A Response to Christopher Hitchens’ Challenge

When I first read God is Not Great I remember that question sticking out. I think it is an interesting bit of rhetoric and it illustrates an important point: We atheists are not bad people. We are frequently very good people, just like your (religious) selves.

But yes, without any agreed upon morality, the question becomes impossible to navigate, as Amy Hall’s criticism and the reply that follows it show. Those who feel the most need to answer such a question (the most religious among us) will have a very different conception of morality.

An example, whereas a utilitarian like myself makes ethical decisions based on the positive or negative results of action and the pleasure/pain derived by those a decision affects, a fundamentalist christian will claim that morality must come from God and by extension, their Holy Book. To a certain extent, our morals might be cohabitant, but ultimately we will not see eye to eye, and often even maintain opinions that are polar opposites.

Incidentally, this sort of thing happens with many such challenges. “Psychics” complain that Randi’s challenge uses unfair (which of course means scientific) criteria. On the other side you have Kent Hovind challenging evolutionary biologists to prove that no other hypothesis could be correct. Obviously Randi’s rules are far more sane than Hovind’s, but these is the sort of problems that arise when people don’t share at least a few basic principles. The whole thing dissolves, and communication is practically impossible.

Aj,

The challenge sort of begs the question when it assumes that we can agree on morality. Clearly that’s an unnaccepted premise. Hitchens knew that many religious people would disagree with him on what a moral action is in the first place, as the book plainly shows time and time again.

But this is only an issue if he even meant the challenge earnestly in the first place. I think he meant it as a (very effective) thought game for the more moderately faithful who are on the fence about whether atheists can actually be good. It is extremely successful at that, as conversations I’ve had with a few liberal Episcopalians have taught me.

The highest moral good I can do is to worship the living, true, sovereign Flying Spaghetti Monster with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

I win too.

I think we need to consider the point Hitchens was trying to get across to us.

Throughout his book, and most of his other writing, he takes for granted that God probably doesn’t exist. He assumes that that argument has been made enough in plenty of other places not to merit its rehashing. If you have not yet been convinced that the God hypothesis is at least problematic, and you’ve read the arguments already, there is probably nothing new Hitchens can present to change your mind. So, his argument is meant for those who think that perhaps religion helps us be better people, despite the fact that God probably does not exist.

It is true that if God exists, then his argument is in jeopardy. However, he starts by assuming God doesn’t exist, to show that religious belief does not increase the potential for moral activity. So, we are necessarily talking about a humanistic approach to morals, since any morals dealing with the supernatural have been assumed to be delusional. We may not agree on the moral value of some actions, but given that all humanistic morals deal with the happiness and well-being of people (possibly other animals, but definitely always dealing with physical entities), there is no moral action that cannot be performed without a belief in the supernatural.

What Amy has done is a form of “moving the goalposts.” She has just picked something she knows Atheists cannot claim to do, and called that “moral.” Let’s move them right back.

Name one thing – that has a real, tangible effect on the world around us – that a Christian can do that an Atheist cannot. Prayer and worship cannot be demonstrated to have an actual effect, therefore they are not relevant to this discussion.

If the claim is that Christians are morally superior to atheists, then Hitchens question seems kind of irrelevant. The fact that either an atheist or theist could perform some action in no way suggests that they do perform those actions.

Jeff Satterley,

That’s a really intriguing way of looking at it. I like it.

The highest moral good I can do is -insert logical fallacy here-.

It should be pointed out that, now that I have asserted my logical fallacy to be true, I am the winner of this argument.

Thus (if you follow my illogic), I win.

It is good to be the winner. Winner takes all!

What positive effect does worship alone have on anybody but the person performing it?

The highest moral good a person can do is to worship the living, true, sovereign God — to love Him with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength.

I think it’s positively sick to define the highest morality as paying homage to a being that neither needs it nor deserves it while people starve to death or die of preventable illnesses.

Amy Hall, get your priorities in order.

How is worshiping a God who drowns babies moral? How is worshiping a God who sends bears to eat children moral? How is worshiping a God who would condemn millions of souls to eternal damnation, for the temporal errors made during a fragile and uncertain state of existence, moral? Sounds like the height of immorality to me, kind of like worshiping Hitler.

As is implicit in several preceding comments, I can’t construct a meaning of “moral” that includes Amy Hall’s proposed answer that doesn’t also include a whole lot of statements that she would almost certainly exclude, as for example

The highest moral good a person can do is to worship the living, true, sovereign God, Hadad — to love Him with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Indeed, based on the Old Testament she must exclude that statement.

This post was unnecessary – Daniel’s answer was sufficient. Belief in a particular religion is loaded with presuppositions – and according to most Christians, one of those presuppositions is an exclusive pathway to morality. Hitchen’s proposal simply points out the absurdity of this; thus the flaw is not in Hitchen’s challenge but in the original proposition (Christianity).

Amy, you’ll have to explain to me why the question itself is flawed instead of the original proposal (that Christianity has an exclusive pathway to morality).

I think those who are attempting to argue with Amy’s point are also forgetting (missing?) the point of the question.

Even if there is a logical fallacy inherent in the question (not saying there is, only “what if”), this would not invalidate the point.

Now, if presuppositions can be moral to the people that have them, then people with opposing presuppositions can be just as moral.

Thus, even if we allow for “wishy-washy” definitions of what is considered moral, atheists, theists, agnostics, deists and so on are all equally capable of defining (or not defining) their own morals. Subsequently, they are all capable of neglecting or practicing these self-defined morals.

It is lamentable when presuppositions create large groups of like minded individuals that oppress those of dissimilar presuppositions. Atheists, as a group, have never oppressed a people: anti Semites vs. Jews; Muslims’ vs. all non-believers; Christians vs. Heretics; Christians against non-believers; etc. etc. etc.; etc. on and on and on.

I think Hitchens gets the nod here. I’m sure many Christians think Amy Hall’s answer gives her the win, but I don’t think that prayer is automatically moral. In fact, most prayer tends to be rather selfish – asking god for personal favors, or favors on behalf of others. I’m not up on my Christian theology, but I’m 99% sure that selfishness is not a virtue.

Likewise, the content of a prayer should be factored in. Once again, I’m not up on my Christian theology, but I’d argue that praying for someones death (say McCains, for example) is not a moral thing to do.

Of course, for those of us who don’t believe in a magical fairy in the sky the issue is moot – at best its a self-indulgent waste of time.

Hitchens’ challenge is actually fairly circular if it’s to be called an argument of any kind.

Consider these 2 situations:
Hitchens and a theist have the same view on a moral question.
Hitchens and a theist have a different view on a moral question.

In the first instance, Hitchens’ wins the challenge, of course. And in the second instance he can just say that their opinion isn’t actually morally valid.

It’s an interesting rhetorical proposition, but I’d shudder to call it an argument for anything.

There’s a wonderful quote I remember from my youth, but regrettably I cannot cite the source despite my best googlings:

Man must do good out of good intent, Not the servile fear of punishment.

If Amy thinks that the challenge is invalid because atheists and theists cannot agree on morality, does this mean that theists will be quiet and keep their religion to themselves? Doesn’t this mean that a theist has no basis for judging an atheist? Or, for that matter, another theist?

Theists deal with absolutes when it suits them. They talk in absolutes when they want to control others. But when they can’t win, all of a sudden it’s all about context and definitions.

I agree with Daniel Hoffman’s response, but I’ll go one further. You can turn the challenge around:

Name one unethical statement made, or one unethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.

The only correct response to this challenge is a response similar to that of Amy Hall. You essentially need to define “belief” as unethical and go from there.

(And no, the answer is not “suicide attacks” or even “flying planes into things”. There are plenty of instances of suicide attacks in the history of warfare; Kamikaze and Selbstopfereinsatz are obvious examples from WW2. It’s not to hard to think of a lot of other cases of mass murder/suicide carried out by nonbelievers, but we usually think of them as crimes, not terrorism.)

As Brad points out, what Christians generally claim is that they’re more moral than atheists, so Hitchens’ comments seem irrelevant. I’ve never meet a theist so silly as to claim that no atheist can ever do anything moral. They just say that the average Christian is more moral than the average atheist. (Or alternatively, that an atheist who is moral lacks a valid ontological basis for his/her morals.) Hitchens’ argument doesn’t seem to be at all relevant to this. What you would want to test the standard Christian claim is to test large numbers of Christians and atheists in a situation where we all agree on what constitutes moral behavior (like seeing if they stop to help a baby in a well), and see which group has a better percentage of moral behavior. I tend to doubt that there would be much difference between the groups. Historically, I think the two groups come out about equal.

I suppose that Amy could be seen as technically correct, in that no moral standards are empirically testable, so you could take the stance that no question about morality is sensical. In the same vein, I guess I could claim that I’m extremely moral, since I eat a lot of bananas, and like to teach people about convection, and those are two of the most moral things a person can do. Hey, who can prove me wrong? But this strikes me as an extraordinarily silly cop-out. Basically, Amy seems to be saying that we could have different moral beliefs, so there’s no way to talk about them.

Amy, if you’re still around, what I’d say is this. Forget about Hitchen’s challenge. Hitchens is arguing against something that I have no reason to believe anyway, so I don’t much care whether it’s a good argument. If you have some basis for believing that theists are more moral than atheists, then explain what that basis is. Either show me empirical evidence that theists are more moral in activities that we all agree are moral (e.g. helping babies in wells), or explain, using beliefs we have in common, why theistic activities like praising a powerful entity are moral. If your superior morality consists purely of a class of activities that you’ve chosen to define as moral, and can’t explain why they’re moral in any comprehensible way to outsiders, then that’s great, but I’m going to claim superior morality based on my banana-eating.

Seriously, I totally don’t get why “The highest moral good a person can do is to worship the living, true, sovereign God,” even assuming for the sake of argument that such an entity exists.

This talk about “morality being subjective” is all very clever, but misses the point. Hitchens is not that subtle in his thinking or speaking. Speaking to a general audience, he clearly meant “moral” in a secular sense (as in not-presupposing-one-belief-over-another, not as in assuming-religion-is-false).

It may not be precise or philosophically rigorous, but it is meaningful. And it is the appropriate scope for such a question. In that scope, things like murder, theft, breaking a promise, etc are immoral; saving a life, helping someone in need, etc are moral. Worshipping a god cannot be judged one way or another without introducing further presuppositions (and thus begging the question).

As has been pointed out, there is only one reasonable answer to his question. But it was rhetorical. It highlights the fact that, although there is only one reasonable answer, nevertheless many people assume that religion does convey some inherent moral superiority.

By re-interpreting Hitchens to suit her own presuppositions, Hall simply reinforces his point: the only way religous people can claim inherent moral superiority is by stepping outside of secular reasoning and insisting that their beliefs be given special status.

>>I suppose that Amy could be seen as technically correct, in that no moral standards are empirically testable, so you could take the stance that no question about morality is sensical.

Please understand that that’s not at all what I’m saying. I refer you back to my earlier comment. My only point is that if there is something truly moral that only believers would recognize as moral, then by definition, Hitchens will not accept that answer since he is not a believer. In other words, even if there are true answers out there, they are ruled out immediately. The question can’t possibly determine anything in a debate–it’s a logical impossibility.

It’s funny to read the flow of this conversation. One person misstates my argument, and then the next person adds something to that, and on and on, until I don’t even recognize the way my argument is being characterized. This wasn’t about prayer, or the idea that morality is subjective, or moral superiority, or that there are no such thing as morals (where did you get that?), or giving my belief special status, or whether or not worship is really moral (I wouldn’t expect any of you to agree to that–that’s precisely what creates the logical problem with the question), or even about being a theist or an atheist. I’m definitely not saying worship renders the question invalid. What I’m saying is much simpler than that and only has to do with the logical structure of the question. Logic renders this question an invalid question in a debate because it’s structured logically to preclude any true answers even if they exist. That’s it. The logical problem exists regardless of whether or not God exists. I think some of you are letting your strong feelings against theism get in the way of looking objectively at a simple logic issue.

Vincent, your question creates exactly the same problem I described above.

Cade, you get what I’m saying (and a couple others, too). Thanks!

First, Juan you don’t sound like an atheist to me? You wouldn’t be misrepresenting yourself a bit, would you? I could be wrong? But…come on? You’re telling me, as an atheist yourself, you have no justification AT ALL, NOT to kill people? I’m an atheist and I can think of plenty of justifications for the matter! What about: because ‘I’ wouldn’t want to be killed and/or treated that way myself? Or how about: because it’s a sick, sadistic and barbaric act-emotions that have been cultivated through years of psychological evolution to provide one with ’empathy’ for their fellow human beings? Are you saying you have no ’empathy’ BECAUSE you’re an atheist? Pardon me, but that sounds awfully close to good old ‘religious logic’ to me? Again, I could be wrong…if you truly feel NO empathy for the person being murdered in your hypothetical scenario, I find that pretty frightening and sad. Second, I think Amy and others are forgetting the rest of Hitchens’ proposal? He doesn’t say ONLY; ‘…name an ethical act performed by a religious person, that could not have also been performed by an atheist’, he (seems to) purposely follow that with: ‘Now, name an UN-ethical act that could ONLY be performed by a religious person, and wouldn’t be acted on by an atheist.’ We can easily think of examples to the latter proposal, but in the former; he seems to be purposely exposing religion for what it is: unnecessary! I believe that’s his point? For he demonstrates that it’s only through religion that a person would be compelled to commit certain unethical acts in the first place, yet by contrast there are NO ethical acts a person can engage in JUST by following religion and religion only. I don’t think he’s merely tried to set up an unanswerable proposal for the sake of debate? I think he’s attempting to demonstrate-by precise and explicit example-his main thesis and the subtitle to his book:”how religion poisons everything!”?