Part 5 of the ongoing debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson.
posted 5/25/2007 08:49AM
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 ...
Hitchens argues that he "chooses not to confect a mystery where none exists." Yet he attempts to argue that natural selection & trial-and-error can bring about an innate moral sensitivity. For me that's mysterious. Let anyone cite a list of any ten moral values that could've realistically emerged from innumerable centuries of survival of the fittest? Laughable! Natural selection is simply anti-thetical to any high view of morals! Innate morality--outside of a biblical worldview--is wishful thinking! To discredit religion, however, he cites a list of its "appalling atrocities." They're absurd...unless one actually regards circumcision as mutilation. Adding the institution of slavery and revulsion of female sexuality as instances of atrocious morality are inexcuseably sloppy scholarship. Atheism becomes amusing when seeking to accredit morality--or any list of moral virtues for that matter--within a Darwinian model of evolution. That happens when God is scandalized.
Jacob
Posted: June 01, 2007 4:18 PM
James---Oh, not so fast. Don't EVEN try it. What is your evidence for "God's moral commands flow from his immutable moral character..."? And "Because I said so!" and stomping your foot in the pew just doesn't count here. But seriously, you're stuck, pal. Euthyphro rocks, 2500 years later. So I get to ask you---why is Stalin's moral opinion less right or valid than yours now?? Hmm?? Tsk, tsk, tsk! At least my chemical processes are true. H2 & O always make water, unlike the shifting interpretations of the Christian Bible. Sorry, atheists have truth on their side. Or did you want to argue that Na plus CL don't always get us salt?
James
Posted: June 01, 2007 1:08 PM
Jacob, since God's moral commands flow from His immutable moral character, and are not arbitrary, Euthyphro Dilemma does not apply. If you think it does please explain "exactly" how. And you have not answered my point. How is Stalin's moral opinion less right or valid than, let's say, yours? Why is the chemical process that produced your moral sense more correct than the chemical process that produced his moral sense?
Kosmiceggburst
Posted: June 01, 2007 12:15 PM
Hitchens brings a lot of pre-conceived ideas to his monologue here, placed in Wilson's proximity. Besides believing someone else's impression about the person that Wilson is, Hitchens seems to think that he has something on Christianity because of it. This is the logical fallacy of equivocation, and the same sort of things that he accuses Wilson of harboring, he is found to be guilty of himself. For example, the interpretation Hitchens puts to the good Samaritan, is exactly the behavior Hitchens wants to find detestable in Wilson. What is evident is that Wilson is vindicated by Hitchens of the pre-conceptions falsely attributed to Wilson. People tend to believe what they want to hear. Hitchens is honorable in this regard in that he will not just tell atheists what they want to hear. Neither will Wilson. Atheism will not consider the Christian message because of these pre-conceived notions, and is simply being islamic jihad's best friend to disregard the message Wilson has.
Jacob
Posted: June 01, 2007 10:44 AM
James, Joe M---The fun thing about this is---since we repeat ourselves constantly--- we could all number our arguments, and use a lot less than 1000 characters each message in this blog. Throw in a few taunts, and hey, we're done! In that spirit: James---Oh, BS. Plato dissed your and Wilson's tired argument 2000 years ago. Google "Euthyphro Dilemma" and just shush. Joe M.---Poppycock! When will you and Wilson understand that atheism is simply a philosophy that there's no sufficient evidence that God exists. It's not a defense of Stalinist brutality and horror. Ahem, Christians---Your turn. Quote Doestoevsky and "Brothers Karamazov". Oh just call it "Argument 7" or something like that.
Joe M.
Posted: June 01, 2007 8:12 AM
Does it occur to Hitchens that his argument against Christianity is more than a bit hypocritical? If Christianity(And All Religion) is indeed the cause of pernicious evil and Atheism is the redress, why is athiesm not criticized for its failures? The modern era is the only era where atheism has had a significant effect on world events and it has been a disaster dwarfing anything in the colored past of Christianity. Communism is an atheistic philosophy and its leading regimes (China & the Soviet Union) were responsible for the death and oppression of millions in such a short period of time. It is a little ironic that Hitchens compares the sovereign God to the North Korean regime, when it is a regime born out of an atheistic philosophy. If he argues that the atheism of Communism is not the only sort of atheism or the ideal atheism, then he has undone his argument against Christianity. If not, Christianity is in at least as defensible position as atheism.
James
Posted: June 01, 2007 7:53 AM
First Jen, you don't understand scripture so you should refrain from commenting on it. It only makes you look foolish. Second, the atheist has no warrent or basis for distingushing between "good and evil." What Stalin considered "good" you may consider "evil." But your opinion is no more valid or right than his since there is no objective standard to judge between the two positions. Your chemical processes caused you to believe and act one way, Stalin's chemical processes caused him to believe and act in another way. Why on earth would we bring moral judgements to chemical processes?
MAR
Posted: May 31, 2007 12:13 PM
Wilson's incoherent commentary, circular logic and pointless points in this series provide the best arguments for atheism in recent memory.
Jacob
Posted: May 30, 2007 11:45 PM
Bubba---Wilson's original challenge is empty to us atheists/agnostics. Wilson makes a point that a god could define good and evil in a way that makes him happy, but he can't point to proof of a god doing that. It's like he might challenge Hitchens to show how atheists know how a horn feels to a unicorn as well as the unicorn can feel it. Maybe Hitchens is struggling, but Wilson ain't showing us his unicorn. He assumes it. Maybe he wishes it. Maybe he prays to it. But it doesn't make unicorns real.
MJBubba
Posted: May 30, 2007 5:59 PM
This whole exchange is pretty frustrating. Hitchens keeps tossing up new challenges and allegations that he places in casual asides; so many that it would be impossible for Wilson to address them all. Wilson has commented on a few of them, but rather than taking them on, he wanders off into preaching that is founded on premises that have not yet been established by his arguements so far. Wilson is correct, however, in constantly returning to his original challenge. Hitchens has not yet said anything that relates to a rational way to divide good from evil, except to say that it is "innate." Hitchens should take up the challenge. Wilson should begin to find a way to address some of Hitchens' scattershot allegations.
deu64
Posted: May 30, 2007 3:49 PM
Hitchens and all anti-theists cannot provide the required preconditions for the laws of logic that are necessary for all debate and communication. Since Hitchens and atheists must employ logic, and only God can supply the necessary pre-essentials for logic, atheism presupposes theism and the atheists clearly lose the debate.
gmcc
Posted: May 30, 2007 3:14 PM
Nobody is saying (though some think they're hearing) that you have to be christian to be moral. That's not the point! But in a DEBATE you have to show your reasons for deriving your morality, and then argue that they are good, sound, rational reasons. You can't just assume your worldview is the reason for morality; that's what CH, and others on this post are doing. You have to show that given all of your atheist (or christian) assumptions, what kind of morality follows. If my wife bakes a cake that everyone at the party enjoys, I can't just take credit for it because its in my house. CH can't take credit for morality until he shows that his atheism produces it.
scunning
Posted: May 30, 2007 2:14 PM
Best debate on religion I've every heard. I think Hitchens' next response will be interesting, as I think he understands the main points that Wilson is making regarding the basis of his morality.
KSS - is socially constructed standards of morality binding on non-members of that society?
mark t.
Posted: May 30, 2007 2:13 PM
Is Christianity good for the world? No. The God of the Bible is an irascible, vindictive, fierce and fickle master that needed a good dose of morality. Which he somehow found by ‘getting religion’ himself about 2000 years ago. But there’s nothing either new or valuable in his ‘NEW’ book. As one of the Webster boys noted, ‘What is new is not valuable and what is valuable is not new.’ The perfect recipe for the ultimate totalitarianism though....takes power from you in this world and then follows you into and beyond the grave into hell.
Was Christianity good for me? Yes. The endless hoops of hermeneutics and apologia Christians jump through, apparently necessary to have it make any sense at all to themselves, gave me the firm footing to embrace anti-theism myself. There’s more than a few of you ‘wish thinkers’ out here who spare no literary ruse to overcome your own and others fear of the dark. “Satan hasn’t a single salaried helper; the opposition employs millions.”
Steven
Posted: May 30, 2007 12:14 PM
Wilson is doing a wonderful job! In every debate like this, there is the potential for a sore smugness on the side of the loser(s), and Hitchens is showing himself to be obtuse and a sore loser. It strikes me as ironic that after beating around the bush and avoiding the simple question of providing justification for a moral standard, he continues to complicate things, eventually invoking Ockham's razor and an assumed victory.
tony
Posted: May 30, 2007 5:59 AM
Hitchens 5;
Wilson 0
In one of the exchanges (maybe #3) Wilson hit the critical nail on the head without realizing it. He acknowledged that the intellectual divide is, in essence, the belief divide. This is partly (bot not solely)why Wilson lamely drones on - "on message" - and only superifically or tangentially enagages.
antichirst
Posted: May 29, 2007 3:33 PM
I believe that humans are a genetic cross between monkeys and aliens created as a slave race by the aliens. One day they will be back, and they won't be happy, if you know what I mean.
Raleigh
Posted: May 29, 2007 3:00 PM
Anyone else here enjoy the delicious irony of Wilson attempting to "logically" argue that atheists do not have a standard measure of morality?
Is Wilson trying to "win" this debate by logically proving that an antitheist such as Hitchens cannot have a vote on whether Christianity is good or not for the above reason? What silly, simple, but yet clever casuistry.
W claims H cannot label what is good or evil because of this. Maybe, then, there should be some context given. Good to a non-believer may essentially imply what is in the best interest of the species for survival and possibly progression(?). I felt Hitchens covered his side on this succinctly enough, however, when he mentioned the innate solidarity part. But, when he mentioned his beliefs about people being both inherently good and evil, this clouded things.
Personally, I find that both sides are completely wrong in this debate. Is Christianity Good for the World? It is neither good nor bad, it just is.
Eric
Posted: May 29, 2007 1:07 PM
Hitch's failure to expand on "innate human solidarity" definitely hurts his case, but it doesn't make it impotent. I am a former Christian turned atheist and the loss of faith came when I realized that morality does not have to come from an authority, consisting of strange rituals and requiring faith. If life is the standard, doesn't rationality tell us what is the good and what is the evil. I don't need an ancient book to tell me that female genitalia mutilation is evil, and I reject the bible's claim male genitalia mutilation is good.
The rights of man can be rationally deduced when life is the standard. I find it strange that Hitchens doesn't connect the dots - so to speak - of this innate morality and rationality.
Swissclerk
Posted: May 29, 2007 11:26 AM
Ray, with all due respect brother, you commit the same error in logic as Mr. Hitchens. You basically say, as Wilson acknowledges, that atheists are capable of moral choices but you don't establish definitive criteria for judging which choices are right. You say that evolution has established a moral sense but the argument assumes a moral reference point (rather than establishing what the ruler is by which we measure) and assumes that this "moral sense" is not a trait given by the Creator...the author of all morality providing a moral map and compass by which to navigate. Your first assumption creates a "shifting sand" of morality, which is no morality at all. Your second assumption, given my assumption, creates a "wash" on the origins of morality. Neither proof is made. However, if moral law does exist, it would come from a moral law giver. If material is all that exists, there is no morality. I can't look at the atoms in my brain and say "good thing they are moral atoms".
Think4urSelf
Posted: May 29, 2007 11:13 AM
The nails are in the coffin. Hitchens has been utterly destroyed by Wilson. It's good to see presuppositional apologetics at work, and conquoring (and I'm not even a presuppositionalist!).
: )
Jacob
Posted: May 28, 2007 11:55 PM
Uri Brito---Your point is interesting to me about epistemology. Doug Wilson is playing an odd, but stupid (IMHAO) epistemology game. It goes something like this: With great pompousness, Wilson poses a clever-by-half epistemological puzzle, akin to "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Come on atheists! Answer me!! If you can't, it shows the weakness of atheism, because only God can answer a question like this. Answer---There would be sound because God would be around to hear it, of course. He's omnipotent! Once again, I've proved God's wisdom and wonder over atheism!" Oh, please, Douggie! Well---hey Doug, how many sheep did Noah feed the Brontosaurus on the Ark during the Flood? Hmmm? (Heh---we atheists got him on the epistemological run now!!... he says with his own pompousness...)
mryder66
Posted: May 28, 2007 9:55 PM
Where ever Christians get their morals from, it most certainly neither entirely originates from, nor is restricted to the bible. Certainly there is moralizing within the bible that is in accord with modern moral standards, but likewise there is a plethora of biblical based moralizing that enlightened society would find deplorable. Christians, if they do base their morals on the bible must employ a mechanism to sort the 'bad' moralizing from the 'good' that they find in their bible. This is Wilson's nemesis: claiming an absolutist, biblical set of morals, that simply do not exist in reality.
Uri Brito
Posted: May 28, 2007 9:53 PM
The interesting point in this whole discussion is that Hitchens is continually blinded by his presuppositions-much like Stein when he debated Bahnsen. These guys think Christianity play at the same level as they do by offering myriads classical arguments and historical data. If this were the case, this debate would be simply ridiculous-with evidence back and forth going nowhere. It's epistemology Mr. Hitchens! That's what matters! You cannot account even for this debate.
Jacob
Posted: May 28, 2007 6:05 PM
Jeremy---Similarly you likely believe the same Creator tells you what is up or down, warm or cool, yellow or red, or good or bad? Otherwise humans would be confused at the choices? I think you're at the heart of Doug Wilson's concept. I find his argument slippery, preposterous. Remember he's a guy that can't even accept 150 years of science that shows evolution is fact. That shows stubborn foolishness, not insight. But, I accept that good Christians worry about whether they can tell good from bad if there's not a Bible in the room. In the end, I think you're simply being arbitrary in an insolvable problem. You've decided to stop at the chicken in the Chicken And The Egg problem. I'll just thank you for your response.
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!
