The Hitch:On Morality

ElCrapula

Christopher Hitchens on morality.
He does not buy the fact that someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith,and issued a challange.He states that he has not,as yet,recieved a satisfactory answer.Lets put it out there.He asks:

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

He followes this up by asking:

Can you think of a wicked action taken or a wicked statement made because of religion.He rightly adds,that no one has a difficulty doing so.

Can this thread enlighten Mr Hitchens?

PDN

My God, Hitchens really is an ass, isn't he?

Neither of those questions mean that someone cannot be a better person because of their faith. And I fail to see how anyone, other than more asses, could think that they do.

(PS In calling Hitchens an ass I am assuming that you have actually represented his argument accurately).

ElCrapula

PDN wrote: »

My God, Hitchens really is an ass, isn't he?

Neither of those questions mean that someone cannot be a better person because of their faith. And I fail to see how anyone, other than more asses, could think that they do.

(PS In calling Hitchens an ass I am assuming that you have actually represented his argument accurately).

That settles it then.Thread closed.

Dades

ElCrapula wrote: »

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

A non-believer can't baptise someone?

Personally I think the challenge is meaningless. Proving that non-believers can do any good works a believer can does not disprove the idea that faith makes people more ethical. That idea is still up for grabs.

ElCrapula

Dades wrote: »

A non-believer can't baptise someone?

Personally I think the challenge is meaningless. Proving that non-believers can do any good works a believer can does not disprove the idea that faith makes people more ethical. That idea is still up for grabs.

I imagine anyone who is not a christian would see baptism as unethical.

Faith makes people more ethical?What about a someone who kills in the name of their faith?

Call Me Jimmy

While I definitely don't agree with his second statement about wicked actions, I do agree with the idea that religion is not needed to provide us with an ethical compass. Correct me if I'm wrong but his argument was simply to oppose people who say "how would we know right from wrong without religion?".

ElCrapula

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

While I definitely don't agree with his second statement about wicked actions, I do agree with the idea that religion is not needed to provide us with an ethical compass. Correct me if I'm wrong but his argument was simply to oppose people who say "how would we know right from wrong without religion?".

How can you disagree with the second statement.People kill in the name of religion,people threaten others with damnation in the name of religion.The list goes on.

PDN

ElCrapula wrote: »

Faith makes people more ethical?What about a someone who kills in the name of their faith?

But that's not the point you claimed Hitchens was making.

A person who kills in the name of their faith simply proves that religion doesn't make everybody behave ethically. It doesn't address the issue of whether someone can be more ethical because of their faith.

ElCrapula

PDN wrote: »

But that's not the point you claimed Hitchens was making.

A person who kills in the name of their faith simply proves that religion doesn't make everybody behave ethically. It doesn't address the issue of whether someone can be more ethical because of their faith.

If I understand you.Youre saying that if two people were to do a good deed,one was a believer and one was not,that the believer is a better person because of his faith.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

A non-believer can't baptise someone?

Nope, I checked it a couple of weeks back -- the Vatican allows anybody to perform baptisms, even atheists.

And that's assuming that baptism is "an ethical statement made or an action", something that I wouldn't imagine most religious people would agree with.

Dades

ElCrapula wrote: »

I imagine anyone who is not a christian would see baptism as unethical.

Hardly. Pointless, maybe, but not unethical.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

While I definitely don't agree with his second statement about wicked actions, I do agree with the idea that religion is not needed to provide us with an ethical compass. Correct me if I'm wrong but his argument was simply to oppose people who say "how would we know right from wrong without religion?".

Well according to the OP Hitchins disagreed that "someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith". That's not the same thing at all. What he is really asking cannot be determined by a single question, but by endless internet debates and quoting of anecdotes.

hivizman

Hitchens' challenge may be read in context here.

He makes the rather shabby debating trick of setting up two statements that appear to be opposites but in fact are not. On the one hand: "name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer". On the other:"if you ask an audience to name a wicked statement or action directly attributable to religious faith, nobody has any difficulty in finding an example". If one reformulates the second statement so that it has the same structure as the first, it would be: "name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

It is trivially possible to construct various self-referential statements, for example: "God made me give my wealth to the needy", or "God made me smite the unbelievers", which could not self-consistently be uttered by anyone who did not believe in God, but perhaps Hitchens would deny that these are ethical/wicked statements.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Nope, I checked it a couple of weeks back -- the Vatican allows anybody to perform baptisms, even atheists.

How did it go for you?

Tim Robbins

ElCrapula wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens on morality.
He does not buy the fact that someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith,and issued a challange.He states that he has not,as yet,recieved a satisfactory answer.Lets put it out there.He asks:

Hitchens is an absolute loser. He's full of rhetoric and an embarrassment really.

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

Which is meaningless. An ethical action can be performed of a human irrespective of their beliefs. The only thing that differentiates is whether they do it or not.

Can you think of a wicked action taken or a wicked statement made because of religion.He rightly adds,that no one has a difficulty doing so.

Can this thread enlighten Mr Hitchens?

Again another stupid statement. Causality is one of the hardest things to argue in logic. That's why we have the scientific method.

Furthermore, wicked actions have been performed because of many things. Nationalism, technology, capitalism, socialism. You want to be 100% certain no-one will do anything bad to the next person, go and live on the moon.

It's just more sophistry. What I find embarassing is that these so called spokes people for atheism - Hitchens, Dawkins etc. are what the public's perception of what an atheist is.

It would be a better approach to compliement all the good from religion and then just explain why they don't believe it. Offending people has never been a good way of persuasion even if it is a good way of selling books.

ElCrapula

hivizman wrote: »

Hitchens' challenge may be read in context here.

He makes the rather shabby debating trick of setting up two statements that appear to be opposites but in fact are not. On the one hand: "name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer". On the other:"if you ask an audience to name a wicked statement or action directly attributable to religious faith, nobody has any difficulty in finding an example". If one reformulates the second statement so that it has the same structure as the first, it would be: "name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

It is trivially possible to construct various self-referential statements, for example: "God made me give my wealth to the needy", or "God made me smite the unbelievers", which could not self-consistently be uttered by anyone who did not believe in God, but perhaps Hitchens would deny that these are ethical/wicked statements.

Ok,lets take your alternate form of the statement,you write:"name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

Homosexuality is immoral,Contraception is immoral.I dont think many non-believers would fight a holy war,make themselves human sacrifices for a godly purpose.Again the list goes on

PDN

ElCrapula wrote: »

If I understand you.Youre saying that if two people were to do a good deed,one was a believer and one was not,that the believer is a better person because of his faith.

What? Where on earth did I say anything that could be interpreted as meaning that?

ElCrapula

PDN wrote: »

What? Where on earth did I say anything that could be interpreted as meaning that?

I misunderstood then,explain to me what you meant.

Fanny Cradock

ElCrapula wrote: »

Ok,lets take your alternate form of the statement,you write:"name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

Homosexuality is immoral,Contraception is immoral.I dont think many non-believers would fight a holy war,make themselves human sacrifices for a godly purpose.Again the list goes on

So only believers in the Divine are homophobes and all of us think that contraception is immoral?

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

only believers in the Divine are homophobes and all of us think that contraception is immoral

Selective quoting rocks!

hivizman

ElCrapula wrote: »

Ok,lets take your alternate form of the statement,you write:"name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

Homosexuality is immoral,Contraception is immoral.I dont think many non-believers would fight a holy war,make themselves human sacrifices for a godly purpose.Again the list goes on

My reformulation of Hitchens specifically asks for a statement that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer. Some non-believers in God believe that homosexuality is immoral and others that contraception is immoral. Some believers in God believe that homosexuality is moral and other believers in God believe that contraception is moral.

I agree, though, that a non-believer wouldn't fight a holy war - that's exactly the sort of self-referential statement that easily refutes Hitchens.

ElCrapula

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So only believers in the Divine are homophobes and all of us think that contraception is immoral?

probably not the only ones but,in general,barring some lunatics,are the only ones who teach it to their children and try to impose this belief on others.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

How did it go for you?

I felt most, er, relieved afterwards

ElCrapula

hivizman wrote: »

My reformulation of Hitchens specifically asks for a statement that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer. Some non-believers in God believe that homosexuality is immoral and others that contraception is immoral. Some believers in God believe that homosexuality is moral and other believers in God believe that contraception is moral.

I agree, though, that a non-believer wouldn't fight a holy war - that's exactly the sort of self-referential statement that easily refutes Hitchens.

Ok,mentioning holy war was a little unfair........I get back to dammnation.A non believer would not threaten another with eternal fire and brimstone and all that mullarkey because they were living in a manner that was different.

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

Selective quoting rocks!

Well, I'm under no obligation to respond to every point made. But to humour you, here are a couple of responses to the latter charges that I didn't respond to.

With regards to self-sacrifice - do you suppose, for instance, that every soldier who willingly lays down his life is a raging theist? The answer is no. People allow their own death for man reasons beyond religious beliefs. But suppose that it was the case that self sacrifice was a trait unique to the religious. What then? Because, in it purest form, self-sacrifice is surely one of the most noble deeds one can do.

As for so called 'Holy Wars', surely all wars have a root in the same selfish desires and fears? Sticking 'Holy' in front doesn't change the fact that wars are common to all mankind, not unique to the religious.


::Edit::

hivizman wrote: »

I agree, though, that a non-believer wouldn't fight a holy war - that's exactly the sort of self-referential statement that easily refutes Hitchens.

Just saw this now. Completely agree!

ElCrapula

ElCrapula wrote: »

probably not the only ones but,in general,barring some lunatics,are the only ones who teach it to their children and try to impose this belief on others.

Actually,I want to change my statement here.I do think that people of religious belief are the ONLY ones who deplore homosexuality.There is nothing inate within us to show an aversion to it and I would say that anyone who does,has this view founded in their religious beliefs,whether they still hold them or not,or the religious beliefs of those with whom they are close.

ElCrapula

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, I'm under no obligation to respond to every point made. But to humour you, hear are a couple of responses to the latter charges that I didn't respond to.

With regards to self-sacrifice - do you suppose, for instance, that every soldier who willingly lays down his life is a raging theist? The answer is no. People allow their own death for man reasons beyond religious beliefs. But suppose that it was the case that self sacrifice was a trait unique to the religious. What then? Because, in it purest form, self-sacrifice is surely one of the most noble deeds one can do.

As for so called 'Holy Wars', surely all wars have a root in the same selfish desires and fears? Sticking 'Holy' in front doesn't change the fact that wars are common to all mankind, not unique to the religious.


::Edit::



Just saw this now. Completely agree!

You didnt see my correction.I concede mentioning holy war is unfair.
I never said "any solider willing to lay down their life is a raging theist"
And I refer you also to my answer to dammnation,something a non believer would not inflict or threaten another with

Fanny Cradock

ElCrapula wrote: »

I concede mentioning holy war is unfair

It wasn't unfair, it was simply wrong.

ElCrapula wrote: »

I never said "any solider willing to lay down their life is a raging theist"

No, I did and I never stated otherwise. It was used as an example to dispel the notion that self-sacrifice is unique to religion.

ElCrapula wrote: »

And I refer you also to my answer to dammnation,something a non believer would not inflict or threaten another with

That it is a potential consequence is undeniable when talking about Christianity. But I fail to see why would a non-believer would 'inflict' on anyone a concept that they don't subscribe to. This is the same self-referential nonsense that Hivisman was talking about.

PDN

ElCrapula wrote: »

Actually,I want to change my statement here.I do think that people of religious belief are the ONLY ones who deplore homosexuality.There is nothing inate within us to show an aversion to it and I would say that anyone who does,has this view founded in their religious beliefs,whether they still hold them or not,or the religious beliefs of those with whom they are close.

Wrong. Atheist regimes such as those in China and North Korea are virulently homophobic.

I misunderstood then,explain to me what you meant.

What I meant is what I said, that Hitchens' argument as you present it makes little or no sense.

You say that he does not buy the fact that someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith - yet neither of the two questions address that issue. Just because an atheist can do anything I can do makes no difference at all to whether my faith can make me more ethical. The fact that some religious people do bad things because of their religion also makes no difference to whether my faith can make me more ethical.

Having said that, this train wreck of a thread has not been a complete waste of time. It's the first time I've seen Tim Robbins use the words 'sophistry' and 'rhetoric' in a post that was not directed at me.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Having said that, this train wreck of a thread has not been a complete waste of time. It's the first time I've seen Tim Robbins use the words 'sophistry' and 'rhetoric' in a post that was not directed at me.

All hail ElCrapula. The new PDN!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Wrong. Atheist regimes such as those in China and North Korea are virulently homophobic.

You've an absence in precision there PDN.

An "atheist regime" by definition is non - sensical. Because atheist is effectively a meaningless word - especially used in conjunction with the word "regime".

It's a bit like saying "regimes that don't believe in magic unicorns" are very evil or they are very good.

You're really referring to Totalitarian Regimes that were against Freedom of Expression.

But by making your logic and language imprecise, you're creating a different argument. Good sophistry technique and in fairness, it must be pointed out that Richard Dawkins and Hitchens do something similar and a huge amount of atheists fall for it.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You've an absence in precision there PDN.

An "atheist regime" by definition is non - sensical. Because atheist is effectively a meaningless word - especially used in conjunction with the word "regime".

It's a bit like saying "regimes that don't believe in magic unicorns" are very evil or they are very good.

You're really referring to Totalitarian Regimes that were against Freedom of Expression.

But by making your logic and language imprecise, you're creating a different argument. Good sophistry technique and in fairness, it must be pointed out that Richard Dawkins and Hitchens do something similar and a huge amount of atheists fall for it.

If you want to be precise about it then let me give the pedantic version:
"Regimes that are founded and governed by atheists, which teach atheism as a compulsory subject in schools, and which actively persecute those who are not atheists, such as North Korea and China"
Which, I think, does not create a different argument at all.

Your point about 'atheist' being meaningless is very interesting. I look foward to observing how, on the A&A Board, you will now correct everyone for talking about 'an atheist bus' when they might as well be discussing a bus that doesn't believe in magic unicorns. That is, of course, assuming that you were making a serious point and not just indulging in sophistry.