islam either, so it goes in the other box--we're still balanced. You might also talk about the joy that your convictions bring you, but again, Muslims say the same thing--still balanced! This is about where we are, and after how many posts back and forth? The conspicuous emptiness of both boxes ought to be disturbing to you by now. I don't know how much clearer I can make myself!

Hasty Toweling

Posted: May 24, 2007 6:46 PM

Lee, humility is an impressive trait when I see it expressed genuinely in a person, but if I'm reading a story, and one of the characters is humble, this does nothing to indicate to me whether the story is fact or fiction. I could make up, on the spot, a religion with a God more humble than anything you've ever dreamed of. How about a God who grovels and begs forgiveness from the creatures He creates? Now does this make my God more real than yours? Of course not. I'm not pulling your leg; I'm trying to point out the near exact symmetry between your claims and those of a Muslim. You seem to be shying away from this uncomfortable fact. Christianity and Islam (and to a lesser extent, Hinduism) make almost the exact same claims to Truth. As an outsider, I have absolutely no way to decide which is right. The threat of Hellfire means that I cannot simply pick one and hope for the best --I need a reason of SOME sort of reason.

Lee	Posted: May 24, 2007 6:43 PM

Joe, Rand understood a few things very well. She certainly understood economics. And she understood liberals, or so it seems to me. But you'll pardon me in asking, what does reason have to do with morality? Every decision made by every human being is an attempt to become happier -- even suicide. Happiness is the goal, reason is the tool. Reason can help us with the decision-making, but I don't see how it can determine what ought to make us happy. Does reason tell me to obey my male DNA and try to have sex with every attractive woman I meet? Or does it tell me that the joy of a long-term monogamous relationship is better? Or better yet, a life of abstinence that would clear my mind? Sorry, but reason is mute on these subjects. Reason is an implementation tool, not a goal-setter. For morality, assumptions are more important than any reasoning based on them; they come first.

Lee	Posted: May 24, 2007 6:29 PM

Duff, you continue: "As I said earlier, 350 years ago, you might well have owned slaves and thought it your christian duty to do so." That is, of course, quite possible, but I don't see how this invalidates the argument about whether the Christian standard thinks it is okay to own slaves (it doesn't, in my view, see in particular: Galatians 5:1). You say, "This simple, plain fact, sir, is that there's not a scintilla of actual reason to think that you are in any way blessed with authentic...morality, and the rest of us slobs aren't." Whoa! According to Romans, *none* of us "slobs" are blessed with *any* desire to be righteous. That's you, and that's me. If you grant me only for the sake of argument the ability to argue from *my* principles, I believe morality is absolute; it applies to you and me; and that we both perceive it just fine. The difference is only and solely that I acknowledge its source and bow my knee, and even that is through no virtue of mine.

Lee	Posted: May 24, 2007 6:11 PM

Duff, you say, "...your main error is to assume that the lack of god somehow means that humans can't conceive and operate ethics systems, administer judgement and punishment, etc." It would appear I am not the only one capable of missing the point. Neither Wilson nor I have claimed morality cannot be derived from atheistic principles; I think I have conceded this point several times in these posts. The issue is whether or not an atheistic morality can be *authoritative*, whether it can be something we are somehow *obliged* to obey. You have posited reason as an authority, but reason is a tool, nothing more, and can be perfectly well and fully employed while engaging in evil, if that is where someone's desires reside. You state that "Christian ethics have morphed over time," and all I can say is, it is not surprising to me that this happens. Even if morality is absolute, it does not mean our *perspective* on it doesn't change.

Lee	Posted: May 24, 2007 5:58 PM

Jacob, I'm trying to figure out what you think is specious about Lewis' statement. If Jesus was not what He claimed to be, then he was a lunatic, pure and simple. "I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." How does "none of the above" fit the bill here? I think history shows there are plenty of people willing to die for a falsehood, but there aren't very many who are willing to die for something they *know* to be a falsehood. Ergo, unless you can think of a more reasonable explanation, Jesus at least believed He was somehow uniquely situated somehow to intercede for us with God the Father. If He wasn't, he was a megalomaniac of the highest order. It's only mentally healthy to claim that you're "the way, the truth, the life" if you happen to be those things.

Joe	Posted: May 24, 2007 12:07 PM

Douglas Wilson states, "I am saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way. In order to prove me wrong here, you must do more than employ words like "casuistry" or "evasions"—you simply need to provide that rational account. Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?" The answer to Wilson's question was rendered some time ago by Ayn Rand, and her philosophy of Objectivism. Objectivism is the first philosophy to identify the relationship between life and moral values." Rand says it better than I can, "If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments." Faith is the negation of reason.

Duff	Posted: May 24, 2007 11:35 AM

Brit: Of course GR ethics don't answer all cases. What does the bible say about embryonic stem-cell research, condoms or barriers to free trade? Nothing about the GR precludes culture-wide conceptions of moral normality, and that's really all we have to work with in any case. As a practical matter, bad violaters of GR ethics remain easy to spot, sadists among them. What's the problem? The fact that Wilson objects to atheism because most of us prefer moral absolutes, which may well be true, does nothing for the claim that moral absolutes actually exist. Just because you would like a certain thing to exist doesn't make it so! Oh, and at some point, one of you theists HAS to at least begin to defend your oft-repeated but never-substantiated claims that there's something eternal to christian ethics. What were those old-time slave-owning christians thinking? Did they think they were christians? How can you possibly say they were wrong? So much for your absolutist ethics...

Brit	Posted: May 24, 2007 9:24 AM

Dear Duff, Not to pile on, but I'm not sure the Golden Rule can do everything you ask of it. Hitchens himself admits this, when he alludes to punishment & incarceration above "Even this strikes me as either contradictory or tautologous, since surely we agree that sociopaths and psychopaths actually deserve to be treated in ways that would be objectionable to a morally normal person." Similarly, the Golden Rule does not work with sadomasochists (unfortunately very real creatures not confined to philosophical examples). Thus Hitchens own term, "morally normal." All of this again points to Wilson's chief objection to atheism - most of us prefer moral absolutes; to hold people accountable to a non-relativistic "higher" law, lest we be at the mercy of the powerful & morally dubious. Hitchens' own writings are rife with denunciations of suspect behavior; it's a horse that is too high for him to dismount from easily. (Nor would we want him to - where would be the fun in that?)

Duff	Posted: May 24, 2007 12:24 AM

Lee, I'll try once again, but you appear to consistently skip over the extensive discussions in these comments of non-faith-based ethics, so it's getting old. It seems your main error is to assume that the lack of god somehow means that humans can't conceive and operate ethics systems, administer judgement and punishment, etc. They can, have and will. Next, you still try to slither away from the fact (repeatedly brought to your attention) that christian ethics have morphed over time - a fact that skewers your hapless argument like a spear, because you are just one christian, living at just this time. As I said earlier, 350 years ago, you might well have owned slaves and thought it your christian duty to do so. This simple, plain fact, sir, is that there's not a scintilla of actual reason to think that you are in any way blessed with authentic, extra-historical, extra-cultural morality, and the rest of us slobs aren't. You just aren't that good. And may I say too, what a nerve!

Jacob

Posted: May 23, 2007 10:52 PM

Lee, you mention how C.S. Lewis made you a believer again. Be careful with his logic. In college, I first met a group Christians quoting C.S. Lewis. They told me how Lewis cleverly said Jesus of Nazareth was either a. Liar, b. Lunatic, or c. Lord. Wow, I was impressed! Must be "c", huh? Later that day in one of my classes I took a multiple choice quiz. Funny thing---the questions there had four choices. Choice "d" was "None Of The Above." I realized I'd almost been fooled by a phony Lewis argument trying to force my thinking into his bad logic. Maybe the "S" in C.S. Lewis should stand for "specious"?

Lee	Posted: May 23, 2007 8:23 PM

Hasty, all I can say is, if you're seriously looking for a reason to believe in Christianity, and I have no reason to believe you're just cynically pulling my leg, I am probably not the fellow you ought to be talking to. I'm not a pastor, I'm not a theologian, I just do the best I can, which probably isn't very good. You never explained why you found the concept of a humble God unimpressive. It's hard for my to adjust the aim on this pop gun here unless I can know which direction it needs to be adjusted. If you are really interested, you might try reading the apologetic works of C.S. Lewis; it's what started me on the road to reconciliation with the faith I was baptized in.

Lee	Posted: May 23, 2007 8:13 PM

Duff: You said, "Don't worry, your ethics are just as (actually more) relative as my own." You're begging the question, that there is no God, of course, and thus no absolute moral standard. When you're complaining about my "invidious" or "insulting" remarks, you certainly don't qualify your statement every time. You didn't say, "If my take on a morally relativistic world is valid, then in certain cultures, at certain times, your comments could be construed as invidious or insulting, and I am tempted to say it applies here in this particular societal setting at this particular time" No. You go right for the absolute form: why, my comments *are* insulting. Well, certainly nothing personal was intended by me. In fact, if I believed in absolute morality, I might apologize because I think it is ungracious even to hint at personal animosity. But I have your assurance that this morality is relative, so all I need do is wait until a new morality arrives to make any apology moot.

Lee	Posted: May 23, 2007 7:56 PM

Jacob, you said, "Many a Christian parent would tell his child that if he doesn't accept Jesus as his savior, then he'll burn in hell eternally... Well, there's no reasonable test or proof for that, so it seems cruelly frightening (or weird) to tell him that." Actually, as a Reformed Christian, I think you teach your children that they are part of God's people, and thus they bear the blessings of the Covenant. And yes, the cursings too, should they renounce their faith. If you *were* going to burn in hell, I'm assuming you would want to be told, yes? You say, "hopefully they'll tell the truth that [global warming]'s likely catastrophic climate change can be avoided with hard work among individuals, communities, and countries." Problem is, that's not known to be the truth either. If global warming is indeed happening, it might be something we humans have no control over. I doubt the end of the last ice age can be described as anything but global warming, and it wasn't about cars.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ...

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment