The Hitchens' Challenge
I have to confess that I am a late comer to this particular question. That aside, there is really nothing to be done for it.
Hitchens' has made a challenge, and the challenge is this: a religious person must perform a moral action or make a moral statement that an atheist cannot also affirm.
The thrust behind Hitchen's challenge is, therefore: is there anything a religious person would claim as good that an atheist would not agree with? The underpinning assumption that if the answer is no, atheists and religious people both arrive at morality. Since the atheist arrives at morality apart from God, God is not necessary for morality. One swift application of Occam's Razor, and God is removed from the paradigm.
There is an easy response to this that has been boldly stated on various blogs as an answer, namely the first half of Jesus' summary of the Old Testament Law: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind (Luke 10:27)." I think that even answering Hitchen's challenge, however, does not really answer his challenge. Confused yet? Quite simply, Hitchens is asking the wrong question. Furthermore, I don't see Christian Thinkers making any such claim as he seems to be responding to.
The question being asked is not can atheists agree with good moral codes that come from religion, but rather: "How does an atheist postulate a morality which serves as an ontic point of reference for all of humanity?" The question should be asked with the addendum: "How can this point of reference be arrived at, by the atheist, without subsuming the morality of various religions?" It is far too easy to claim to have established a certain moral code that affirms many Christian points of morality at the tail end of two thousand years of Christian history.
What is the criteria? Reason? I believe it was Kai Nielson (although I could be misquoting here) who said that reason alone, even with a good grasp of the facts, does not take one to morality.
However, the atheist might counter that "there is no such thing as an ontic morality, and this talk of a point of reference for all people smacks of objective morality which I reject." Well, if that is the case, then on what grounds does Hitchens' make his claim? Let me explain this in a different way.
There is a classical atheist argument that asserts since God, who is all good and all knowing, exists and evil exists, that claiming the two is a contradiction. The contradiction being that if there were such a God, He would not tolerate such a thing as evil. Therefore, either God is lacking in some capacity, or He does not exist. However, if the atheist denies the existence of evil in the first place (or states that there is no such thing as objective morality), then on what grounds can the above problem be asserted?
You see, the questioner must always answer his own question before asking it.
The question Hitchens, and other atheists, need to answer is this: why be moral? And what is the point of reference for this morality?
Hitchens' has made a challenge, and the challenge is this: a religious person must perform a moral action or make a moral statement that an atheist cannot also affirm.
The thrust behind Hitchen's challenge is, therefore: is there anything a religious person would claim as good that an atheist would not agree with? The underpinning assumption that if the answer is no, atheists and religious people both arrive at morality. Since the atheist arrives at morality apart from God, God is not necessary for morality. One swift application of Occam's Razor, and God is removed from the paradigm.
There is an easy response to this that has been boldly stated on various blogs as an answer, namely the first half of Jesus' summary of the Old Testament Law: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind (Luke 10:27)." I think that even answering Hitchen's challenge, however, does not really answer his challenge. Confused yet? Quite simply, Hitchens is asking the wrong question. Furthermore, I don't see Christian Thinkers making any such claim as he seems to be responding to.
The question being asked is not can atheists agree with good moral codes that come from religion, but rather: "How does an atheist postulate a morality which serves as an ontic point of reference for all of humanity?" The question should be asked with the addendum: "How can this point of reference be arrived at, by the atheist, without subsuming the morality of various religions?" It is far too easy to claim to have established a certain moral code that affirms many Christian points of morality at the tail end of two thousand years of Christian history.
What is the criteria? Reason? I believe it was Kai Nielson (although I could be misquoting here) who said that reason alone, even with a good grasp of the facts, does not take one to morality.
However, the atheist might counter that "there is no such thing as an ontic morality, and this talk of a point of reference for all people smacks of objective morality which I reject." Well, if that is the case, then on what grounds does Hitchens' make his claim? Let me explain this in a different way.
There is a classical atheist argument that asserts since God, who is all good and all knowing, exists and evil exists, that claiming the two is a contradiction. The contradiction being that if there were such a God, He would not tolerate such a thing as evil. Therefore, either God is lacking in some capacity, or He does not exist. However, if the atheist denies the existence of evil in the first place (or states that there is no such thing as objective morality), then on what grounds can the above problem be asserted?
You see, the questioner must always answer his own question before asking it.
The question Hitchens, and other atheists, need to answer is this: why be moral? And what is the point of reference for this morality?
posted by Brian at 7:51 AM
4 comments
