Every time I listen to Christopher Hitchens, or one of the other four horsemen of the atheist apocalypse (Dawkins, Harris and Dennet), I feel myself taking a deep breath unsure if I'm about to hear some killer argument that will see my faith disappear in puff of logic. After all they are pretty smart people.
This time I was listening to Christopher Hitchens being interviewed by Tony Jones of Late Line fame.
He spoke as if many of the Xn people he spoke to argued that morality was proof of God or that God (via Xy for Xns) is what teaches us morality. I can't believe this kind of argument still persists. Hasn't any of the Xns pushing this line of argument read Matthew 25 or the parable of the Good Samaritan or any of the parables where moral thing being done by the non religious or religiously incorrect person is contrasted with the religious person doing the immoral thing?
His arguments about Martin Luther King I found less convincing mainly because of the way I read scripture. I think Hitchens sees scripture as like a law book where you can pick and choose bits equally with the whole thing needing to be in complete agreement with itself. This is completely understandable as this is exactly what many Xns do. Personally I've always thought of weird given that one of our major figures said things like "you have heard it said but I say..." (Matt 5:38)
I tend to view scripture as an on going revelation rather a law book. Xns who argue against picking a bit out of Leviticus to support a particular idea usually have their arguments reduced to something along the lines of "that's not loving and god is loving so we'll ignore that bit" I would argue that they're simply not taking scripture seriously.
As he spoke it reminded me how important it is to hear the voice of the heretic. Hitchen's may not be a believer but like previous heretics (Martin Luther or even Jesus) his voice needs serious thought.
Hitchens is not only the atheist and critic we deserve to have but are blessed to have. We need to agree with him that religion can be dangerous and open to abuse which under the right and fairly unextraordinary circumstances can be devastating. For example if we were to want exemption to discrimination laws it would not be carte blanche (as some Xns are arguing at the moment) but only for very specific reasons which wider society would be comfortable with.
There has been much post enlightenment theological thought but for the most part of of it seems to still exclusively reside within theological institutions. My hope is that The popular and lucid thoughts of Hitchens might challenge main stream Xy and force us to grow and change.
This time I was listening to Christopher Hitchens being interviewed by Tony Jones of Late Line fame.
He spoke as if many of the Xn people he spoke to argued that morality was proof of God or that God (via Xy for Xns) is what teaches us morality. I can't believe this kind of argument still persists. Hasn't any of the Xns pushing this line of argument read Matthew 25 or the parable of the Good Samaritan or any of the parables where moral thing being done by the non religious or religiously incorrect person is contrasted with the religious person doing the immoral thing?
His arguments about Martin Luther King I found less convincing mainly because of the way I read scripture. I think Hitchens sees scripture as like a law book where you can pick and choose bits equally with the whole thing needing to be in complete agreement with itself. This is completely understandable as this is exactly what many Xns do. Personally I've always thought of weird given that one of our major figures said things like "you have heard it said but I say..." (Matt 5:38)
I tend to view scripture as an on going revelation rather a law book. Xns who argue against picking a bit out of Leviticus to support a particular idea usually have their arguments reduced to something along the lines of "that's not loving and god is loving so we'll ignore that bit" I would argue that they're simply not taking scripture seriously.
As he spoke it reminded me how important it is to hear the voice of the heretic. Hitchen's may not be a believer but like previous heretics (Martin Luther or even Jesus) his voice needs serious thought.
Hitchens is not only the atheist and critic we deserve to have but are blessed to have. We need to agree with him that religion can be dangerous and open to abuse which under the right and fairly unextraordinary circumstances can be devastating. For example if we were to want exemption to discrimination laws it would not be carte blanche (as some Xns are arguing at the moment) but only for very specific reasons which wider society would be comfortable with.
There has been much post enlightenment theological thought but for the most part of of it seems to still exclusively reside within theological institutions. My hope is that The popular and lucid thoughts of Hitchens might challenge main stream Xy and force us to grow and change.
6 comments:
Interesting post and your comments about scripture are good. I would question that Hitchens et al are saying anything particularly new - I can't see any sense in which they're as radical or important as Jesus or Luther for the church. :)
I'll concede that Hitchens is not as important as Jesus. ;). Seriously though, I just meant so say that just because we don't like his views doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them.
Hey Chris, (belated response, but just became aware of your blog).
It's certainly good to be aware of the arguments of people such as Hitchens - yet I agree with Nathan that there's "Nothing new under the sun" about their arguments. I recently saw a debate between Hitchens and Dr John Lennox. Worth a watch.
The classic mistake, in my view, that Lennox pointed out of the new athiests, is not distinguishing between "Use and misuse", tarring it all with the same brush. By this token, Lennox points out, Science (said to be based on reason) would also be done away with for the atrocities it has produced, such as napalm, gassings, nuclear bombs and so on and so forth. The second mistake is a denial of history.
I wouldn't agree with you on brushing aside so quickly the argument that 'morality is (a) proof of God' where you say "I can't believe this argument from Xns still persists." Morality, after all, either finds it roots in God's very character who, as Paul says, "has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." Acts 14:17. Such testimony, in Paul's view, is evidence of his very involvement in his creation and given that Luke, who included the Parable of the Good Samaritan in his gospel account, was both a companion of Paul's and the author of Acts as well, I'd suggest he would adhere to this view also as being part of the gospel message. A point worth pondering.
If there is no God, then there is no such thing as good or evil nor human responsibility. Evolution cannot claim anything or anyone good or bad - it just is.
Yet think it through: who gave man a conscience? And given that he did, and not someone else, one would think it reasonable to say that speaking about such things in truth has hardly got a used-by date this side of eternity.
Hey ldeck,
When you say there's no morality without God is that in a wider sense of nothing exists without God or is that in a more narrow sense that only Xns can be moral or good?
Hey Chris,
I certainly don't mean only Xns can be moral but that morality is only possible in man because God is moral [1] and he has made man in his image and will therefore (and is able, therefore, to) call him to account.
Jesus, of course, explains that those who are evil can yet also do good. "If you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children how much more will God..." (Luke 11:13).
Yet Paul goes on to argue, therefore, that all men are without excuse for their suppression of the truth about God through their evil behaviour. (Rom 1:18-23ff .. of course should be read in context of Rom 1-3)
But, having said that, there is another sense of moral / righteousness that the Bible reserves for those who trust in Christ alone. This is not a righteousness that's self attained but is the gift of God through faith in Christ. (Rom 5:17 .. in context of Rom 5 and comparing with Matt 5:20).
[1] as Jesus taught: He sends rain on both the just and the unjust [Matt 5:45].
Fair enough. I was referring to the other argument. The argument you are suggesting is obviously not that helpful when talking to someone who is an atheist. You can test the hypothesis that people have the capacity to be moral only because God is moral. You could argue on the same lines that people are immoral only because God is. Not that I am disagreeing with you it's just an argument that only makes sense once you have a Xn worldview.
Post a Comment