The Hitch:On Morality

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Personally, I don't "wish to believe" that, but I'd certainly like the opportunity to find out if it a society without irrational beliefs is, on the whole, better than what we have now. Well-known and commonly-quoted research suggests that it almost certainly would be.

As for god, well, he's welcome to drop by if he'd like to.

A society without irrational beliefs would be an oxymoron. Societies are composed of people, and people are irrational.

A society without religion has, of course, been attempted on a number of occasions. well-known and commonly-quoted history would indicate that it wasn't better than what we have now.

And God still dropped by even though He wasn't welcome.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

A society without irrational beliefs would be an oxymoron. Societies are composed of people, and people are irrational.

A society without religion has, of course, been attempted on a number of occasions. well-known and commonly-quoted history would indicate that it wasn't better than what we have now.

You'd be better off looking at societies where atheism is high but religious belief is allowed and is present. For example, Sweden, Norway and / or the Netherlands.

You keep picking societies were atheism was forced on people by dictatorships for some strange reason as if there some sort of causal relationship. In fact a lot more than atheism was forced on those people which makes your point even more ridiculous. In those states, a leader had to be worshipped as if it was a deity. It's hardly free thinking or the critical thinking that one would associate with the greatest atheist minds such as Russell?

You're dumbing this debate down, right down.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You'd be better off looking at societies where atheism is high but religious belief is allowed and is present. For example, Sweden, Norway and / or the Netherlands.

And what of them?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You'd be better off looking at societies where atheism is high but religious belief is allowed and is present. For example, Sweden, Norway and / or the Netherlands.

You keep picking societies were atheism was forced on people by dictatorships for some strange reason as if there some sort of causal relationship. In fact a lot more than atheism was forced on those people which makes your point even more ridiculous. In those states, a leader had to be worshipped as if it was a deity. It's hardly free thinking or the critical thinking that one would associate with the greatest atheist minds such as Russell?

You're dumbing this debate down, right down.

I didn't actually specify any societies. You made that connection for yourself. Of course the reason why you did is that every society that has tried to exclude religion has also been a bit of a hell-hole (not that I'm asserting any direct link - I'm sure it's just one of those weird coincidences).

If people are going to claim that society would be better off without religion then you can hardly blame me for wondering whether history supports such an assertion. I would have thought that is having an informed discussion, not dumbing anything down.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I didn't actually specify any societies. You made that connection for yourself.

Post 28: "Atheist regimes such as those in China and North Korea are virulently homophobic.2
Post 35: "Whereas, in China and North Korea, people are persecuted specifically for disagreeing with the State's enthusiastic support of atheism."
Post 38: "I have a friend in China whose hands are twisted beyond repair because his fingers were repeatedly smashed by an interrogator."...

If people are going to claim that society would be better off without religion then you can hardly blame me for wondering whether history supports such an assertion. I would have thought that is having an informed discussion, not dumbing anything down.

You're straw manning:
Instead of examing "society without religion".
You're examing: "society that didn't allow religion".

robindch

PDN wrote: »

A society without irrational beliefs would be an oxymoron. Societies are composed of people, and people are irrational.

Wow, what a silly response! People get sick too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fight disease.

PDN wrote: »

A society without religion has, of course, been attempted on a number of occasions. well-known and commonly-quoted history would indicate that it wasn't better than what we have now.

On the contrary, as Tim has pointed out, free societies where religion is unimportant tend, on the whole, to be rather peaceful places. For reasons that are quite obvious and discussed at length previously.

PDN wrote: »

And God still dropped by even though He wasn't welcome.

I was hoping he might drop by at some point in the future, not at some point in the past. As I said, any one, or indeed any two or all three, of the trinity are more than welcome to pop by whenever they want to -- perhaps to find out how we've progressed since their last visit during the early period of the Roman Empire -- but for reasons which I would almost describe as being self-evident, they remain absent.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

If people are going to claim that society would be better off without religion then you can hardly blame me for wondering whether history supports such an assertion.

There is a world of difference between a society whose people reject religion, rather than one whose leaders impose a rejection of it.

It should have thought it to be clear by now that atheists here look to the former type of society, while you continue to hark back to the latter.

Call Me Jimmy

PDN wrote: »

I didn't actually specify any societies. You made that connection for yourself. Of course the reason why you did is that every society that has tried to exclude religion has also been a bit of a hell-hole (not that I'm asserting any direct link - I'm sure it's just one of those weird coincidences).

That's because it wasn't the exclusion of religion that made it a hell-hole, it would have been more to do with the overall exclusion of freedom. And he didn't make the connection all by himself, so far you have only mentioned/referred to regimes that have forced atheism/worshipping of a leader.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that the claim is more along the lines of: as a Christian, I have seen an improvement in my moral character over when I was not. This is not to say that any given Christian is automatically more 'moral' than an given atheist. It would be nonsense to argue such a thing.

OK fair enough - but I think you're playing with words here. Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than an atheist?

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

OK fair enough - but I think you're playing with words here. Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than an atheist?

You're still missing the point.

The question should be, "Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than they would if they were an atheist?"

Thousands of us can testify to that one from personal experience.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

You're still missing the point.

The question should be, "Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than they would if they were an atheist?"

Thousands of us can testify to that one from personal experience.

I'd say they may have better chance of doing a moral action, alright, as God gives morality an extra fuzzy feeling to it for many people.

However, true moral character means you do it because you really want to do it, selflessly, not because you are being motivated by your belief in a higher power.

When I give money to charity, or do volunteer work, I'm doing it because of my character alone, not because of my belief in another character.

So I would say I have a deeper, truer sense of morality than any christian who is motivated by their Christian faith alone.

PDN

The Robbinish Dictionary wrote:

However, true moral character means you do it because you really want to do it, selflessly, not because you are being motivated by your belief in a higher power.

Nice try , Tim, redefine a phrase such as 'moral character' so as to exclude religion - then argue that atheists are more moral.

Two can play at that game:
"True moral character means you do it to the glory of Jesus Christ, not to claim credit for yourself." (The Concise PDN Dictionary)

Any other posters want to reinvent the English language to conform to their own prejudices?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Nice try , Tim, redefine a phrase such as 'moral character' so as to exclude religion - then argue that atheists are more moral.

Two can play at that game:
"True moral character means you do it to the glory of Jesus Christ, not to claim credit for yourself." (The Concise PDN Dictionary)

Any other posters want to reinvent the English language to conform to their own prejudices?

Moral character is a subjective phrase. I gave my reasons for it.
I see it as the difference between intrinsic morals and extrinsic morals.
If you're only doing something because the Bible or God says so, that's an extrinsic reason.

I never mentioned ever "claiming credit" for a moral action, I am talking more about the source of morality. Is it internal or external.

And it's not the The Robbinish Dictionary, it's goes back 2,500 years of Philosophy as it was put forward by Socrates. I'm sure you think he was rubbish at logic too.

There's an excellent clip about morality, God and atheism here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rki0Fb995ag

Go into - 1.45 minutes in. Enjoy.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

You're still missing the point.

The question should be, "Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than they would if they were an atheist?"

Thousands of us can testify to that one from personal experience.

Thats a very strange way to debate - change my question to a different one & then answer it yourself.
My original question still stands if anyone wants to try answer it.

"Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than an atheist?"

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Thats a very strange way to debate - change my question to a different one & then answer it yourself.
My original question still stands if anyone wants to try answer it.

"Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than an atheist?"

It's not a strange way to debate if you understand that this debate is about Hitchens challenge as laid out in the OP. The whole point of Hitchens argument, according to the OP, is whether an individual believer's faith can make them more moral.

However, if you want to bring a totally different question to the table then you are free to do so on the understanding that it has nothing to do with Hitchens' challenge.

Your question is, "Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than an atheist?"

It's a fairly meaningless question since it depends which believer and which atheist you are talking about:
Can you prove that Martin Luther King had a better moral character than Joseph Stalin? (Obvious enough that he hasn't, I should think)

Can you prove that Osama bin Laden has a better moral character than Bill Gates? (Obvious enough that he hasn't, I should say)

Tim Robbins

Bduffman wrote: »

Thats a very strange way to debate - change my question to a different one & then answer it yourself.
My original question still stands if anyone wants to try answer it.

"Can you then prove that someone who is a believer has a better 'moral character' than an atheist?"

The problem is what you mean by "moral character".
If you are looking at it from a purely consequentialist viewpoint, well then yes, by believing in something that helps someone be more charitable, forgiving etc. then the answer is clearly yes.

If you are looking from motivational perspective i.e. did the moral action come from an internal or external source? Well then the answer is clearly No as the person needs external sources or metaphysical deeds to help them do a moral action.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Can you prove that Osama bin Laden has a better moral character than Bill Gates? (Obvious enough that he hasn't, I should say)

What about Bill Gates V Martin Lither King? :-)

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

It's not a strange way to debate if you understand that this debate is about Hitchens challenge as laid out in the OP. The whole point of Hitchens argument, according to the OP, is whether an individual believer's faith can make them more moral.

However, if you want to bring a totally different question to the table then you are free to do so on the understanding that it has nothing to do with Hitchens' challenge.

No, you have just decided that this is what the thread is about. The question in the OP as posed by Hitchens is:
"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."
So that, to me, is comparing the statement or action of a believer with the statement or action of an atheist. It was you who decided that it was about comparing the actions of the same person.
So, to a certain degree, the question I asked is meaningless in that it is impossible to answer due to the large number of variables involved. However, it is also impossible to answer your question as there are many variables there too.
eg, there are many different stages of life, some happy, others less so; some successful, other not. These variables probably have a greater effect on 'moral character' than anything else.
You say there are 'thousands of people' who say they have a better moral character than if they were an atheist. (Incidently, do you know all these people? Can you prove that?)
Maybe there are just as many atheists who can say they have a better moral character than if they were believers. But of course, you wouldn't accept their testament would you?