Hitchens' Challenge: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Hitchens' Challenge » Hitchens' Challenge

Hitchens' Challenge
Is there any moral action that can't be done by an atheist?

Page: 1 2

Hitchens' Challenge

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 200

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:32 PM: Subject: Hitchens' Challenge	#1
I have a lot of respect for Christopher Hitchens, I really do. He has balls. However, I 'm not a huge fan of his latest turn in the 'neo-atheist' brigade. While I have no objection to atheism or criticism of religion as such, Hitchens and his fellow polemicists seem to strike a particularly alarmist view, which ignores subtlety and the lived experience of religion. One of Hitchens' favourite question for believers is phrased as the following: Is there any moral action that a believer has ever performed that could not have been performed by a non-believer? It is a rhetorical question - Hitchens takes it for granted that no such action exists. While I am no believer, I can see a number of problems with the question, as well as its intended answer: 1. The question, when applied to historical specifics, reveals an absurdity. Martin Luther King did garner much support for the civil rights movement, and was to a large extent inspired by his faith. The same applies to Gandhi and Indian independence and his philosophy of satyagraha. One cannot ask the question 'weren't these acts/ideas possible without faith?' simply because nobody has the answers. We can only talk about actual causes and effects, not hypothetical ones. In this instance, it is a meaningless question. 2. Even if we dismiss idea 1, we could conceivably come up with situations where faith is indeed necessary for a potential moral action. No doubt the practice of rites, ritual, prayer has its effect on the brain (some would argue the effect is a negative one!). I read an article recently in the Economist detailing a survey which found the average religious person significantly happier that the average non-religious. One does not need to accept this survey to contemplate the possibility that religion could fire up certain parts of the brain in a certain kind of person. If this person then went on to perform an action generally considered moral, would we not consider the effect that religious training has had on it? And even if the same action could have been performed by a non-believer, aren't we entitled to claim that nevertheless, in this specific instance a religion was the catalyst? This does not actually disprove Hitchens' point, but it creates an interesting comparison when: Hitchens then explores the flipside of the idea - Is there any immoral action that a believer has ever performed that could not have been performed by a non-believer? Here, he assumes that the answer is obviously that there is. Presumably he is thinking of cases like Islamic terrorism, etc. But Point 1 is still relevant here. And Point 2 shows up the fact that Hitchens is having it both ways. If religion can be a necessary cause in an action (and Hitchens seems to think it can), it is odd to think that it can only cause immoral ones. I would like to hear an argument (for Hitchens does not really offer it) that explains why this should be the case, in face of the evidence of moral religious acts. In fact, I would like Hitchens to answer his own question, for I cannot think of any bad act that could not, hypothetically, be performed by an atheist. Any thoughts?
_____________________ One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 04/30/08 - 08:08 PM:	#2
I think you are right -- the basis for human rights can sometimes be based on the idea of a higher ultimate moral agent than just taking the average of human society. It might be easier to argue that the most common stance for atheism is to reject the possibility of an "afterlife" in which one receives rewards or punishment for acts in the current life. It seemed irrational to me, for example, to commit an altruistic act that ended one's own life, or to preserve a life at the expense of others. However, I realize that we do commit a lot of irrational acts out of emotional and societal values, (saving one's own child). How much of those values are based on a culture's religious history. It would be more interesting to see how morality would work in a society that has completely rejected and no longer has any memory of anything religious or theistic. The flipside is more difficult, as a believer wouldn't be reasoning from the same position. For example, an Islamic terrorist, (the Western idea of one, anyway), wouldn't consider his actions immoral -- but highly moral. On the other hand, if someone was religious and did something that their own beliefs consider immoral, then they quickly jump to the "no true scotsman" -- claiming that they weren't really believers and not considering the potential rewards and punishment of their actions in committing their actions. I would be more interested in a modified question: Does belief in a higher moral being, an afterlife with divine reward and punishment weigh against moral decisions, enough to prevent believers from performing actions which they would consider immoral? If so, is there some alternative belief system that would perform the same task? I always cringe when people bring up "free will", because it implies that the idea of future reward and punishment or the existence of a higher moral being has no bearing on their choices.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Ataxia
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 41

Posted 05/01/08 - 01:12 PM:	#3
Hitchens' point is that no moral action (even self-sacrifice BTW) is necessarily off-limits to atheists. Whether or not specific moral acts mayhave been caused by faith does not preclude their occurrence had the person been a non-believer. As for the flipside, well I would disagree with Hitchens there. There are numerous examples of Nihilist and Anarchist terrorist acts from the 19th century, for example, most of whom would be atheist.
_____________________ "Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'" (Genesis 32:30) "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/01/08 - 01:30 PM:	#4
I think I have heard him pose this question more than one way. One is historical and the other is contemporary. The contemporary version reads something like: Is there any moral act which a believer could perform that an atheist cannot perform? And from what I contemplate I cannot see any reason why not.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 05/02/08 - 03:42 AM:	#5
Ataxia wrote: Hitchens' point is that no moral action (even self-sacrifice BTW) is necessarily off-limits to atheists. Whether or not specific moral acts mayhave been caused by faith does not preclude their occurrence had the person been a non-believer. He is trying to sneak something past the audience by saying that moral actions are not necessarily off-limits to atheists. The audience doesn't get to ask the question, "whose morality", and assume the cultural morality. Morality is a system of rules, tied together by reason and logic. Certain acts would be illogical or unreasonable under different sets of rules. An atheist might do a moral action that is exclusively under a believers morality, but it would be illogical or irrational for him to do so, and therefore either morally neutral or even immoral to do so. There are two main differences between atheist and (typical) believer morality. One is the absence of an afterlife, ultimate reward or punishment, (heaven or hell). The other is that believer morality tends toward moral absolutes. Working from those differences, you could probably come up with a few scenarios in which one action would be moral for one, and meaningless or immoral for another. For example, throwing yourself on a grenade to save one person -- who is terminally ill with only one week to live would be irrational for someone who doesn't believe in reward in an afterlife or assume that saving a life is an absolute moral action. Or, for the other side, euthanasia might be moral in some circumstances for an atheist, but the absolute condemnation against suicide for any reason under most religious systems would make it immoral. For a believer, it might be wrong to steal from a criminal, even to feed the poor, because of the absolute rejection of theft for any purpose. For an atheist, it there would be no moral value to an act which would never be detected or revealed. Of course, I'm just talking about the rational result of their beliefs, it is possible that due to cultural and emotional conditioning for someone to change their point of view. I note that a lot of prior religious moral restraints have been discarded after culture evolved toward a more secular system. For example, it used to be immoral and punishable to charge interest, (usury), but today even the most fanatic Christian believer will lend money at interest or run up a credit card without a moments hesitation. They are acting irrationally, according to their own moral system, but accept it as part of social conditioning.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Philonus
Moderate Intellectual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2007
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 49

Posted 05/02/08 - 08:08 AM:	#6
This is what bothers me when someone asks "Is there a moral action which a believer can preform that a non-believer cannot", It bothers me because as Swsephe says, "Whose moral action?", which implies that morality in itself is not an absolute in a sense that not everyone has the exactly some moral values. Christianity is simply an alternative form of moral value, it is not a sort of morality that everyone is obligated to follow. I think that if one were to rephrase "Is there a moral action a Christian can perform which a Muslim cannot?" or any other Faiths in contrast, then it's obvious that there are certain moral action that a Muslim would do that a Christian wouldn't (Note: This does not mean to terroriz people)When someone says a "believer" the word itself is ambigious. What believer? People assume that this means a Christian but the word itself does not necessarily mean that exclusively. If the believer means a Christian than a non-believer could mean a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or other faiths because they are non-believers in a sense that they don't entirely believe in the values of Christianity. If a Believer includes all those religion, then I would assume it's a form of moral value that all religion have in common: Compassion, Forgiveness, Peace-making, Selflessness, and such. Are these moral values exclusive to religion only? The difference between the moral action of an Atheist and a Believer is that they are based on a form of foundation. It is the foundation, or the belief, that makes them different. An Atheist may perform a moral action as did a Christian but out of a different conviction or value. A Christian may perform a moral value to be compassionate because that reflects the character of Christ, but and Atheist may express compassion for a different reason (such as if an atheist considers himself to be a true humanist).

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2411

Posted 05/02/08 - 09:29 AM:	#7
swstephe wrote: I think you are right -- the basis for human rights can sometimes be based on the idea of a higher ultimate moral agent than just taking the average of human society. It might be easier to argue that the most common stance for atheism is to reject the possibility of an "afterlife" in which one receives rewards or punishment for acts in the current life. It seemed irrational to me, for example, to commit an altruistic act that ended one's own life, or to preserve a life at the expense of others. However, I realize that we do commit a lot of irrational acts out of emotional and societal values, (saving one's own child). How much of those values are based on a culture's religious history. It would be more interesting to see how morality would work in a society that has completely rejected and no longer has any memory of anything religious or theistic. Ethical behaviour is not done on the basis that it is rational, except for that rationality that is involved in working out what is the proper way to pursue a particular ethical goal. It is the same for the pursuit of ice cream: rationality is not the basis for the desire for ice cream, but it may be used to best get ice cream. An atheist can give up their life because it is right. Giving up one's life in the pursuit of reward is not doing an act because it is right.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 11:42 AM:	#8
Well personally I think that Hitchens assumes a static and universal view of morality. Since a lot of christians belief it is both moral to tell the truth, and to save people's souls by bringing them over to Jesus. Then to many christians those two moral acts cannot symotanenously be proformed by an atheist. Though when it comes to things we can demonstrate acctualy do have a positive and real effect on others. I think he is right. It would depend on how you are veiwing ethics and morality. I could be the evilist bastard in the world to someone because I don't do something they think I'm morally obligated to do for some reason. The whole moral argument waged I think is just the two groups shouting past each other. I don't think it is imposssible that to many christians I am indeed immoral, depending on how they veiw morality.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 11:56 AM:	#9
Coolazice, I think your examples are flawed, though clearly I don't agree with Hitchens. Your first one doesn't make any sense. If I've never seen you stand on one foot and sing the lyrics to "hit me with your best shot" by Pat Penatar, that doesn't give me reason to think that you are incapable of doing it. Because it is established that those things are humanly possible, then to claim it couldn't be done by one person, while we know others can do it requires justification. It doesn't matter if there have been moral actions in the past that atheists have not committed, you would need to establish that they could not have committed them, as the challenge demands. Your second point only argues that perhaps religious people are more likely to do moral things than atheists, it doesn't argue that they do moral things that atheists could not. So I think neither of your specific objections work. The way he words the challenge, and then follows it up with asking if we can think of an immoral acting preformed because of religion explicates his motives for the challenge. He is trying to demonstrate that there can be logical pathways to immoral actions through religion, that are closed to non-religious people, while there are no logical pathways to moral actions through religion that are closed to non-religious people. Through the prism of the non-religious, or even the moderate religious, this is true, because we share many of the same views on what morality is, and surround our views are suffering and well being. While to more fundamentalist religious people, that see morality coming directly from god, this clearly is not true. So I see Hitchens challenge as pandering, he knows that his moderate opponents will not claims morality exclusively comes through there religion, and the dictates of god. So it isn't a point that will convince anyone who isn't already convinced in my opinion. I find a lot of Hitchen's arguments when it comes into ethics and morals is largely rhetoric, and bullying. He acts insulted, not just for himself, but all of humanity when certain things about morality that he doesn't like is brought up, and then tries to aim it to insult everyone, so it doesn't require being addressed, or his specific moral outlooks or views on ethics outlined. Because the moment he contrues it as an insult, he washes his hands of having to answer it. This is perhaps wise, as I find so few people actually do have a thoughtful, and considered view on morality and ethics, and seem to play it from the gut. So it may very well be that taking an intellectual approach in this area would be ineffective. Though I personally don't like it when he does that. Edited by Wosret on 05/03/08 - 08:50 AM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:23 PM:	#10
As Bentham based utilitarianism on morals, he accepted that moralistic decisions are to be made by everyone. Felicific Calculus exists among anyone. Morals are only as good as societal norms make out, therefore today religion takes up this moralistic view as most people believe. However being a strong Atheist, I believe that I act purposely and act morally upon society, therefore Hitchens assumption is incorrect. Postmodernistic views accepting individual differences need to accept that people are equal. Religion is just a social division which religious people instigate to have social identity, not about morals.
_____________________ "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it" Marx and Engels "Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism." Michel Foucault Society is rebelled against if society condemns

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/02/08 - 01:34 PM:	#11
Does is really matter if morals and ethics are subjective or universal in this challenge? I think he is simply trying to say that, all else equal(which is how we should view our fellow humans), any person can perform the same acts concerning morals and ethics as any other person. Regardless of what belief system each adheres to. If Christians think its a moral act to proselytize and then convert others to Christianity, could an atheist NOT perform the exact same song and dance? Are they completely incapable? However, I really do think that Hitchens, and I will go out on a limb and say myself as well, believes there ARE universal moral and ethical values. I think Daniel Dennet also believes we may someday discover these universal truths/precepts. In that regard, conversion to a particular religion probably is not a universal moral or ethical act. An argument could me made that it may actually be immoral, but thats a whole other can of worms.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 04:56 PM:	#12
Well I actually said winning souls for Jesus, and being honest at the same time can't be preformed by a non-believer. You could trick people, but you couldn't do it honestly. Doing both at the same time is not possible for a non-believer. I highly highly doubt that Hitchens believer that. He doesn't even believe in truth in any universal or objective sense. As he has stated, so I don't see how he could in universal or objective moral values. His views on ethics would likely confuse, and scare away most people, as many philosopher's views would. The only universal evaluation that I am aware of is the desire to survive, and survive well, and that isn't a moral value. Though that is where my views on ethics find their foundation, and I wouldn't be surprized if Hitchen's did as well. Though I don't think there are any universal moral precepts, or truths, it would require context, and situation to determine the right course of action. I think morality originates in empathy, and the desire to be altruistic, and is best implamented through reason. I merely meant to say that I don't find there to be any substance when Hitchens addresses ethics, not that I think he has a bad view on ethics, or anything. Since he shys away from it, I frankly wouldn't know. Edited by Wosret on 05/02/08 - 05:02 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 200

Posted 05/02/08 - 06:30 PM:	#13
Wosret wrote: Coolazice, I think your examples are flawed, though clearly I don't agree with Hitchens. Your first one doesn't make any sense. If I've never seen you stand on one foot and sing the lyrics to "hit me with your best shot" by Pat Penatar, that doesn't give me reason to think that you are incapable of doing it. Because it is established that those things are humanly possible, then to claim it couldn't be done by one person, while we know others can do it requires justification. It doesn't matter if there have been moral actions in the past that atheists have not committed, you would need to establish that they could not have committed them, as the challenge demands. Your point is correct - I have no reason to think you incapable of performing the said action. My point is that I have no reason to think you are capable of it either. My point is that Hitchens cannot say that what Gandhi specifically achieved was capable of being performed by an atheist - it was not performed by an atheist, and even if one were to find the closest equivalent in world history as done by an atheist, this would not be the same action, so Hitchens' claim would still be unfounded. You cannot establish 'could haves' either way. What happened happened. Wosret wrote: Your second point only argues that perhaps religious people are more likely to do moral things than atheists, it doesn't argue that they do moral things that atheists could not. That is not what I am arguing - i would ask you to read the paragraph again. I also note that the argument does not disable Hitchens', but rather shows up his bias in not applying the same principles to atheists and believers. Wosret wrote: He is trying to demonstrate that there can be logical pathways to immoral actions through religion, that are closed to non-religious people, while there are no logical pathways to moral actions through religion that are closed to non-religious people. But he has not demonstrated this, for the reasons I have detailed above.
_____________________ One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 07:12 PM:	#14
But you have no reason to think that a atheist couldn't? Just as I have no reason to think that you can't do what I suggested. I do have reason to think that you can do as I suggested, because I know that it is humanly possible, people have done similar things. Unless I am given a good reason that would limit you from doing it, while other can, then the fact that others have done it is reason to think that you can. You are saying that I have no reason to think that you are capable of standing on one foot and singinf "hit me with your best shot"? I think unless you can give me a good reason that would exclude you from preforming the task that I know to be humanly possible, that I have good reason to think you are capable of doing it. I've reread two, it seems to be to be saying that religion could make people happier, which intern would make them more likely to commit moral actions? Thus you could say that religion is the cause of the moral actions. If you are not saying that it makes them more likely to commit moral actions then the non-religious then it what way can you say it caused their moral action? If you take fifty miserable non-religious people, and fifty happy religious people and count up their moral actions, and the miserable non-religion performed just as many moral actions as the religious, then clearly their happiness had zero sway over their willingness to comitt moral actions. In order for your example to suggest that the religion was responsible for their moral actions, then simply must be saying that making them happy people resulted in making them more likely to commit moral actions. Where have I gone wrong? I completely disagree that he has not demonstrated it for the reasons you have outlined, which I don't think effect his challenge in the least. I think he has failed to demonstrate it for the reasons I have outlined.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 200

Posted 05/02/08 - 07:55 PM:	#15
Wosret wrote: But you have no reason to think that a atheist couldn't? Just as I have no reason to think that you can't do what I suggested. I do have reason to think that you can do as I suggested, because I know that it is humanly possible, people have done similar things. Unless I am given a good reason that would limit you from doing it, while other can, then the fact that others have done it is reason to think that you can. You are saying that I have no reason to think that you are capable of standing on one foot and singinf "hit me with your best shot"? I think unless you can give me a good reason that would exclude you from preforming the task that I know to be humanly possible, that I have good reason to think you are capable of doing it. 1. You might have a 'reason' to think I am capable of doing this task, but that is highly unlikely. What you have done is observed others do the same action and then assume, on the basis of habit, that I could do the same thing. As Hume helps demonstrate, this is not a logical inference, merely a prejudice of your brain to expect similar objects to behave in similar ways. 2. In any case, you are talking about events that have not transpired. Were we to limit the act of singing 'Hit me with your best shot' in a historical sense, you could not claim that it was possible for me to do exactly what had been done in the same circumstances, all things being equal. This is not an argument that can be backed up with empirical evidence, which in this case is the only useful evidence. Hitchens' rhetorical question is phrased in the past tense, so it assumes that the moral action has already been performed, in which case it is absurd to say that Joe Blow the atheist could have done it. If he could have done it, why didn't he? How can you demonstrate that I was able to sing 'hit me with your best shot' last night if I didn't sing it? Wosret wrote: I've reread two, it seems to be to be saying that religion could make people happier, which intern would make them more likely to commit moral actions? Thus you could say that religion is the cause of the moral actions. If you are not saying that it makes them more likely to commit moral actions then the non-religious then it what way can you say it caused their moral action? Forget about all that. The essential point is that Hitchens clearly believes that faith can cause certain actions. However, he is having it both ways, since he thinks that it can cause immoral actions that cannot be reproduced by atheists, yet he also thinks that all of the moral actions it can cause can be reproduced by atheists. This is something he has to explain if one is to reject point 1.
_____________________ One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 697

Posted 05/02/08 - 08:39 PM:	#16
Is there any immoral action that a non-believer has ever performed that could not have been performed by a believer? It works both ways.
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/03/08 - 08:45 AM:	#17
coolazice wrote: 1. You might have a 'reason' to think I am capable of doing this task, but that is highly unlikely. What you have done is observed others do the same action and then assume, on the basis of habit, that I could do the same thing. As Hume helps demonstrate, this is not a logical inference, merely a prejudice of your brain to expect similar objects to behave in similar ways. 2. In any case, you are talking about events that have not transpired. Were we to limit the act of singing 'Hit me with your best shot' in a historical sense, you could not claim that it was possible for me to do exactly what had been done in the same circumstances, all things being equal. This is not an argument that can be backed up with empirical evidence, which in this case is the only useful evidence. Hitchens' rhetorical question is phrased in the past tense, so it assumes that the moral action has already been performed, in which case it is absurd to say that Joe Blow the atheist could have done it. If he could have done it, why didn't he? How can you demonstrate that I was able to sing 'hit me with your best shot' last night if I didn't sing it? I think you're being completely disengenuous now. You're hiding behind uncertainty, and the possibility that I'm wrong without giving an actual reason why it couldn't be done. Yes, I can't say you could do those things for sure, I never said I did. I only said what I know about the actions, and what I know about people strongely implies that you could. I would then need reasons to think you couldn't. The problem Hume demonstrated was that we only couldn't say for certain, not that we couldn't say it at all. Induction is a perfectly valid way to draw logical inferences that imply a conclusion. That's all we got when we're talking about the world. I think that hiding behind the fact that we can't say it for absolute sure is both disengenuous, and a pathetically weak argument. The fact remains that 1 merely says we can't say that atheists could have done it for certain, it doesn't actually offer a reason why they couldn't have. coolazice wrote: Forget about all that. The essential point is that Hitchens clearly believes that faith can cause certain actions. However, he is having it both ways, since he thinks that it can cause immoral actions that cannot be reproduced by atheists, yet he also thinks that all of the moral actions it can cause can be reproduced by atheists. This is something he has to explain if one is to reject point 1. No, he actually carefully words it. In his second challenge he actually says "can you think of an immoral action done by a believer that was caused by their belief" or something like that. When he asks the second challenge he doesn't suggest that theists can do immoral actions that atheists can't, he merely suggests that they have logical pathways to those immoral actions that atheists don't. So while both an atheist and a theist can kill a guy, clearly only a theist can kill a guy because he thought god wanted him to. Besides, you're talking out both sides of your mouth now, if I accepted the absurdity of 1, I could just pluck a historical event that was committed by a theist and say that's one. Since we don't know for certain that an atheist was capable of that particular immoral act then we can't say it at all. Edited by Wosret on 05/03/08 - 08:53 AM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/03/08 - 12:21 PM:	#18
coolazice wrote: Is there any moral action that a believer has ever performed that could not have been performed by a non-believer? … Hitchens then explores the flipside of the idea - Is there any immoral action that a believer has ever performed that could not have been performed by a non-believer? Some quick thoughts: There surely is a difference between an act and the impetus or motivation for an act. I cannot imagine any act that it is possible for a theist to perform that an atheist couldn’t possibly perform, and vice versa. It seems to me that the relevant issue is not so much who could possibly perform a given action, as it is whether or not some people would be more (or less) likely to perform that action because of religious belief or because of lack of it. Hitchens’ anti-religious point of view would then have to establish whether or not religiously motivated actions increased moral behavior or decreased it. I for one cannot conceive of a calculus by which this could be determined even in principle, let alone in actual empirical operation. Indeed atheists can and do feed the hungry and care for the sick and dying, and the like--but the relevant issue might be whether or not more people actually do feed the hungry and care for the sick and dying, and the like because they are motivated by the moral teachings of their religion. Similarly for immoral actions. The relevant issue is not so much who can possibly commit immoral actions as it is whether or not some people are more or less likely to commit such actions. I have no doubt that any number of people have been inhibited from commiting any number of immoral actions by their religious beliefs. On the other hand, people certainly have been motivated by their religious beliefs to commit immoral actions (as judged by others moral calculi)—such as suicide bombings and indiscriminate killings of “infidel“ civilians, persecution of others because they subscribe to rival belief systems, etc. Likewise, we can construe some immoral actions by non-believers as having occurred because the perpetrators did not feel constrained by religious morality—such as the politically motivated mass murders of the 20th Century. Religious believers certainly can commit the most outrageously immoral actions, but there can be little doubt that religious morals have constrained people from committing immoral actions. Certainly there are many actions that an atheist could perform that a theist could perform but which might be inhibited by the theist’ s beliefs/morals, and far less likely to happen. (Driving drunk and killing someone, gambling away the kids’ college fund at Atlantic City, picking up women for one nighters at a hideaway resort bar … .) Likewise, theists’ beliefs/morality might inspire or motivate them to perform some action that atheists possibly could perform, but which atheists would not likely be motivated to perform. This aplies both to positive and negative beahviors: bombing a rival sect’s house of worship, or burning an apostate at the stake, or certain programs for feeding the hungry or for caring for the sick and dying, running orphanages, providing emergency relief … .) The characterization of some religious people as uptight prudes or as hypervigilant moralists is rcognition that some of their behevior is constrained by their beliefs/morals. Thus, some immoral behavior that would have occurred does not occur precisely because of the religious beliefs. One of the ongoing fears expressed by some religious people about atheism is expressed in such lines as “If there is no God, then everything is permitted” which they fear would mean total lack of constraints on people’s behavior. The influence that religious belief/morality has on behavior is the relevant issue, not whether or not it is a necessary condition to be a believer or not in order to preform some behavior. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/03/08 - 01:39 PM:	#19
I think that the fatal flaw in what you're saying, JDRW is in assuming that religion holds a monopoly on reasons not to commit those immoral actions, and without it their is nothing restraining non-believers. I think this is patantly false. In order to even begin to make sense you would need to demonstrate logical pathways to moral actions that are denied to nonbelievers, but available to believers. I also don't think it would be sufficient to suggest any authoritative pathways, as a large number of believers do not believe that things are moral because god says so, but rather god merely tells them what's moral, therefore it should be possible to reach the same moral conclusions removed from god. Like I argued earlier, this challenge presupposes a certain view on morality. There are views on morality that some people have that would exclude certain logical pathways to moral behaviour to non-believers, however through the prism of a nonbeliever, and a large amount of liberal and moderate believers their views on morality, this is not the case. I challenge you to draw a direct logical pathway to an immoral action from non-belief. I also direct you to draw a direct logical pathway to moral action from belief. Switch these and it works equally well. What you pile ontop of these starting points are what is going to determine that. A believe in god implies no moral or immoral actions, just and a disbelief does not. Then religion comes in and it starts to give you those pathways. Or then philosophy, political, and social views come in, and it starts to give you those pathways. Believing in god doesn't necessitate that you are going to think he wants you to do good things, or bad things. Just as disbelief doesn't necessitate that you are going to do good things or bad things. It's what's built on top that will determine this. So when someone says "without god, all things are premitted" this presupposes more than a belief in god, it presupposes origins of ethics and morality, and their motiviation; views which are not shared by all believers. I personally don't think that it can possibly be demonstrated that a belief in god will cause more harm than good, or even less harm than good. I think the important thing to focus on is gulibility, and willingness to belief absurdities, and unjustifiable propositions that will cause more harm than good. Whether they believe supernatural or natural. I think the important battle to wage is against irrationality, and willingness to believe what one is not justified believing. Which is by no means restricted to theists, or supernaturalists. I think that any atrocity in history can be traced back to absurd beliefs, whether the persons behind it were religious or not. Edited by Wosret on 05/03/08 - 05:52 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/03/08 - 01:42 PM:	#20
jdrw, so much for 'quick'. A couple questions and points: Which position is more moral: to perform a moral act simply for the sake of goodness one feels and the suffering they relieve OR because a religious doctrine recommends or commands it? Which one has the more sound moral motivation? Also keep in mind that religious moral teachings involve an eternal reward or eternal damnation to help 'motivate' its constituents. Your second point is about how religious moral teachings have prevented people from committing immoral acts. My previous questions apply in a similar way to that position. Is it more moral for someone to prevent themselves from committing an immoral act because they recognize the pain and suffering it may cause(and wouldn't wish such an act to be performed against them) OR because they fear some type of eternal punishment? Is doing good because you believe there is a reward and abstaining from bad because there is punishment more acceptable than doing good for the sake of goodness and abstaining from bad because of the empathy you feel for your fellow human beings? Your position that immoral acts by non-believers were performed because they were not restrained by religious morality is flawed. These individuals performed those actions because they lacked any moral and ethical code. In technical terms, they had a screw loose. How can lack of something be THE motivator for action? Lack of belief in a god was NOT the motivator for them. Dogmatic pursuit of power and conquest were. They placed more value on the dogmatic pursuit of their goals than on human life. It would appear you are saying that an atheist is MORE likely to "Driving drunk and killing someone, gambling away the kids’ college fund at Atlantic City, picking up women for one nighters at a hideaway resort bar …" than a theist simply because they do not have a religious book/precept/whatever that tells them that these things are wrong. This is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. Also, this flies in the face of all such acts that were performed by the most pious among us. Why not ask an atheist who would never do such things what prevents them from doing them? Then ask a theist who has, why they did. You said "atheists would not likely be motivated to perform" and then you gave examples: "bombing a rival sect’s house of worship" - Agree "burning an apostate at the stake" - Agree "feeding the hungry or for caring for the sick and dying" - Disagree. Why wouldnt they? "running orphanages" - Disagree. Why wouldnt they? "providing emergency relief" - Disagree. Why wouldnt they? The fear that religious people have for atheists/atheism is best characterized as a phobia, which is: A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear. On the other hand, the fear that an atheist might have of religious people is probably quite rational when they contemplate what believers do as a result of their phobia. On that note I will close with Steven Weinberg: With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Edited by itry2brational on 05/03/08 - 01:46 PM

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/03/08 - 06:27 PM:	#21
Wosret wrote: I think that the fatal flaw in what you're saying, JDRW is in assuming that religion holds a monopoly on reasons not to commit those moral actions, and without it their is nothing restraining non-believers. I think this is patantly false. I neither believe nor said that religion holds a monopoly on reasons to commit moral actions. Religion does, however, influence many people to behave morally. Neither was my point that inhibiting immoral actions necessarily requires religous morality. It’s simply that the observable fact is that religious morality has inhibited uncountable immoral behaviors, and in a calculus of the impact of religion on human behavior, all this would count as a positive contribution. In order to even begin to make sense you would need to demonstrate logical pathways to moral actions that are denied to nonbelievers, but available to believers. I also don't think it would be sufficient to suggest any authoritative pathways, as a large number of believers do not believe that things are moral because god says so, but rather god merely tells them what's moral, therefore it should be possible to reach the same moral conclusions removed from god. Like I argued earlier, this challenge presupposes a certain view on morality. There are views on morality that some people have that would exclude certain logical pathways to moral behaviour to non-believers, however through the prism of a nonbeliever, and a large amount of liberal and moderate believers their views on morality, this is not the case. I challenge you to draw a direct logical pathway to an immoral action from non-belief. I also direct you to draw a direct logical pathway to moral action from belief. Switch these and it works equally well. Whereever did you get the idea that I said there is a logical pathway to an immoral action from non-belief? What I did say, though, is that belief puts some stricter inhibitions in the way for believers that are not there for non-believers (as in the gambling, drunkeness, sexual activity, that I mentioned.) Recall that my point is that it’s entirely possible for anybody irrespective of belief or non-belief to perform or to refrain from performing these behaviors—but the fact of the matter is that the stricter inhibitions of some religious people have the effect of reducing the incidence of these behaviors amomg those believers. Additionally, religious belief promotes and inspires positive moral behavior in many people. What you pile ontop of these starting points are what is going to determine that. A believe in god implies no moral or immoral actions, just and a disbelief does not. Then religion comes in and it starts to give you those pathways. Or then philosophy, political, and social views come in, and it starts to give you those pathways. The observable fact of the matter is that some people’s religious belief influences them to behave in certain ways that even non-believers would count as moral, and to refrain from some behaviors that even non-believers would count as immoral. I am not claiming that their religious beliefs are the only way to achieve this, nor even the best way to achieve this, I am claiming merely that their beliefs in fact do achieve this, and that it counts as a positive contribution to humanity. People who are not believers certainly can and some actually do behave morally and can and some do refrain from behaving immorally, therefore religiously informed morality is not necessary. But it clearly is sufficient enough to influence many people to behave morally and to refrain from behaving immorally. Believing in god doesn't necessitate that you are going to think he wants you to do good things, or bad things. Just as disbelief doesn't necessitate that you are going to do good things or bad things. It's what's built on top that will determine this. I have not said a thing about belief in God. I have been talking about morality that is espoused and practiced by religious people because they see that morality as an integral aspect of their religious belief. So when someone says "without god, all things are premitted" this presupposes more than a belief in god, it presupposes origins of ethics and morality, and their motiviation; views which are not shared by all believers. So what? Why are you telling me this? My point was only that if the issue is about the influence religious belief or lack thereof has on people’s behavior, then this “without God all things are permitted” notion reveals the influence that some religious believers think religion or lack thereof has on people’s behavior. These believersl interpretation of the consequence of removing God from the picture reveals that they themselves believe that the morality of their religion is a restraining force on behavior, that at least they themselves behave better as believers than they would if they didn't believe that morality was commanded and enforced by God. I personally don't think that it can possibly be demonstrated that a belief in god will cause more harm than good, or even less harm than good. That is exactly my meaning when I said: Hitchens’ anti-religious point of view would then have to establish whether or not religiously motivated actions increased moral behavior or decreased it. I for one cannot conceive of a calculus by which this could be determined even in principle, let alone in actual empirical operation. I think the important thing to focus on is gulibility, and willingness to belief absurdities, and unjustifiable propositions that will cause more harm than good. Whether they believe supernatural or natural. I think the important battle to wage is against irrationality, and willingness to believe what one is not justified believing. Which is by no means restricted to theists, or supernaturalists. I think that any atrocity in history can be traced back to absurd beliefs, whether the persons behind it were religious or not. Humans have been killing each other forever, individually, in small hunter-gatherer troupes, in tribes, clans, states, and in multinational coalitions—with or without religious rationalizations for doing so. The irrationality and absurd beliefs are just lame excuses for what we were going to do anyway. cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/03/08 - 07:48 PM:	#22
itry2brational wrote: jdrw, so much for 'quick'. Ha! But quick and short are not quite the same thing. A couple questions and points: Which position is more moral: to perform a moral act simply for the sake of goodness one feels and the suffering they relieve OR because a religious doctrine recommends or commands it? Which one has the more sound moral motivation? Also keep in mind that religious moral teachings involve an eternal reward or eternal damnation to help 'motivate' its constituents. I have no opinion on this. Your second point is about how religious moral teachings have prevented people from committing immoral acts. My previous questions apply in a similar way to that position. Is it more moral for someone to prevent themselves from committing an immoral act because they recognize the pain and suffering it may cause(and wouldn't wish such an act to be performed against them) OR because they fear some type of eternal punishment? Is doing good because you believe there is a reward and abstaining from bad because there is punishment more acceptable than doing good for the sake of goodness and abstaining from bad because of the empathy you feel for your fellow human beings? I have no opinion on this either. Your position that immoral acts by non-believers were performed because they were not restrained by religious morality is flawed. These individuals performed those actions because they lacked any moral and ethical code. In technical terms, they had a screw loose. How can lack of something be THE motivator for action? Lack of belief in a god was NOT the motivator for them. Dogmatic pursuit of power and conquest were. They placed more value on the dogmatic pursuit of their goals than on human life. All I meant is that in non-believers there is no religiously based morality in play to inhibit their immoral behavior, as there would be in religious people. This does not imply that there cannot be any number of other inhibitions, such as peer pressure, social norms, personal standards etc. It doesn’t mean that absent religious restraints there are no restraints, it just means that one whole category of restraints is not in play for them. And when the religious morality is more restrictive than the prevailing secular norms, then the more permissive norms will not inhibit as much immoral behavior as the more restrictive religious morality will. It would appear you are saying that an atheist is MORE likely to "Driving drunk and killing someone, gambling away the kids’ college fund at Atlantic City, picking up women for one nighters at a hideaway resort bar …" than a theist simply because they do not have a religious book/precept/whatever that tells them that these things are wrong. This is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. Also, this flies in the face of all such acts that were performed by the most pious among us. Why not ask an atheist who would never do such things what prevents them from doing them? Then ask a theist who has, why they did. Please recall that just about the first thing I said was I cannot imagine any act that it is possible for a theist to perform that an atheist couldn’t possibly perform, and vice versa. The point that I was making is that it is less likely that certain immoral actions will be performed by people who believe in a morality that is stricter than the predominant morality. People who are rabid teetotalers because this is part of their religious morality simply are not as likely to drive drunk as the rest of the society at large, even though the rest of the society at large includes non-drinkers. The religious morality increases the numbers of non-drinkers in the society. Same with gambling and with the sexual activity resulting from the patronizing of hideaway resorts and bars. You said "atheists would not likely be motivated to perform" and then you gave examples: "bombing a rival sect’s house of worship" - Agree "burning an apostate at the stake" - Agree "feeding the hungry or for caring for the sick and dying" - Disagree. Why wouldnt they? "running orphanages" - Disagree. Why wouldnt they? "providing emergency relief" - Disagree. Why wouldnt they? What I said was that religious believers are more likely than atheists to support certain programs for feeding the hungry or caring for the sick. The fact that certain programs are religiously affiliated influences many believers to support that particular effort and influences atheists not to support that particular effort. And it is demonstrably the case that religious people contribute more toward their religiously affiliated efforts than atheists contribute toward alternative non-religiously affiliated efforts. Thus the demonstrable fact of the matter is that religious morality influences more people to give more money and effort toward such projects than non-religious morality does. And I would think that this would count as a positive contribution to humanity. The fear that religious people have for atheists/atheism is best characterized as a phobia, which is: A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear. On the other hand, the fear that an atheist might have of religious people is probably quite rational when they contemplate what believers do as a result of their phobia. Religious people are well aware that atheists uninhibited by moral restraints have killed far more people than religious people have, as the many mass murders of the last century attest. What religious people don’t understand is that the vast majority of non-believers subscribe to and are committed to a morality that is very congruent with the believers morality. It is the loose cannons at both extremes that cause the problems for humanity. On that note I will close with Steven Weinberg: With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. And it also is demonstrably the case that religion influences vast numbers of quite ordinary people to do better things than they otherwise would. For good people to do evil things takes buying into an ideology that rationalizes doing those evil things, whether the ideology is religious, or political, or philosophical, or sociological, or ethnic, or economic, or technological, or flat out pandering to base fears … whatever. There were lots of good people who got caught up in the mass murders and other horrors of the last century, for instance. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

coolazice
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 200

Posted 05/03/08 - 07:55 PM:	#23
Wosret wrote: I think you're being completely disengenuous now. You're hiding behind uncertainty, and the possibility that I'm wrong without giving an actual reason why it couldn't be done. Yes, I can't say you could do those things for sure, I never said I did. I only said what I know about the actions, and what I know about people strongely implies that you could. I would then need reasons to think you couldn't. The problem Hume demonstrated was that we only couldn't say for certain, not that we couldn't say it at all. Induction is a perfectly valid way to draw logical inferences that imply a conclusion. That's all we got when we're talking about the world. I think that hiding behind the fact that we can't say it for absolute sure is both disengenuous, and a pathetically weak argument. The fact remains that 1 merely says we can't say that atheists could have done it for certain, it doesn't actually offer a reason why they couldn't have. Besides, you're talking out both sides of your mouth now, if I accepted the absurdity of 1, I could just pluck a historical event that was committed by a theist and say that's one. Since we don't know for certain that an atheist was capable of that particular immoral act then we can't say it at all. You're not reading my posts carefully enough, or being very charitable. Firstly, I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth, since I explicitly mentioned that the argument works both ways. Secondly, I am not being disingenuous by hiding behind uncertainty. The issue is not uncertainty, or that you could be wrong - the issue is that you cannot give a logical reason for being right. Let me put the question to you: If I did not sing 'hit me with your best shot' last night, what logical or empirical reason do you have for thinking I could have? If you don't like this line of thinking, that's fine, it's not mine, it's Hume's. Again, I will emphasize that the issue is not uncertainty, but the illogic of applying causes to effects - in this case, particularly potent since we are not even talking about actual causes and effects, but hypothetical causes to effects. I can understand where you are coming from in not liking the argument, but you haven't really refuted it, and I would be interested in hearing someone else's opinion on the matter. Wosret wrote: No, he actually carefully words it. In his second challenge he actually says "can you think of an immoral action done by a believer that was caused by their belief" or something like that. When he asks the second challenge he doesn't suggest that theists can do immoral actions that atheists can't, he merely suggests that they have logical pathways to those immoral actions that atheists don't. So while both an atheist and a theist can kill a guy, clearly only a theist can kill a guy because he thought god wanted him to. OK, if what you're saying is true, I don't see the point of Hitchens' argument, since again this works both ways. It means there must be logical pathways to moral actions as well that are specific to theists. But that is surely not an argument that is useful to someone who is trying to show something about the differences between religion and atheism. I think jdrw best expresses my thoughts on the matter (other than the Humean point, which I will agree is unpalatable to some).
_____________________ One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

itry2brational
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/04/08 - 12:27 AM:	#24
jdrw wrote: I have no opinion on this. I have no opinion on this either. This seems strange because are not all your posts concerning your opinion on morals and ethics with regard to Hitchen's challenge? jdrw wrote: prevailing secular norms...more restrictive religious morality will. Please define these. What are the 'prevailing secular norms'? Is there a convenient list somewhere? Wouldn't we need something like that in order to make the comparison with the 'more restrictive religious morality' so that you could come to your opinion/conclusion? To be honest, there is much in religion which would seemingly have nothing to do with morality. For example, working on Sunday. jdrw wrote: ...a morality that is stricter than the predominant morality. Again, I think you need to substantiate these claims and define these terms. jdrw wrote: The religious morality increases the numbers of non-drinkers in the society. Wow, if this could be proven conclusively I think you may be rewarded with a lot of money and recognition. jdrw wrote: ...it is demonstrably the case that religious people contribute more toward their religiously affiliated efforts than atheists contribute toward alternative non-religiously affiliated efforts. Thus the demonstrable fact of the matter is that religious morality influences more people to give more money and effort toward such projects than non-religious morality does. And I would think that this would count as a positive contribution to humanity. Then please demonstrate this. Keep in mind also that if you are talking about net quantities, you may be correct. But that is not a fair assessment of giving. It should be a proportional comparison. Please take note also that you said money and effort. By effort I assume you mean volunteering? Giving of one's time, work, and even of themselves physically. And Hitchen's is a staunch contributor of the latter, he gives his blood regularly. Those should also be factored into the equation. jdrw wrote: Religious people are well aware that atheists uninhibited by moral restraints have killed far more people than religious people have, as the many mass murders of the last century attest. This is highly debatable, and for more than one reason. First I would rephrase what you said just a little. PEOPLE uninhibited by moral restraints committed those heinous crimes against humanity. For one thing, they did not do what they did in the 'name of' atheism. However, the millions of people killed in the name of religion over the ages surpasses the figures I am sure you are referring to...and by quite a bit. Its hard not to get into a whole new topic here, but I am more than willing to do so(though in a new thread, respectfully). I will defer to this comment I found which sums it up reasonably: Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being [killed] by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Its hard to really grasp but we are not comparing how many have been killed by just Christians or Muslims vs the amount killed by atheists. To be a true estimation we are comparing all people killed by ALL religions and religious conflict over all the world throughout history. (I've seen estimates of those killed in the name of 'God' that are in the hundreds, 600+, of millions)And to be fair, we need to include the millions who die because of mere beliefs which are religiously based. Such as the millions who die each year of aids in Sub Saharan Africa because the Catholic Church formally prohibited condom use. Thats just one example though. And it also is demonstrably the case that religion influences vast numbers of quite ordinary people to do better things than they otherwise would. Again, please demonstrate. jdrw wrote: For good people to do evil things takes buying into an ideology that rationalizes doing those evil things, whether the ideology is religious, or political, or philosophical, or sociological, or ethnic, or economic, or technological, or flat out pandering to base fears … whatever. There were lots of good people who got caught up in the mass murders and other horrors of the last century, for instance. I agree. But I think overwhelmingly religion is numero uno on the list. There is no single thing in the world that has divided humanity more than religion.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/04/08 - 07:38 AM:	#25
itry2brational wrote: This seems strange because are not all your posts concerning your opinion on morals and ethics with regard to Hitchen's challenge? I do not see the connection. I have no opinion about whether one of those positions is “more moral” than the other. Rather, what I have claimed is that subscription to a religious morality that is more restrictive than the prevailing secular norms tends to influence believers’ behavior such that they behave more morally regarding some particular behaviors (alcohol, gambling, adulterous sex) than the rest of general society. The sociologically measurable incidence of these behaviors among such believers (Christian fundamentalists and followers of Islam, for instance) is significantly lower than the incidence in the rest of the general population. Please define these. What are the 'prevailing secular norms'? Is there a convenient list somewhere? Wouldn't we need something like that in order to make the comparison with the 'more restrictive religious morality' so that you could come to your opinion/conclusion? To be honest, there is much in religion which would seemingly have nothing to do with morality. For example, working on Sunday. I have the inpression that you think I’ve said things I did not say. The relevant prevailing secular morals that my post addressed explicitly name alcohol consunption, gambling, and patronizing hideaway resorts and bars. Do you disagree that those people who subscribe to a religious morality (such as fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and followers of Islam) that prohibits these behaviors will be influenced by their religious beliefs not to drive drunk, not to gamble away family funds, and not to engage in sexual affairs resulting from patronizing hideaway resorts and bars? Do you deny that the incidence of these behaviors is far less among the believers than in the rest of the population at large? jdrw wrote: jdrw wrote: ...a morality that is stricter than the predominant morality. Again, I think you need to substantiate these claims and define these terms. Do you deny that religious prohibition of alcohol consumption, gambling, patronizing places where aldulterous sexual liasons are quite likely is stricter than the prevailing secular morality which permits these bahaviors? jdrw wrote: The religious morality increases the numbers of non-drinkers in the society. Wow, if this could be proven conclusively I think you may be rewarded with a lot of money and recognition. Wow, this is an undisputed fact, pay up. Do you dispute the claim that tens of millions of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and followers of Islam are non-drinkers? In fact the Bible belt in the U.S. marks out a statistically significant epidemiological geographic area for purposes of studying the effects of alcohol consumption. Then please demonstrate this. Keep in mind also that if you are talking about net quantities, you may be correct. But that is not a fair assessment of giving. It should be a proportional comparison. Please take note also that you said money and effort. By effort I assume you mean volunteering? Giving of one's time, work, and even of themselves physically. And Hitchen's is a staunch contributor of the latter, he gives his blood regularly. Those should also be factored into the equation. I do not have the sources at hand and am not willing even to Google this. But I have read repeatedly over the years (entirely in secular sources) that this is the case, including what you’ve called “proportional comparison.” It is an established sociological fact that you can check out if you dispute it. My only point about it is that since people’s religious beliefs influence them to give more support to others than non-believers, this behavior should count as a positive contribution to humanity. This is highly debatable, and for more than one reason. First I would rephrase what you said just a little. PEOPLE uninhibited by moral restraints committed those heinous crimes against humanity. For one thing, they did not do what they did in the 'name of' atheism. That the mass murders were not done “in the name of atheism” is irrelevant to the point I made, which is that the perpetrators were not inhibited by a religious morality that would have forbade such behavior. If you can dismiss the atheism of the perpetrators as irrelevant and reframe them as PEOPLE who committed the murders, then the theism of those who’ve killed people in religious wars and persecutions also can be dismissed as irrelevant, and they too can be reframed as PEOPLE who ignored moral restraints. The influence of belief can be contrasted meaningfully with non-belief only if it works both ways. However, the millions of people killed in the name of religion over the ages surpasses the figures I am sure you are referring to...and by quite a bit. Its hard not to get into a whole new topic here, but I am more than willing to do so(though in a new thread, respectfully). More people were killed in the 20th Century by political ideologues than were killed in all the religious wars and persecutions throughout recorded history combined. I will defer to this comment I found which sums it up reasonably: Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being [killed] by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. Again recall that my point is that especially as theists construe the situation, the point is that atheist behavior is free from the moral constraints of the theists. All believers are constrained by the religious morality, but not all atheists feel constrained by a corresponding morality. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, (and their accomplices) just to mention the most obvious few, are responsible for the death and suffering of more people than all the religious wars and persecutions throughout recorded history. Its hard to really grasp but we are not comparing how many have been killed by just Christians or Muslims vs the amount killed by atheists. To be a true estimation we are comparing all people killed by ALL religions and religious conflict over all the world throughout history. (I've seen estimates of those killed in the name of 'God' that are in the hundreds, 600+, of millions)And to be fair, we need to include the millions who die because of mere beliefs which are religiously based. Such as the millions who die each year of aids in Sub Saharan Africa because the Catholic Church formally prohibited condom use. Thats just one example though. Indeed the Catholic Church is being characteristically dogmatic about this issue, and this surely counts as a negative impact on humanity. However, I’ve read that in areas where the Catholic Church has no influence, the use of condoms is not dramatically different. I have never seen a figure anywhere near 600+ million. The population of the whole world didn’t reach a billion until the 19th ccntury. The most murderous religious wars by far were the Thirty Years War and the Crusades, and the total numbers of deaths resulting from these are a fraction of 20th century figures. And even to construe the Crusades and the Thirty Years War as exclusively “religious” is a naïve misrepresentation not supported by historians. I agree. But I think overwhelmingly religion is numero uno on the list. There is no single thing in the world that has divided humanity more than religio Actually political ideology is numero uno--by a huge margin. All the foregoing, though, is entirely beside the point that Hitchens is addressing. His question: “Is there any moral action that a believer has ever performed that could not have been performed by a non-believer?” actually is in response to claims by religious people that without religion there is no reason for people to behave morally, that without God people cannot be moral. The observable fact of the matter, of course, is that millions of people can and do behave morally without God. The social norms that religious people would characterize as morality influence the behavior of non-believers with a high degree of effectiveness. And it is also the case that the prevailing norms of our society are remarkably compatible on the whole with the morality espoused by religious believers. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.