Menu Bar
Needs Plugin: Flash | Not Working?
Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
If there is no God- no ground of being, if human beings represent nothing more than temporary swarms of atoms, then what sense does it make even to speak of 'right' and 'wrong'? Where does morality come from? Reflecting on what he calls 'the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided'... Christopher Hitchens takes on the likes of Jonathan Swift, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Darwin in making his case for atheism.
Jan 4, 2008 3:38 AM
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
Christopher Hitchens is the author of more than ten books, including, most recently, God Is Not Great- How Religion Poisons Everything. He is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, and has written prolifically for American and English periodicals, including the Nation, the London Review of Books, Granta, Harper's, the Los Angeles Times Book Review, New Left Review, Slate, the New York Review of Books, Newsweek International, the Times Literary Supplement, the Atlantic and the Washington Post. He is also a regular television and radio commentator.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
Whats more, I once heard that roughtly 90 % of the criminals in the U.S. jail system claim to be devout in some way, shape or form.
By: meat
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
I know that I posted it here a year and a half ago but I cannot find it.
Here's your answer:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xalhw_atheist_creation
Here's your answer:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xalhw_atheist_creation
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/49707/detail/
By: cheezsteak
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
Well, most of them convert while in prison because religion offers hope and redemption...And there are plenty of weird sects of religions, including Neo-Nazism, that should not be grouped with more mainstream religions. 90% does seem pretty high nonetheless.
By: Wonderr
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
I agree with Wonderr, it isn't true that 90% of prisoners are followers of mainstream faiths or were followers at the time they committed their crimes. Also, one cannot confuse correlation with causation. It is also true that a majority of people in prison are minorities. Does this mean that blacks and Hispanics are immoral?
I don't know, people like Hitchens, Condell, and Dawkins remind me of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. If you agree with their philosophy going in, you're going to think they are awesome. If you don't agree, you're probably going to think they are asses. In the end, I don't think any of them do a lot of conversions of the opposition.
I don't know, people like Hitchens, Condell, and Dawkins remind me of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. If you agree with their philosophy going in, you're going to think they are awesome. If you don't agree, you're probably going to think they are asses. In the end, I don't think any of them do a lot of conversions of the opposition.
By: rickhatman1984
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
It's not stating that religion causes crime. More proving the null hypothesis that atheists are not immoral.
By: cheezsteak
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
I love how Hitchens handles each and every question and Robinson decides he is the one lighting the candle.
Cognitive Dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance.
By: Achiever
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
What a sharp mind this guys has. I really enjoy listening to him.
Here is an idea I'd like to share:
How about a fighting (video) game that let players choose a hero, to do battle with, from a menu of popular spiritual deities and/or leader. There'd be the usual suspects, like Moss, Jesus, Allah... Joseph Smith, Gandhi, Ron Hubbard, Ronald Regan, John Lennon, James Brown, Elvis... and Christopher Hitchens.
Once players selected their fighters, they'd be sent to an arena where they'd do battle with each other. Battles would be fought with special power moves that players earned through soul harvesting: a crowd pleasing gimmick that is similar to what is found in most pro-wrestling themed video games.
I'd call this game.... Blasphemy Wars.
Now, I mention this ridiculous - yet totally awesome - video game idea because the video above made me think of what Hitchen's über power move would be. He would whip out a giant 'sledgehammer of facts & rational thinking' and smack his opponent over the head with it. The move would be one of the most potent in the game. But, the kicker would be that it ONLY works if he has enlightened enough of the mortal in the audience. Plus, the move might backfire if the mortal audience is too fucking stupid and brainwashed to understand him. So, it would not be easy to use.
Think I should pitch the concept as a Nintendo Wii game?
Here is an idea I'd like to share:
How about a fighting (video) game that let players choose a hero, to do battle with, from a menu of popular spiritual deities and/or leader. There'd be the usual suspects, like Moss, Jesus, Allah... Joseph Smith, Gandhi, Ron Hubbard, Ronald Regan, John Lennon, James Brown, Elvis... and Christopher Hitchens.
Once players selected their fighters, they'd be sent to an arena where they'd do battle with each other. Battles would be fought with special power moves that players earned through soul harvesting: a crowd pleasing gimmick that is similar to what is found in most pro-wrestling themed video games.
I'd call this game.... Blasphemy Wars.
Now, I mention this ridiculous - yet totally awesome - video game idea because the video above made me think of what Hitchen's über power move would be. He would whip out a giant 'sledgehammer of facts & rational thinking' and smack his opponent over the head with it. The move would be one of the most potent in the game. But, the kicker would be that it ONLY works if he has enlightened enough of the mortal in the audience. Plus, the move might backfire if the mortal audience is too fucking stupid and brainwashed to understand him. So, it would not be easy to use.
Think I should pitch the concept as a Nintendo Wii game?
By: EViLMinD
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
Here's something similar to your idea, but it's limited only to Bible characters:
http://gameshero.com/online/bible_fight-arcadegame.html
http://gameshero.com/online/bible_fight-arcadegame.html
By: Philentropy
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
LMAO This is freakin' awesome!
However, it's not quite offensive enough for my liking.
Thanks for the find, though.
However, it's not quite offensive enough for my liking.
Thanks for the find, though.
By: EViLMinD
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
Ah, the MaC community loves its atheist movies don't we? Haha.
By: y0j1m80
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
Uh... has anyone even listened to what he's saying other than being a Hitchens/Dawkins fan? If a sense of morality is really evolutionarily innate, then every criminal is actually a victim of genetic mutation and is now mentally ill. I love listening to Hitchens misinterpret religion in every way shape and form possible, it's just hilarious. Oh, and how is viewing every human-being as a big meat bag respecting ones existence as a person? If morality is so obvious then why are our jails overflowing with convicts? Religion doesn't say everyone is a horrible person, it just says we're not perfect which is absolutely true. In fact there are several verses in the bible that warn against calling a brother a fool as it disrespects God's creation.
The problem is that religion is sometimes misinterpreted which leads to tragedies such as the Salem Witch Trials.
Here's a quick easy one, give a reasonable explanation why rape is wrong that doesn't involve any laws or any theological concepts of a human being.
I'm willing to bet you can't, universal morality comes from religion. Or you can try to be Hitchens and prove that God doesn't exist by first assuming he doesn't exist and attributing morals to inventions of man. The argument for and against God based on morals is sadly cyclical and the only way one can "prove" existence or a lack of existence is by assuming the same hypothesis as the end result.
The problem is that religion is sometimes misinterpreted which leads to tragedies such as the Salem Witch Trials.
Here's a quick easy one, give a reasonable explanation why rape is wrong that doesn't involve any laws or any theological concepts of a human being.
I'm willing to bet you can't, universal morality comes from religion. Or you can try to be Hitchens and prove that God doesn't exist by first assuming he doesn't exist and attributing morals to inventions of man. The argument for and against God based on morals is sadly cyclical and the only way one can "prove" existence or a lack of existence is by assuming the same hypothesis as the end result.
By: ChopstickNINJ4
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
Your interpretation of his conceptualisation of morality is incorrect. He does not say that morality is innate, but that a moral framework is obviously beneficial in terms of human evolution - societies that prosper are those where people cooperate. Part of cooperation is supporting others, belonging, and other facets of altruism. Furthermore, he argues that these elements of morality have been around long before monotheistic or even polytheistic institutionalised religion.
His opponent's argument that atheism = bad because Stalin and Hitler killed more people than the crusaders is also a completely illogical and ill conceived argument. One cannot compare numbers of people killed in the last century with those before it. Our capacity to kill large numbers of people quickly far surpasses that of the crusaders. Therefore, you cannot do a direct comparison.
Regarding rape, I wish to turn it around and ask you to explain to me how it is that rape is 'wrong' in the eyes of god, yet most of 'god's creatures' in the animal kingdom rape each other all the time. If our morality comes from a divine source why aren't other animals beholden to it also?
In atheist terms, rape is wrong because it is obvious the victims aren't willing participants. Being atheist doesn't mean a slavering psychopath / sociopath. Societally, rape is counter-productive because it creates conflict between families and groups and generates unrest on a broader scale. In order to survive as a species, social cohesion is vital to human beings.
His opponent's argument that atheism = bad because Stalin and Hitler killed more people than the crusaders is also a completely illogical and ill conceived argument. One cannot compare numbers of people killed in the last century with those before it. Our capacity to kill large numbers of people quickly far surpasses that of the crusaders. Therefore, you cannot do a direct comparison.
Regarding rape, I wish to turn it around and ask you to explain to me how it is that rape is 'wrong' in the eyes of god, yet most of 'god's creatures' in the animal kingdom rape each other all the time. If our morality comes from a divine source why aren't other animals beholden to it also?
In atheist terms, rape is wrong because it is obvious the victims aren't willing participants. Being atheist doesn't mean a slavering psychopath / sociopath. Societally, rape is counter-productive because it creates conflict between families and groups and generates unrest on a broader scale. In order to survive as a species, social cohesion is vital to human beings.
By: tycho100
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
If you're going to bring the rape argument to the religion side and ask "why isn't animal rape wrong?" surely you must be able to accept the simple religious answer of "because they're animals." Otherwise why would you try to look at it from a religious standpoint?
Additionally, the argument is constantly misinterpreted: clearly social cohesion is the goal of people both religious and non-religious. The benefits are obvious. However, a non-religious person may not CARE about the social benefits. I am a singularity, I will do what benefits ME now - not what benefits you, or benefits your children, or (to a more extreme but plausible viewpoint) MY children. As long as I can get what I want and what I find value in, why would I care?
An atheist could rape a woman and conceivably 'get away with it' - it would be possible for their "social cohesion" not to be diminished, with no loss to their value of life. A Christian (for example, only because the theology is familiar) can not - because their belief implies that there IS no "getting away with it."
Just my take on it. I still don't know WHY I'm "moral," I just am. I would rather have your classical Christian morality than the non-religious person's viewpoint above. Why do I prefer that? I'm not sure, and I think that is the heart of the question.
Additionally, the argument is constantly misinterpreted: clearly social cohesion is the goal of people both religious and non-religious. The benefits are obvious. However, a non-religious person may not CARE about the social benefits. I am a singularity, I will do what benefits ME now - not what benefits you, or benefits your children, or (to a more extreme but plausible viewpoint) MY children. As long as I can get what I want and what I find value in, why would I care?
An atheist could rape a woman and conceivably 'get away with it' - it would be possible for their "social cohesion" not to be diminished, with no loss to their value of life. A Christian (for example, only because the theology is familiar) can not - because their belief implies that there IS no "getting away with it."
Just my take on it. I still don't know WHY I'm "moral," I just am. I would rather have your classical Christian morality than the non-religious person's viewpoint above. Why do I prefer that? I'm not sure, and I think that is the heart of the question.
By: sasquatchbill
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
The religious answer to the question lies in respecting each other as individuals and human beings, this is a theological concept of a person because of the emphasis placed on individuality and the rights of a person. After all we are very similar genetically to monkeys, what makes us special in terms of atheism?
And no, morality in itself is not always beneficial to the human race in its entirety. The most successful civilizations cooperated within themselves, but obviously not with others. Look at the Romans or the Mongols, clearly they did not apply their sense of morality or law during their respective conquests of other nations. Morality is beneficial within a group, but is seldom applied to others, which has been shown throughout history. Attributing basic human morals to the societal nature of human beings is incorrect as history has shown many times.
And no, morality in itself is not always beneficial to the human race in its entirety. The most successful civilizations cooperated within themselves, but obviously not with others. Look at the Romans or the Mongols, clearly they did not apply their sense of morality or law during their respective conquests of other nations. Morality is beneficial within a group, but is seldom applied to others, which has been shown throughout history. Attributing basic human morals to the societal nature of human beings is incorrect as history has shown many times.
By: ChopstickNINJ4
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
There are several ways to classify rape as a morally bad action. If you'd taken the time to research ethics or morality, you'd know this.
First off, at the base of any morality (and philosophy, be it religious or not), you're going to have to accept a first principle. Let's say we accept that human autonomy (read: freedom of choice, including choosing who one has sexual intercourse with) is good. Forcing sexual intercourse upon another human being violates their autonomy, autonomy being something that has already been recognized as good. Violating one's autonomy is therefore bad, and thus, rape is bad.
Religion has first principles as well, they simply make up absurd first principles, such as "It is good to follow the laws delineated in this book." In the end, "Thou Shalt Not Rape" means the same thing, whether it comes from a bible or your own rationality. Please think these issues through before you make an ignorant post.
Sitting there and saying that Christianity (or any other religion) has better first principles than Hitchens, then pound away, pound away. At least Hitchens has some semblance of a rational basis for his first principles.
First off, at the base of any morality (and philosophy, be it religious or not), you're going to have to accept a first principle. Let's say we accept that human autonomy (read: freedom of choice, including choosing who one has sexual intercourse with) is good. Forcing sexual intercourse upon another human being violates their autonomy, autonomy being something that has already been recognized as good. Violating one's autonomy is therefore bad, and thus, rape is bad.
Religion has first principles as well, they simply make up absurd first principles, such as "It is good to follow the laws delineated in this book." In the end, "Thou Shalt Not Rape" means the same thing, whether it comes from a bible or your own rationality. Please think these issues through before you make an ignorant post.
Sitting there and saying that Christianity (or any other religion) has better first principles than Hitchens, then pound away, pound away. At least Hitchens has some semblance of a rational basis for his first principles.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
No, my post is not out of ignorance, you are arguing that human nature has been shaped by evolution and hence human autonomy would be a result of it. So, if you read my first part, by stating that if we accept human autonomy (genetics) as the basis for morals, then all criminals are actually genetic mutants, free will is an illusion etc. etc...
All of those ideas are absurd in nature, and we all live as if they aren't true regardless of theistic beliefs.
All of those ideas are absurd in nature, and we all live as if they aren't true regardless of theistic beliefs.
By: ChopstickNINJ4
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
Actually, if you believe that human nature has been evolved and shaped by anything, then our societal convictions would be based on our exposure to humanity. For a society to exist, those concerned must agree on certain moral and ethical guidelines which govern the said society. You challenge us to name a reason not to commit rape without stating a law, well that point is moot as laws are based on moral and ethical beliefs.
The point is is that it is our nature, as humans, to respect one another based upon our own perception of right or wrong. We all react to situations differently, but I think we can agree that the vast majority of people inherently know in the grand scheme of things what is right and wrong. Therefore, there is no precedence to state that those acting against their impulses to be good are "mutants", they simply have denied their nature for their own benefit.
The battle is in the fact that it isn't solely our nature to be good, humans also have to fight for survival, and that becomes an internal conflict in judging which is better, surviving or being a good person. I think that once people have made the distinction that their survival is more important than being a decent person, then they make it easy for themselves to excuse their actions, and therefore continue to act upon their individual nature of surviving.
Hitchens makes the point, which is undeniably logical, that matter comes before all things intangible, such as our innate desire to be good. Well this can hardly lead to the conclusion that human morality is nonexistent outside a theoretical concept. Just because we can't see or touch our morals doesn't mean they don't exist on a primal level.
In so many words you say that society doesn't make sense in nature, well that's just ignorant. When beings come together to cooperate to survive, it is granted that they accept each other as an equal member of that society. Wolves don't kill and eat their young, they work together as a pack. Their brains aren't as developed as ours and thus they may not have such a sense of individuality or moral righteousness, so a concept like rape is non-existent. Nonetheless they still uphold the ethical standard that every one of them is protected.
Unless someone actually physically related with a religious figure then religion is based upon our own moral convictions. Whether someone ate a certain kind of mushroom and believed they saw God, or a group of people came together and decided that some greater being desires that we follow certain morals, it comes down to the fact that they decided with their own brains what is and isn't moral.
The point is is that it is our nature, as humans, to respect one another based upon our own perception of right or wrong. We all react to situations differently, but I think we can agree that the vast majority of people inherently know in the grand scheme of things what is right and wrong. Therefore, there is no precedence to state that those acting against their impulses to be good are "mutants", they simply have denied their nature for their own benefit.
The battle is in the fact that it isn't solely our nature to be good, humans also have to fight for survival, and that becomes an internal conflict in judging which is better, surviving or being a good person. I think that once people have made the distinction that their survival is more important than being a decent person, then they make it easy for themselves to excuse their actions, and therefore continue to act upon their individual nature of surviving.
Hitchens makes the point, which is undeniably logical, that matter comes before all things intangible, such as our innate desire to be good. Well this can hardly lead to the conclusion that human morality is nonexistent outside a theoretical concept. Just because we can't see or touch our morals doesn't mean they don't exist on a primal level.
In so many words you say that society doesn't make sense in nature, well that's just ignorant. When beings come together to cooperate to survive, it is granted that they accept each other as an equal member of that society. Wolves don't kill and eat their young, they work together as a pack. Their brains aren't as developed as ours and thus they may not have such a sense of individuality or moral righteousness, so a concept like rape is non-existent. Nonetheless they still uphold the ethical standard that every one of them is protected.
Unless someone actually physically related with a religious figure then religion is based upon our own moral convictions. Whether someone ate a certain kind of mushroom and believed they saw God, or a group of people came together and decided that some greater being desires that we follow certain morals, it comes down to the fact that they decided with their own brains what is and isn't moral.
By: aaiken
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
I am not a Christian. I am not religious.
However, how can so many people be duped by Hitchens? Does no one else see his double speak? I can't get over it.
I find this an interesting demonstration of a trend I've noticed lately.
The Atheists I see on the 'net debating tend to be very angry, dubious of everything, and arrogant to the extreme of their infallible logic.
The Religious that I see in debates (we're talking true debates here, not religious extremists who believe 'debate' is done through protest signs claiming to speak for God) tend to be much more calm and collected. They don't seem to be out to prove anything.
I don't know what that means, but I do know that I can't stand guys like Hitchens and his ilk that think that their logic is infallible and fail to see their own double-talk and oxymoronic commentary.
However, how can so many people be duped by Hitchens? Does no one else see his double speak? I can't get over it.
I find this an interesting demonstration of a trend I've noticed lately.
The Atheists I see on the 'net debating tend to be very angry, dubious of everything, and arrogant to the extreme of their infallible logic.
The Religious that I see in debates (we're talking true debates here, not religious extremists who believe 'debate' is done through protest signs claiming to speak for God) tend to be much more calm and collected. They don't seem to be out to prove anything.
I don't know what that means, but I do know that I can't stand guys like Hitchens and his ilk that think that their logic is infallible and fail to see their own double-talk and oxymoronic commentary.
By: sasquatchbill
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
While I agree that Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, et al, sometimes play a little fast and loose, I think that atheists in general have good reason to be at least "dubious" of lots of things, if not a little "angry." Just look at the way that atheists have been treated in the past. They've waited centuries to have their voices heard, and now that they have the forum for it, there's most certainly going to be a few who are outspoken.
Simple arrogance, however, is something that is fairly prevalent amongst atheists, and something that only hurts their position. Myself, I enjoyed God Is Not Great, but mostly because I have this mental image of Hitchens as a perpetually hungover Brit who is having his first drink of Scotch.
Simple arrogance, however, is something that is fairly prevalent amongst atheists, and something that only hurts their position. Myself, I enjoyed God Is Not Great, but mostly because I have this mental image of Hitchens as a perpetually hungover Brit who is having his first drink of Scotch.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
That's funny. Every video I've watched of Hitchens he's appeared calm and respectful of others' opinions. Yet almost every religious devotee he's been paired with has seemed uncomfortable and offended by his outspokenness. It's not his fault that people's beliefs can be so wavered by the opinions of one man to the point of defensiveness.
By: aaiken
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
I really wish this guy would just answer a question from his own mind rather than using other peoples thoughts and ideas... Hey idiot, the question was, " Where do you get YOUR morals from?" This man never answers the questions.
By: phreakadilly
Re: Hitchens: The Morals of an Atheist
"However, a non-religious person may not CARE about the social benefits. I am a singularity, I will do what benefits ME now - not what benefits you, or benefits your children, or (to a more extreme but plausible viewpoint) MY children. As long as I can get what I want and what I find value in, why would I care?"
Clearly you've been living in the United States for too long. I'm not religious and I don't feel a need to go out of my way to harm or otherwise obstruct someone's progress. Why? Certainly not because I fear a nonexistent God will smite me.
"A Christian (for example, only because the theology is familiar) can not - because their belief implies that there IS no "getting away with it.""
Actually, no. Christianity offers redemption for immoral acts. Some of the people I know in my town consider themselves devoutly religious (one obsessively religious) but they still commit immoral acts such as cheating with their best friend's girlfriend. Christians get away with a lot because they perceive forgiveness by their deities. As an atheist, I don't imagine myself to be forgiven; my "sins" stay.
"And no, morality in itself is not always beneficial to the human race in its entirety..."
The problem, then, lies not with morality, but with identifying ourselves as part of a much larger group, the human race.
"The Religious that I see in debates (we're talking true debates here, not religious extremists who believe 'debate' is done through protest signs claiming to speak for God) tend to be much more calm and collected. They don't seem to be out to prove anything."
Because theirs is the status quo and ours is not. We disagree with their stances and implications on morality and seek to change the public view.
Clearly you've been living in the United States for too long. I'm not religious and I don't feel a need to go out of my way to harm or otherwise obstruct someone's progress. Why? Certainly not because I fear a nonexistent God will smite me.
"A Christian (for example, only because the theology is familiar) can not - because their belief implies that there IS no "getting away with it.""
Actually, no. Christianity offers redemption for immoral acts. Some of the people I know in my town consider themselves devoutly religious (one obsessively religious) but they still commit immoral acts such as cheating with their best friend's girlfriend. Christians get away with a lot because they perceive forgiveness by their deities. As an atheist, I don't imagine myself to be forgiven; my "sins" stay.
"And no, morality in itself is not always beneficial to the human race in its entirety..."
The problem, then, lies not with morality, but with identifying ourselves as part of a much larger group, the human race.
"The Religious that I see in debates (we're talking true debates here, not religious extremists who believe 'debate' is done through protest signs claiming to speak for God) tend to be much more calm and collected. They don't seem to be out to prove anything."
Because theirs is the status quo and ours is not. We disagree with their stances and implications on morality and seek to change the public view.
By: Overmann
