Skip to comments.The Atheist As Moralist
Posted on 10/15/2010 11:28:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Christopher Hitchens -- bald from cancer treatments, speaking between doctor's appointments -- has a special disdain for deathbed religious conversions. Appearing before a group of journalists organized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life, he criticized the pressures put on Tom Paine to embrace Christianity and the malicious rumors of faith that followed Charles Darwin's demise. "I've already thought about this a great deal, thanks all the same," he explained. The idea "that you may be terrified" is no reason to "abandon the principles of a lifetime."
At this event -- a joint appearance with his brother Peter, a Christian -- Hitchens applied those principles with typical vigor. His arguments on the political dangers of religion are strong. In Turkey or Russia, he notes, "'faith-based' is not a preface to something positive." In Iraq or Iran, a "secular" ruler would be cause for celebration. The alliance of faith and power is often unholy.
But Christopher Hitchens is weaker on the personal and ethical challenge presented by atheism: Of course we can be good without God, but why the hell bother? If there are no moral lines except the ones we draw ourselves, why not draw and redraw them in places most favorable to our interests? Hitchens parries these concerns instead of answering them: Since all moral rules have exceptions and complications, he said, all moral choices are relative. Peter Hitchens responded, effectively, that any journey becomes difficult when a compass points differently at different times.
The best answer that Christopher Hitchens can offer to this ethical objection is himself. He is a sort of living refutation -- an atheist who is also a moralist. His politics are defined by a hatred of bullies, whether Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein or the mullahs in Iran. His affections are reserved for underdogs, from the Kurds to Salman Rushdie. The dreams of totalitarians are his nightmares -- what W.H. Auden described as: "A million eyes, a million boots in line / Without expression, waiting for a sign." Even Hitchens' opposition to God seems less of a theological argument than a revolt against celestial tyranny.
All this fire and bleeding passion would seem to require a moral law, even a holy law. But Hitchens produces outrage, empathy and solidarity without it.
At close range, the pitiless controversialist is actually kind to people he could easily humiliate -- a category to which most of us belong. The ferocious critic of Christianity accepts and seeks the company of Christians. Friendship is a particular talent. One review of his memoir, "Hitch-22," described it as "among the loveliest paeans to the dearness of one's friends ... I've ever read."
In earlier times, without derision or irony, this would have been called "humanism," a delight in all things human -- in wit and wine and good company and conversation and fine writing and debate of large issues. Hitchens' joy and juice put many believers of my acquaintance to shame -- people for whom religion has become a bloodless substitute for life. "The glory of God," said St. Irenaeus, "is man fully alive." Hitchens would hate the quote, but he proves the claim.
Hitchens' career, character and illness have led to an unexpected development -- unexpected, one suspects, particularly to him. While he remains unmellowed, he has seen a flood of affection. His disdain for Christianity, his animus for Islam, can still offend. But we admire the vivid, irreplaceable whole.
Hitchens has now been given his most astounding assignment, a visit to what he calls in a Vanity Fair article "the sick country." His account is raw, honest and impressive. He reports "a gnawing sense of waste" and the loss of "chest hair that was once the toast to two continents."
"To the dumb question 'Why me?' the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?" He is, in some ways, a particularly reliable, clear-eyed witness -- unclouded by sentiment, free from comforting illusions, even illusions I view as truths. It is like watching a man assault Everest with only a can opener and a Q-tip. There is honor in the attempt. And the longer the assignment continues, the better for all of us.
At the Pew Forum, Christopher was asked a mischievous question: What positive lesson have you learned from Christianity? He replied, with great earnestness: the transience and ephemeral nature of power and all things human. But some things may last longer than he imagines, including examples of courage, loyalty and moral conviction.
Hey, Chris...wait until you're REALLY terrified and see if you feel the same way?
Hitchens (and any atheist) has no grounds to object to "bullies" or any other "evil" since all morality and ethics must be something we create and re-create at will.
Every atheist moralist (and that seems to include all atheists, at least at this time) is a contradiction in terms.
Why would someone convinced beyond any real doubt that there is no God, so convinced in fact that he is part of an effort to brand religious belief as an unmitigated evil and remove it from the human sphere the way we removed smallpox, be afraid of death at all, much less during the course of a painful an ugly disease?
Why would someone convinced beyond any real doubt that there is no God, so convinced in fact that he is part of an effort to brand religious belief as an unmitigated evil and remove it from the human sphere the way we removed smallpox, be afraid of death at all, much less during the course of a painful and ugly disease?
Of course we can be good without God, but why the hell bother? If there are no moral lines except the ones we draw ourselves, why not draw and redraw them in places most favorable to our interests? Hitchens parries these concerns instead of answering them: Since all moral rules have exceptions and complications, he said, all moral choices are relative.
Or Like this atheist said...
Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.
Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.
I believe in one thing only, the power of human will.
It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Death solves all problems
And who was this wise atheist who drew up his own moral compass? The man inthe picture below of course...
The fool hath said in his heart,There is no God.Psalm 14
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.Proverbs 26:11.
When all philosophies shall fail, This word alone shall fit; That a sage feels too small for life, And a fool too large for it. -Chesterton, G(ilbert) K(eith) Ballad of the White Horse, bk.8.
If he does not wish to come to faith because of the "coercion" of terminal illness, he should come to faith because of God's love for him, as exemplified by God's people reaching out to him in his time of deepest illness.
Can we say “to hell with him” then?
Atheists continually hijack the principles of the Christian worldview — of life and reality — in order to live and function daily. If I punched one of these loudmouths in the face, the objection would come back...”that’s not nice..” Based on WHAT?
Yet, Hitchens continues to spew forth constant denials about the reality of and existence of his Creator.
To be consistent,
a “moralist” who rejects the idea of objective morality and objective right and wrong
cannot object to anything “evil” or “wrong” in the world as those concepts are defined by the individual and are nothing more than an opinion.
No one lives that way, though. They will be afronted when someone “wrongs” them, or will be upset about some evil or suffering in the world.
I have always figured that if you totally believe in God and you are wrong, you haven’t lost anything. If you don’t believe in God and you are wrong........you best cover your butt because all hell is going to break lose.
There is a major difference between God and religious organizations. Religious organizations and people are human and subject human error, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
I’m an atheist and I am probably of higher moral character than most believers. It does not take a god to instill a good sense of right and wrong.
Those people who think that it takes a belief in god to achieve a higher moral state are a little annoying.
Love him, hate him, or pity him, this is a guy who’s dying with class.
`Man cannot make a worm but he can create gods.’
Who makes the rules that govern morality in your little world? Do you pull them out of your tachat or do they exist in some sublime Platonic sphere of Ideals?
At least you have the "humility" part down!
Again, the Coke on the keyboard...
Why are your morals valid, or more valid than someone else’s that would be in opposition to yours?
Just think about this. If Hitchens lives in an Islamic society and was spouting off this garbage about no allah, just about how long do you think he would live?
Seriously think about that. If that doesn’t prove the existence of God, I don’t know what will. But then again, hate and evil is a powerful thing, and some choos eto turn a blind eye to TRUTH.
By what standard?
I love the metaphor here. LOL.
And you figured that out all by yourself. I stand in awe of your achievement. (Such as it is)
Just wondering, are you a hedge fund manager?
Numerous verses within THE standard say:
“Every man’s ways are right in his own eyes”
The simple truth is that most self-described atheists these days could never function in a society in which true atheism ruled the day. This is what makes a lot of what Hitchens claims to believe rather hypocritical.
As Dennis Prager (a Jew himself) once pointed out (I'm paraphrasing here):
"If I were walking down a dark street in a dangerous neighborhood and came across a group of young men of unknown character, I would take great comfort in learning that they were Christians on their way home from a Bible study group meeting. And any Jew, atheist or other non-Christian who tells you otherwise is lying."
How do we choose which biblical laws to follow?
If you “choose” which part of the bible to follow and which part to ignore, then you are putting yourself in an authority position above the Word written therein,
and you might as well not bother with the bible at all at that point, because YOU are the authority, self defined, above that authority of the standard therein written.
Now, if this is an OT vs NT objection, the OT is interpreted in light of the NT. Case closed.
Hmmm...Where in the moral standard you’ve constructed for yourself does mocking your fellows without provocation fall?
And can you dispute his contention...which admittedly, Pacal first put forward? If so, let’s hear it. If not, why is he stupid for putting his money on a safe bet and you’re smart for rolling the dice on the ultimate catastrophic failure?
Can you help me understand what you mean by the OT as interpreted in light of the NT?
Don’t listen to that poor guy with his ostrich head in the sand and his butt in the air. You’re at least as smart as Blaise Pascal, and to say he was known for brains would be an understatement:
Most objections by the (no slam intended) biblically ignorant is that the old testament has proscriptions on food, and advocates stoning of recalcitrant children, etc.
Jesus represents the new covenant, the fullfillment of the Law given in the Old Testament, and his teachings, where they “override” the OT, are what you follow.
He said, multiple times, “it is written... but I tell you...”
We don’t. The Bible as a whole makes it clear how one is to live.
Besides, have you not read where Jesus says there are only two commandments? Do you think following two commandments requires a lot of picking and choosing among rules?
Those “two commandments” were in answer to the Jewish leaders trying to trip Him up.
He essentially said, in response to “what is the greatest commandment”, “the first four, followed closely by the last six”.
Known in the real world as `covering your a**.’
So is it only necessary to follow the law as given by Jesus? Are all of the OT laws nullified by the NT? And if not, is there a reference somewhere that codifies which OT laws are still relevant?
I know it sounds like I’m baiting you, but I ask in sincerity.
Absolutley true...just saying, if one is worried about “how to choose which parts of the Bible to follow,” they can start with that verse and be most of the way there.
See my post to Oztrich and answer it, if you please. The first part about mocking is not something I’d ask you to answer, since you weren’t doing that.
If you’re asking with all sincerity,
it will be necessary that you do some research on your own,
as this is too big of a topic to cover on a discussion board.
My paraphrasing would be a POOR substitute for the Word:
17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
The Law stands as The Law. Its intent is to point out the standard to which no man can actually reach, and the necessity of acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice as the atonement for that shortfall.
Read the Gospels first. Then you can read the OT and say to yourself - yes, here is the standard of The Law, and Christ paid for my trangressions thereof.
define "right" and "wrong". Apart from God these words have no meaning as your "right" could very well be my "wrong".
Atheism, if the atheists were being honest, always comes down to "might makes right"
I’m curious as to why those two commandments exist in every religion, except those without a concept of God, which have only the second.
“Atheists continually hijack the principles of the Christian worldview of life and reality in order to live and function daily. If I punched one of these loudmouths in the face, the objection would come back...thats not nice.. Based on WHAT?”
—I don’t think one needs to “hijack” Christianity or any other worldview in order to realize that it’s not pleasant to be punched in the face.
The golden rule. Do unto others.
Listen to what the subject of this thread has to say on the topic, provided above, and reply to that, if you would.
To say that you believe in something adamantly but just in case you’re wrong you have a `Plan B,’ doesn’t that seem a little craven to you?
Apart from God these words have no meaning as your “right” could very well be my “wrong”.
I actually had someone yesterday who would rather say that he couldn’t judge between Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler
than he would admit to the existance of absolute standards.
Rejection of absolute standards is easily shown to be either a falsehood or an absurdity.