It seems that everywhere I turn there’s another article on Chris Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris. There have been plenty of through treatments recently, most specifically I would point you to John Haught’s article in the latest issue of The Christian Century. Haught correctly identifies the problem with “soft-core atheism” is its inconsistency. That is, it doesn’t follow its philosophy to the end that there is no true moral code since there is no God. The predecessors that they claim to admire (Nietschze, Marx, etc) would have seen the illogic in their arguments. For more in this stream of arguments, I would point you to Jordan Buckley’s article.
What I would like to add to the argument is that these “anti-theists” (specifically Hitchens) claim to have no belief, but their faith in science as the ultimate authority is in fact a belief system. Hear Hitchens’ own words:
“And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason (Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, p. 5).”
What he would have us believe is that Atheism is the best solution when all the options are weighed, that Christianity fails to answer significant questions of life, that religion is evil. And he would do all these things, having never honestly weighing the evidence himself. All through his book there is a call to question, and it’s a call that we are inclined to believe he has never answered himself. Instead, it seems that his response to any theistic belief is one of spite and anger, but not of real testing.
While it’s not much to add, I think G.K. Chesterton has something to say to such people, and it’s worth all of our time to stop and think about it:
“The [modern] problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult and left untried.”
True Christianity is difficult. It is difficult to think through and engage. And serious critics of it must work with the real issues of Christianity, not a made up, spiteful idea that it is inherently evil, because that critic has that presupposition in his mind.
I like it man. Good insight.
Hi, just stopping by with a few comments:
You wrote, That is, [atheism] doesn’t follow its philosophy to the end that there is no true moral code since there is no God.
I see this charge quite a lot, but found actually little basis for it. It rests purely on the presumption that a moral code comes from God, which of course lacks evidence to sustain. Atheists have long dispelled this theistic conceit. A quick internet search will bring up many books and articles, or you can read Sam Harris’s short article The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos.
You continue, What I would like to add to the argument is that these “anti-theists” (specifically Hitchens) claim to have no belief…
This is not their claim at all.
“…but their faith in science as the ultimate authority is in fact a belief system.
As far as I can tell, they lack a faith in science. This is merely your opinion, which is unsubstantiated. And Hitchens denies science as “the ultimate authority.” You’re building strawmen, not correctly reflecting their views.
You wrote, True Christianity is difficult.
If you would be so kind, please direct me to where I can find “true Christianity.” Christians of various and contradictory traditions assert they possess it, but they all can’t simultaneously be true.
Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate civil disagreement when it arises. I would like to give a response to the comments.
You and I will inevitably disagree on the issue of the moral code. The argument can’t be exhausted here, obviously. I do think it’s important to see that this my argument is not one that comes solely from the Christian point of view. In fact, it’s the argument that earlier atheists made themselves (e.g., Nietszche, Huxley, etc.).
Futhermore, I’m aware that Hitchens makes the claim you mentioned that he and his colleagues “lack faith in science.” However, if science is their rule for determining belief, how is it seen that they lack faith? Insofar as I can tell, while he may say he lacks faith in science, his actions say otherwise. So I understand if you think I’m “building strawmen”, but there is no more reason to see your views as more substantiated. It’s not as though I have opinions and you have facts.
Also, I may have done a poor job explaining that I’m not going deep into the argument here, but just adding a few words of comment to Haught’s article.
Finally, if you’re really interested in finding an example of true Christianity I would point you to the singular Christian, Jesus Christ. He is the model by which Christians are to live, telling us to die to ourselves and live for the kingdom of God (i.e. continual repentance from sin an faith in the Jesus as our only hope of salvation).
Again, thanks for the comment.
For why morality doesn’t come from God see the Euthyphro dilemma.
Science is a process. Since it is self correcting and it is based on evidence, it is a good way to get information about reality.
Jesus is definitely not a good example. There are as many different interpretations of his actions as there are sects. Not to mention he doesn’t have his own Gospel- all the stories are second hand.
Sam, again, you misunderstand the textual history of the New Testament. To suggest the accounts we have are not reliable is to completely misunderstand how things were passed generation to generation in that time. It’s a common literary device known as the Bioi.
These are not good examples of why science is better than religion, or whatever. It’s proof that we have differing worldviews – yes atheism is a worldview – that lead to our beliefs.