151. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95029 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 7:38 am

Dr Benway wrote:When we don't know the constraints on a value, we assume all possible values are equally likely.

In science when we don't know, we conclude: "we don't know".

152. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95019 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 7:19 am

Steve99 wrote:We know that it appears finely balanced.

"balanced" is a loaded term and a "begging the question" logical fallacy.

Steve99 wrote:If you see a pencil balanced on its point, that would look odd even if you see only one.

It would be odd to see a pencil balanced on its point only because we know from experience that state to be a precarious position for a pencil. A U.S. quarter has 121 possible states (heads, tails, and 119 ridges on its edge), that doesn't mean that there's only a 1 in 121 chance of finding a quarter in it's "heads" state. You're making the unfounded (and un-parsimonious) assumption that the universe is more like the pencil on it's point than the quarter on it's side.

In fact, if parsimony by itself were a good argument, then parsimony would dictate that the more fine-tuned our universe appears to be, the more like the quarter on its side we should expect it is. (read: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html)

Steve99 wrote:I am sorry to keep pressing the point, but the fine tuning issue is considered to be a real one by most cosmologists. I am not putting a personal viewpoint.

I can't think of any high profile cosmologist handling this issue the way you do. Maybe you could point us to some examples. The "fine tuning" issue is an interesting question that is discussed, yes, but you're pushing a conclusion stemming from that issue like no other cosmologist I'm aware of does.

Steve99 wrote: This is not just about distributions. It is about any area of reasoned debate. Always start with the fewest assumptions.

Yes, and in this case, you're adding the assumption that the tightly restricted values we see in the universe are unlikely (like a pencil balanced on its point).

You're also adding the assumption that the possible states are equally distributed probabilities. No where else in the quantum-based universe do possibilities get equally distributed. And yet you assume they do here.

153. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94861 by Riley on December 6, 2007 at 9:19 pm

steve9 wrote:Suppose you were about to be executed by a vast firing squad. Say, a thousand rifles. And all the rifles either jam or miss you. It would not be a reasonable response to say "well, that was simply an unlikely occurence, nothing more" - you should certainly be suspicious that something else was going on. Same with the finely tuned constants. There must be something else going on.

Steve! What evidence is there to support your assumption that the physical constants necessary to support complexity in the universe were unlikely?!?

Space-time forms a finite, four-dimensional surface with no boundaries or singularities. This continuum is similar to that of a sphere, on which one can travel without ever finding an edge -- a feature Stephen Hawking calls "self-containedness," meaning that the universe is nowhere open for any intervention coming from outside. This, he says, "has profound implications for the role of God as Creator."

In Stephen Hawking's opinion, the proper time for "God" to act would be the beginning of the universe, when, by setting the rate of expansion and other initial conditions, he could determine the general structure and evolution of the cosmos. But if there are no boundaries and no singularities, there is no beginning at which God could act. Hawking writes: "Einstein once asked the question: 'How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?' If the no-boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose the initial conditions."

154. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94363 by Riley on December 5, 2007 at 1:18 pm

steve99 wrote: But in that case you are in no position to set the probability of the current values of the physical constants as high.

I'm not! I'm saying that the probability is not knowable.

And because it's not knowable, an argument is necessarily weak when it relies on knowing (one way or the other).

steve99 wrote: Whether or not this is the case, it is undeniable that a considerable number of physicists consider that [string theory] will have scientific validity.

And a considerable number of physicists (probably more than 10%) also believe in a personal god. Such arguments from authority are not evidence. It could be a belief held by 80% of physicists and still, the belief itself would not be evidence. I'll grant you however, that it's far more reasonable to believe that one day "String Theory" (the mathematical theory) might yet become a scientific theory; but today it's not, and can not be used as evidence.

steve99 wrote: It appears that if some constants change even an unimaginably small amount, then the universe would contain no structure at all, let alone anything like life.

But that unimaginably small change might still be unimaginably difficult and unlikely. Neither you nor I know if it is or isn't. It's simply wrong to assume that because it's an unimaginably small change (at our scale of thinking) that therefore it was more or less likely to end up the way it did. We just don't know.

steve99 wrote: It is unscientific to claim that "this is not a matter that need be discussed", just because theists are discussing it.

I completely agree. I don't think anything I've said or argued is incompatible with that principle.

The "fine-tuned universe" argument for an intelligent creator, relies on three premises:

1. The fundamental laws of nature could not be changed the slightest bit without destroying its ability to support complexity as we know it.


2. Because the slightest change to the fundamental laws of nature would make life impossible, therefore it is highly unlikely that the universe should be suitable for life.


3. It is so unlikely, that an "intelligent designer" is a reasonable hypothesis.

I grant premise 1 (I don't reject it). It's premise 2 that I'm rejecting on the basis that we don't know if it's highly unlikely or not. And of course, I also reject premise 3 for that and other reasons.

155. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94291 by Riley on December 5, 2007 at 6:59 am

Riley wrote:"The other non-complexity supporting states that are hypothetically modeled, might not be possibilities at all, or maybe they were possible, but less likely. We simply don't know."

steve99 wrote:"And because we don't know, we are in no position to assume that they are not possible."

And that's exactly my point. We don't know.

We don't know weather or not our apparently "fine tuned" state is an unlikely state for the universe to be in or not, and yet theists making the finely tuned universe argument rely on the assumption that it must be exceedingly unlikely. That's an unfounded assumption.

steve99 wrote:"In some of the most popular models of physics being worked on right now (String Theory), the other possibilities are considered to exist, and are considered to be just as likely."

String theorists are still struggling to even demonstrate that their mathematical theory has scientific validity. String mathematics are not yet part of science. And no other science has yet (to my knowledge) been able to assess the probabilities which the "fined-tuned" argument relies upon. It might turn out to be highly improbable, but right now we don't know one way or the other.

Regardless, it's still a very good and short retort to say that the odds of the existence of a fine-tuned intelligent creator of a fine-tuned universe must be even greater than the odds of the existence of a fine-tuned universe by itself, no matter what the odds of either turn out to be.

156. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94037 by Riley on December 4, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Riley wrote: "I call Stalinism a religion"

Dr. Benway wrote: "Okey dokey Humpty Dumpty."

Argued as rationally as ever Benway.

I'll stick to arguments base on evidence, such as Stalinism's systematic replacement of science (labeled by Stalinists as "bourgeois pseudoscience") with the new Stalinist supernatural "science".

look up:
-Lysenko
-Nikolskij
-Blokhintzev

for starters.

157. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #93953 by Riley on December 4, 2007 at 1:38 pm

The logical fallacy worth pointing out,
comes after the initial "fine-tuning" claim gets made.

Those who argue that the universe is "fine-tuned" for complexity (if not life) make a flawed argument when they then assume this "fine-tuned" state to be an extremely unlikely state. It's this "extremely unlikely" argument that then gets used to assert implicitly or explicitly that it's too unlikely to have happened by chance, and therefore an "intelligent designer" must have done it. Putting aside the "anthropic" argument for the moment, there's another good argument against this.

Fact is, we can't assume that all the possible states of the universe are equally likely. The other hypothetical states of the universe modeled by scientists might not even be real possibilities at all, or maybe they are possible, but less likely. We simply don't know what the odds are.

But, regardless of what the odds turn out to be, we can say conclusively that the odds of the existence of a fine-tuned intelligent creator of a fine-tuned universe must be even greater than the odds of the existence of a fine-tuned universe by itself.

As such, the arguments from design and of a "fine-tuned universe" etc, are fatally flawed.

158. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93908 by Riley on December 4, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Dr Benway wrote: You can't call atheistic communism a religion. You just can't. Unless you want people to think you are a loon.

think of me as a loon, but I call Stalinism a religion. I simply reject the view that non-belief in god provides an immunity against dogma and religious thinking as implied by your categorical rejection of the notion that "atheistic communism" could even be considered a religion.

steve99 wrote: To dismiss the 'fine tuning' argument is as fallacious as to dismiss the 'life is complex' argument. [...] Sooner or later we will solve the fine tuning problem too. But to say it does not exist is dishonest.

Steve, I think the logical fallacy worth pointing out comes after the initial "fine-tuning" claim. Those who argue that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life (complexity) make a flawed argument when they then assume this "fine-tuned" state to be unlikely - and so argue (as Dinesh does) that because this "fine-tuning" is highly unlikely, it's reasonable to assume that it didn't happen by chance, thus: "God did it".

The other non-complexity supporting states that are hypothetically modeled, might not be possibilities at all, or maybe they were possible, but less likely. We simply don't know.

159. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93595 by Riley on December 3, 2007 at 3:59 pm

All social groups, whether religious, political, corporate, cultural, etc., are vulnerable to problems with unchecked power.

I agree, except that I believe it's religious thinking itself, both among leaders and the populous that enable such institutions (corporate and/or governmental) to seize dictatorial power. If it were possible to eliminate religious thinking from the human mind, the problems caused by dictatorial power might go away.

Since we can;t do this (or until we can) I definitely agree that systems are necessary to keep society safe. Systems like: separation of government powers, anti-trust laws for corporations, constitutional governments that include universal human-rights guarantees, science, and other liberal institutions. These institutions work I think because they keep our mob-formed human tendency for religious hero-worship from consolidating power around any one particular icon, be that icon human, corporate, political, or supernatural.

160. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #93583 by Riley on December 3, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I agree in principle with arguments and statements made by Richard Feynman and Stephen Jay Gould that religion and science should be able to co-exist, the problem is that most religions violate this "non-overlapping magisteria" principle by making science claims.

161. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93577 by Riley on December 3, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I think that the best way to respond to the issue of Stalin and Mao as atheists, is this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the debate over weather or not religion is a source of much trouble in the world, it's irrelevant to point out that Stalin was an atheist. The question must be: was or was not Stalinism a religion. It's religion and religious thinking that is at issue here after all, not any one particular answer to a difficult question."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would argue of course, that Stalinism meets most of the necessary criteria. Stalinist Russia was a society ruled by the ideological commandments and the dogmatic/supernatural beliefs of it's messianic leader: Joseph Stalin. So I ask D'Souza, why should Stalinism not be considered as yet another example of the trouble caused when societies become fully engaged in religious thinking?

162. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #93574 by Riley on December 3, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I think that the best way to respond to the issue of Stalin and Mao being atheists is this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the debate over weather or not religion is a source of much trouble in the world, it's irrelevant to point out that Stalin was an atheist. The question must be: was or was not Stalinism a religion. It's religion and religious thinking that is at issue here after all, not any one particular answer to a difficult question."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we can have an argument over weather or not Stalinism was a religion. I argue that it is.

"Stalinist Russia was a society ruled by the ideological commandments and the dogmatic beliefs of it's messianic leader: Joseph Stalin. So why shouldn't we add Stalinism to the list of examples of trouble caused by religious thinking in society?"

And there you have it. Turn a defensive position into an attack posture.

163. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #93468 by Riley on December 3, 2007 at 7:41 am

Allan Gregg conducts a great interview and he's an interesting guy in general.

He was a co-manager of the Canadian band: "Tragically Hip" and is involved in Canadian politics. His program airs in Ontario.

164. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87469 by Riley on November 12, 2007 at 7:47 am

Comment #87257 by decius - "Stenger feels confident that Science has already disproved the abrahamic god [...] I have already posted this extensive interview with Vic Stenger elsewhere in this forum. Here it is once again, for those who are interested.
"God The Failed Hypothesis" by Vic Stenger

decius, thanks for reposting this interview with Vic Stenger! First rate. Very much worth listening to. I had an online debate with David Robertson (author of "The Dawkins Letters") about this topic of the natural and super-natural and Stenger addresses the issue beautifully.


.

165. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #87287 by Riley on November 11, 2007 at 4:55 pm

notsobad, I think in my case at least, I was born believing in the incredible and anthropomorphizing the nature of it.

166. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #87180 by Riley on November 11, 2007 at 11:49 am

Concerning Labels:

Labels are not problematic when used to identify movements (e.g. "new atheism") or even when used to name a positional conclusion reached by examined evidence (e.g. "atheism"), the problem and danger comes when labels like "atheism" become a personal and group identifier.

I agree with Sam Harris on this point: atheism is not a world view; it's not a political view; and it's not a club. As soon as we adopt it as such, we move the focus of the debate concerning claims made by religion away from where it should be: evidence and the application of reason. Instead it shifts into a more political realm inescapably weakened by a personalized struggle between "us" and "them". Making an argument as the representative of an interest group is a much weaker place from which to argue. Instead of probing the merits or lack of merits of an argument, the fence-sitting public invariably questions (or is directed to question) the motives/interests of the special interest group itself. The fact that an eminently qualified biologist and skilled communicator such as Richard Dawkins was considered a liability as an expert witness in the Dover Pennsylvania "Intelligent Design" court case is an example of the problem that the atheism as an interest group label creates.

.

167. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #87138 by Riley on November 11, 2007 at 10:03 am

It's fair to say I think that 9/11 was a catalyst that launched a popular movement called "new atheism". So I think PZ is being unfairly critical on that point in his article. There's a difference between recognizing the intellectual heritage of atheism which has its roots at least as far back as the 18th century and recognizing that this new uprising of that intellectual heritage has a lot to do with the public awareness created by 9/11. It's not necessary for there to be a new philosophy of atheism to recognize that there is a new uprising of it.


That being said however, I think that there are important new thrusts being emphasized in the "new atheist" movement that uniquely characterize it. Here are the aspects I see:

1) Religions make claims that can and so should be subjected to scientific inquiry. We should grant no special treatment/respect to the claims made by religion. Specifically the idea of non-overlapping magisteria needs to be quesitioned as it suggests a respect be granted to religion that is not granted to other realms of human discourse. At a minimum we should recognize that religions do not in practice respect the boundaries implied by the principle of non-overlapping magisteria.

2) It's improper to label a child as an adherent to a belief that they are not yet old enough to examine.

3) Within a religious framework, the people who committed the crimes on 9/11 (among others) were acting rationally. As such, moderate believers are providing a support system for fundamentalist believers.

These above thrusts of the new atheist movement might not be new, but taken together they meaningfully and historically identify it as label-worthy.


.

168. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins

Comment #83082 by Riley on October 28, 2007 at 10:11 pm

You're making a generalization about how wrong it is to generalize. Perhaps it would be helpful to begin by saying that there is indeed a subset of Christian Americans that could be readily described with the words "Likely to Bomb Abortion Clinics."

The discussion here was on the topic of why religious people get angry and send hate mail. If you want to talk about those who are likely to bomb abortion clinics, then talk about those people specifically. If someone sends you a death threat, then talk about the people who send death threats.

The rational response squad on their Internet broadcast target religious people for ridicule. Why then should it be any wonder that they receive hate mail as a result? And honestly, I think they're proud to get sent hate mail. It's a bit silly that Sapient would brag on behalf of the "squad" about the role they proudly serve as the "bad cop", and then act confounded as to why they incite anger and get sent hate. Do you honestly believe that religious people as a group are much different in their response to public ridicule than any other group? Is there any doubt that another podcast dedicated to the public ridicule of atheists would not receive angry and impassioned hate mail from atheists?

I owe a debt of gratitude to the people who sat me down in front of the mirror, took off my rose colored glasses, and crushed them mercilessly with a debate that made me very uncomfortable.

kementari, I don't criticize the idea that making someone feel uncomfortable is useful; it may even be necessary. I'm all for a tough no-nonsense in-your-face reckoning with the facts.

It's the abandonment of reason (e.g. personal insults) for the sake of "the greater cause" that I criticize.

169. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #83075 by Riley on October 28, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Geoff, getting rid of the term "atheism" does not require going under the radar. It's perfectly reasonable to promote rationalism and be aggressive about it without officially naming yourself an "atheist". In fact, a narrow-minded label like "atheism" seems to me to be a handicap when better labels like reason and science are available to choose.

The problem with using the term atheism as a uniting label is that atheism is not a world view. It's not a belief or a belief system. Wearing it as if it were creates the mis-impression that it is. That is the trap that Sam points out has been made for us by the theists.

While it may be possible to improve the image of the term "atheism", it is impossible so long as people are organizing under that banner to disassociate it from being "just another belief system". We set ourselves up. We create the image that we have a belief that needs defending, that we are a world-view that people can choose to join or exclude themselves from, and we necessarily link ourselves to people like Stalin and Mao who shared that same label (in fact, Stalin and Mao should serve as perfect examples of why "atheism" is not what needs promoting, rather, it's reason and science that need promoting!).

If you focus on reason and science, you avoid all the pit-falls of the "atheism" label while at the same time you still enjoy the benefits of attacking supernatural beliefs.

It seems to me that should provide a much more solid basis to be aggressive and be on the attack k.



.

170. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82717 by Riley on October 27, 2007 at 10:27 am

Sam Harris: "There is no religion in general".

This quote sums-up Sam's argument. There are really just good arguments and bad arguments. Group identification distracts the focus from where it should be: reason and evidence.

Sam Harris: "What is the argument against reason? [...] the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason. In fact, fundamentalists especially tend to think they are champions of reason [...] Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. The desire to know what is actually going on in the world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with. And this desire is not reducible to an interest group. It's not a club or an affiliation, and I think trying to make it one diminishes its power."

I think it's a very good case that Sam makes.

.

171. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82388 by Riley on October 26, 2007 at 8:14 am

12. Comment #82043 by kellym78: "Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't really feel like getting into it again on these forums, but we have supporters and haters, just like everybody else. The vast majority of people with such strong opinions of our character (as amanda marie apparently does) that I have encountered actually know very little about us and are running with the caricature that has been handed to them by somebody else. Whatever."

The 'Rational' Response Squad response to criticism seems to always take the form of lame excuses such as: "some like us and some don't", "it takes more than one approach", and increasingly they make name-dropping appeals. If an argument relied on the mere existence of supporters and such appeals to authority as they make, then the theist position should have outright won by now. If this qualifies as a rational response, then we should all be theists.

Opinions or not, it's hard to argue with the facts: I've listened to "Kelly" publicly taunting someone by repeatedly calling them an "atheist pussy" and making baby noises (literally whining like a baby), roughly: "whaaa, whaaa, whaaa ... just because I'm not an atheist pussy like you are ...whaaa" ...followed by relentlessly more infantile whining and more senseless name calling.

Call it what it is: the sacrifice of reason in defense of the perceived "greater cause".
The road to dogma is paved by such excuses as theirs, made in defense of irrational arguments.


.

172. FFRF 07 Conference Footage

Comment #82382 by Riley on October 26, 2007 at 7:58 am

I drive by that "Beware of Dogma" billboard you see at http://ffrf.org five times a week.

It's nice to see.

.

173. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80901 by Riley on October 23, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Dinesh D'Souza was also the official biographer of the late Reverend Jerry Falwell (founder of the notorious Liberty 'University'. Remember Prof Dawkins being confronted by many of its students at his Lynchberg Virginia talk?).

In addition to that, Souza is a member of the very scary: American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Most of the Bush Administration "intelligence failures" that were used to supply justification (and/or legal cover) for the invasion of Iraq can be traced back to members of the AEI that served in the George W. Bush administration - there are dozens of people in that administration from the AEI.

In addition to Souza, the AEI has sponsored people who promote the "Intelligent Design" false controversy and the AEI in gerneal has lead the charge in the United States to "preach the controversy" on global warming/climate change.

They truly represent a tremendously influential and scary anti-science force at work in the world - and Souza is just one example of this.

You may be interested in the RD Forum thread on the topic: The American Enterprise Institute.

Also, fyi, just yesterday another member of the AEI argued that there is no alternative to war with Iran, we must bomb them now. View it here


.

174. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80686 by Riley on October 22, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Phil, you're right to point out that my characterization of Hitchens was an exaggeration. A little bit like "Nyaaa,na na nyaa na." was an exaggeration of what I had wrote. It's fair. I have no issue with exaggerating to make a point. I just wanted to be clear that it was in fact an exaggeration and not what I really said.

Hitchens emphasizes the lack of response to his challenge through repetition primarly: he brings it up everywhere he goes.

175. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80649 by Riley on October 22, 2007 at 1:47 pm

phil rimmer wrote:
phil rimmer: But you already provided a good response with your fantasy Sharpton.
riley: And fantasy Hitchens would go, "Nyaaa,na na nyaa na."
[note: just to be clear, that was rimmer's characterization, riley never actually wrote that]

Phil,
Fantasy Sharpton responded: "there is none", a response to which Hitchens in reality does in fact make a big deal about. He makes a very big deal of it. He does so by bringing it up seemingly at every opportunity afforded him: in print, on radio, on TV, and in his talk at AAI 07.

Wouldn't you think he should be making a much bigger deal about the implications of that lack of response rather than the lack of a response itself?

In stark contrast to the number of times he brings up those-he-has-challenged-and-who-can't-respond, it happens very seldom if ever that he uses the opportunity at one of his book tour appearances to make his case that: "there is no act that a believer can perform that a non-believers could not also perform, and therefore believers are not any more ethical than non-believers". As so many on this thread have noted, Hitchens certainly implies this conclusion within the context of when and how he brings the challenge up.

My guess, the reason he doesn't get around to explicitly making the argument he implies (and so many here have inferred he's making) with the challenge is that he's smart enough to recognize his argument is fatally flawed: morality depends on the choices you make not the choices made available to you. The result of stating his argument clearly would allow the flaw in his argument to be easily recognized and then Hitchens would no longer have this cheap device to stir-up controversy on his book tour.

I could be wrong about his motives, but I have too high an opinion of Hitchens' intelligence not to assume that he knows how to use such a device as this one effectively - and this is certainly the effect. And theists, for their part, have more often than not demonstrated enough intelligence to ignore the challenge entirely. Ignoring the challenge of course wont liberate them from having to endure Hitchens making a big deal of that fact (that's part of the corrupt beauty of the device), but ignoring the rabid challenger is the best they or anyone else can do when faced with the political tactic that Hitchens is employing. Hitchens has learned from the best: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Carl Rove, etc.


.

176. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80610 by Riley on October 22, 2007 at 10:20 am

keith: "You have written that you have been the victim of a pack mentality and that some people (possibly the same pack) worship Hitchens as a hero and follow him whether he's right or wrong. However, if it turns out that you were wrong all along about the challenge, this means that the people might not have been attacking you because they were part of a pack or because they were slavishly following Hitchens, but because you were simply wrong. [...] The reason I've written all this is not to try to prove you wrong. I'd just like you to drop the accusations of pack behaviour and slavish hero-worshipping. Please."

Keith,

The reason that I say there was a pack mentality going on is that the comments being made on this thread were not targeted to the merit or lack of merit of my arguments themselves, rather "the pack" seemed to be targeting what they thought were my motives for making the arguments.

People had assumed, it appears, that if I am critical of the Hitchens Challenge and Hitchens personally, that I must therefore be a Christian and a troll. You are not doing it any more - you (you especially) and others for the most part are making a good faith effort to address my arguments and not my perceived motives. BTW, if you can demonstrate that my arguments have no merit, then i think it would be fair to speculate about my motives for making them - but you should address the arguments first, realize that my motives are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments I make, and then tread carefully when speculating about motive.

keith: "You were wrong in claiming that Hitchens' challenge is only valid if one of the people he has challenged has ever claimed that only a believer could perform certain ethical deeds."

I make a point to bring up the actual people Hitchens poses his challenge to directly "on stage" because "on stage" in front of the audience Hitchens seems to be trying to embarrass them. Individuals deserve to be judged on the individual merits of their arguments. In a debate, if you are confronting someone with a challenge, that challenge should be relevant to an argument being debated between you and that other person. You're absolutely right. It would also be valid for Hitchens to use the general lack of a valid response to the challenge to support one of his own arguments, but I explicitly acknowledge that the challenge has potentially broader applicability in Comment #80290. Please re-read the bottom section. But Hitchens neither uses his challenge to refute a theists claim, nor does he use it to support a claim of his own that is relevant to a contentious argument on the topic of morality. As I pointed out earlier: morality depends on the choices you make not the choices made available to you.

Veronique and euthyphro make other good points, if I'm right in the way I read them. Argument over who is more moral is itself a fools game. Professor Dawkins recognizes this and wisely chooses not to enter into debates over who is the more moral. How do you quantify morality? Sam Harris takes an even better tact I think by choosing to focus on the question (roughly): "Could you improve on the moral teachings of the Bible?" That's a brilliant tactic. It exposes the "Q.E.D." circular reasoning that steveroot has commented on, and drives home a great point to the moderate believers who could be potentially persuaded by the argument that the bible is a poor source to look for moral guidance.

keith: "I know you have poured scorn on anyone who has suggested that the religious might actually believe that they are more moral than us atheists"

Never. I absolutely agree that Christians consider themselves to be, in general, more moral than non-believers. Many Christians think that belief fills them with the grace of God. I have no doubt, as euthyphro has claimed, that other Christians think belief provides "moral justification". Most if not all believe that love and devotion to Jesus makes them holy - i.e. favored by God. I don't want to commit the error of sounding like I'm speaking for all Christians again, but I would also say that a consensus of them believe that if you successfully follow Jesus and his teachings that you will be more moral than if you do not. None of these Christian claims is refuted by the Hithcens Challenge. The Hithcens Challenge doesn't even begin to lay any groundwork toward addressing these claims concerning moral superiority.

The conclusion that: "believers and non-believers have the same ethical choices available to them" is a non-seqitur to the challenge that "believers are more moral than non-believers".

By taking it up, they accept that the challenge is reasonable and therefore not a straw man.

Those individuals who are silly enough to play along with the challenge lend the challenge credibility in much the same way that a man silly enough to answer the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" lends apparent credibility to the notion that he actually beats his wife. read my post to Vendetta for an explanation of this. By responding to the challenge the challengee creates the appearance that they are conceding the implicit assertion. This is why it's important to find quotes of those individuals actually making arguments that in fact do rely on the outcome of the challenge.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up: the "straw-man challenge" is a classic political ploy that guys like Jerry Falwell and others have played for decades if not centuries. The Hitchens Challenge follows the rules of the "straw-man challenge" ploy to a tee (see above explanation of the classic "straw-man challenge" ploy). If walks like a duck. If quacks and flies and shares all the other features of a duck. Call it a duck.

177. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80453 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Dr Benway,
Unless you're willing to let the moderate theist off the hook with the argument: "you're taking the Bible too literally", then you should not let yourself off the hook with the arguemnt that I'm taking Hitchens too literally.

Fair? Can I enjoy some of that blueberry pie now? Or is it all gone?

178. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80436 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 8:28 pm

bayareadude : "Riley, You asked for a "prominent" person's quote in which he states that believers are more moral than unbelievers?"

bayareadude, That's not what I asked for. Re-read the posts and pay attention to the distinction between "can" and "do" / "capable" and "incapable".

Great quote though.

179. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80383 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 3:02 pm

robotaholic: "I like how the corollary of The Hitchens Challenge demonstrates perfectly what he's saying."

robotaholic,

If you see the "Hitchens Challenge" as a proof, and that proof is:
"believers don't make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

What do you see as the corollary of that proof?

.

180. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80324 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 10:52 am

phil rimmer: Hitchens would deride a sensible answer?? Then he must leave in disgrace! Has he done this?

Yes. He rejects the "prayer" answer given to him and he mocks the "forgive your enemies" answer. Which is fine. I'm only pointing these steps out to communicate to the board how the game works.

phil rimmer: But you already provided a good response with your fantasy Sharpton.

Fantasy Sharpton was smart enough to answer "there are none" to the challenge. Doing so he immediately communicates that the outcome of the challenge is not important to any of his own arguments. He avoids the trap. But of course not entirely, because Hitchens will say "See-eee!!! not one of them can answer my challenge!" - as if to say that has any significance to any relevant argument.

If theists don't challenge him then why don't you? It can only reflect well on atheism to do so, whatever the outcome.

I thought I was challenging him.

steve99: Just a quick question. Why are many people so keen to send their children to 'faith schools'?

My guess would be because parents hope that the faith school will teach their children to make better moral decisions.


.

181. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80319 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 10:29 am

coretemprising: Very amusing? Now you've lost my respect. Riley, I admit this is an inquiry of not much substance, but do you enjoy having people at a disadvantage? Right when the group misapprehension of your identity and motive was occuring, why didn't you speak up?

coretemprising, What I find amusing is that the topic of "quantum effects at the molectular level" is being hotly debated on this thread ... it seems a bit off topic and it really is very amusing to look back and wonder: How did that even get started? Even if I was a Christian, none of my arguments ever relied on the doctrine of free-will being true - and I said so - my arguments simply relied on "free-will" being, in fact, a Christian doctrine (i.e. Chrisitans believe a lot of things that aren't true, that doesn't mean they don't believe them).

Frankly, I was so shocked and overwhelmed by the passive aggressive comments being made and directed at me that I never had a reasonable chance to say "hey, I'm not a Christian" until a reasonable poster made a comment to me that I could respond to. I had also thought (for much the same reason that I don't respond to USA_Limey's passive aggressive comments on page 3): "well alright, there are a few unreasonable people on this thread. I can ignore them and direct my responses to the reasonable ones and this issue will naturally go away", but the unreasonable posts persisted and things just got out of hand; people apparently started taking their queues from the unreasonable posters.

Thanks for posting in the spirit of keeping me honest. I sincerely appreciate that spirit and if I had intentionally misled people, I hope that you'd accept my apology.

182. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80313 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 9:43 am

.

Frankus, your post is enormously heartening.

phil rimmer: "So why has no Christian apologist responded as you have imagined? Because Hitchens is actually addressing a real theist MINDSET and no-one wants to unpick it."

The audience to "the straw-man challenge" is as much the target/victim of the trap as is the hapless sap who tries to answer the challenge. Hitchens is not doing anything unique or new - "the straw-man challenge" is a classic political game. The mechanics of it work generally like this:
---------------------------------------------
1) Bait someone into trying to answer a question that is irrelevant to any of their own arguments - but choose a question that sounds like it should be.

2) Either reject or make fun of their answer, whatever answer they give, in an endless attempt to frustrate the target. Of course this is a lot easier to do if the challenge question is well crafted to have only one obvious outcome.

3) The target will naturally seek a way out of this situation, but once they've agreed to engage in the challenge they can't help but be made to look weak if they later try to argue:
"it doesn't matter weather or not I can think of an answer to your challenge, none of my arguments rely on having an answer to your challenge"

"Well then", the audience thinks "why did you bother to participate in the first place? .. there must be something to this challenge."

4) Mock anyone who fails to take-up your challenge - and you're back to step 1.


It's a cheap tactic used to win a political non-sense games.

183. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80290 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 6:37 am

Keith: Riley, After re-reading your posts I realised you had been misunderstood, certainly by me, though you do bear some responsibility for this (to say you 'take the bible at its word' without any further explanation was just asking to be misinterpreted).

Keith, if you look back at the beginning of this thread it appears that I had already been profiled as a Christian Troll by some before I even mentioned that I take the Bible at its word. This entire off-topic conversation on quantum effects at the molecular level was started by someone who thought I was defending the Christian doctrine of free-will. It's very amusing.

I think you were misled (at least in part) by erroneously interpreting my "I take the Bible at its word" post in the context of those other posters. This whole thread I think serves as a lesson in pack-minded profiling and the knee jerk emotional reaction people instinctively feel when their pack leader (e.g. Hitchens) gets attacked.

Keith: Had a believer pulled such a trick, we would have been up in arms on this website. As it was, nobody seemed to notice, or care, that one of our own had engaged in such dirty dealing. You felt this was hypocritical of us not to hold Hitchens to the same standards that we would have held, for example, the Reverend Al Sharpton. [...] you would have been more than happy if he had genuinely been onto something. Is this right?

You've got that part down perfectly Keith. Thanks for taking the time.

Keith: Okay, I think I have the solution. Imagine a conversation between Hitchens and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Keith, I think your hypothetical conversation is fantastic and very entertaining. I especially enjoyed your Hitchens imitation; I can almost hear his voice speaking - I love it! But I think you're wrong about how it would end. I think it would go more like this:

Sharpton: On the contrary, it was god who gave us morality in the first place, the morality that atheists and the faithful alike abide by.

Hitchens: No, reverend, you must have misheard me. I didn't say that god has nothing to do with morality. I said a belief in god has nothing to do with morality. Do you concede that?

---------- my continuation starts here ---------------

Sharpton: No, of course not. Even though all human beings -- not just all believers -- are created in God's image, we are still human and easily distracted from following a moral path. It's belief and faith in God that inspires us to dedicate our lives to a moral path.

Hitchens: Reverend, with or without religion, you will have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. For good people to do bad things you need religion.

Sharpton: Let me turn your challenge around on you. Can you name an un-ethical statement or deed that could be done by a believer and not by an atheist?

Hitchens: I can think of many. Genital mutilation to name ... just .... one.

Sharpton: No, Hitch, you must have misheard me. I did not say do not. I said could not. My point is that both believers and non-believers have an equal opportunity to choose good or to choose evil.

Hitchens: Ah, yes but believers commit immoral deeds that non-believers just wouldn't dream of doing.

Sharpton: For every example of some evil that you say was uniquely motivated by belief in god, I can name you more acts of goodness and kindness uniquely motivated by belief in god. Faith may lead people to make extreme choices, both for the good and the bad, but the good outweighs the bad.

.... you can see this line of argument leads you into a quagmire.

Keith:the claim that the religious do more moral deeds than atheists in a way (in your way) answers Hitchens' challenge to precisely the same degree that it negates your previous claim to Riley that 'We don't need god to be good'.

Yep. Thanks again for handling that for me.

In addition to that and the fact that the challenge doesn't counter any actual theist arguments, the context with which Hitchens has been said to want to use (and perhaps in his book actually does use) the challenge doesn't work either. It doesn't logically support any part of a positive argument that theists are no better and perhaps even less moral than non-theists(re: chauvinj). The argument that believers are no more capable than non-believers is a non-sequitur. It has no relevance in a debate over weather or not believers are more moral. Morality depends on the choices you make not the choices made available to you.

Granted this could be the first step toward completing an argument that I am unaware of, but even if that were the case, how would that justify publicly grandstanding and admonishing his targets for not responding to his challenge? His challenge is used as part of a theatre that makes it appear as though he is actually addressing a real theist position - he's not.

Has no one else on this thread ever had the opportunity to listen to a cult-of-personality theist pull this same tactic with his own devoted followers? And have none of you ever felt sick watching those followers eat it up uncritically? --- he's telling you what you want to hear.
.

184. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80201 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 4:55 pm

chauvinj: This is the problem with theist lines of thought. You MUST take an argument in context always. The minute you take it out of its context you muddle up its meaning or intention.

If you "MUST take an argument in context always" , then must you buy-into the theist argument that Peter 2:18 needs to be interpreted in the context of Genesis and as such accept the theist conclusion that Peter does not condone slavery?

My point concerning context is this: the Hitchens Challenge, like Peter 2:18, is a complete statement. If you want to know the intent of the writer, you may need more context, but that's not necessary to analyze the validity of the statement itself. Of course you can use the outcome of the Hitchens Challenge and apply it in other contexts and in larger arguments, but it must still stand on it's own merits.

chauvinj: His intention was to prove that many immoral deeds can be committed by the religious that atheists just wouldn't dream of doing. Largely, Hitchens argument grows off of Weinberg's quote: "With or without religion, you will have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. For good people to do bad things you need religion." ... The challenge was submitted to prove the toxicity of religion.

If the Hitchens Challenge is being used to prove the toxicity of religion, then in that context, I assume it must demonstrate that believers behave no better morally than do non-believers. And then I assume it is used in combination with the claim that believers are far worse when it comes to immoral behavior. Does this accurately reflect how the Hitchens Challenge is being used to make the case that religion is toxic? Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.

The problem with the use of the Hithcens Challenge in this context is that it fails to address the actual arguments being made by theists concerning moral behavior. If Christians as they do, claim that following Jesus leads believers to engage more frequently in moral behavior (e.g. giving to charity) and less frequently in other immoral behaviors, then Hitchens needs to address that actual position (and if not this, then some other relevant position of his opponent), not a position of his own choosing.

The whole structure and presentation of the Hitchens Challenge and the fact that Hitchens publicly brags that those he confronts are unable to respond to his challenge is powerful evidence that Hitchens is intentionally trying to make it seem as if his challenge is actually addressing a real theist position (Jerry Falwell eat your heart out). This misrepresentation of his opponents' position is what makes the Hitchens argument a strawman.

.

185. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80197 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Yes BMMcArdle, my claim is that the Hitchens Challenge contains that straw man (e.g. "The Hitchens Straw Man") which you've quoted.

I based that claim on the actual words taken from the Hitchens Challenge, which are:
"Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever".


As such, the outcome of the Hitchens Challenge is either:

1) "believers make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."
or
2) "believers don't make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

Outcome 1 is not used by his debate opponents to support any of their claims, and outcome 2 is not controverted by his debate opponents. And yet Hitchens acts as if they are. That's why I call it the "Hitchens Straw Man".

If you think I have misrepresented the Hitchens Challenge, make your case.

186. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80177 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I take the Bible at it's word. Absolutely.

For example, the Bible says in Peter 2:18
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

As such, I will not tolerate someone trying to make the claim that the Bible does not condone slavery. I will not tolerate someone saying: "well, that's not what it really means" or "this was done with the intention of showing others some greater lesson" or "you need to take that quote in the larger context" or "this passage only serves to emphasize that x is y". No. I wont have such BS.

Likewise, I wont tolerate your in-kind massaging of the Hitchens Challenge. Take the Hitchens Challenge at its word. Don't try to re-interpret what Hithcens really means based on what you think his intent was or claim that the larger context changes the meaning of his actual words. I understand the point of the Hitchens challenge - it's his argument that I find flawed and the introduction of the implicit and contentious straw-man that I find intellectually dishonest.

Read my response to Vendetta for further clarification on why this challenge is intellectually dishonest.
-

187. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80174 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 11:53 am

Russell Blackford : "...But you are coming across as trying to win an argument, rather than trying to sort out why Hitchens might be motivated to use this ploy"

Russel, I make a point not to speculate about a person's motives. I consider that a good thing.

Russell Blackford : "Please tell us how you would handle it. I'm not just being rhetorical, though I do wonder how much better at this you'd be than Hitchens; I genuinely want to know."

Be specific. Don't fall into the trap of adopting your opponent's ill-defined terms. Don't fall into the trap of responding to straw-man challenges.

Theists win with ambiguity. So do your best to undermine their attempts to sustain ambiguity.

The number one biggest mistake you could make in a debate with a theist (IMO) is to refer to "God" without qualification. If the person you're debating is Christian, then the topic of debate is not "God", it is "the god of The Bible". The question: "How can you have moral knowledge without God?" becomes the question: "How can you have moral knowledge without the god of The Bible?" Now you can focus on the specifics of the Bible and the moral arguments made in the Bible and point out (as Sam Harris does brilliantly) that we no longer consider most of The Bible's teachings to be moral (slavery being the most obvious point of attack) - Christians pick and choose their moral teachings from the Bible based on contemporary standards.

Hitchens himself does a great job of getting specific, and with the notable exception of his irrelevant and straw man-creating challenge, I think he's an excellent role-model. I wouldn't claim to be able to do better than Hitchens. Overall, I think Hitchens is very effective when he stays focused on the uniquely bad things that people do in the name of their religion. With Hitchens, the term "God" is always replaced with the more descriptive and specific: "celestial dictator" - this disambiguation of the term "god" serves a similar purpose to my own "god of the Bible" approach. No one has done a better job I think at debunking the "Hitler was an atheist" claim than Hitchens -- again I think this is because he effectively seeks out the ill-defined terms and pre-empts the straw-man arguments that theists are using and imbibes the ambiguities with vivid definition. The very fact that defenders of faith seek to surf on ambiguity is the weakness that Hitchens uses to exploit them - and he does it so well.

Sam Harris is another role model, and I think he's the best debate role model. Sam debunks the claim that we get our morals from the god of the Bible better than anyone else I have witnessed. Again, I think he's effective because he wont suffer the use of ill-defined terminology like "morality" (Harris defines "morality" in terms of suffering). Like Hitchens, Sam also poses a rhetorical challenge to theists. Sam's challenge goes something like this: "Can you think of a way to improve upon the moral code found in the Bible"? Sam answers his own challenge with specific examples that demonstrate it's not very hard at all. Sam was also the first person I was aware of to recognize and address the "atheist" straw-man created by theists. He did this when he wrote several years back: "It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist."

that's it for me. cheers.


RD troll since Sep 30, 2006

188. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80166 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 11:02 am

Johnny O: 'You can hear Roberts and Hewitt make the old, "Stalin & Hitler were evil because they were Atheists" arguement. Now if that is not implying that you need belief in a God to be moral, exactly what is?'

Johnny,

Did they really say that "Stalin & Hitler were evil because they were Atheists"? - I don't think so. They claim that Stalin & Hitler were atheist and as such, one should not blame religion as the cause of great evil. It's human nature (they would argue) that is to blame. Of course they then (if challenged to do so) would argue that this is why we need more religion in the world: to curb our natural human tendency toward evil.

Even if they had claimed what you say they had claimed, and even if you can infer from that supposed claim the assertion that: "you need belief in a god to be moral". The state of "being moral" is not part of the Hitchens Challenge. The Hitchens Challenge has to do with the ability to perform an action that is deemed to be moral. Can you not see the difference?

The fact that Roberts is too stupid to see the straw-man trap set for him by Hitchens, does not mean that the straw-man was not there. Re-watch the exchange; not only does Mark Roberts not ever make the claim that "you need belief in God to be able to perform a moral act" - he explicitly rejects it.

.

189. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80153 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 9:03 am

Vendetta,

The Dennis Prager challenge does not contain a contentious implicit assertion. The "Hitchens Challenge" does. That's the important difference between the two.

For example: I challenge you to stop beating your wife.

Implicit in my challenge is a contentious assertion that you have a wife and that you beat her. If you're neither married nor beat your wife then my challenge is based on a false premise. The burden of proof is upon me to provide evidence (e.g. a video of you beating your wife) to demonstrate that my implied assertion is true.

Implicit in the "Hitchens Challenge" is the contentious assertion that believers claim to be able to perform moral acts that non-believers are incapable of performing. The burden of proof is upon Hitchens (or someone) to provide evidence (e.g. a quote from a theist making such an argument) demonstrating that the implied Hitchens assertion is true.

It would also be unfair to consider a response to such a challenge as an admission that the contentious assertion was true. that's the real trap -- get someone to respond and then claim that the contentious implicit assertion in the challenge was true: e.g. "Ah ha! so you admit that you beat your wife!"


--------------------------

I understand that Hitchens is using his challenge as a rhetorical device. The fact that it's useful as such however, doesn't excuse its straw-man assertion and the fact that he attempts to publicly shame those who do not respond to his challenge should clearly demonstrates to everyone that Hitchens does not use his challenge merely as a rhetorical device.

190. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80111 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 3:23 am

The Hitchens Straw Man:
"believers make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

It's real simple BMMcArdle. Let's see a quote from from one of the people challenged by Hitchens (e.g. Michael Gerson, Mark Roberts, or any of the others) making the "Hitchens Straw Man" claim or making an argument that relies upon the "Hitchens Straw Man" claim.

Until someone can either do this or show how the outcome of the challenge can be used in some other relevant argument, then the Hitchens Challenge remains, by definition, a straw man argument.

put up or shut up.

191. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80096 by Riley on October 20, 2007 at 12:07 am

Frankus1122,

What I hear you saying is that even if the Hitchens Challenge is based on a false premise, it's still useful as a retort to claims made by theists. Do I have that right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you could actually use the Hitchens Challenge as the basis to retort any one of those theist claims, then I would agree that a case could be made for the Hitchens Challenge. But I don't think you can employ the Hitchens Challenge to support any of your points.

For example, pointing out that non-believers possess an equal ability to do "good works" does nothing to counter the theist claim that following "God's Word" leads people to do good works more often. There are plenty of other good arguments to counter this claim, most of which I have no doubt you're aware, but the Hitchens Challenge isn't one of them.

Why does the Hitchens Challenge bother me as much as it does? It's because I hate hypocrisy. Not only does the Hitchens Challenge misrepresent the position of others, it's the exact type of intellectual dishonesty for which we rightly condemn theists.

.

192. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80086 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Dr Benway: "Riley, after the moral compass bit, you get the "new man in Christ" bit. There's the dichotomy between those who are "of the Lord" and those "of the world." Read your Bible."

I fall asleep listening to my Bible on mp3 - Leviticus puts me to sleep every time.

But you're absolutely right Dr Benway. It's part of the emotional torture that is Christianity. The inherent knowledge of good and evil (i.e. our God-given moral compass) and the presumed freedom to choose between the two creates the foundation for guilt and justification for earthly and eternal punishment. While at the same time, the "we're all inherently evil sinners" creates the requisite shame and self-loathing necessary to inject the need for a savior - and the opportunity for someone to put words into the saviors mouth.

brilliant!

193. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80077 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 9:33 pm

I'd love to see a quote.

I'm used to hearing Christians make this argument:
"The existence of a moral compass in both believers and non-believers is evidence for the existence of God!"


read this: "Proof That God Exists"
read the section called: "Is there any proof that God exists? Take a good look inside yourself". I've been subjected to this "we are all born with an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong" rationale as evidence for the existence of God countless times.

194. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80073 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Frankus,

I agree that Hitchens is responding to the : "If we don't get our morality from God then where do we get it from?" arguments and the "There is no moral foundation without God." idea, but his challenge doesn't address those arguments. His challenge tactfully avoids those arguments through a non-sequitur. That's the problem.

The Hitchens Challenge is an ambush tactic, like asking a stranger: "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - huh? Christians don't claim that you need to believe in God in order to have God-given knowledge of right and wrong. And they certainly aren't claiming you need to believe in order to be capable of doing right.

Secondly, there are important differences between claiming: "We can be good without God", "we can be good without believing in God" and "believing in God necessarily makes you good". You've conflated these claims together. The only claim that Christians make is that God is the source of our goodness (as irrational as that claim is, that is the claim). They do not to my knowledge claim that belief in God necessarily makes you good, or that you need to believe in God in order to choose to do good works. And of course, the Hitchens argument suggestively mischaracterizes the Chrisitian belief as being still more extreme.

Christians have never asserted that believers are capable of performing moral acts that non-believers are incapable of performing.

Frankus1122: "That may be."

"That may be" !?!?!?!

If the targets of the Hitchens Challenge have never asserted this claim, then you must acknowledge that the Hitchens Challenge relies on a false premise. That's the whole point!

I don't dispute that this challenge is a tactic in response to wretched theist arguments. You are right to point these things out ... but it doesn't make the challenge any less wretched itself.

.

195. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80061 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Russian Freethinker, I have not ever claimed to speak *for* Christians, nor even claimed to be a Christian. I have no idea how someone got that impression. What I have claimed is that there is a consensus among Christians based on the evidence that I have available to me. But I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong on that point - I haven't crunched the numbers - have you? (If 80-90% of Christians believe in the doctrine of free-will could we call that a consensus?) You sound like you have some solid arguments for your case that there is not a consensus. Great!

I will check out: "The Bondage of the Will".
thanks!

196. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80057 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 7:07 pm

steve99: "The claimant for millenia has been the religious"

...but in this case the claimant is Hitchens and you, apparently.


You lack evidence to back your claim. Without it, I wouldn't expect you to be able to respond any further.

Hopefully one of you will read back through this thread and count the number of logical fallacies (mostly ad hominems, hasty conclusions, and non-sequitors) that so many of you have committed in such a short span of text.

It was a surprise to me to be treated this way, but very educational.

Thanks.

197. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80054 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 6:49 pm

mjwemdee, do you really think this is circular logic on my part?

Maybe you misunderstand. I'm not defending the Christian doctrine of freewill. I'm not claiming it's rational. I'm simply claiming that the doctrine of freewill is in fact a Christian doctrine. It is a consensus Christian belief.


My larger point is that this doctrinal Christian belief is incompatible with the assertion implied by the "Hitchens Challenge" that Christians claim to perform ethical acts that non-believers can not.

198. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80045 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Breadbin, I take Hitchens at his word, much the same that I take the Bible at its word. It says what it says and Hitchens makes no bones about what he is saying and he would never accept a similar argument about what the Bible is "really saying" from an opponent in a debate. It's fair to hold him accountable to the same standard he holds everyone else - and to Hitchens' credit, I think he would agree with me on that point.


As for my logic steve99,
Maybe I don't understand much about logic, but I appear to understand at least this one aspect better than you:
The burden of proof is on the claimant.

The validity of the "Hitchens Challenge" relies upon its implicit assertion that:
Christians claim to perform ethical acts that non-believers can not.

The burden of proof is upon Hitchens (and you if you are defending his challenge) to show that this assertion is true. Where's your evidence?

If you want to avoid the problem of "re-arranged deck chairs" Dr Benway, then the solution is to quote one of the people that Hitchens has challenged directly - there's no squirming out of that. Hitchens beams about the fact that he's challenged numerous theists directly in print and on air, and he never fails to take the opportunity to gloat that no-one has been able to respond to his claim. Michael Gerson is one of the victims of the Hitchens challenge. Tell me, has Michael Gerson ever made the claim?

I honestly am not sure - I can't prove a negative. But knowing what I know about the Christian doctrine of free-will, I would be shocked if you found anything in the positive. Nevertheless, I stand ready to be convinced by the evidence.

put up, or shut up.

199. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80037 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Good point Bonzai --- and yet Christians believe in free will anyway. They believe that all people are equally capable of performing moral acts.

Their belief may be irrational, but that's the belief. Don't go trying to claim that they believe in things that they explicitly do not believe in.

200. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80031 by Riley on October 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm

steve99, The basis for the argument of "free will" may be flawed - as you point out - but none-the-less, that is the basis for the Christian moral thesis as accepted by a consensus of Christians from all sects. You'd be hard-pressed to demonstrate that this bit of dogma is not a fundamental pillar of Christianity.

But why quibble when you can be specific? Lets just deal with the individuals that Hitchens has directly challenged on stage. Have any of those people made the claim that Christians are capable of performing moral acts that non-Christians are incapable of performing? Have any of their arguments relied on such a claim?

It's really that simple. Either they have or they haven't. Since Hitchens is the one challenging them and gloating over their non-response to his challenge, then I should think Hitchens could procure a quote from one of these individuals. Why hasn't he? Can anybody do this?