Or Coke, er.... Pepsi.
Posted on 04/21/2010 11:32:25 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
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.
Chrisopher Hitchen’s challenge to believers:
1) Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.
2) Second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?
Chrisopher Hitchen’s challenge to believers:
1) Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.
2) Second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?
RE: Platonic Forms
Aristotle thought that Plato’s theory of forms with its two separate realms failed to explain what it was meant to explain. That is, it failed to explain how there could be permanence and order in this world and how we could have objective knowledge of this world.
By separating the realm of forms so radically from the material realm, Plato made it impossible to explain how the realm of forms made objectivity and permanence possible in the material realm.
The objectivity and permanence of the realm of forms does not help to explain the material world because the connection between the two worlds is so hard to understand.
One of the chief proponents of virtue ethics is Linda Zagzebski. She is a Christian, but not all virtue ethicists are. She is also very easy on the eyes:
Atheism is sort of a pre-hell
Mr. Hitchens is so clear on the idea that people are capable of great evil and he is justifiably appalled. Perhaps that means he is half way to faith.
I read once that a cynic is a heart-broken idealist. I think maybe somewhere under there is a guy who deeply wants there to be a God who cares, and hope, and a divine purpose, or he wouldn’t be so bitter about not having found Him.
If he were truly a godless unbeliever, he wouldn’t even care about this subject. He’d be doing something else entirely.
Regardless, there are still people that believe in Platonic forms (or something like them.) There are also people who believe in Aristotle's essences (or something like them) without also believing in God.
I was just trying to point out that there are plenty of people of reasonably good will who are not religious.
These are people who we can hope to work with to support free markets and representative democracy relatively free of corruption and bureacratic bloat.
Hitchens then goes on to list every excess ever committed in the name of religion, including a few canards. Well and good.
NOW, is Hitchen, as an atheist, ready and willing to assume personal responsibility for all the crimes against humanity committed in the name of atheistic philosophies, mainly Communism? There is enough inhumanity of man toward man to condemn us all, whether we worship one God, many gods, Nature, or nothing at all.
I suppose Hitchens would fairly bristle at the suggestion that he is implicated in the Bolshevik purges and mass starvations, Pol Pot's murderous rampage, or the excesses of the French Revolution. But he doesn't mind dishing out disdain for all religious belief on precisely the same reasoning. But can one call such childish ravings 'reasoning'? I don't.
It looks like he doesn’t believe in soap,either....
Jumping through hoops to prove that Something does not exist. What a waste of energy.
The argument about the Moral Law is not that only Theists have the Moral Law, but that everyone has the Moral Law. The Scriptures make it plain that the law in written into everyone’s heart. An Atheist has a sense of right and wrong, moral and immoral, and good and evil precisely because God has written his law into their hearts. An Atheist can be as moral or immoral as a Theist. This is the reason that attacking Atheists as being less moral than a Theist is counterproductive and just not true. The questions for the Atheist is where does this sense of right and wrong originate, and why care about ethical issues? According to Darwinian evolutionary beliefs, morality does exist in nature. Morality and free choice are only illusions. We are controlled by our genes for the purpose of reproduction or survival of the species. This view does not explain why human beings do things which are contrary to our survival. For instance, why would an Atheist care about genocide? In nature, genocide could be a very good thing in which it opened up areas for growth and with less competition. Maybe it would be good thing to wipe out South America? We would have more resources and more opportunities for growth. Without a belief in God, there is nothing intrinsically good or bad. All morality is relative based upon individual or cultural beliefs. If a culture believed that the Jews were subhuman, such as we see with the Nazis, extermination of the Jews would be a moral act. Without God, there are no moral absolutes.
All theists are not alike. Christians should not be blamed for the excesses of Muslim fundamentalists.
Similarly, all atheists are not of one mind. I doubt that Hitchens is a fan of Stalinist or Maoist communism.
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.