An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

Washington Post ^ | 04/20/2010 | Christopher Hitchens

[SeekAndFind]

It's uncommonly generous of Michael Gerson[" What Atheists Can't Answer," op-ed, July 13] to refer to me as "intellectually courageous and unfailingly kind," since (a) this might be taken as proof that he hardly knows me and (b) it was he who was so kind when I once rang him to check a scurrilous peacenik rumor that he was a secret convert from Judaism to Christian fundamentalism.

However, it is his own supposedly kindly religion that prevents him from seeing how insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship, which could read and condemn my thoughts and which could also consign me to eternal worshipful bliss (a somewhat hellish idea) or to an actual hell.

Implicit in this ancient chestnut of an argument is the further -- and equally disagreeable -- self-satisfaction that simply assumes, whether or not religion is metaphysically "true," that at least it stands for morality. Those of us who disbelieve in the heavenly dictatorship also reject many of its immoral teachings, which have at different times included the slaughter of other "tribes," the enslavement of the survivors, the mutilation of the genitalia of children, the burning of witches, the condemnation of sexual "deviants" and the eating of certain foods, the opposition to innovations in science and medicine, the mad doctrine of predestination, the deranged accusation against all Jews of the crime of "deicide," the absurdity of "Limbo," the horror of suicide-bombing and jihad, and the ethically dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice.

[SeekAndFind]

As if you don’t already know, Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of the best seller : GOD IS NOT GREAT

[tractorman]

The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God”.

Hitchens = fool

[brytlea]

It’s hard to do much for Hitchens than pray for him. If I’m wrong, neither of us will know. If he’s wrong....I really don’t even like to think about what’s in store for him. I’m not one of those who relish the thought of Hell for non-believers.

[lastchance]

Christopher Hitchens is a bit of deranged when it comes to religion. I pay no more attention to his frothings than I do to my dog’s barking at squirrels.

[Tanniker Smith]

I’ll turn the other cheek and ignore him.

[SeekAndFind]

For Christopher Hitchens (who is presumably not here to defend himself or answer questions):

I must confess that I don’t understand the importance of his challenge. Having spent a lot of time talking with friends who are atheists, and some of them of the very strong variety, it seems to me that the question of atheists and ethics is not:

“Can an atheist be good (i.e. think ethical thoughts; make ethical statements; perform ethical actions)”

but rather:

“Is an atheist LOGICALLY and OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED in believing that they are thinking ethical thoughts, making ethical statments and performing ethical actions?”

The answer to that latter question seems to hinge on what you think ethics is. In a materialist/mechanistic universe, there cannot be independently ethical thoughts/statements/acts; there can only be the movements of atoms in particular regions of space that correlate to what we call human brains, and so on.

I don’t think atheists are justified in claiming for themselves ethical thoughts/statements/acts in such a universe.

Such ethics would be a nonsense.

I believe Douglas Wilson challenged Hitchens on this in a previous debate and I have not really seen Hitchens give a logical explanation as to why, given his worldview, ethics -— the one that tells us we OUGHT to do this and OUGHT NOT do that, is objectively binding.

[Sender]

In the end, when you get run over by a train, it really doesn’t help you if you didn’t believe in trains.

[tractorman]

Hitchens must think that his imagination is stronger than God's intelligence.

Like I said, he's a fool.

[Argus]

Hey Chris, try switching to decaf.

[Pessimist]

I read that book, and IIRC actually enjoyed it.

[SeekAndFind]

The problem of Evil Atheism

From antiquity to today, the evil in the world has always been a powerful mandate for evolutionary thinking. God would not have designed or created this evil world, so it must have originated by the blind play of natural law. For centuries this solution has fueled atheism, but from where did evil-ness come?

The evil in the world is obvious and upsetting. Atheists, no less than others and perhaps even more so, are exercised by creation's terrors. Earthquakes and tsunamis kill thousands, diseases terrorize, floods destroy and droughts starve. Then there is the seemingly unending narrative of predation in the biological world. Nature is red in tooth and claw, as Lord Tennyson put it.

Atheists often proclaim this problem of evil as a justification for their beliefs but ironically this evil is as much a problem for atheism as it is a motivation. The problem is that atheism fails to explain the existence of evil.

Atheists say that we are able to identify evil as evil because the knowledge of what is evil evolved in our brains. But if that is true then there is no such thing as objective evil. Instead, evil is subjective. We may generally agree that something is evil, but that is only because of similar molecular interactions in our brains that happened to evolve, not because that thing is itself evil. There is no immaterial, objective standard which defines evil-ness.

One might think that atheists could agree with all this, but it is not so simple. Atheists could dispose of objective evil, but then they lose their raison d' etre. God is no longer responsible for creating or allowing evil because there is no such thing as true, objective evil. It is all just in our heads.

In fact, atheists very much do believe there is an objective standard. And they very much hold God to that standard. As PZ Myers wrote:

"We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does."

This is religion and it is the driving issue. It is no different than what David Hume and thousands of other atheists have been saying for centuries. God wouldn't do it that way and so our only option is atheism. This is what animates atheists. They cannot then turn around and drop their weapon, as though they never used it.

[randog]

I don’t know why atheists and Christians are at such odds when they actually have a lot of common ground. Christians believe (and have faith) that their ultimate destination is the Kingdom of Heaven, and atheists believe that nothing exists for them after death. Both of their beliefs are true.

[2banana]

Who gets to define what is good, moral, charitable, evil, etc.? You? Me? MTV? A Saddam? A Stalin?

To ancient Aztecs - cutting out the still beating heart of a human sacrifices (including children) was the highest order of good.
To a large percent of Muslims - killing, raping and enslaving infidels is the highest order of good in Islam.
To Hindus - Attacking, ignoring, prejudicing against and letting die people in lower order castes is perfectly alright.
To certain Pacific Tribes - eating your enemy was the highest form of good.

And I could go on for pages...

The good works we (in the west) think are good works come from a Christian viewpoint: Matthew 22:37-40 -- Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

And Jesus also said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Luke 6:31; Luke 10:27 (affirming of Moses) and Matthew 7:12)

But by no means has this "philosophy" been accepted the world over as "good or moral." Not by a long shot.

What makes murder inherently wrong (to Christians) is not that it feels wrong, but that a transcendent Creator to whom we are answerable commands: "Thou shalt not murder." What makes kindness to others inherently right (to Christians) is not that human reason says so, but that God does: "Love thy neighbor as thyself; I am the Lord."

What is "good or evil" without God? Without any footing for moral actions - anything can be rationalized as good or evil. You can just make it up as you go along. Good actions can be whatever society thinks it is with the popular culture at the time. If that be in Nazi Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodia or North Korea - that means doing "good" is slaughtering millions of people and sending millions more into misery. But, by their own human standards at the time in history, they were all doing good.

You grew up and live in a country founded in Judeo-Christian values, so it may seem obvious to you what is "good." But that is due to the Judeo-Christian influences on you (even if you don't believe in God or have never been to Church). To others without that kind of influence, doing "good" can be radically different.

2banana

[SeekAndFind]

atheists believe that nothing exists for them after death. Both of their beliefs are true.

You mean nothing will exist for someone who goes to hell?

[MEGoody]

. . .the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship. . .

Of course an atheist can know 'right from wrong' as defined by him/her. The problem is, there is no objective 'right' or 'wrong' without some supernatural 'dictator' as he so 'orginally' refers to God. (Can't help but roll my eyes at that.)

Anyway, without a being who is greater than humans establishing right and wrong for all humanity, then there really is no right or wrong. No human is above another, so who are you, Hitchens, to even try to say you know right from wrong. You only know your own opinion of it.

[MEGoody]

Both of their beliefs are true.

So you believe. ;)

[x_plus_one]

Mr Hitchens is just one more man who is challenged by the nature of human existence. Hopefully, the anti-human, anti-life atheists will dry up and fly away. Carl Sagan and Madeleine Murray-Ohair are two who did.

[WackySam]

I get an equally good chuckle from listening to those who believe (like Hitchens) that there is no God as from those who think *their* Religion is “the only way” or “the true word of God”