A Challenge For Xians From Mr Hitchens

[FreeThinkerNZ]

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

 

[Orbit]

Can't name anything for number one.

Everything Westboro Baptist Church ever said for #2

[Guest end3]

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

Not sure I'm understanding the statements very well, but these seem to be saying it's wiser to not define a stand so that you won't be criticized for making one..

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

Not sure I'm understanding the statements very well, but these seem to be saying it's wiser to not define a stand so that you won't be criticized for making one..

 

No, End3, you do understand the statement.  It's talking about someone blowing up an abortion clinic because of their religious beliefs, or flying an airplane into a building, or kidnapping girls because "western education is evil." 

 

So, now that we both know that you understand the challenge, are you willing to give it a try?

[sdelsolray]

…

Not sure I'm understanding the statements very well….

Rest assured that you are not understanding either statement very well at all.

[mymistake]

 

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

Not sure I'm understanding the statements very well, but these seem to be saying it's wiser to not define a stand so that you won't be criticized for making one..

 

 

 

What good thing can a believer do that a non-believer can't do?

 

What evil things have been done because of faith?

[disillusioned]

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

 

Generally speaking, I enjoy Hitchens' critiques of religion. I agree with much of what he had to say. This challenge, however, always struck me as rather missing the point, at least as far as Christianity goes.

 

For the first question, I've never heard a Christian claim that there is such an action. It is not a claim of Christianity that to be a Christian makes one a better person. Hence the question is irrelevant.

 

For the second, Christians will be quick to tell you that many people of faith do reprehensible things, and that sometimes they do these things because of their faith. Faith can be misplaced, but not all faith is misplaced.

 

The only way that I can see these questions being useful is as a critique of the utility of religion from a humanistic perspective. But if Christianity were actually true then it wouldn't matter whether it was useful from a humanistic perspective. The humanistic perspective would be incorrect. Also, a statement may be true and not useful. It may even be true and damaging. All this is to say that while these questions may be interesting, they don't really do anything at all to demonstrate that any particular religion is not true. So I was always puzzled by Hitchens' insistence on returning to this challenge over and over at every opportunity. It seems to me that there are better critiques that can be made.

[DoubtingNate]

He is also dealing with common misconceptions about non belief and morality, or that God/religion is a requirement for people to behave themselves.

[Orbit]

 

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

Not sure I'm understanding the statements very well, but these seem to be saying it's wiser to not define a stand so that you won't be criticized for making one..

 

Not sure where you got that from. It's asking you to think of evils that have been done in the name of religion. Think of any?

[Guest end3]

And the evil done in the name of religion would cease.

What about the evil done in the name of humanism.

[mymistake]

 

And the evil done in the name of religion would cease.

What about the evil done in the name of humanism.

 

 

 

First let's see you acknowledge the original topic.  Admit evil is done out of faith.  Yes even Christian faith.

 

 

You always tip toe over the evil of Christianity without acknowledging it.  After you clear that up then we can talk about evil humanists.

[Orbit]

 

And the evil done in the name of religion would cease.

What about the evil done in the name of humanism.

 

Name some.

 

For your reference : Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith

[♦ ficino ♦]

^^^ ? Do you mean killing people in the name of the class struggle?  Or abortion?  Or persecuting Christians by telling them they can't persecute gays and lesbians?  Or.... ?  

 

I am not aware that humanism generates commands to kill non-humanists.  You know well of cases where religion generates commands to kill unbelievers - OT, ISIS, Crusades, etc etc

[Guest end3]

Easy there people. I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that if it's not religion, it will be what ever the belief of the day is. There is no belief that will satisfy the definition of "good". Lol, you humanists are ready to string up the Christian. There's some "good" for you. Carry on.

[Orbit]

Easy there people. I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that if it's not religion, it will be what ever the belief of the day is. There is no belief that will satisfy the definition of "good". Lol, you humanists are ready to string up the Christian. There's some "good" for you. Carry on.

 

You still haven't answered the question. And no, it won't be the "belief of the day" if not religion. Human history is full of atrocities committed by the faithful specifically FOR their faith. It's a worldwide problem today. It is false to say that these atrocities would have happened without religion. Would ISIS be happening without Islam?

[mymistake]

Easy there people. I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that if it's not religion, it will be what ever the belief of the day is. There is no belief that will satisfy the definition of "good". Lol, you humanists are ready to string up the Christian. There's some "good" for you. Carry on.

 

 

And once again you have omitted your acknowledgment of evil done by Christianity.  You do this every single time.  When Christians do evil you so artfully dodge the topic.  It's true you don't deny it because in order to deny it you would have to acknowledge to topic came up.

 

If a Christian has molested children then we will oppose them.  If a Christian has encouraged people to deny the basic human rights of minorities then we will oppose that too.  If a Christian uses shame as a weapon then we will fight against that.  If a Christian wants to bring religion into a public school so they can indoctrinate instead of teaching science then we will fight it.

 

We didn't hang anybody by the neck until they are dead.  You are being melodramatic.  

[Guest end3]

 

Easy there people. I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that if it's not religion, it will be what ever the belief of the day is. There is no belief that will satisfy the definition of "good". Lol, you humanists are ready to string up the Christian. There's some "good" for you. Carry on.

 

 

And once again you have omitted your acknowledgment of evil done by Christianity.  You do this every single time.  When Christians do evil you so artfully dodge the topic.  It's true you don't deny it because in order to deny it you would have to acknowledge to topic came up.

 

If a Christian has molested children then we will oppose them.  If a Christian has encouraged people to deny the basic human rights of minorities then we will oppose that too.  If a Christian uses shame as a weapon then we will fight against that.  If a Christian wants to bring religion into a public school so they can indoctrinate instead of teaching science then we will fight it.

 

We didn't hang anybody by the neck until they are dead.  You are being melodramatic.

 

I'm not being anything except insightful. Why do you need me to answer in some particular form.

[mymistake]

 

 

Easy there people. I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that if it's not religion, it will be what ever the belief of the day is. There is no belief that will satisfy the definition of "good". Lol, you humanists are ready to string up the Christian. There's some "good" for you. Carry on.

 

 

And once again you have omitted your acknowledgment of evil done by Christianity.  You do this every single time.  When Christians do evil you so artfully dodge the topic.  It's true you don't deny it because in order to deny it you would have to acknowledge to topic came up.

 

If a Christian has molested children then we will oppose them.  If a Christian has encouraged people to deny the basic human rights of minorities then we will oppose that too.  If a Christian uses shame as a weapon then we will fight against that.  If a Christian wants to bring religion into a public school so they can indoctrinate instead of teaching science then we will fight it.

 

We didn't hang anybody by the neck until they are dead.  You are being melodramatic.

 

I'm not being anything except insightful. Why do you need me to answer in some particular form.

 

 

 

Because it would just kill you to admit that some preachers are child molesters and some Christians oppress gays.

 

 

But lets move on anyway.  Who is a humanist who has done evil in the name of humanism?  What was the evil done?  I'm sure it will be some heavy duty sin such as hurting God's wittle feewings.

 

 

.

[mymistake]

*crickets chirp*

 

 

 

End what happened?  You were just here.  Where did you go?

[Orbit]

 

 

Easy there people. I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that if it's not religion, it will be what ever the belief of the day is. There is no belief that will satisfy the definition of "good". Lol, you humanists are ready to string up the Christian. There's some "good" for you. Carry on.

 

 

And once again you have omitted your acknowledgment of evil done by Christianity.  You do this every single time.  When Christians do evil you so artfully dodge the topic.  It's true you don't deny it because in order to deny it you would have to acknowledge to topic came up.

 

If a Christian has molested children then we will oppose them.  If a Christian has encouraged people to deny the basic human rights of minorities then we will oppose that too.  If a Christian uses shame as a weapon then we will fight against that.  If a Christian wants to bring religion into a public school so they can indoctrinate instead of teaching science then we will fight it.

 

We didn't hang anybody by the neck until they are dead.  You are being melodramatic.

 

I'm not being anything except insightful. Why do you need me to answer in some particular form.

 

End, you're pulling an Ironhorse and evading the question. Why?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Easy there people. I am not denying anything. All I am saying is that if it's not religion, it will be what ever the belief of the day is. There is no belief that will satisfy the definition of "good". Lol, you humanists are ready to string up the Christian. There's some "good" for you. Carry on.

 

 

And once again you have omitted your acknowledgment of evil done by Christianity.  You do this every single time.  When Christians do evil you so artfully dodge the topic.  It's true you don't deny it because in order to deny it you would have to acknowledge to topic came up.

 

If a Christian has molested children then we will oppose them.  If a Christian has encouraged people to deny the basic human rights of minorities then we will oppose that too.  If a Christian uses shame as a weapon then we will fight against that.  If a Christian wants to bring religion into a public school so they can indoctrinate instead of teaching science then we will fight it.

 

We didn't hang anybody by the neck until they are dead.  You are being melodramatic.

 

I'm not being anything except insightful. Why do you need me to answer in some particular form.

 

End, you don't get a pass on this.  In #11 you wrote, "What about the evil done in the name of humanism."  Your response presupposes that there IS evil done in the name of humanism.  It's incumbent on you to enumerate evil/evils that are "done in the name of humanism."  Evils done by people who happen to be humanists, by the way, but that are not enjoined by humanism as an ideology are not that.

[Orbit]

 

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

 

Generally speaking, I enjoy Hitchens' critiques of religion. I agree with much of what he had to say. This challenge, however, always struck me as rather missing the point, at least as far as Christianity goes.

 

For the first question, I've never heard a Christian claim that there is such an action. It is not a claim of Christianity that to be a Christian makes one a better person. Hence the question is irrelevant.

 

For the second, Christians will be quick to tell you that many people of faith do reprehensible things, and that sometimes they do these things because of their faith. Faith can be misplaced, but not all faith is misplaced.

 

The only way that I can see these questions being useful is as a critique of the utility of religion from a humanistic perspective. But if Christianity were actually true then it wouldn't matter whether it was useful from a humanistic perspective. The humanistic perspective would be incorrect. Also, a statement may be true and not useful. It may even be true and damaging. All this is to say that while these questions may be interesting, they don't really do anything at all to demonstrate that any particular religion is not true. So I was always puzzled by Hitchens' insistence on returning to this challenge over and over at every opportunity. It seems to me that there are better critiques that can be made.

 

I would disagree with the bolded above. Christians DO think being xtian makes you a better person. That's why they say atheists have no morals, because you know you have to be Christian to be moral.

[disillusioned]

 

 

A challenge for xians, or anyone really, from the late Christopher Hitchens. 

 

 

"Name me an ethical statement made, or a moral action taken by a believer that could not have been made or undertaken by a non believer[?]"

 

"Now name a wicked statement or action made by someone BECAUSE of their faith. You've just thought of one. And you'll keep thinking of them".

 

 

Generally speaking, I enjoy Hitchens' critiques of religion. I agree with much of what he had to say. This challenge, however, always struck me as rather missing the point, at least as far as Christianity goes.

 

For the first question, I've never heard a Christian claim that there is such an action. It is not a claim of Christianity that to be a Christian makes one a better person. Hence the question is irrelevant.

 

For the second, Christians will be quick to tell you that many people of faith do reprehensible things, and that sometimes they do these things because of their faith. Faith can be misplaced, but not all faith is misplaced.

 

The only way that I can see these questions being useful is as a critique of the utility of religion from a humanistic perspective. But if Christianity were actually true then it wouldn't matter whether it was useful from a humanistic perspective. The humanistic perspective would be incorrect. Also, a statement may be true and not useful. It may even be true and damaging. All this is to say that while these questions may be interesting, they don't really do anything at all to demonstrate that any particular religion is not true. So I was always puzzled by Hitchens' insistence on returning to this challenge over and over at every opportunity. It seems to me that there are better critiques that can be made.

 

I would disagree with the bolded above. Christians DO think being xtian makes you a better person. That's why they say atheists have no morals, because you know you have to be Christian to be moral.

 

 

You're right, many Christians think this, but it is not part of the central message. ALL have sinned. We are unable to save ourselves. Moreover, we will inevitably go on sinning once we have been saved. We may repent and be redeemed, but we will always continue to sin. Hence, being saved does not make one a better person. It just makes one saved.

 

Even if we cede, however, that Christianity does claim that to be a Christian is to be a better person, the question becomes "better according to whom?". In other words, I think the deeper problem with Hitchens' challenge is that it assumes a humanistic moral code. If Christianity is true, then morality is whatever God says it is. Hence there will be actions that are ethical from a Christian perspective which are not ethical from a humanistic perspective. For example, the Christian may say that we have a moral duty to tithe. The humanist might say that this is not a moral duty at all. The problem is that we have two conflicting definitions of morality.

 

I firmly believe that arguments from morality can neither establish nor deny the veracity of Christianity. If Christianity is true, then its definition of morality is true as well. Hence any objection to Christianity which is based on a different (invalid) moral code is impotent. First we need to establish which view is correct, then we can have ethical discussions.

[disillusioned]

 

I agree with Orbit. Most of Christianity claims that a main purpose of being a believer and follower of Christ is to make one a better person, spiritually and subsequently morally. This teaching runs throughout most of the NT. The good that Christians do is ascribed to the facilitation by the holy spirit. Hitchens' point is that non-believers (who do not have the holy spirit) can and do good, without "God." Therefore, God is not needed in order to be and do good. (FTNZ, do I seem to understand Hitch's point?)

 

 

I take your point. It depends what you mean by "better".

 

The thing is, even if Christianity makes one better on the whole, it does not necessarily follow that there is an action which a Christian can undertake which cannot be undertaken by a non-Christian. If I'm a better basketball player than you are, that does not mean that there is one particular shot that I can make which you can't. It might just mean that on the whole I make more shots than you do. So I still find that the challenge misses the point.

[disillusioned]

 

 

I agree with Orbit. Most of Christianity claims that a main purpose of being a believer and follower of Christ is to make one a better person, spiritually and subsequently morally. This teaching runs throughout most of the NT. The good that Christians do is ascribed to the facilitation by the holy spirit. Hitchens' point is that non-believers (who do not have the holy spirit) can and do good, without "God." Therefore, God is not needed in order to be and do good. (FTNZ, do I seem to understand Hitch's point?)

 

I take your point. It depends what you mean by "better".

 

The thing is, even if Christianity makes one better on the whole, it does not necessarily follow that there is an action which a Christian can undertake which cannot be undertaken by a non-Christian. If I'm a better basketball player than you are, that does not mean that there is one particular shot that I can make which you can't. It might just mean that on the whole I make more shots than you do. So I still find that the challenge misses the point.

 

disillusioned,

You are actually illustrating Hitch's point and agreeing with him. I would have to ask FTNZ to be certain, since she posted the quote and knows the original context. But that seems to be the point Hitch is making. Humans can be and do good without "God." So, Christianity's claim that God makes Christians good and capable of doing good is unproven, because non-Christians can do the same genuine good without "God" as a basis for that good. Therefore, it does not follow that the good is proven to come from -- or is due to -- "God."

 

 

Let me be very clear. I do agree with Hitchens that being a Christian does not make one a better person. I do not think that this is particularly relevant to the question of whether or not Christianity is actually true. I also do not think that Hitchens' challenge does anything to establish that being a Christian does not make one a better person.

 

Suppose the Christian is unable to answer #1. It may be the case that there is no specific action which a Christian can undertake that a non-Christian cannot. It may simultaneously be the case that the Christian is a better person. Again, there may be no one shot that I can make which you can't, but if I hit a higher percentage of my shots than you do, then I am the better shooter. Also, the Christian may maintain that God has put the capacity for good in all humans, and hence any good action can be undertaken by anyone. This may seem a pathetic objection to a humanist, but if Christianity is true then it is actually a fairly salient point.

 

As for #2, as I have already said, most Christians are quite happy to admit that faith can be misplaced. This does not entail that all faith is misplaced.

 

To reiterate: my objection is to the fact that the challenge does nothing to demonstrate that Christianity is false. Moreover, even if the Christian fails to meet the challenge, it may still be the case that to be a Christian is to be a better person (I don't agree with this statement, but it could be true). This is why I say that I think the challenge misses the point.

 

As far as the context goes, Hitchens put this challenge forth at almost every opportunity. He raised it in nearly every debate he partook in. He seemed to think of it as his trump card. I think it was far from his strongest critique of religion.