As a lot of you are no doubt aware Christopher Hitchens has been touring the county recently flogging his new Book “God is Not Great - how religion poisons everything”. I have been catching up with the podcasts and transcripts from plenty of the engagments.
One of the most interesting points he has be making is this.
“name an ethical statement made or action performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever.”
I thought would throw it out there to ILP to see if anyone has an answer for it? For the record no-one on the tour has answered it yet.
That depends entirely on how one defines “ethical”. In his Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans Martin Luther made it clear that he felt that every action make takes is, in some way, sinning and since “law is spiritual” it follows that everything we do is, in some way, unethical. It is only through the Grace of God that sin can be eliminated and therefore it is only through the Grace of God that actions can be said to be truly ethical.
Naturally, I disagree with this take on things – I’m not a big fan of radical Deontology and I do, in fact, think that people can act ethically. However, if one accepts such a definition, the answer becomes something close to “literally every action”.
This isn’t an answer to the opening post. The question posed is what “…ethical statement made or action performed…” not unethical, as Martin Luther would make us all out to be.
But that is it. A believer, under that system, can make ethical actions through the Grace of God whereas an unbeliever cannot. Hence, the difference is everything.
If every action man performs is a sin, then one cannot perform an ethical action. Either every action is a sin or it isn’t. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood Luther’s position.
If it is only through the Grace of God that actions can be ethical, then either:
A) Only those who believe in God and believe they know for certain what God wants can perform an ethical action. But that action would only be ethical if it was in line with what God wanted (whatever that is).
B) It is the action itself that is ethical, which means both believer and non-believer alike can perform the same action, for completely different reasons, and still have performed an ethical action.
Now, Hitchens is referring to “B,” that the action itself is ethical whether performed by believer or non-believer alike. The answer to the question begins with this premise.
It would be pointless to begin with “A.” Why would Hitchens present a scenario where it was impossible to perform an ethical action to begin with, because the ethical nature of it was dependent on whether one was a believer?
I am in complete agreement, Xunz, that if one states first, “Only a person of faith can be ethical,” then it would always be impossible for a nonbeliever to perform any action that is ethical. You and I know this is intentionally missing the point and dodging the question.
The trick of it is, though, it isn’t dodging the question (unfortunately). When Christians talk about how non-Christians are immoral, that is what they are talking about!
A very fine book on the whole. I could occasionally have done without his ad homs and emotional histrionics but he’s a fine and compelling writer with a keen sense of history. He also has some pretty profound insight into the nature of religion. A must read, for believers and heathens alike.
I think the question itself rigs the game in favor of atheism. In order to be unanswerable, the question has to assume a consequentialist understanding of ethics: that intent doesn’t matter, only the outcome has ethical significance. Clearly, many believers would disagree.
The challenge probably works on the level that it targets, but I don’t think it’s a rigorous philosophical objection to religious ethics.
I agree with gib that believing is something an unbeliever doesn’t do. Almost tautological: – even in a wide sense, you can only be an unbeliever at the time and instance you are not believing.
The question then is whether any actions come only from religious belief – either in motive or in content. Motive has been mentioned. As to the material action, I suggest the case of giving money to a pan-handler. An atheist is never going to see that money again and has no motive to give it. Tell me I’m wrong.
Now if a Christian looks at another and judges them a sinner. Is that really a Christian way of thinking? What of the Judge not, least ye be judged?
Only thing I can think of is that an action of a religious or spiritual person would to pray for another. If you are a non-believer of a higher power, then would you pray?
There are atheist charities and given the exceedingly secular nature of most of the Nordic states (Sweden, Finland, ect.) and their very large welfare nature, I think that what MRN did amounts to an unsupported ad-hom.
Atheists tip the same as everybody else last time I checked. The whole notion of atheists not given is predicated on a negative view of human nature, something that is only shared by Christians and post-Christians. So, I have to ask: whose fault is that?
Yeah, but why do they do that? Culture? Anonymous Christianity? Genetics?
Of course the real motive should be love, but for Christians, God is love.
I meant to imply that non-believers who act like believers, at some level, are.
Raven’s Moon: Was the quesion on judging others aimed at me? I was always taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. If you tell someone you think they’re sinning, and not just feeling superior about it, I would say that is a charitable thing to do. No?