God is not great?
Hat tip to Cyberscribe for sending me this link. It's a review of "Peacemakers in Action: Profiles of Religion in Conflict Resolution" (Cambridge University Press), a new book edited by David Little, a conflict resolution specialist at Harvard Divinity School, which narrates the stories of "16 courageous women and men who have been inspired by their spiritual convictions to ease tensions and accomplish good in places as diverse as the Middle East, Colombia and Kosovo". One of those profiled is the Reverend Roy Magee, the Northern Irish Presbyterian minister who talked with the Loyalist paramiliaries 'about the legacy they wanted to leave their children, pointing to religious texts to remind them, "You may escape the court of the land, but you will not escape the judgment of God."'
The article linked makes much of the fact that Christopher Hitchens (and the other new atheists) do not incorporate stories like these in their accounts of the "poisoning" effects of religion. Let's be clear about one philosophical point at least: the fact that some people are motivated by their religious commitments to do good in the world does not volidate or substantiate those religious commitments (any more than the good deeds of an atheist can be taken as evidence for the truth of atheism). There are some less-than-subtle analyses of religion currently on the market and some, at least, appear to ignore the many positive contributions to peacemaking by people of faith around the world. A balanced analysis must surely grant that religious belief can be a powerfully positive motivating force in many people's lives -- and a powerfully negative and devisive force in many other people's lives.
Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh, the Rev. Roy Magee and Fr Alec Reid -- all fail to merit a mention in Hitchens' analysis, but their lives stand for something important in a world scarred by conflict, and their stories need to be told and re-told.
Comments
Well said. We need a lot more balance from the sceptics and atheists making a lot of money by dissing other people's faith.
Fair points here, Will. I agree that good deeds are not an indicator of religious truth or atheism. The real question is whether all those people doing good would have done their good deeds if they weren't religious. If a human rights abuse needs dealt with, why does someone have to be religious to see the injustice? More importabtly, why aren't more religious people are the forefront of human rights campaigns?
Indeed. Though perhaps a case can be made that the kinds of harm coming into the world through religion currently (think radical Islam) outweigh its benefits; that's certainly a statement I think Hitchens would agree with.
William's other point should be patently obvious; that the fact of the good of religion in the world does nothing whatsoever to substantiate the claims of that religion. In other words, whether a religion produces good has no bearing whatsoever upon whether or not that religion is true and therefore deserving of adherence. Perhaps there are hundreds of other ideas that produce good, which do not rely upon subscription to dogmatic theological ideas to do so. I remember seeing something like this point made by Dawkins on the Bill O'Reilly show when O'Reilly argued that the founding fathers of the United States thought of religion as a moderating influence in society. (That could be true without starting another debate about the degree to which the founding fathers wished to make religion a part of the government of the new nation.) Of course that could also be true without making Christianity worthy of adherence.
Fair points Will. It is not the good that is done in the name of a religious commitment that substantiates the TRUTH claim of that religion. Just as, in the same way, we cannot say ATHEISM is FALSE because of the evil that has been done by atheists. TRUTH claims require another kind of substantiation.
That said, anyone studying the life and times of William Wilberforce, for example, will not be able to escape the conclusion that the core group of abolitionists, led by Wilberforce, were driven by their conviction that God had created all men and women in His image, and that was the basis of their dignity. These abolitionists did have utilitarian co-belligerents, but a utilitarian ethic ethic does not provide a foundation for any action taken in favour of minorities. I suggest that these good people acted in spite of their utilitarian ethic rather than because of it. ... in much the same way as Dawkins and Hitchens moralise energetically against the war in Iraq in spite of their naturalist philosophical foundations rather than because of them.
Actually Wilberforce is a case in point. There are Christians at the cutting edge of a great deal of human rights work around the world. The fact that they don't hit the headlines every other day, or they do not have the public profile that Wilberforce had is irrelevant. One thinks of the work of CARE, for example.
Pascal said about what he saw his role as Christian apologist to be: "To show the Christian faith to be so beautiful that good people will want to believe it to be true, and then to show them that it is true".
There are a great many proofs that we can point to to show how much good, despite the crusades, inquisitions and witch hunts, the Christian faith has wrought in the world through the lives of its adherents. And there are many proof that we can point to to show it to be rationally plausible (I would say to show it to be true, but many would think that would be going to far). Neither of these two "pillars" proves the other; they are separate categories, but they are both very substantial on their own terms. And they complement each other wonderfully.
Will makes fair points, however, I think it is a fairly valid point to make that socieities with judeo christian foundations have a comparitively very good track record (though not blameless) on human rights and campaigning for human rights.
Personally I dont think that is a cooincidence, though that does not preclude athiests from being people of integrity of course.
Didnt human rights develop from the foundation of biblical judeo christian law though, as was the basis for UK and US law?
I certainly welcome all non-faith groups working for human rights but I can think for a few good Christian ones too.
One other point, when we talk of the founding father of the US, I understand there was a broad mix of secularists and puritans in that category... isnt it a bit misleading to imply that the founding fathers were all secularists?
PB
Roger Marshall- What proof are you talking about for showing the Christian faith to be TRUE? There's no point in you diluting what you think simply becuase some of us will disagree! If you have proof that it is true, then surely we might be persuaded!?
Joe, I believe the evidence is strong enough to show it to be true. Nevertheless, I'm not an evidentialist. I don't believe that the evidence is so strong as to be coercive. But I do believe that it can clearly be shown to be plausible. Given the strength of the case (and in particular the failure of any materialist I have heard or read to come up with a sufficient foundation within materialism for our awareness of right and wrong, for the moral imperative to which we are all subject and know we are, or to account for the existence of the universe (let alone a life-friendly universe) considering that the odds against such a universe coming into existence are so overwhelming.
But it is true that God has chosen not to make himself visible for all to see, he has not written "I exist" in letters of fire in the heavens. He does not appear, as in a Star trek movie, in the room when someone prays. If that is the kind of evidence you require then don't hold your breath! You see God is not so concerned, as Scripture makes clear, that we believe in his existence as that we enter a personal relationship with Him - not buddy to buddy but creature to Creator, overawed by the the fact that the Creator of the universe should actually choose to make Himself knowable to us. It is in that that our life, and our meaning as human beings consists. Outside of that there is only darkness and despair.
It took me a long time to make up my mind about Christopher Hitchens. He's appeared sporadically on Fox on various talk shows and of course he is famous for his traveling road show debating George Galloway wherever they could draw a paying audience. Then I found out he had been a left wing radical who had "seen the light" and it all fell into place and made sense. I am always very suspicious of people who have an epiphany. They invariably have personalities which gravitate to becoming loud cheerleaders for extreme positions which in the end only change in their particulars but in substance continue to reflect the same deep flaws in personality and lack of consistant clear thinking. In my experience, it is very rare that a leopard truely changes his spots and then only the result of a lifechanging experience of enormous magnitude. Hitchens must have always been an avowed athiest but he's become a crusading conservative unabashedly and recently an American citizen (we know where the real money to be made is Chris don't we? If not, just ask Rupert Murdoch and he'll remind you.) Don't kid yourself, he's not all that different from that little Hispanic kid in the thread above who thinks he's a preacher. Only the names are different, the sermon is the same.
Hitchens gave himself away as far as I am concerned when he demonstrated his contempt for Israel and his apologies for the Palestinian and other Arab terrorist and terrorists states. Deep down, a confused and flawed man but he'd be the last to ever see it let alone admit to it. If you ever shake his hand....count your fingers afterwards.
Mark- I'm a little unsure of what you want from Hitchens. Would you prefer a guy who is on the left to remain on the left even if he doesn't believe it anymore? I see in Hitchens the exact, polar opposite of you: a man who had the balls to admit he now believes that some of what he spent years advocating was incorrect. A guy who remains true to convictions even if those convictions change (and he therefore risks losing much of the acclaim he had, along with most of his friends on the left) is rare indeed. Hitchens is that guy.
John Wright #10
I don't want anything from Christopher Hitchens. I just don't listen to preaching by the newly converted. They have a track record of self admitted mistakes. They say it was the result of flawed thinking. Why should anyone trust that they suddenly got it right on the second try, or for some of them the nth try. Hitchens' views and opinions on Middle East politics for example reveals he hasn't given up all of his prior biases and errors. I've observed the same thing one way or another in most people who had a sudden revelation. And no matter what their old or new found truth, they can hardly wait to go out into the world and do their best to try to win over more converts. When you listen to people like that, ask yourself whom they are really trying to convince, their audience....or themselves?
Do you remember Governor George Romney? He was the Governor of Michigan who wanted to be President. He initially supported the war in Vietnam but later said "I've been duped."
"On 31 August 1967, Governor Romney made a statement that ruined his chances for getting the nomination.[3] In a taped interview with Lou Gordon of WKBD-TV in Detroit, Romney stated, "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." He then shifted to opposing the war
Take my advice, neither a follower nor a leader be and you will avoid 95% of all the traps of religion, politics, and other scams most people sooner or later fall prey to. Don't trust anybody. Usually people whose personalities allow them to fall prey to one scam will allow them to fall prey to others sooner or later. Their basic flaw is that deep down they do not question what they want to believe, they do not challenge people who appear as authority figures to them, they are born to follow the most convincing demagogue they encounter. They want to be just like them.
Mark- I share at least some of your cynicism but for me it manifests in a much more positive manner! I'm optimistic about the potential of other human beings and what they have to offer me, and usually that optimism yields some fruit even if I disagree with parts of what those people are saying. I don't feel compelled to buy into everything anyone says: I suggest we're all rational enough to agree or disagree on a sentence-by-sentence basis and certainly sensible enough not to be swung by rhetoric. I don't agree with everything the Hitch says, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest - I take what I can get, and I've thoroughly enjoyed most of anything he's done in recent years (including flipping the bird to the entire audience at Bill Maher's HBO show).