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.
Whether they believe in God or not is irrelevant to the truth of His existance, and to the necessity of His existence for the existence of morality & right and wrong.
In other words, no, you don’t have to believe in God to have a sense of morality, but God does have to exist for you to have one. The two arguments are independent.
Now, what are you gonna do about doing what you know is wrong and the knowledge of judgement against that object standard?
Ah, but Pascal’s wager is not about being an adamant atheist and then becoming a Christian to cover bets, so we aren’t talking about what Hitchens was talking about.
I’ll ask again: How is it that a person who is unsure whether there is a God or not is cowardly or intellectually inferior for betting in a way that prevents them from suffering the worst possible catastrophic failure?
If betting there’s a God is cowardly and/or dumb instead of a smart bet, then so is buying homeowner’s insurance.
So start with those, and as Mr. B recommended, look into the whole of the Word and its meaning as a whole document.
Even if there was no God, the Bible is required reading as a touchstone of Western Civilization.
Who made yours? God?
It’s obvious that you haven’t, or else did not understand what you did read, in context, or you wouldn’t be asking these questions.
Now, back to the question - why are your made up standards any “better” or more right than someone else’s that are in direct opposition to yours?
Yet, Hitchens continues to spew forth constant denials about the reality of and existence of his Creator.<<
A position with an expiring shelf life!
May God in his infinite Wisdom and Mercy give Chris a repentant heart and the eyes to see the true path to salvation!!
Quick read, also,
“Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis.
Good case for objective morality and our subsequent responsibility.
And Religion is?
Not true. Religions that don’t have a concept of God have the golden rule. Religions that came before Christianity.
Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
BTW, did you know Muslim extremists now kill more people each year than were killed in the entire Inquisition?
Christian countries in general and America in particular are the only countries where Jews have ever been able to live in peace, and Jews once again have a nation of their own because Christian nations made it happen. Take your bilge elsewhere.
Yes to all of them. Any problem with that?
Yes to all of them. Any problem with that?
Did you read and get my explanation that a “concept of God” is independent of his existence and independent of the necessity of His existence for such a “golden rule” to exist and be universal?
In the case of Christianity, it would be "Love makes right."
That proposition is: acceptable
I agree that the two arguments are independent. The first was the point of the thread though, and I think we are in agreement on that one. As for your question, what am I doing that I know is wrong?
This country could not have been founded without Christianity, and cannot be sustained without it. So what does a crotchety atheist like Hitchens do? He become a citizen of this backward country.
Don’t dismiss the rest of the argument -
Your belief in God is not necessary to have a sense of morality.
But that is INDEPENDENT of the real issue of whether God is necessary for there to BE morality.
There’s no avoiding that elephant in the room.
Your BELIEF in gravity is independent of whether you’ll break your leg if you jump off the roof.
Since you have turned the Wager on its head, I must not have made my post clear to you. Paschal’s wager is about faith in God. So here it is, from the cite you posted:
“Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingy has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.”
My point, again, is that a christian “hedging his/her bets” by expressing belief, prayer, partaking of communion, attending services, but so insecure in faith that they acknowledge to themselves (if no one else) that at least they haven’t wasted their time doing all those things, at least they had good lives/were upright law-abiding citizens (if they were) et cetera, and so on ...
Well, as far as religious faith goes that’s certainly a weak brew wouldn’t you say? I would say that it is not only cowardly but absurd: “I believe this, I truly do—but also, I don’t believe.” (I say this admitting I enjoy rolling the dice.)
However, you do raise an interesting logical corollary: for an atheist to say to himself and the world, “This is what I believe and I have no `fallback plan,’ or deathbed fear of hell confession to make.
Which position requires greater courage? What do you think of Hitchen’s statement that Paschal’s Wager is “religious hucksterism”?
what am I doing that I know is wrong?
OK, tell me that your conscience never accuses you... :)
Yes, I read it. I just didn't think it was relevant to the discussion at hand, which was about belief in God and the codification of God's laws being necessary for morality. From a non-believer's perspective, the golden rule does exist and is universal, they would just disagree on the "why" that is so. But if you believe I'm missing a subtlety I'll listen.
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.