Posted on 04/21/2010 11:32:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“In a materialist/mechanistic universe, there cannot be independently ethical thoughts/statements/acts...”
You are starting with a false premise, an assumption, one of many about atheists which are not true, or only true of some.
I do not believe in a God, but I do not believe in Darwinian evolution (or any other currently accepted version) and I do not hold a “materialist/mechanistic” view of existence.
Since your premise is wrong, so are your conclusions.
Hank
Not all atheists are relativists.
Relativism is a completely discredited philosophy. It requires only the simplest counter-examples to show how silly and internally inconsistent it is.
Most people believe in pluralism. Most people believe:
1) There is some absolute moral truth
2) This absolute moral truth may or may not have been promulgated by a universal lawgiver, such as God
3) None of us has worked out all of the details to the complete satisfaction of everyone else
4) Therefore we must try to go forward in areas where there is common agreement, and be reasonably civil toward one another with regard to those issues on which there is disagreement.
5) Certain beliefs are completely beyond the pale as they undermine pluralism itself, such as unjustified use of violence in forcing one's opinions on another.
There seem to be an increasing number of people on FR who expressly demand, or indirectly imply, the need for everyone to pass some sort of purity test.
We should take a page from the success story of the Tea Party and join with anyone, even goldurned atheists, who are willing to fight for free markets, smaller government, etc.
You know, reading those challenges as you excerpted them drives home for me that Hitchens doesn’t understand monotheism of the Middle Eastern kind, and probably doesn’t understand theism.
“Believer” or “nonbeliever” in what or whom? WHICH “religious faith”? These are not unimportant questions. And they are only part of the confusion which results from hurling language around without thinking. What does “could not have been uttered or done,” mean? Does “could” mean that it’s conceivable somehow or what?
And I’m not sure in any event what contention he thinks his challenge questions demonstrates or refutes? The invective is so much a part of the assertion that I can’t tease out a philosophical or theological proposition to affirm, deny, distinguish, amend, or even laugh at.
This is difficult to argue with but mostly because there’s not enough to get one’s teeth into. There’s no there there.
“In nature, genocide could be a very good thing ...”
Only a Christian could say that. It’s what is taught in his Bible:
But of the cities of these people, which the Lord they God doth give thee for an inheritance, though shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord they God hath commanded thee. [Deut. 20:16&17]
And the Lord said unto Joshua, fear not, neither be thou dismayed. Take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai ... And it came to pass, when Israel had ceased slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness in which they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. And so it was that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. For Joshua drew not his had back, with which he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. [Joshua 8:1,24-26]
And that day Joshu took Makkedah and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king he utterly destroy, them, and all the souls that were in it; he let none remain ... [Joshua 10:28]
So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the Negev, and of the Shephelah, and of the srings, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed as the Lord God of Israel commanded. [Joshua 10:40]
Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and sucking, ox and sheep, camel and ass. [I Samuel 15:3]
Hank
No, I do not believe that only a Christian could say that, since Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao practiced it. Theists and Atheists are both capable of doing horrible things. I would have no problem with genocide if God commanded it. If the Israelis had done what God commanded and actually practiced genocide, it would have been better for them. This is why a Christian lives by faith, for God’s ways are not our ways. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. If you believe that what God ordains is always best, you trust that God knows what he is doing.
The question that you should ask yourself is why do you believe that genocide is wrong?
Wacky Sam says: 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”
Sounds like Wacky Sam and Albert Pike, the grand poobah of Freemasonry, have a lot in common. In his “Morals and Dogma, Pike chides the religious convictions of “sectarians,” he especially singles out Christians when he says:
“We (Masons) do not tell the Hebrew that the Messiah whom he expects was born in Bethlehem nearly two thousand years ago.”
Neither do we Masons tell “the sincere Christian that Jesus of Nazareth was but a man like us, or His history but the unreal revival of an older legend.”
There you have it, with a mere brush of the back of his hand, Pike dismisses the fundamental Christian belief that the promised Messiah of the scriptures was Jesus of Nazareth. While at the same time sneaking in his own Masonic beliefs about Christ, i.e., Jesus of Nazareth was not God, he was a man like us, and that Christianity is actually but a continuation of the ancient Pagan mysteries – which ancient mysteries he promotes elsewhere throughout his book.
Makes me wonder, is Wacky Sam a Freemason? Does he think we Christians are terribly “sectarian” (as universalist Pike calls us) by believing that Jesus of Nazareth was not a pagan mystic, but was the promised Messiah born in Bethlehem, the Son of God?
Can you (the atheist) explain where existence came from? It didn't "come form" anywhere. There is no basis for the assumption it did. Existence always is.
Can you (the atheist) explain existence in relation to the law of entropy? There is no such relationship. Perhaps your thinking about energy in a limited system. Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence. Just for fun though. Does God exist? Then he is part of any existence you seem to have trouble understanding. If God does not exist, well then, what's the problem?
Can you (the atheist) explain the origin of the phenomenon known as cosmic background radiation? Well, no, because I'm not certain what is called cosmic background radiation is what current theory believes.
Can you (the atheist) prove there is no God? Why would I? I have no interest in discouraging those who believe in God from their belief.
If you (the atheist) cannot prove that there is no God, then is not the position that there is none, based upon faith? I've never tried to prove it, so I wouldn't know. Who knows, I might believe in God if anyone ever shows me evidence for a God, or the description of one is plausible to me.
How is the faith there is no God any different from any other faith? (lacking moral codes, holidays, rituals, obligations to one's fellowman, etc., excepted) I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask someone who has such faith. Everything I believe and know is based on reason which I fully understand. I will not believe anything else, and accept no contradictions.
If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why should not the "law of the jungle" be the governing moral code of humanity? That's your belief, not mine. You believe moral principles are arbitrary, dictated by someone. I believe moral principles are absolute and eternal, based on reality, the nature of existence and the nature of man. Reality cannot be defied, and never forgives wrong. God does forgive wrong. Morality is not absolute for the religious.
If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why do you object to others claiming there is one, since such a claim would not matter by your position? I've already said I have no such objection. I do not need the idea of a God to understand the world I live in, but I think a lot of people do, and since that belief is the source of their principles and values, I really do not want to see them loose their faith. I do not want to live in a world filled with people without values and principles.
I'd be interested in the answers your atheist friends have for these questions You got 'em.
I don't believe in your God, but certainly do not care that you do. Except when someone who does believe in God asks me, or uses that concept in some argument, I never give it a thought. I certainly do not "maintain" there is no God, I just have no reason to believe in one, but it only one of many things I do not believe in, and to me, of little or no significanc.
Hank
But the atheists want to insist that their destiny is also the destiny of all mankind.
“No, I do not believe that only a Christian could say that, since Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao practiced it. Theists and Atheists are both capable of doing horrible things. I would have no problem with genocide if God commanded it.”
You have proved my point, thank you very much! I wrote, “Only a Christian could say that,” and you have said it, “I would have no problem with genocide if God commanded it.”, but none of those you have mentioned would ever have admitted they would practice genocide, even though what they actually did resulted in genocide.
Now if “God’s ways” are the way of genocide, that is purely evil. I do not believe you really think this, but if your do you are the one that needs to ask yourself some questions.
“The question that you should ask yourself is why do you believe that genocide is wrong?”
I’m not usually very responsive to people whe presume to tell me what questions I ought to ask myself, but in this case I’ll answer, because there are principles involved that others might be interested in.
Such questions are meaningless to me, not even possible, anymore than why would I believe rape is wrong. I am a volitional being, as are all other human beings, which means everything I think and do, I must consciously choose to think and do. It means the only proper relationship between rational beings is as traders, offering what I have produced to others for what they have produced by their own effort. Reason is the only proper relationship between men. The use of force, in any form, cancels reason, and all that is right for rational volitional beings.
The idea of using force even against one other individual is revolting to me, as it would be to all fully rational beings. While I believe any amount of force may be used in defense against anyone who threatens force against another individual, there can never be a moral defense for using force against those who do not threaten force.
Since I could not even consider, nor want, to use force against anyone else, for any purpose, much less personal gain (which would be no gain), the idea of “genocide” does not even have meaning for me. Only a Christian, whose morals are not absolute, but arbitrary dictates, could ever say genocide is justified, just as your have.
Hank
I’m not an Atheist, but a Germanic Heathen. I’ll take your challenge anyways.
How does an atheist explain existence? We perceive stimuly through our (material) sensory organs, and process it in a physical brain through electro-chemical reactions.
We are that way because we have evolved to have those organs.
How did the universe come into being? At one point, a singularity happened, and physical laws started working. While we can’t measure the singularity because we ARE bound by the laws of physics, everything can smoothly happen through material means from there.
In relation to the law of entropy? Entropy always wins, OVERALL. It’s chaos. It does not increase all the time everywhere, it only need to grow overall.
While life runs counter to entropy, it produces entropy outside of it.
Cosmic Background radiation? Easy one. Ask anyone with undergrad physics. It appeared extremely early in the universe, radiation emitted while matter was being formed.
Can an atheist prove there is no God? Traditionally the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic.
Isn’t atheism based on faith? Weak atheism is consistent, simple lack of faith: I see a lack of evidence for the existence of God, so I don’t believe.
Strong atheism (There CAN’T be a God) IS based on faith.
How is lack of faith different from any other faith? Weak atheism is simple lack of any religious belief. Skepticism. Strong atheism is another animal altogether.
Why not the law of the jungle? We evolved as social and tribal animals. Tribes have their rules, that’s why we’re not complete chaos. Moreover, ethics can be grounded in logical principles.
Not to mention most atheists believe in the social contract theory.
Someone a lot smarter than Hitchens -Bertram Russell, Lord Russell, debated a Catholic philosopher of note,Fr. Copleston. and came out ahead on points while discussing metaphysics, IMHO. But while discussing ethics and morality, Russell could not
give a good reason for saying that Hitler’s extermination of the Jews.
Well, Christians think that ours is the only way, because we believe that Jesus told us so and because we believe he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. Our faith flows reasonably from these beliefs. So it is reasonable.
Maybe not now, but he did start out as a Trotskyist.
Quite recently (2005-6), Hitchens described himself as a Marxist and expressed admiration for Lenin and Trotsky, at least according to Wikipedia.
Even if you leave Stalin out of the picture, Lenin and Trotsky have a lot to answer for.
Well yea...when your Euro buddies made Religion into a political movement for their own personal power...it pretty much went down from there. It wasn’t supposed to be that way.
I was hoping that the "gauntlet" would be defined somewhere, and that it would make sense.
Without enering the labyrinth of phylosophy and metaphysics wich leads nowhere, since it can never be as conclusive as math or physics and further is a waste of time for people who actually have a life and must make a living, the only thing left is to respond to the absurdity of the challenge.
The briefest way to explain the absurdity is to simply rephrase the question thusly :
Name one horribly heinous mass murder or bloody crime that could not have been committed by an otherwise ordinary person.
The problem with hypotheticals is that it's impossible to separate the rational from the absurd. Anything is possible.
If there is a worthwhile challenge there, I fail to see it.
“If man is simply a naked ape, why would he even care about what is right or wrong?”
I have no idea what your question means unless you accept the absurd Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis, which I do not. Man is a volitional being which means that everything he does as a man he must consciously choose to do, and is responsible for those choices. Choosing wrong, will result in death at worst, or a life of misery, at best.
Hank
Christopher Hitchens does need someone to tell him what is right and wrong. For all his ranting about not needing a divine being to establish a morality, Hitchens has not provided a basis for any morality.
And he cannot. He cay say, “I say.” He can say “We say.” He can even say, “History says.” And all of those are changeable.
Bottom line is that not only does he need to be told what is right and wrong. He’ll also need updates. :>)
According to the Scriptures, nothing can exist without God, period. For it is in Him that we live, breath, and have our being (soul).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.