All Comments for: Staring into the Abyss | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > March

Christianity Today, March, 2009 |

UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM

Staring into the Abyss

Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous.

Dinesh D'Souza | posted 3/17/2009 09:55AM

I write this fresh from debating bioethicist Peter Singer on "Can we be moral without God?" at Singer's home campus, Princeton University. Singer is a mild-mannered fellow who speaks calmly and lucidly. ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 56 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

el Hatchet

Posted: March 31, 2009 7:01 AM

Do not forget, the static morality of christians does not account for situational exceptions, except in extreme instances. The words of singer are often bent to make atheists out to be evil as they do here, but do not forget the great many atrocities commited in the name of christianity. The crusades, the holocaust, the bashing and burning of homosexuals all over the united states. You may claim that they do not represent you, but you would fall victem to your own statement of singer. Hopefully you will consider facts before writing your next article. I suggest watching steven hawkings 'a brief history of the universe' so that you can better understand and debate science, instead of making baseless, false claims. Thank you for your time.

The Hatchet

Posted: March 30, 2009 6:40 PM

This article was almost well written, until it based the second 2/3 of it on the false premise that people are aimless without a god. For tens of thousands of years people managed just fine without a god. People have functions built into us so that we can peacefully live together. People keep people in check as far as morality goes. I am an Atheist, and I am moral not out of habit or tradition, but because I do not want to cause harm to others, and because I want to live a good life, which is impossible as a social outcast. Although, many christians I know have worked to slander my name because I am an atheist, and cast me out of society. I have won several awards and been granted high honors for being such a good person, with several hundred hours of community service under my belt. I do it because of human relationships, not because of a silly book. Either way, non-standard, humane, situational morality makes more sense than you. Do not hate what you do not understand.

Tom W

Posted: March 23, 2009 3:20 PM


I wonder if he knows the gospel.

Tesserian

Posted: March 23, 2009 7:53 AM


Genesis 9:9 is very instructive- the rainbow is the sign of a covenant not only with man, but with "...every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth...it is for every beast of the earth."

Atilla

Posted: March 21, 2009 10:13 PM


Dinesh, as always your writing is well thought out and referenced. This is excellent information in an apologetic battle, when the response is "new atheistic". The "it will never happen" (the decay of morals without God) - just did.

gus	Posted: March 21, 2009 2:44 PM


maybe Singer would approve of using all unwanted and unfit humans as animal chow. perhaps he should consider himself and his cohort as such. then again, i doubt few, if any, in the animal kingdom could stomach them.

Mark	Posted: March 21, 2009 11:54 AM

So continued faith in mythological foundations is the way to go? Self-delusion trumps truth every time humans come to a dead end in philosophical confusion (stare into the abyss indeed). Pray tell there must be a God or what would we believe in! The myths I was taught as a child are better than the myths you were taught as a child, but we must agree that myths are better than those silly ideas put forth by people who reject mythology altogether. A round and round we go...

Will	Posted: March 21, 2009 12:21 AM


First off I would like to say that I am not a christian, I do follow what Christ said and only what he said. Christ was a genius and most people can not fathom what he meant. ( In my Humble opinion) Now,there will always be people like singer and If he was on fire I would still piss on him. enough said.

J Balconi

Posted: March 20, 2009 9:21 PM

Melanie, Peter Singer is a study in hypocrisy. He opined that when the elderly become a financial burden, they should be put down; his mother lived in a expensive nursinghome. He opined that individuals should be able to live on a set amount ($40K?) and give the rest away, but he lives well on a professor's salary. When questioned, he claimed that as soon as other people adopted that lifestyle, he would follow suit. He opines about the quality of life of people with disabilities, but has repeatedly admitted his inability to predict anyone's potential. I suspect that his non-government model FEELS safer to an old man like him, just as it did to Jack Kevorkian. (Although Dr. Death favored "harvesting" organs from condemned and life-term prisoners.) If we must categorize people as "useful", tenured professors should be afraid. In a purely utilitarian model, "ethics" professors like Singer contribute less than street-cleaners.

John Burgess

Posted: March 20, 2009 3:01 PM

Peter Singer is a dangerous nutter! I am ashamed to admit that he is a fellow Australian but I am happy to disclaim him as one of ours! His ideas rate highly in the Mengele School of Social Formation & the Lunar Tichnic School of Simian Semantics! Why he is even given bread is beyond my understanding but the fact that some "higher institute of learning" does supply him with his daily bread is surely the greatest condemnation of the moral vacancy & ethical depravity of our current society.

Roberto

Posted: March 20, 2009 10:57 AM


Richard John Neuhaus has written for Christianity Today an article that articulate a Chrisitan response to Peter Singer, please see, A Voice in the Relativistic Wilderness The Pope crusaded for "moral truth." We should welcome his help. By Richard John Neuhaus \| posted 4/04/2005 12:00AM

Amy	Posted: March 19, 2009 3:07 PM

While I could not disagree with Peter Singer more, I don't think it is helpful or fair to call Peter Singer a wacko, or a money-grubber opportunist, or any other insulting epithets. Yes, from a Christian perspective, his ideas are abhorrent and evil. But the point is that his ideas are sanely logical and consistent with his atheistic worldview and consequential set of values. While emotional reactions against his ideas are understandable, they fail to address the important arguments he is making.

Jen	Posted: March 19, 2009 1:30 PM


I always wonder whether people who write atheist-bashing articles like this have ever read any modern atheist philosophy (besides Singer, of course). D'Souza seems to have found the anti-atheism weapon he was looking for in a few Nietzsche quotes, and not bothered to look any further.

John Hale

Posted: March 18, 2009 10:30 PM


Unfortunately Singer is not alone nor new. Years ago on a pre-web Fidonet newsgroup I argued with a couple of self-proclaimed Ayn Rand followers who also felt it was moral to kill a child post-birth. However, they outdid Singer by several years, and posited a child could be killed as non-human until age 11 or so, since that was the minimal age at which it could survive without an adult's help.

teb	Posted: March 18, 2009 9:31 PM


From what I have read, Singer is still inconsistent with his affirmations. He would not allow the same draconian process to be applied to his mother, is this correct? So he affirms one ethic and lives another.

Brad Cooper

Posted: March 18, 2009 5:59 PM

Nonsense....Singer is not an honest atheist. An honest atheist could not be in favor of animal rights. Evolution does not allow for animal rights. Evolution does not allow for any rights. Those that survive survive....and they survive only because they are fit (or lucky)--not because they have rights. How ridiculous--even repulsive--to lift Singer up by calling him refreshing. His message is nothing less than arrogant and rebellious.

flatroofer

Posted: March 18, 2009 4:05 PM


Well spoken Andrew. I quite agree with you..

Kozak

Posted: March 18, 2009 1:21 PM


Ayn Rand? Seriously? Yes, she felt that humans were special, but that doesn't mean that she valued all lives equally. Indeed, an ex-roommate of mine, a Rand devotee, insisted that he had a moral right to assassinate IRS agents, because they were violating his absolute private property right. Furthermore, there were all the "moochers" that, in her estimation, lived off the productive people.

Joe	Posted: March 18, 2009 11:55 AM


Thanks for reminding people of what Pete Singer advocates. Now it is time to compare his views with those of Planned Parenthood and its founder.

Keith

Posted: March 18, 2009 9:36 AM

I have met many like Peter Singer and most are just like you discribe him to be. They speak calmly and very lucidy. Many speak with much compasion and care not to be drawn into a conversation on why they believe this way unless in a group. They believe that "moral" is a natural act of being aware of your surrounding's, and able to respond in a purposeful and complex way to what is liked or disliked. This is his comments and why he framed it as a suggestion, and included that his colleague Helga Kuhse shared this veiw. They see Atheists as putting man in charge and Christians as using God as a smokescreen to avoid any responsibility. They do not see this as giving right's to animals but only to restore the natural order with them in the most humble role of caretaker. They are assamed of the role man has played and carry the guilt of all wrongs against creation. They hide out in the open playing on love we have for creation and worship it not the Creator. In their eyes we are a parasite.

MGH	Posted: March 18, 2009 9:33 AM


Please add the ability to link this to facebook! thanks

Larry

Posted: March 18, 2009 9:13 AM


Another one of these folks I'd like to see discussed in Christianity Today is Loyal D. Rue who teaches at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. He advocates a "nobel lie" to replace Chrstianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_Rue

JohnS

Posted: March 18, 2009 8:15 AM

I am not really sure that you can argue that acceptance of athiesm leads directly to Singer-type nihilism. Ayn Rand, after all, was very much an athiest but also very much dedicated to the proposition that humans are special. And I think Dawkins is taking the position that religious "mythology" while he does not accept as real does have lessons to teach, much like a divine version of Aesop's Fables. Much like religious beliefs can lead us to Ba'al and child sacrifice, or Jim Jones and mass murder, secular philosphy can lead to Humanism or nihilism as well. I don't buy into the argument that Dawkins or Hitchens leads directly to Singer.

Doug Knox

Posted: March 18, 2009 8:10 AM

Are we missing the obvious? D’Souza wrote, “He doesn't want state-sponsored killings....Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.” Does D'Sousa believe that government that has not hesitated to rescue the mortgage, auto manufacturing, and even newspaper industries, will stop at the death industry? Similarly, Howard Pepper’s blog suggested that Singer’s views won’t find the resonance that the article implied. To the contrary, look at history. In the 1970’s and 80’s, when Roe V. Wade was still young, early pro-life activists argued the humanness of the fetus while pro-abortionists counter-argued scientific ambiguity. Now the science regarding human fetal development is clear, but this science no longer matters. In a single generation the debate epicenter has shifted from the nature of the fetus to the right to choose, and that choice includes what was once unthinkable. The slope does not stop here.

SALLY FARRAR

Posted: March 18, 2009 7:10 AM


It isn't the "atheists" we should be concerned about: it's the Christians who are so deluded that they think abortion isn't even an issue for the Church and is well left up to the stupid (immoral) government.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment