Christopher Hitchens On Morality Without God

[inocente]

Yes, there’s great statistical evidence. When you compare people who go to Church (adhere) to those who don’t, those who do marry more and divorce less, give more to charity, are happier, and “better” in a number of categories. I bet that when you compare people from the same neighborhood, people who went to Church are probably incarcerated less.

Lots of people believe in God but no longer go to church, and lots of people who don’t go to church haven’t thrown away any moral code, and things like marrying less and being less happy don’t prove a lack of any moral code, so I don’t think you’re tackling Auntie A’s hypothesis about those who “would throw away any moral code because they no longer believe in God”.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Your thoughts are interesting here. Christopher Hitchens is a pretty bold version of an atheist. And we all need prayers. But what I would want to know is: what if someone had difficulty believing in God: no grace, just doubts, yet they lived a fully moral life by Catholic standards? Could righteous goodness without belief in God be acceptable to God?

What you describe sounds exactly like Mother Theresa. Through her reasoning, she believed in God and did His work, even though she never or hardly felt His presence here on earth. Sounds a lot like spiritual dryness or a dark night of the soul. Theres nothing wrong with not “feeling” God, so long as we dont allow our irrational emotions get the better of us.

Or sounds like someone who might be invincibly ignorant.

But this doesnt describe Hitchens.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Your thoughts are interesting here. Christopher Hitchens is a pretty bold version of an atheist. And we all need prayers. But what I would want to know is: what if someone had difficulty believing in God: no grace, just doubts, yet they lived a fully moral life by Catholic standards? Could righteous goodness without belief in God be acceptable to God?

What you describe sounds exactly like Mother Theresa. Through her reasoning, she believed in God and did His work, even though she never or hardly felt His presence here on earth. Sounds a lot like spiritual dryness or a dark night of the soul. Theres nothing wrong with not “feeling” God, so long as we dont allow our irrational emotions get the better of us.

But this doesnt describe Hitchens.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

This is an area where I am confused at times: When someone turns away from their faith and from God, at first I feel compassion because it is possible to lose faith or never have the proper grace at the beginning. I get it. But then when that same person would throw away any moral code because they no longer believe in God, it begins to smell of a selfish temper tantrum. It appears immature and stupid, almost like a teenager rebelling against the parent that they say they don’t believe in. Moral laws benefit believers and unbelievers alike. Not only are they God’s laws but they are laws for better human living. This has actually been a means for me to believe more in God. His laws are harmonious.

Isnt it funny when people say things like “Oh thats just a Catholic truth, thats not true for everyone.”

Considering the word Catholic translates to UNIVERSAL, that statement just strikes me as so ironic and contradictory.

“Thats just a universal truth, its not true for everyone though”

 

[John_Savage]

Lots of people believe in God but no longer go to church, and lots of people who don’t go to church haven’t thrown away any moral code, and things like marrying less and being less happy don’t prove a lack of any moral code, so I don’t think you’re tackling Auntie A’s hypothesis about those who “would throw away any moral code because they no longer believe in God”.

There’s everything in every group. I’m saying that there is statistical evidence that people who attend Church are generally “better” than their neighbors who don’t, in some measures.

Search for church attendance and whatever behavior and there should be some studies. Account for bias, which would most likely be against religion in most academic settings.

 

[boomerang]

I know quite a lot of people who wouldn’t and don’t agree with that above.

Really?

Sarah x

Yeah, really. The person who does not think that Christianity is a force for civilization, doesn’t know (or doesn’t want to know) history. Christianity is the backbone of this wonderful thing we call “Western Civilization”

 

[inocente]

There’s everything in every group. I’m saying that there is statistical evidence that people who attend Church are generally “better” than their neighbors who don’t, in some measures.

Search for church attendance and whatever behavior and there should be some studies. Account for bias, which would most likely be against religion in most academic settings.

I googled “church attendance and morality” but the only hits were for declines in people going to church. I think you’ll not find anything either - such a study would have to depend on self-reporting, and people are not going to say they have no moral code on a questionnaire.

But also “better” is a matter of opinion while Auntie A’s scenario was specifically about trashing any moral code.

 

[John_Savage]

Search for a specific behavior. “Church attendance and divorce,” for example. Church makes people better.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

** Originally Posted by inocente
I wasn’t looking to condemn anyone, just the opposite: Auntie A hypothesized a person who “would throw away any moral code because they no longer believe in God”. My point is that there doesn’t seem to be any statistical evidence or other objective measure that atheists are on average less or more moral than Christians, which implies that a person’s beliefs may help shape their morals but are not the prime factor in adhering to them.**

I have been in prison ministry for many years. I guarantee you that the vast majority of prisoners are in prison because they had little to nothing to do with God. This range of prisoners can go from those who are outright atheists (hardcore) or so-called believers who might call themselves Christians, Jews, or Muslims, but who in fact do not live what they are supposed to believe (I call them soft core atheists). God might exist in their heads as a concept but not in their hearts as a living and breathing reality.

**Auntie A

Could righteous goodness without belief in God be acceptable to God?**

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is good.” Psalms 14:1

 

[inocente]

I have been in prison ministry for many years. I guarantee you that the vast majority of prisoners are in prison because they had little to nothing to do with God. This range of prisoners can go from those who are outright atheists (hardcore) or so-called believers who might call themselves Christians, Jews, or Muslims, but who in fact do not live what they are supposed to believe (I call them soft core atheists). God might exist in their heads as a concept but not in their hearts as a living and breathing reality.

Your judgment of who are “so-called believers” is subjective and wouldn’t even be allowed on CAF (“It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs”).

I couldn’t find any hard data, just questionable blogs such as here and here.

 

[inocente]

Search for a specific behavior. “Church attendance and divorce,” for example. Church makes people better.

Now hang on, it’s your theory, how come that’s not your job?

And divorce isn’t a moral issue for many non-Catholics, plus as I said:

Lots of people believe in God but no longer go to church, and lots of people who don’t go to church haven’t thrown away any moral code, and things like marrying less and being less happy don’t prove a lack of any moral code, so I don’t think you’re tackling Auntie A’s hypothesis about those who “would throw away any moral code because they no longer believe in God”.

 

[InJesusItrust]

The same people who criticize religious traditions follow the conventional laws as accepted in their society. They have no justification for why X or Y is immoral, apart from their own feelings and the power of the masses. The manipulators of feelings, those with the wealth and influence to own the media, basically control secular society, all the while people thinking “we are free” but they are herded by wolves.

Morality without divine authority clashes with secular notions of egalitarianism and liberty. You can’t justify morality without the application of force or manipulation of feelings.

 

[Ismael]

The same people who criticize religious traditions follow the conventional laws as accepted in their society. They have no justification for why X or Y is immoral, apart from their own feelings and the power of the masses. The manipulators of feelings, those with the wealth and influence to own the media, basically control secular society, all the while people thinking “we are free” but they are herded by wolves.

Morality without divine authority clashes with secular notions of egalitarianism and liberty. You can’t justify morality without the application of force or manipulation of feelings.

Well a consistent atheist (like, let’s say Mackie or Sartre) will admit that in the end, refuting God is refuting objective morality or any statement that morality is something real.

They refused God, and they quite soon aware the problem had at their hands. Of course many of them offered some sort of solution to the problem, like atheist existentialism for example.

I think the ‘new atheists’ are somewhat deluding themselves with their slogan ‘good without god’. I think the more intellectual atheists, like also Alex Rosenberg, simply accept that there is no “good without god”, actually that there is no “good” period, and morality becomes a series of purely subjective statements.

At this point there still can be some ‘moral code’, based on ‘mutual agreements’, but since it’s founded on subjective perspective it can easily fall apart.

An example of this I think is the French Revolution, where the idea (at least by some) was to create some sort or ‘rationalist republic’ based on the “Cult of Reason”… and of course it failed horribly.

An example more closer to home, albeit fictional, is The Simpson’s episode “They Saved Lisa’s Brain” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Saved_Lisa’s_Brain)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**inocente

Your judgment of who are “so-called believers” is subjective and wouldn’t even be allowed on CAF (“It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs”).**

In the absence of hard data, which you admitted you could not find, we go with our best estimate. Those who work inside the prison system know how the lack of morals is what gets men and women into prison. They also know they very few prisoners avail themselves of the prison ministry or attend religious services. If you want to call that subjective, you’re free to do so. But I think it’s the best evidence yet that there is little morality without god, and Christopher Hitchens was a fool in that regard as well as being a fool to deny the existence of God.

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

 

[atheistgirl]

They also know they very few prisoners avail themselves of the prison ministry or attend religious services. If you want to call that subjective, you’re free to do so.

This directly contradicts other statements made to me by people here when I discussed this subject of prisoners who belong to faiths previously.

The claim made was large numbers of prisoners call themselves Christians or Muslims or whatever in order to get time out of the day for prayer and services.

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

This directly contradicts other statements made to me by people here when I discussed this subject of prisoners who belong to faiths previously.

Talk to someone else in the prison ministry. Yes, some people who go to chapel services go for parole purposes only. But the vast majority of prisoners in any prison do not go to chapel services at all. Any prison chaplain in Texas will tell you that.

I would infer that this pattern is followed nationwide, though I have no statistics that prove it.

 

[John_Savage]

Now hang on, it’s your theory, how come that’s not your job?

And divorce isn’t a moral issue for many non-Catholics, plus as I said:

It is a behavior. Usually, people think of divorce as a bad thing, if not immoral. But, how about spouses cheating or cheating in college or levels of happiness? Studies indicate that people who attend Church cheat less and are happier.

Finally, think about what you’re saying. You’re saying that weekly ethical instruction doesn’t change behavior. Do you think one’s behavior is inborn and that we shouldn’t teach ethics at all, secular or religious, because it doesn’t do any good? Or, are you saying that the kind of ethical instruction you don’t like doesn’t work? Because the latter would make me suspect that you’re biased.

 

[inocente]

It is a behavior. Usually, people think of divorce as a bad thing, if not immoral. But, how about spouses cheating or cheating in college or levels of happiness? Studies indicate that people who attend Church cheat less and are happier.

Finally, think about what you’re saying. You’re saying that weekly ethical instruction doesn’t change behavior. Do you think one’s behavior is inborn and that we shouldn’t teach ethics at all, secular or religious, because it doesn’t do any good? Or, are you saying that the kind of ethical instruction you don’t like doesn’t work? Because the latter would make me suspect that you’re biased.

It’s not bias. After I said “there doesn’t seem to be any statistical evidence or other objective measure that atheists are on average less or more moral than Christians” you started this conversation (post #20) with “Yes, there’s great statistical evidence”"

So I understand your theory fine but come on, where’s this great statistical evidence you promised?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

So I understand your theory fine but come on, where’s this great statistical evidence you promised?

conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide

There is no more important moral question to answer than whether you have the courage to live through hard times. Hope is a virtue. Cowardice is a vice. The coward takes the easy way out, leaving family and friends and moral obligations in the lurch.