16 July 2007

Atheists and Difference in Kind

Originally posted on The American Thinker website.

This past weekend, the Washington Post published two pieces: one by Michael Gerson titled "What Atheists Can't Answer" and a response by Christopher Hitchens. Gerson poses the question of what would happen if the idea of God were removed from moral questions; where would our guiding principles come from? Hitchens response is indirect, choosing to challenge the idea that religious teachings throughout history are morally ambiguous at best and horrifically immoral in general.

I find it interesting and telling that atheists, specifically Hitchens in this case, tend to source human failings to God when discussing the immorality of religion. In this way, God is blamed for all manner of evil acts. What is more reasonable (and expectable, given the naturally imperfect state of man) is that those who use religion to perpetrate evil are not religious at all, but rather use the faith of others as a means to power.

Ironically, whereas a religious believer can readily state that God is beyond human knowledge, the atheists apply the attributes of God to man - notably to the atheists themselves. They seem unable to consciously detach what God is from what they know man is. In this way and through their arguments, they raise man to God-like levels of thought and perfection and simultaneously downgrade the idea of God (which they reject anyway) to a somewhat human level. This equivocation of beings that are different in kind muddles the argument so as to result in comparing apples and airplanes, thinking both are the same. The inability to see a difference in kind between the mortal and the divine irrecoverably clouds Hitchens' argument.

In the end, I think that history has shown again and again what happens when people reject, en masse, the idea of God. Like perversions of the idea of God (which Hitchens eagerly puts forward as examples), rejection leads to totalitarianism and inhumanity toward theist and atheist alike.

2 comments:

Paul Sheats said...

I find it extremely hard to believe that you really interpret Hitchens' response to Gerson as indirect. How is one supposed to judge the "morals" of religion if one cannot examine religious teachings throughout history? The Bible has some noteworthy moral guidelines, but after all, it's just a book. Isn't the point that how Christians actually behave is what shows the alleged superior morality of the believer? And you are mistaken in your description of atheists as those who "tend to source human failings to God when discussing the immorality of religion. In this way, God is blamed for all manner of evil acts." To the contrary, atheists blame those who are actually responsible for evil acts. It is a contradiction in terms for an atheist to blame God for anything. And I have a hard time understanding you when you state that "a religious believer can readily state that God is beyond human knowledge." This is circular logic taken to the extreme. I always find it amusing when a theist attempts to hide God behind the proverbial "curtain" of unknowability when his beliefs are questioned. Additionally, your argument that Hitchens' "inability to see a difference in kind between the mortal and the divine irrecoverably clouds Hitchens' argument" presupposes that there actually is a "divine," which I am quite willing to bet that Mr. Hitchens would reject outright.

Bob M. said...

Paul,

Thanks for your comments. I'll post mine tomorrow at the latest.

Thanks for reading.

Bob M.