tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3168659034296194898.post2508672721581316567..comments2023-10-31T08:06:58.703-04:00Comments on Pete's Blog: Is Christopher Hitchens Right?Pete Scribnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08565043023531614917noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3168659034296194898.post-26642204003890688512010-03-24T10:29:05.746-04:002010-03-24T10:29:05.746-04:00Cam –
Thanks so much for reading and even more so...Cam –<br /><br />Thanks so much for reading and even more so for commenting! You know that I greatly appreciate your perspective on things not only in spite of the fact that it often differs from mine, but precisely for that reason.<br /><br />You state that a liberal point of view would suggest that an act can be determined to be wrong on the basis of the fact that it is “detrimental to both individual growth/dignity and societal cohesion.” I guess I would go back to my original point: “Says who?” If it is merely that a certain culture has come to this conclusion, then we have a problem, because cultures could just as easily decide (and in fact have in the past decided) that they have no problem with the most heinous of actions. I stand convinced that they would still be immoral, regardless of the cultural ennui in which they are perpetrated.<br /><br />You also suggest that Hitchens might argue rational, human controls rather than deriving morality “from the commandments of an unknowable God.” I’ll agree that Hitchens would argue this and I’ll even concede that perhaps the conclusion is correct, given the premise. But I would add that this “unknowable God” has condescended to make himself known (through the person of Jesus Christ and through the Bible). We indeed can only know about God those things which he has made known, but he has made much known.<br /><br />As for the idea that atheism might imply amorality, I completely agree with you. In fact, that was part of the point I was trying to make in my response to Hitchens. I will readily admit that there are countless people who do not believe in God and yet act in moral ways…and I am thankful for them and their deeds! Beyond this, I know myself far too well to presuppose that belief in God leads to absolute morality. The argument is not that theistic belief produces moral actions, but rather that morality itself (as a concept) falls apart without some objective source (i.e., God).<br /><br />Thanks again for your thoughts!Pete Scribnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08565043023531614917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3168659034296194898.post-56216463566034209552010-03-23T18:45:20.378-04:002010-03-23T18:45:20.378-04:00"The idea is basically this: Without a divine..."The idea is basically this: Without a divine law-giver, their can be no over-arching law of morality. Hitchens is right to condemn child rape. But on what basis? It is on the basis of the fact that it stands in opposition to the moral law which emanates from the character of God. There is morality, therefore there must be a God."<br /><br />You know much more about this than I do, but I am sure that Hitchens would counter that one can have morality without universality or metaphysics. From a liberal point of view, child rape is wrong because it is detrimental to both individual growth/dignity and to societal cohesion. It is counter to our nature, insofar as that nature is social, and ought to be controlled by community censure and secular law. In fact, he might argue that sort of control would be more valid because of its rational, human origins rather than deriving from the commandments of an unknowable God.<br /><br />Just as the belief in a divine morality does not guarantee obedience to it (see the Catholic Church), neither does atheism necessarily imply amorality. The conservative critiques of pragmatism and "secular humanism" as ethically rudderless does not do justice to robust liberals like Dewey, S. Hook, or R. Bourne. All of them found democratic values scientifically defensible while also embracing a flexibility and toleration that they could not find with absolutist philosophies.<br /><br />Three good books on the subject: <br />Casey Nelson Blake, "Beloved Community"<br /><br />Robert Westbrook, "John Dewey and American Democracy"<br /><br />Edward Purcell, "The Crisis of Democratic Theory"<br /><br /><br />Cheers,<br />CamCampbell Scribnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06027476903708565611noreply@blogger.com