Christopher Hitchen's Atheist Challenge Answered
66
The question and the answer
"Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever."
Thats the challenge afforded to Micheal Gerson in one of Christopher Hitchen's Washington Post articles. He then claimed that he has been making this challenge "for some time" and has yet to receive a "convincing reply".
So I thought to myself... Every question deserves an answer, right? And while I may not be a renowned theologian or philosopher I figured I might give it a shot.
 | Amazon Price: $25.99 List Price: $29.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $14.75 List Price: $24.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $4.96 List Price: $14.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $9.99 |
Well, here it goes. How about: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
The statement itself may not seem to answer the question but thats because its the idea behind it is whats really important which is that there are many ways in which we are unequal from a human perspective, for instance we all have different levels of intellect and physical ability. For example I am not the intellectual equal of Stephen Hawking nor am I the physical equal of Brian Urlacher. Thus it would seem that we are unequal from a purely natural perspective.
But when we look at the difference between us and God it makes the differences we see between each other utterly superficial. And that is the major logical linchpin of this argument. With believe in a higher power comes the perspective necessary for each of us to see ourselves as neither intrinsically superior or inferior to one another.
However, without a belief in a higher power it seems to me that it is impossible to justify any type of egalitarian society. After all, like I outlined before, there are many ways in which we are unequal from a strictly natural standpoint as I noted before.
And trust me I'm certainly not the first to notice the differences that exist among us. In fact these inequalities have been used throughout history to justify things from slavery to genocide to segregation. The Nazis argued they were more highly evolved than everyone else and used that to justify enslaving and killing millions. The Japanese empire did the same. The popular American eugenics movement of the 1920s and 30s used the exact same logic. And on a lighter note even the book the famous Mr.Scopes taught from stated that "At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man ... the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America"... Although maybe thats not a lighter note.
Now I am certainly not saying that atheists hold these beliefs, in fact I am quite sure most of them do not approve of this line of reasoning. But regardless I just don't see any way for atheistic philosophy to logically refute the claims of the Nazis, Japanese empire, Eugenicists, or even Hunter's Civic Biology Book (from the scopes case).
Maybe I'm missing something... Perhaps someone can provide me with a sound logical justification for egalitarianism without the relying on belief in a higher power?
CommentsLoading...
You are missing nothing, College politico. In God's eyes we are all equal. We all... every single human being to walk this earh.. are given a soul which is equal in the eyes of God. From that viewpoint.. not one of us is superior to another irregardless of our natural qualities. Without that belief in God as our Creator .. who has endowed us each with a soul He loves.... how can anyone possibly hold himself to be equal to even the most slovenly, in his eyes, of human beings? Human nature alone makes that impossible to do. With a belief in God.... you just know that is true. Not one of us human beings is superior to another.. or inferior to another. We are all equal.
Actually you are missing the rest of the paragraph that comes after what you quoted. Go back and read the Declaration of Independence, there is a more specific, secular argument that follows right after the fuzzy absolutes you quote.
See my blog for more details.
Sorry, I should be more specific than just "my blog," a link to the post where I use your argument as a bad example:
I'm sorry. I find this poor stuff. The simple commonality of our genome makes the technical case more than adequately. Individual variations in its make up are far greater than the averaged make up distinguishing any given race. Hence we can make no presumptions of individuals and must grant them equal rights.
God's Chosen People. Gott mit Uns. Women shall walk ten paces behind. Fags burn in Hell..... Religion as it is widely practised steals the rights of others. Further religion always fails to endorse the rights of other living things. The atheistic position, informed by reason, stands a better chance of identifying our kin. Sadly, I feel more warmth for Brother Bonobo, than I do for some of our deeply Misogynous, homophobic Anglican Primates at present.
Take a pragmatic standpoint and divorce the belief or non-belief in god from the issue altogether: A society espousing equality of individuals seems stable as compared to one where some groups are not equal (and civil or social revolutions eventually ensue in opposition). So people can come to believe in equality simply because they view it as beneficial to their security. Such a belief isn't inconsistent with any scientific result because the belief in political equality is a belief in the equality of rights, not in the equality of traits. So it can be rational to believe in the equality of rights while simultaneously believing in an inequality of traits among individuals.
God wrote His law on the hearts of all men, that is why Hitchens knows its wrong to murder. His atheism will not allow him to become morally indignant regarding murder. If there is no God, ethical standards are merely the conventions of men and are subject to change at any time according to the whim of the majority.
Jesus is King and will return again. Sandra from Ohio
A valiant effort to trip up the arrogant Mr. Hitchens nonetheless a failure for many reasons. To argue that without belief in a higher power it is impossible to justify an egalitarian society is non sequitur. Theoretical communist socieites (as opposed to most living examples) believe fundamentally in equality AND are largely atheistic.
Another large flaw in your argument is in your attempt to establish equality of the whole by measuring just a single attribute. Because an individual is more adept in one field than another person does not make the adept superior in everything or as a whole.
The desire to see equality of opportunity for all is absolutely in keeping with atheistic thinking. Most atheists would argue that children should be given equal time to explore Chrstianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism - all religions in fact - and of course atheism. That child would then have the opportunity to make up their own mind on issues like creation, life after death and literal or spiritual interpretation of scriptures. In my experience those that believe in their particular version of a higher power do not want to open up this level of equality for fear that the child will arrive at the wrong conclusion ... or the right one if they choose atheism:-)
What many atheists find strange about advocates of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is how they believe in the same higher power, largely the same creation story, a similar after death experience yet do not believe that their religious adversaries "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
in answer to your question about justifying egalitarianism without a higher power, i wanted to suggest kant's Critique of Judgement, because you could argue that the existence of a metaphysical realm outside that of human interaction could be admitted no matter if unproven or not. This would then lead logically to a mixture of Hobbesian and Machiavellian style protection of this metaphysical world, the by-product being a search for an empirical equality.
I agree with Sandra.
Actually, Hitchens himself gave us the answer (and in doing so shows us the trickery of his challenge). Here's the problem: Hitchens will never agree to something being ethical that he himself does not believe is ethical. So of course the question is unanswerable. If you come up with such a statement, and he cannot agree that it is ethical, then it doesn't satisfy the challenge. Catch 22.
But he gave us the answer: "love your enemy." He has stated on more than one occasion that he does not agree with that, and that it is immoral (along with other Christian morals). So if there is any meaning at all to his "challenge" then it is this: there is in fact a difference in Christian morality and atheistic morality.
I find it fairly amusing that you are quoting the words of a deist, as if he were a believer. Deists do not believe in a personal god, and Jefferson was a deist.
You didn't even attempt to answer Christopher Hitchens challenge. You babbled on about Hitler and the Japanese empire. Are you not aware that Hirohito was considered a god? Hitler referenced god in almost every one of his speeches and he never said he was doing anything in the name of Evolution or Darwin. Hitler explicitly said several times that he was doing the Lord's work. You make an insulting and weak attempt in your article to pass off the Japanese Empire and Nazism as secular. This article is extremely dishonest.
does any statement make sense to the question of Christopher
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
This statement is an example of a moral statement. Applying it to the challenge means, could this only have been arrived at by a believer, or could it also have been arrived at by a non-believer? The answer is both could have said it. Therefore fails the test. Your discussion about egalitarianism is completely irrelevant to the question.Give us the ethical act/statement that ONLY a believer could arrive at.
There is not just one, but two acts which can be accomplished only by believers to fulfill the requirements of the challenge. The first is rather a flip answer, and the second more serious. They both still fit, though.
1- Excommunicate someone.
2- Administer last rights.
There are certain things that we can't understand with our limited knowledge. Keep a space for that too.. best regards!
A non-believer could not honestly affirm the moral basis of anyone who believes morality to be revealed by a god. All an unbeliever can do is to assert that the believer has no "real" basis for such morality, whereas the believer can affirm the morality of a non-believer, based as it is on reasoning they could honestly agree with.
It is immoral to undermine the basis of someone's existing morality, thus encouraging immorality.
This answer is completely by definition, without any need for a presupposition of any particular morality or belief system.
Nevin 3 years ago
Formally I think that you're right. Political philosophy of all stripes--whether John Locke's, John Rawls's, or Robert Nozicks's--relies upon metaphysical assumptions about the nature of human beigns that are ultimately incompatible with an atheistic worldview. In fact, every day basic beliefs of ordinary laypersons are incompatible with such a worldview. On the other hand, these beliefs are held and actions made by atheists nevertheless, so I'm not sure it really answers Hitchens's challenge. After all, he asked for something that a nonbeliever *could* not do, not something that she *should* not do if she were to be philosophically consistent. People--Christians included--act contrary to their formal beliefs all the time, for both good and ill.
Now, of course, Hitchens would hardly agree with that answer, I'm sure--he would want to insist that egalitarisanism is (philosophically) consistent with a scientific worldview--but then he's no more renowned a philosopher than yourself, so that's not surprising.