||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A BUSH SPEECHWRITER EXPLAINS TO CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS WHY GOD IS
IMPORTANT
[An interesting exchange on atheism in the Washington Post. Michael
Gerson was a Bush speechwriter, now a senior fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations, a kind of Church of Scientology for Washington
strivers. Gerson's comments may help explain why the Bush administration
has had such a hard time understanding the moral constraints of our
secular Constitution.
It is our view, to a take a contemporary example, that the Middle East
crisis would be quickly resolved if just one Seventh Day Agnostic leader
were introduced to the table, instead of having it a battle between
Christian, Muslim and Jewish nuts. This is not to say in the slightest
that all agnostic and atheist leaders are without sin, but it is
fascinating how often - when they plan some evil - they revert to
religion to con the public into going along with them.
As for the difference between Seventh Day Agnostics such as your editor
and atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, it is in part that the former
are still able to go through life saying, "I do not know" when
applicable. They don't teach that at Oxford.]
MICHAEL GERSON, WASHINGTON POST - If God were dethroned as the arbiter
of moral truth, it would not, of course, mean that everyone joins the
Crips or reports to the Playboy mansion. On evidence found in every
culture, human beings can be good without God. And Hitchens is himself
part of the proof. I know him to be intellectually courageous and
unfailingly kind, when not ruthlessly flaying opponents for taking minor
exception to his arguments. There is something innate about morality
that is distinct from theological conviction. This instinct may result
from evolutionary biology, early childhood socialization or the
chemistry of the brain, but human nature is somehow constructed for
sympathy and cooperative purpose.
But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy
selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts?
Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate
the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect
requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your
evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very
compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to
respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do
whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that
says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."
Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a
fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is
particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered
exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By
exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their
human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis
could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have
no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/
AR2007071201620.html
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, WASHINGTON POST - Implicit in this ancient
chestnut of an argument is the further -- and equally disagreeable --
self-satisfaction that simply assumes, whether or not religion is
metaphysically "true," that at least it stands for morality. Those of us
who disbelieve in the heavenly dictatorship also reject many of its
immoral teachings, which have at different times included the slaughter
of other "tribes," the enslavement of the survivors, the mutilation of
the genitalia of children, the burning of witches, the condemnation of
sexual "deviants" and the eating of certain foods, the opposition to
innovations in science and medicine, the mad doctrine of predestination,
the deranged accusation against all Jews of the crime of "deicide," the
absurdity of "Limbo," the horror of suicide-bombing and jihad, and the
ethically dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice. . .
Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one
ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered
or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any
reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil
action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second
question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking
it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do
the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have
as much to apologize for as to explain.
EDWARD PURO, LETTER TO POST - Michael Gerson appears to be unaware that
secular philosophers have, in fact, been discussing ethical issues for
centuries without recourse to supernatural lawgivers and other religious
tropes. The thesis that atheists have a unique incapacity to
objectively judge the conduct of others is simply preposterous. Anyone
who holds ethical beliefs can make objective moral judgments, and
perhaps we can agree that most people, atheists included, hold ethical
beliefs of one sort or another. That one's moral judgments can appear
questionable under a different set of ethical beliefs is true
irrespective of whether one's judgments are based on a religious or
secular foundation. The only significant distinction I see between
secular and religious ethics is that one is recognized as a product of
human intellect and is open to discussion and revision, while the other
appears to be sometimes open to discussion and sometimes not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2007/07/13/
AR2007071301461.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A BUSH SPEECHWRITER EXPLAINS TO CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS WHY GOD IS
IMPORTANT
[An interesting exchange on atheism in the Washington Post. Michael
Gerson was a Bush speechwriter, now a senior fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations, a kind of Church of Scientology for Washington
strivers. Gerson's comments may help explain why the Bush administration
has had such a hard time understanding the moral constraints of our
secular Constitution.
It is our view, to a take a contemporary example, that the Middle East
crisis would be quickly resolved if just one Seventh Day Agnostic leader
were introduced to the table, instead of having it a battle between
Christian, Muslim and Jewish nuts. This is not to say in the slightest
that all agnostic and atheist leaders are without sin, but it is
fascinating how often - when they plan some evil - they revert to
religion to con the public into going along with them.
As for the difference between Seventh Day Agnostics such as your editor
and atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, it is in part that the former
are still able to go through life saying, "I do not know" when
applicable. They don't teach that at Oxford.]
MICHAEL GERSON, WASHINGTON POST - If God were dethroned as the arbiter
of moral truth, it would not, of course, mean that everyone joins the
Crips or reports to the Playboy mansion. On evidence found in every
culture, human beings can be good without God. And Hitchens is himself
part of the proof. I know him to be intellectually courageous and
unfailingly kind, when not ruthlessly flaying opponents for taking minor
exception to his arguments. There is something innate about morality
that is distinct from theological conviction. This instinct may result
from evolutionary biology, early childhood socialization or the
chemistry of the brain, but human nature is somehow constructed for
sympathy and cooperative purpose.
But there is a problem. Human nature, in other circumstances, is also
clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy
selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits.
So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts?
Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate
the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect
requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.
Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your
evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect
your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very
compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to
respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do
whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that
says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."
Some argue that a careful determination of our long-term interests -- a
fear of bad consequences -- will constrain our selfishness. But this is
particularly absurd. Some people are very good at the self-centered
exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By
exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their
human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis
could exist to condemn them? Atheists can be good people; they just have
no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/
AR2007071201620.html
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, WASHINGTON POST - Implicit in this ancient
chestnut of an argument is the further -- and equally disagreeable --
self-satisfaction that simply assumes, whether or not religion is
metaphysically "true," that at least it stands for morality. Those of us
who disbelieve in the heavenly dictatorship also reject many of its
immoral teachings, which have at different times included the slaughter
of other "tribes," the enslavement of the survivors, the mutilation of
the genitalia of children, the burning of witches, the condemnation of
sexual "deviants" and the eating of certain foods, the opposition to
innovations in science and medicine, the mad doctrine of predestination,
the deranged accusation against all Jews of the crime of "deicide," the
absurdity of "Limbo," the horror of suicide-bombing and jihad, and the
ethically dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice. . .
Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one
ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered
or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any
reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil
action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second
question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking
it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do
the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have
as much to apologize for as to explain.
EDWARD PURO, LETTER TO POST - Michael Gerson appears to be unaware that
secular philosophers have, in fact, been discussing ethical issues for
centuries without recourse to supernatural lawgivers and other religious
tropes. The thesis that atheists have a unique incapacity to
objectively judge the conduct of others is simply preposterous. Anyone
who holds ethical beliefs can make objective moral judgments, and
perhaps we can agree that most people, atheists included, hold ethical
beliefs of one sort or another. That one's moral judgments can appear
questionable under a different set of ethical beliefs is true
irrespective of whether one's judgments are based on a religious or
secular foundation. The only significant distinction I see between
secular and religious ethics is that one is recognized as a product of
human intellect and is open to discussion and revision, while the other
appears to be sometimes open to discussion and sometimes not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2007/07/13/
AR2007071301461.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment