NYT recap: Hitchens versus Sharpton on the existence of God; Update: Hitch versus Douglas Wilson at Christianity Today
posted at 6:17 pm on May 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
With Ayaan Hirsi Ali at ringside! And I wasn’t there. Alas.
I’ve been beating you guys over the head with the religion posts lately so I won’t belabor this one. Sharpton’s argument is interesting, though: he claims Hitchens has plenty to say about religion and its holy texts but nothing much at all to say about God, whom Sharpton says he knows by experience, not logic. A Christian friend of mine says the same thing. There’s no disputing a subjective feeling, so the debate effectively “ends” there — although Reverend Al does stick with it long enough to impugn Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. I guess Mitt’s subjective experience is disputable. Fancy that.
Sharpton does recommend Hitchens’s book, though, as do I, especially the surprisingly weak chapter in which he tries to rebut the counterargument about godless communism’s enormous death toll. He resorts to arguing that Stalinist Russia, like North Korea and other totalitarian systems, functioned as a religion — which, conveniently, means it’s really that old primitive God-bothering instinct that’s to blame, not atheism. But in that case, Sharpton’s right: Hitchens’s problem really isn’t with God, it’s with idol worship generally and the privileged place it’s had as a social and institutional organizing principle. I guess that explains his famous iconoclasm, right down to the references in the book to Orwell as “my hero, if I had any heroes” or something to that effect. What’s odd is that he essentially reduces belief to a problem of evolution, not logic — as he puts it, it’s a product of our frontal lobe being too small and our adrenal glands being too big. But if that’s true, then even if he was able to convince people God doesn’t exist, wouldn’t the idol worship come back in some other form thanks to that poorly designed lobe and glands? In the end, I’m not sure what, precisely, he’s objecting to.
Still, the man gives good dialogue, so do read the Times piece and this interview in New York magazine from last month. Exit question: Does Karl Rove really consider it unfortunate that he’s not a person of faith, or is that a “we can’t afford to lose South Carolina” sentiment?
Update: I hate to break it to you guys but Rudy says he’s run his abortion stance by the man upstairs and, well, he seems to be okay with it.
Update: I meant to link this, then forgot, and now I’ve been reminded by reader Al S. Hitchens is a doing a Slate-ish public correspondence with Douglas Wilson, author of “Letter from a Christian Citizen,” all this month at Christianity Today. I haven’t read the first exchange yet but I’m looking forward to it.
Update (Ian): Video:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Fossil record. Google it.
Blacklake on May 8, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Missing Link=leap of faith.
Spassvogel on May 8, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Cambrian Explosion: Google it.
CrimsonFisted on May 8, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Didn’t mean to be snarky. Actually, good debates surround this topic. I wouldn’t pick Hitchens or Sharpton though, for this discussion. I have the utmost respect for Mr Hitchens, even if I disagree with him, and enjoy reading him and listening to him.
CrimsonFisted on May 8, 2007 at 6:35 PM
You can snark. These threads are designed for the rough and tumble.
Allahpundit on May 8, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I never thought I’d say this about any stance ever taken by Al Sharpton, but that’s almost refreshing. As I’ve rambled on about quite a bit in these threads, there’s simply no means to provide physical evidence supporting the existence of a non-physical entity–as soon as a thing leaves evidence, it’s physical by definition. So if one is going to profress belief in a non-physical entity, a stance like Sharpton’s is the only one that’s viable.
Blacklake on May 8, 2007 at 6:38 PM
You’re spot on on your analysis of Hitchens, Allah, and that’s the point I’ve tried to make with fundie atheists, this railing against religion as the underlying source of all societies ills is stupid as hell, because people will simply find a substitute for God, its a natural need for order of some sort and will manifest itself in most people whether we like it or not, and Hitchens oughta recognize that given his like of Orwell.
Of course the South Park guys said the same thing ages ago…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go
/Allied Atheist Alliance FTW!
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Rudy takes a jab at the experientialists.
I disagree with him, but well played.
Slublog on May 8, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Eh, these thigns just go round n round. For the non-believer no proof is sufficent, for the believer no proof is required.
Iblis on May 8, 2007 at 6:42 PM
FOSSIL RECORD
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 6:43 PM
I never knew Sharpton actually had a brain.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Of course, I don’t really like when religious fundies beat atheists about the head either. I think I dislike obnoxious fundies more’n anything.
STFU Nonfactor, its only funny when SeeDub does it. :)
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Do any of the modern atheists of note, Dawkins, Hitchens et al., ever refute the existence of God philosophically? Meaning, have any of them ever attempted to refute some of historical philosophical proofs and arguments that already exist from Aristotle, Hagel, Aquinas etc?
Is that essentially their point of contention — that believing in God requires a leap of faith that isn’t grounded in science or reason? You don’t have to make a leap of faith to believe that God exists. Philosophers have offered arguments based in reason and logic that are convincing because they are rational not because they are faith based or based on subjective feelings.
elle_k on May 8, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I love it when atheists try and blame all war on religion as if only religious people do such things. As if the recent atheistic communist societies hadn’t had a few genocides to their names.
Go try being a christian in a non-state run church (where what is preached can be controlled) in China and tell me how that works out for you.
Benaiah on May 8, 2007 at 6:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot
And these “philosophical proofs” aren’t so much proofs as they are assumptions. Aquinas assumes God exists and then lays out a philosophical argument for Divine Law. Aristotle assumes a higher power (I don’t think he specifically mentions the gods) and philosophical argues why people should pursue that higher power. Et cetera.
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Psalm 14:1 NIV
The fool [a] says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
.
[a] Psalm 14:1 The Hebrew words rendered fool in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.
abinitioadinfinitum on May 8, 2007 at 7:00 PM
And by Hagel did you mean Hegel?
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Audio of the debate is now available from the NYPL. Long period of dead air at the top, but the introductions start around the fourth minute, debate at about 9:30. The whole thing is an hour and nearly fifty-three minutes long.
bokonon42 on May 8, 2007 at 7:02 PM
They have offered “proofs” but nothing to the extent that people go “gee, there has to be a God.” God cannot be proven rationally, logically, or physically in any objective measure because by his definition he is beyond us. Not to say finding proofs are a futile exercise, they just don’t work well to establish faith as much as to show that we have a strong philosophical premise.
Only God can prove the existence of God, and he only does it on the individual level.
Keljeck on May 8, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Yeah right, Mr. Hitch.
EVERYTHING wrong in the whole wide world..
can be traced back to the nasty religious stuff.
NEXT UP:
And for the first time in history,
fire melted the fossil record.
(Okay, so I like mixed metaphors.)
CyberCipher on May 8, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Hitchens vs. Sharpton.
It’s like watching two venomous snakes trying to bite each other, and you really can’t root seriously for either one.
Lawrence on May 8, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Agreed. He is one of the few pundits who has it right on terrorism and not only isn’t afraid to say so, but won’t back down.
Glynn on May 8, 2007 at 7:26 PM
I’m curious to understand what the difference is between atheism and religion… seriously… Hitch seems to think communism counts a religion, but plain old atheism doesn’t. Why exactly? What separates atheism from religion? Faith? Nope. Fanaticism? Double nope. Prosecution of heretics? If only. A purist “I have the TRVTH” attitude? Obviously not.
Is there a meaningful difference besides “one system has gods”?
Lehosh on May 8, 2007 at 7:29 PM
We’ve come quite a ways since Aquinas. The metaphysical argument is the start of everything. After that, all you’re doing is reinforcing your starting point. It’s all done through logic.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 7:35 PM
I agree with this idea that people will spontaneously organize into believing in a philosophy. History is full of this happening. I find the main benefit of Christianity to humans historically is that it is a largely peaceful and altrustic philosophy which blocked and countered other detrimental philosophies and allowed scientific inquiry under its watch.
However this explanation for Christianity does nothing to prove its tenets are true. Looked at from the point of view of being just one of many philosophies that humans self-organize into casts a lot of doubt.
What I find interesting about atheists who get on a big soapbox is that even if I call myself an agnostic or atheist…I don’t see that much value in convincing Christians they are wrong since that will only upset thier worldview and they might do things like turn into Jihadis or Hippies or Communists.
Resolute on May 8, 2007 at 7:37 PM
So if you convince me, a Christian, that I am wrong, then I would be an atheist. Are you saying that I would THEN turn into a Jihadi, Hippie or Communist? :)
jman on May 8, 2007 at 7:43 PM
There are many organizing philosophies, true, but the moral philosophy of the atheist has to be relativism, doesn’t it?
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM
I think the most important aspect of this argument is to make sure that we don’t talk down at one another…as a Christian, it makes me cringe when my fellow Christians pronounce that ALL atheists are moral relativists, and when atheists assert that one can only believe in Christianity in ignorance of facts and science. Plenty of intelligent individuals have come to rest on both sides of the fence, and I think we need to respect that.
For me, I enjoy stretching the ole gray matter every now and then, either by reading evolution debates, existance of God debates, etc., or visiting good apologetics sites like ChristianityToday.com or CARM.net.
My point being, it’s a big tent guys.
Viewtifulgare on May 8, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Gobble gobble googley gook. What?
My world view has been changed, with a deeper understanding of history, politics, and a host of other things. My faith has not. Convince Christians that they are wrong? Good luck with that. It has been tried for two thousand years. There is nothing new under the son. No new argument, no new evidence, nothing. But He has always remained.
CrimsonFisted on May 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
What are they? I believe they act according to their consciences, as Scripture says they do. I’m not saying they don’t have morals. But philosophically, don’t they have to be relativists?
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 7:54 PM
No, as has been pointed out in other threads repeatedly. As a sole example, Objectivism is a thoroughly atheistic philosophy with a moral code that is anything but relativistic. Whether you agree with Objectivism or not (I generally don’t), its mere existence refutes the proposition that atheism necessarily entails moral relativism. Definitively.
Blacklake on May 8, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I don’t see how that follows. Atheists can and do recognize universal moral truths. Just like Christians, et al.
kmcguire on May 8, 2007 at 7:59 PM
I have a theory that god doesn’t listen intently to the prayers of the eastern side of the planet. Not just the atheists, imaging the headache. 6 Billion, owwwww….
tormod on May 8, 2007 at 7:59 PM
What I find most perplexing about the atheist position is that the search for ultimate truth is focused on a purely material explanation of the world, which with no irony is then argued in the realm of ideas– a place not of substance and measurement, but of phantoms and dreams.
Where is the scale upon which I can weigh the logic of an argument? Or the surface potential microscope that can observe the breathtaking beauty of a formula? Even if these are phenomena inexorably emerging from the structure of objective, quantifiable reality– they still are quasi-hallucinatory ephemera which exist on a level different than that of the mere physical. And so then, how is pure reason any less superstitious and outrageous than a supernatural God? Is not thought itself the very substance of angels?
Even numbers, those logical bulwarks of the rational mind, trail off into absurdity at the ends, dissolving into the twin mysteries of the infinitely large and the infinitely small. Why does the circumference of a circle generate a neverending quagmire when divided by its diameter? Why is an incorporeal God so hard to swallow, when ordinary, sensible things make up such a small subset of our existence, which is daily filled with patriotism and love and longing and anguish and pride and sorrow and joy?
Focusing on the improbability of the Big Mystery, atheism misses the innumerable little mysteries which are taken credulously at face value. It is a bigger leap from a bag of amino-acid rich waters to Christopher Hitchens, than it is from Christopher Hitchens to God.
I suspect that the true proof that God exists is the very fact that the question can be posited at all.
a4g on May 8, 2007 at 8:00 PM
A long way since Aquinas? How so? Because so far as I can tell religious people still assume that their god exists and then attempt to go about proving why said god exists (with so-called holy documents).
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Here’s what I found on an objectivist website:
How are they different from an ethical standpoint?
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Kind of like how some atheist assume god does not exist and attempt to prove that what this non-existent god teaches in the Bible is not true? Round and round we go.
jman on May 8, 2007 at 8:11 PM
From wikipedia, “Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the foundation of individuals’ moral acts.”
Ayn Rand simply had her moral core, but if you don’t agree with “To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem,” then Objectivism is not for you.
So Objectivism does not refute moral relativism, it is simply one example of it.
pedestrian on May 8, 2007 at 8:12 PM
The Bible says they do also. That wasn’t my point. I was asking what the organizing system of philosophy for an atheist is. So far we have objectivism and relativism.
No. We can do it other ways also. The problem we run into is that the evidence demanded is not what the atheist will accept.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 8:14 PM
At the core, they look the same. Maybe I’m misunderstanding it. If the objectivist does what ever is moral is whatever makes them happy, what’s the difference between that and relativism? Then your morals are just relative to whatever makes you happy.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Philosophically, yes, I agree. But I don’t think that pronouncing it and declaring oneself the morally superior being is going to turn many atheists to Christ. My feelings are that every one of us are in this together, like everyone in the world is terminally sick, but that believers are the ones who go to the hospital.
I talked at length with my former roommate who was an atheist, and he told me several times that he liked what I represented and he respected that and even thought about it from time to time, but what kept sticking in his mind were the kids he went to high school with that told him, not after the words had just left his mouth that he was an atheist, that he was “GOING TO HELL!”
Jesus didn’t bring others to him by pronouncing their guilt and scaring them with threats of eternal damnation, but connected with them on the personal level, one on one, and demonstrated God’s love for them.
Viewtifulgare on May 8, 2007 at 8:19 PM
BTW, I realize that “logic-wars” are most times dead ends in discussing these things. Most conversions, one way or the other, occur because of events in people’s lives, not arguments on threads.
Viewtifulgare on May 8, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Allah, I know that’s what Rudy said. I don’t doubt he prayed looking for an answer. But, could you next time not link to an “Evangelicals for Mitt” site? Not exactly Wikipedia, oh, wait not better.
amerpundit on May 8, 2007 at 8:23 PM
We’re not morally superior. That’s not the Christian position.
Actually, he talked about Hell more than anything else. I’m not quite sure how he connected one on one, considering he was preaching to large crowds that followed him. After the sermon on the mount, many ‘no longer followed him.’ Only the disciples were left.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Point taken. I was just saying that that is the tone that comes across a lot more than we intend.
Also understood, but what I meant were the stories of him healing crowds of people and cripples, lepers, the woman at the well, etc… I know his message was radical to even his closest friends, but the way he interacted with them was what changed their hearts to be more receptive.
To pull out an old cliche,
People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care
Viewtifulgare on May 8, 2007 at 8:33 PM
You are correct on both accounts. It is specifically because of our moral deficiency that we need Christ in the first place.
jman on May 8, 2007 at 8:34 PM
So if you convince me, a Christian, that I am wrong, then I would be an atheist. Are you saying that I would THEN turn into a Jihadi, Hippie or Communist? :)
jman on May 8, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Good one :) But I don’t think it works that way. I see it like a game of roulette. There are plenty of different philosophies on the table. Often people are born onto thier number and dont even examine it. Other times the mob comes in and rigs the table so you have to bet on a certain thing. When people are convinced thier number is a bad one often they just change it. Getting them to realize the game is not productive to thier life and they should leave the table is much harder. Many can not even fathom the idea of leaving the table and assume all who advocate this really have a secret number they dont want share. (all Atheists are communist posters for example)
Oh jees, I’m sure somebody is going to be offended by that analogy.
Resolute on May 8, 2007 at 8:37 PM
BTW, I think may have come across wrong; what I mean is that when Paul evangelized to the gentiles, he pointed out what they had in common and built on that like the ’statue to an unknown god’. He used that as a launching point to start a discussion. In the same way, I think it would be better if we emphasis what every conservative on this site has in common; ie, respect for life, respect for the rule of law, respect for even those we disagree with strongly, love of freedom…just a thought.
Viewtifulgare on May 8, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Not offended at all! Actually, pretty good. The exception I would take is that one might take from this analogy that you equate gambling and religion as equally corrosive to one’s personal character.
What if the supposed table is actually ‘being alive’? Then, I think the analogy works.
Viewtifulgare on May 8, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Sharpton is a clear example of God’s grace. He’s not on my list of “must meets” when we all get to heaven.
Mojave Mark on May 8, 2007 at 8:44 PM
A long time ago, I read somewhere that people believe in ideas regardless of logic, or rational argument, or even the evidence of their senses, but simply because they have decided to: belief is a conscious decision.
After years as an atheist, I became an agnostic. After years as an agnostic, I became a Christian.
Why? It feels good. That’s why.
ahem on May 8, 2007 at 8:49 PM
I read the article. I have at least two observations about Hitchens:
My conclusion? Hitchens is threatened by religion. If he is acting solely based upon his unreasoned fears, then very little good will come out of his efforts. This observation of mine is simple pattern recognition — based on human history.
At his very best, the man is dealing in half-truths. Suppose he is correct. What did he leave out? He left out the evil that people would commit if no one believed in a higher power, and if no one believed that they would ever be held accountable for their actions. We can only speculate about this. I can only speak for myself. If I had not believed in God all my life, I would have no doubt been one of the most notorious criminals in all of recorded human history. I have enough physical size, enough smarts/education/understanding of technology, and enough of a bad atitude, that I could have done some major damage. As it is, even WITH my faith in God, some people STILL think that I am one bad-*ss dude.
Setting the content of article aside, I wonder if anyone reading it has considered this: Hosting a debate on the existence of God and/or debating religion as the cause for all the worlds ills doesn’t seem like a very productive use of time for either the atheists/agnostics OR for people that hold religious convictions. As others have pointed out, if religion ceased to exist tomorrow, and there were no longer ANY believers in God anywhere in the world, the world’s ills would almost certainly still be with us, including murder, theft, rape, fraud (list as many as you like). Of course, the people that love these debates NOW want to launch a debate on whether the crime rate or the incidence of warfare would go up or down after we all became atheists — but that’s not my point.
My point is, if Hitchens has some good/ingenious/pragamatic/productive/workable/economical ideas on how to combat terrorism or other evils in world (technical ideas or political ideas), then I want to hear those ideas — and in meantime, if he wants to vilify and blame religion for all the worlds ills, that’s his right and his business. He is free to do so.
Me? I spend much of my time (every work-day anyhow) working with and around a whole lotta’ engineers that are trying to figure out new and better ways to rain death (from the skies) down upon the enemies of the United States. Many of us enjoy and admire each other’s work.
But if ALL Hitchens has to offer is his whining and b*tching and p*ssing and moaning about how bad and evil religion is, then I say that he is about as worthless as t*ts on a boar hog — and I wish that he’d quit using up MY oxygen supply.
So somebody enlighten me. (AllahPundit?) Exactly where is this guy coming from anyway?
CyberCipher on May 8, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Viewtiful: You’re quite correct. In fact, the idea of evangelism has never been reflexively defending one’s religion. If you’re a Christian you should remember that God is not Mocked.
One should, I think, be careful with one’s words – as it is said one should rather have a millstone tied around one’s neck and be thrown in the ocean than to cause these little ones to sin.
Coming to understand religion is difficult for someone sophisticated, as it is foolishness to them. But that presents a paradox, because there are certainly sophisticated people who are religious.
Paradoxes then, are par for course in this territory. The problem perhaps is dealing with the language of initiation. To wit, the simple things that must be understood before the complex may be apprehended.
It is similar to how you must understand vectors before you can understand mostly all of physics. Vectors are, actually, very simple.
But like all things it must be experienced; Sharpton is right about that much. However, religion is not entirely subjective because it deals with ultimate truth and reality. To put it in a poetic way:
Religion is subjective insofar as it relates to the ultimate Object and objective insofar as it relates to the ultimate Subject.
The object of true religion is to save souls; and the subject of true religion is truth itself.
If that isn’t crisp enough, I’ll put it on ice.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 8:54 PM
The burden of proof is not upon the atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot
Ethical egoism is an ethical point of view. Acting in your self-interest is good and not acting in your self-interest is bad–see?
Give me some evidence that shows that the Christian God exists. Give me some evidence that proves The Bible to be ultimately true. The thing is you can’t. It’s an assumption. Religious philosophers haven’t come a long way since Aquinas, they’re just rehashing the same old argument.
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 8:55 PM
I thought that was the point of religion?
If it is true, then it applies to any where, any time.
Ethical egoism is not ethics at all; because selfishness is at best neutral, that is, desiring survival, but at worst detrimental, acting against others for its own good. Of course, without a transcendent source of truth we would have trouble defining ‘good’ and ‘bad’ except perhaps on the level of ‘painful’ or ‘pleasing’. Which means that what we have is not reasonable or even rational but animal.
This is not to call you unethical, I’m sure as a citizen you are an ethical person. This is however to point out that Ethical Egoism works only within the framework of knowledge transcending the material. This makes it functional but ultimately, perhaps, parasitic.
But as long as you are ethical I have no quarrel with you.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Isn’t that also called ’selfishness’?
Well, I sent you a link last time. You obviously didn’t find that it met your standard of evidence. What, exactly, is your standard?
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 9:05 PM
We have come a long way from Aquinas. A long way downhill.
Aquinas is both civil in his discourse and had a knowledge of Aristotle and the Church Fathers that was enviable. Today we assume Aquinas’s proofs are false because Immanuel Kant says they are; we do not bother to try to reason these things out for ourselves.
Aquinas was at least honest; he poses the law of cause and effect and reasons that there is a start to the whole chain, ultimately greater than the whole. He does this in the thirteenth century, without the benefit of any hard science. The first proof, of the uncaused cause, is certainly not hostile to science or reason, as much as we, who have never bothered to study him, would like to think as we dismiss him out of hand, having been taught by an academy that believed as an article of its corrupt faith that “no one over thirty could be trusted.”
Switch places with Aquinas and I’m confident that while he could function in our world, we’d have a very hard time functioning in his.
The Colossus on May 8, 2007 at 9:15 PM
I was responding to: “We’ve come quite a ways since Aquinas. The metaphysical argument is the start of everything. After that, all you’re doing is reinforcing your starting point. It’s all done through logic.”
It is a philosophy that defines what is good and what is bad. That is not moral relativism, buddy.
I’m not an ethical egoist, I was simply informing people that ethical egoists are not moral relativists.
Not really, but close. Ethical egoists believe people should act in their own self-interest because it is a good thing to do (normative). Psychological egoists believe that all people are self-interested (descriptive).
Firstly, I don’t remember any link. I might have read it. My “standard of evidence” is very strict when it comes to proving a religion, but it is very simply–proof. If your religion is true provide outside proof (i.e. The Bible or the Qur’an won’t work in proving Christianity or Islam). If you don’t know what proof is I can’t help you.
If you follow the Russell’s teapot link you’ll see that most religions are set up simply so people cannot find evidence for or against it.
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Honest question: Can anyone explain to me how the “foundation of morality” argument is supposed to go? Religious people often claim that if you don’t believe in God, then you don’t have a foundation for an objective moral code. The implication is, of course, that believing in God gives you this foundation. How does that work, exactly?
Just saying, “God/the Bible tells you what’s good and what’s evil” doesn’t seem to answer the question. Why should God’s claim have any normative force? Why isn’t this just like saying “My dad/the goverment/my amygdala tells me what’s good”? The question then becomes, “Yeah, but what reason do you have to behave in accord with their dictates?”
I take it the religious response to this is either “Because I love God” or “Because if I behave the way God wants me to I’ll go to heaven and if I don’t I’ll burn in hell.” The first answer doesn’t get you very far in establishing objective morality. Ok, you love God, so you obey him. That makes sense. But if your obedience is predicated on a subjective connection to God, then it doesn’t get you very far in establishing a universally normative ethical system. I don’t really love God. I love my dad. So I’m going to do what he says is good.
The second response (”heaven”/”hell”) grounds obedience to the moral code on a personal prudential desire to attain eternal bliss and avoid eternal pain. So the position collapses into ethical egoism. My ultimate reason for behaving the way God tells me is that it will benefit me in the end. Ethical egoism is a coherent moral position, but it’s one that atheists can adopt just as easily, so there’s really no advantage to the believer here.
I’m not trying to be snarky or anything. I’m seriously interested in whether there’s a deeper argument I’m missing. As far as I can see, the religious person is on no firmer ground than the atheist when it comes to grounding objective morality.
Jazzman on May 8, 2007 at 9:22 PM
As for Russell’s teapot, it can be dismissed out of hand. No one has experienced Russell’s teapot. Experiences of God have been recorded in every known human civilization, from Buddha receiving total consciousness while meditating under a tree, to St. Paul being knocked from his horse by a lightning bolt.
Religion is a language for discussing the experience of encountering God. Does God exist? Of course he does, unless you assume all mankind’s civilizations are lying to you, and that human testimony on the subject is worthless.
If you have not experienced God, then I feel sorry for you. I would tell you he is there, you need only approach him to see.
The Colossus on May 8, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Wel I think each number has a diffent cost to bet on it. You can get away with ‘gambling’ on Catholic and really lose an hour a week. A for example Wahabbi is ‘gambling’ almost thier whole life away betting for the big payoff in the end. From this point of view, despite that the atheist leaves the table, I find he has a lot more in common with the Catholic then the Catholic does with the Wahabbi. The Catholic is still spending 23 hours a day away from the table and out there in the world with the Atheist. Hence my statement of not rocking the boat, so to speak.
Resolute on May 8, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Uh, I provided objective evidence for it. It’s not a cosmic teapot argument at all. If you don’t want to go to links, it just reinforces my point.
Yes, but where does the should come from? I thought the good came from doing what is in your self interests, not the other way around.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 9:30 PM
That’s not the Christian position, well at least not the calvinist one.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 9:32 PM
If we’re going by the standard “Believe what most civilizations have believed” then we’re going to end up committed to a rather profligate ontology. The argument could be made for spirits, witches, absolute space/time, the divine right of kings… The list could go on ad absurdum.
It is, of course, a very interesting anthropological/ psychological question why so many human societies have originated a god concept, and there is a lot of interesting work on attempted naturalistic explanations on the phenomenon. Dan Dennett’s ‘Breaking the Spell’ is a fascinating survey and it is not at all condescending to believers, unlike the other big D.
In any case, even if the “most civilizations have believed in it” argument goes through, it provides pretty thin gruel for the believer, considering that these civilizations have had wildly differing accounts of the nature of God(s).
Jazzman on May 8, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Not most.
All.
The Colossus on May 8, 2007 at 9:42 PM
The problem I have with naturalist explanations for belief is that by the time the tortured explanation has run its course, I can only think wistfully of William of Ockham.
a4g on May 8, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Oh happy day! Crazy Al Sharpton will be taking the lead on the bash Mitts! faith issue. That plants it firmly in the moonbat lefts bag of tricks.
csdeven on May 8, 2007 at 9:46 PM
But, to your point, they may differ in many things, but I am struck on the many points where they agree. Some are better descriptions than others; some experience God as many versus one; certainly all agree that God can appear in a variety of disguises or forms — even Jehovah, be it a burning bush, a pillar of smoke/fire, or incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. Multiplicity of forms should not surprise us, it is the similarity of creeds that I find interesting.
I am not prepared to rule out witches and spirits; again the testimony from civilization is, if not universal, than near enough so that I’d argue at some level, they do indeed exist. At any rate, take that argument up with a Wiccan :-)
I would also argue that The Scientific Method is, for many, a form of deity.
The Colossus on May 8, 2007 at 9:50 PM
This is not really accurate. Many East Asian spiritual systems are non-theistic. For instance, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism and Taoism. Now it is true that some of them have developed polytheistic offshoots, but in their historic form, these “religions” had no commitment to a Creator.
Jazzman on May 8, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Fair enough. I can’t call you on inconsistency.
Jazzman on May 8, 2007 at 9:56 PM
There is nothing new under the son.
CrimsonFisted on May 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Pun intended?
baldilocks on May 8, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Easy one. It is obvious that not everyone is of the same intelligence. While what is important to morality and ethics is believing or knowing the truth, that is, transcendent truth which comes from above (which is actually just redundant) it is clear that not everyone has the same affinity for discerning it. There is a concept called the ‘Tao’, which is that whomever is of a particular state of mind can discern the truth straight from the creation itself. In fact many believers come into contact with this in different forms such as beauty which is subjective in the sense that it may be discerned or missed based on us (subject) but is objective in that it truly exists whether or not we notice it.
The idea that believing in God is a requirement for morality is an argument of necessity; it states that the Bible or another text clearly lays out ethical ideas that have been found to be faithful; and without these most men will not come to the truth but to whatever they wish, which in many cases is immoral. Christ says, “the way of life is narrow, and few find it.”
If you do believe there is a transcendent truth that unites, though you may not grasp its fullness, you implicitly believe in God who says of himself, “I am the truth, the light, and the way.”
—
I understand your point about ethical egoism; but it still relies on concepts that it by itself cannot produce, that is, the ‘goods’ which cannot be directly discerned through doing what feels best for ones self. It can be equipped with ideas letting it know what is ‘best’, but would an ethical egoist work all his life and die diseased just so his children would have a leg up? And what if that was ‘best’ for the future or something else? Ethical egoism works in limited contexts only, I would venture to say.
Also, it is an excellent model for, for instance, market economies. But it is too limited to apply to all of human behavior or adapt as a whole life philosophy.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 9:59 PM
I respectfully disagree. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Just as you are responsible for doing the same. We must each live with the consequences of what we believe.
People can not just declare that they are right and that the other side needs to provide the burden of proof. It does nothing to strengthen their own position. That goes for both sides of the debate.
jman on May 8, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Beware of this concept, because it is of the law and thus kills. A fundament of Christian thought is to die to self which means selfishness as a primary motivator.
Hell is the final word on God’s justice, in that he does not kid when he condemns, and heaven is a the final word on his Mercy. If we’re talking Christianity, we may find that Heaven does not look like ‘paradise’ in the sense of sensuous pleasures nor can a person in hell gamble, have sex, eat, or anything like that either. They are not only ‘places’ but ’states of mind’, ’spiritual planes’, ‘eternities’, and ‘ontological realities’. In other words, an explanation of them simply as ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’ only deals with the surface, and thus misses the entire point of their existence. The idea strictly of ‘Heaven’ as ‘milk and honey paradise’ and ‘Hell’ as ‘pain and punishment’ are not of Christian origin, but seem to stem from man’s desire to see justice done even beyond the grave.
Besides, if you aren’t of the mindset of one reborn, you would not like heaven much — Worshiping God all day? Sounds like a drag…
Of course, hell has no light, though it be the lake of fire and brimstone… tell me that is a purely literal description…
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 10:07 PM
PS- ethical egoism says people should act based on what is best for them, whether it be because it benefits them directly or because it is overall best but cannot actually objectively define good. Good is what is best for the most, but what is best?
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I’m just glad He had a commitment to them. :-)
Buddhism is, perhaps, a first form of atheism. But I do not claim enough knowledge of it to speak with much confidence. Certainly it seems like a religion; I doubt Christoper Hitchens would admire a Tibetan monastery much more than he would a Cistercian one. In which case it is a religion without a God.
Like Hitchens’s schoolboy Marxism. But nobler, infinitely more polite, and far more sober.
I would suggest that Buddhism does have concepts of the divine, the holy, and purification, even though it believes that it all spins down to nothing in the end. For me, that is close enough to a religion for me to claim it as one; I would suggest the absence of atheists claiming it vigorously as a branch of science would allow me to advance my claim without much need for a court of probate.
The Colossus on May 8, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Buddhism is interesting because it really is more of a comprehensive philosophy than it is a religion. It reminds me a lot of Stoicism but is quite a bit more sophisticated.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 10:27 PM
I think this might help the Christians on this site regarding the so-called moral relativism of Atheism. Just a bit of table turning, or pot stirring…
Anyway, Christianity is not a giant umbrella with a one size-fits-all dogmatic approach. That’s why you have a whole pile of different sects with an equal number of moral outlooks. You want polygamy? I can find you that. You want married preists, I can find you that. You want a church that treats a woman as property of her husband or father? I can find you that as well. Do you like gay people? Boy howdy, I bet there’s a church for that. It’s probably on the West Coast.
Sounds to me like I have found some moral relativism in this Christianity. No, can’t play that “not a true Christian” card. The morals contained within the Bible are intentionally designed to be ambiguous. I can make it say whatever I want, for whatever purpose.
I’ll leave it to the Christians to hash out whose interpretation of vague moral standards is correct. I’m just going to operate like I normally do: enlightened self interest.
Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 10:34 PM
That’s not what burden of proof is. If I tell you there is a God I don’t get to say “prove me wrong,” I need to prove my statement correct. If I say stars eventually explode I need to prove myself correct and not tell others to prove me wrong. Doing so is a logical fallacy.
Nonfactor on May 8, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Again, I wasn’t accusing atheists of anything. I was just trying to understand. You are a relativist, correct?
What do you mean? Like the 10 commandments? The summary of the Law is “love the Lord with all your heart…and love your neighbor as yourself.” And “love does no harm to a neighbor.”
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 10:41 PM
The New Testament, which is the Christian’s guide book, is not ambiguous. People just refuse to accept it’s dogma and choose to act in a contrary manner because it is easier for them.
Rose on May 8, 2007 at 10:44 PM
The New Testament is clear on each of the issues mentioned in Krydor’s post.
Rose on May 8, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Well folks, thanks for starting with a little humor before we decended into the earnest, endless war!
The Ritz on May 8, 2007 at 10:54 PM
I would say the law is the letter that kills. It is very clear about what not to do and what will befall those who decide to go against it. But the law of necessity is not what Christianity is about, the law of necessity is containable within ethics.
The only thing that is ambiguous is the minds of people; that is, you are free to ‘narrate’ any ‘text’ in a way that suits you; though if you do so falsely you are contending with the law, the letter that kills.
The reason for the force of the law is existence itself; the punishments and rewards are on a certain level simply woven into reality. The law of necessity certainly pertains a lot to the material since in the material, force is the ultimate decider. The only law, then, which would stand in the material world is the law which has the authority to kill.
Law itself is of a spiritual nature; and thus all of the laws have a spiritual interpretation as well.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I hope someone here is getting what I’m sayin’, man. As much as I enjoy the tap of the laptop keys, I don’t just do this to read my own text.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Well, I wonder why it is that there are different churches with different interpretations of the New Testament? This is the pot stirring part, and I admit fully that it is a nasty type of pot stirring.
Which church, amongst the current crop of churches, is the morally correct church? I ask, because I now have two different people saying the exact same thing. I will also hazard a guess, PRCDude & Rose, that neither of you attends the same church nor are you members of the same sect. Therefore, one of you has it wrong.
Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Nonfactor: then the burden of proof is on both, as it should be. If I want to convince you of anything I ought to prove it if I am to expect any kind of audience.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Krydor: The Church is a spiritual entity, containing all of those who are saved. These are the ‘bride of Christ’.
If they differ it could be in one of two ways:
1. Essentials
2. Non-essentials.
Also, as a Christian there is a difference between disagreeing on:
1. Salvation/Justification
2. Wisdom/Knowledge/Sanctification
The first in both cases is a genuine point of contention; the first of the latter pair is more than likely a case of heresy. Since Christianity’s object is to save souls, the other stuff may or may not be significant.
There is a hierarchy to this stuff, not all of the phrases writ by St. Paul are equal.
RiverCocytus on May 8, 2007 at 11:13 PM
There are degrees of error. No church under heaven has it 100% correct. The central doctrines are what matters the most. The cases you mentioned above we could point out the error easily from Scripture. There is a definite consistency in the interpretation of Scripture amongst the Christian churches that hold to Sola Scriptura (2 Timothy 3:16-17) over the past 2000 years. Sola Ecclesia (Roman Catholic), well that’s a morally relativistic position, IMO.
PRCalDude on May 8, 2007 at 11:23 PM
RiverCocytus,
Boy, between keeping up here and perusing the “who gets nuked” thread, I’ll be awake all night.
My point is that people adjust their moral behaviours based on what the churches teach, therefore the morality contained within the churches is relative.
Krydor on May 8, 2007 at 11:39 PM
And I break through to Resolute.
I think the Roulette wheel is an decent analog, though it may be a rough fit. I would say its more complex than simply religions. Could be Evangelical Fascism, Socialism, or any other value system on said wheel. Atheists might think it’d be good to pull players from said wheel (operating on Resolute’s assertion that atheists would be outside the wheel), but you run the risk of someone going back to said wheel and picking a number that is way hostile. Which is another thing that drives me nuts, is the moral equivalency that some tack on to Western Christians and Jihadis.
Of course I’d argue that some Atheists belong on said wheel, namely the evangelical variety that believes religion is the driving force for problems in the world, and their own ideology and value system stems from that, uh, Hitchens would possibly be an example.
Bad Candy on May 8, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Why, in God’s name, Al Sharpton?
Intelligent Design goes down the drain at the mention of his name.
profitsbeard on May 9, 2007 at 1:56 AM
Is Osama acting in his self-interest? I’m thinking yes, so I’m just wondering if you consider him “good.”
John on May 9, 2007 at 3:29 AM
Anyone who wants to know what Thomas or Aristotle had to say about God had better read him for himself. If he wants to try to figure out what Thomas or Aristotle thought about God, it’s best for him to keep in mind that what a writer has written in one place requires comparison with what he has written elsewhere. It’s best for him to consider also that if a thinker of philosophic rank makes a mistake, the mistake bears careful examination. And even if one is of that amazing sort of atheist who somehow know what God, if God existed, must be, one had better still raise the question, “What did Thomas (or Aristotle) think God is?” And that may become a way for the atheist to lose his faith that he knows what a supposedly nonexistent God must be.
Kralizec on May 9, 2007 at 3:31 AM
The fact that one Al Sharpton is getting a couple over on one Chistopher Hitchens should be undeniable proof of God’s existence and of His grace. :-)
baldilocks on May 9, 2007 at 4:17 AM
I agree with Sharpton’s point of view that evidence of God (any god) must be subjective. Science is not about faith, and those who try to “prove” the existence of God scientifically must have the most shallow faith of all.
However, I would not disregard Hitchen’s view with regard to Stalinist Russia, or modern North Korea. Both those dictators created god cults around themselves. All grace is seen as coming from such dictators in such nations. There can be little doubt that Kim Il Wackjob wants his people to see him as a god.
doufree on May 9, 2007 at 9:06 AM
God: “Ok, knock it off, you two! Don’t make me come down there!…”
mojo on May 9, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Comment pages: