Replies

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.

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

There are a number of philosophies that are neither materialist nor theistic. For example, there are some that believe in Platonic forms, others that believe that concepts are neither matter nor merely an extension of matter. There are still others that believe intuitively in the existence of moral laws which were not promulgated by a lawgiver such as God.

The only people who would be self-contradicting themselves by claiming a belief in morality would be nihilists.

I don't believe that Hitchens has ever declared himself a nihilist.

In addition to your question for the absolute source of ethics, here are some other questions for your atheist friends:

Can you (the atheist) explain existence?

Can you (the atheist) explain where existence came from?

Can you (the atheist) explain existence in relation to the law of entropy?

Can you (the atheist) explain the origin of the phenomenon known as cosmic background radiation?

Can you (the atheist) prove there is no God?

If you (the atheist) cannot prove that there is no God, then is not the position that there is none, based upon faith?

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)

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?

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'd be interested in the answers your atheist friends have for these questions…

“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

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.