Christopher Hitchens Answered

c.2007.11.24
ed.2010.03.03.09 (Public Draft I)

Organization
1. The Challenge
2. A Response
3. A Logical Validation
4. Assumptions
5. Issues of Validity

1. The Challenge
When I heard this challenge offered by Christopher Hitchens in a debate with Alister McGrath that took place at Georgetown, I couldn't stop my mind from boiling over into a bubbling froth of incredulity. How is it that Christopher Hitchens can claim that no one presented a valid answer to him? This is exceptionally difficult for me to believe and became the inspiration for this article.

“Name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever." -Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens stated this challenge with the apparent intent to argue that if there was a moral act that could only be accomplished by the religious, then it could be reasonably asserted that religion has something valuable to offer to society:

2. A Response
Any moral action that is religious and requires belief by definition excludes all unbelievers. This challenge can be fulfilled so long as it can be shown that there is at least one moral action that: is religious, and requires belief in God.

A moral action that a religious person can perform that an unbeliever cannot is to: “Give faithful testimony of God.”

"Faithful Testimony" is a true and consistent verbal testimony, (as in a court), of God before others concerning what He has said or done, (especially what He is saying or doing). This testimony is given credibility by an individual's faithfulness and obedience to God.

Jewish and Christian references that this is a religious action:

Leviticus 5:1 (ESV)
If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity ...

Deuteronomy 26:17 (ESV)
You have declared today that the LORD is your God, and that you will walk in his ways, and keep his statutes and his commandments and his rules, and will obey his voice.

Hebrews 3:5 (ESV)
Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later ...

3. A Logical Validation

Argument:

1. A religious person is someone who: 1, Walks in the Ways of God; 2, Keeps His Statutes; 3, Keeps His Commandments; 4, Keeps His Rules; and 5, Obeys His Voice. (Deut.26:17).
2. "Giving Testimony of God" is a religious act: "If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity", (Lev. 5:1, ESV).
3. It is impossible to consider true and faithful testimony as an immoral act regardless of who is being testified of; giving testimony is an ethical and moral action because it facilitates justice.
4. It is impossible for a true witness of God to give faithful, (true) testimony without believing that God "is"; this act excludes unbelievers.
5. It is impossible for a religious person to separate their testimony of God and faithfulness: "You have declared today that the LORD is your God, and that you will walk in his ways, and keep his statutes and his commandments and his rules, and will obey his voice", (Deut. 26:16, ESV).

Conclusion:
A moral action that a religious person can perform that an unbeliever cannot is to “Give faithful testimony of God while their credibility is established through their obedience to His commands.”

4. Assumptions

Assumption 1:
My interpretation of Hitchens' challenge:

1. If there were a moral action that only the religious could perform, then it could be seen as reasonable for people to be religious.
2. If you cannot name such an action, then there must not be one.
3. Therefore, since there is no moral action that only the religious can perform, then religion does not provide any moral value to society.

Assumption 2:
I can only assume that Hitchens is expecting religious actions to be presented. After all, it is not believing that God exists that Hitchens is attacking--in this context. He is arguing that religion provides no benefit to society; and, further that if this is true, then it is simply "toxic".

Hitchens is evidently attacking religion and the religious. In the end, there is a very big difference between being religious, and those who just simply believe that God exists.

Assumption 3:
There are many very obvious examples of ethical actions that a believer can make that an unbeliever cannot if we were to consider Hitchens' use of "ethical" in the classical sense implying "custom or habit".

Because large populations on Earth are made of believers, this makes nearly every religious action, "ethical" by definition. This readily excludes unbelievers.

Therefore, I always refer to Hitchens' use of the word "ethics" as "morality", (in the ssense that the action is "good", "right", and "just"), in order to differentiate that which could be considered ethical, but not necessarily moral, (for example, slavery was at one time considered ethical despite it truly being immoral; morality differs from ethics in that morality transcends time).

5. Issues of Validity

The Awareness of Morality:
Hitchens' hastily generalizes and mischaracterizes believers by arguing that the religious believe that: "unbelievers "would not know right from wrong if [they were] not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship".

Believers for the most part argue that the ability to discern right from wrong is inherent in all people; and, this inner quality is what is exclusive to humanity and what leads them to the knowledge of God. This belief by Jews and Christians is established primarily upon the act of Adam eating from the tree of "Knowledge of Good and Evil". From this point on, it is argued that we are all well aware of the difference between right and wrong.

Furthermore, our religions are not mechanisms to define moral behavior. Neither Morality or Truth are dependent on Men to define them. It is impossible for religion to define Morality. Rather, religion, (obedience and adherence), is our response to apparent morality.

The Justification of Religion:
Religion cannot be justified by simply providing a prescription to do moral deeds. Simple reason and conviction of heart can guide us into undeniably moral and good actions, (such as feeding the hungry).

The justification of religion has never been its view towards morality, but its destination in God. The clearest measuring stick of the validity of a religion is an individual's evidentual intimacy with God.

Argument From Silence
If you cannot name such an action, then there must not be one.

Although Hitchens does not directly make this statement, this implied conclusion is based on silence and the lack of contrary evidence. Just because he or anyone else is ignorant of a truth, doesn't not mean that this truth does not exist.

Hitchens presupposes that there is no contrary evidence and therefore feels his conclusion is justified.

The Issues of Today

cmp.2008.06.10
ed.2008.06.10.02 (Concept Draft)

Every election I find myself baffled by the reaction of the current president of the United States of America along with the inaction of candidates who are currently serving in the senate or congress.

In every election, there are seemingly at least two candidates who represent the voices of the American people. In every case, these individuals promise to tackle the most signficant issues of that day. But, in every case, those issues that are considered relevant for today, are not actually and practically engaged until after an election or even years down the road.

But what about the current president? What prohibits a president from proposing the same solutions that the candidates are? If these solutions are really that important, why do we have to wait until the next president is elected? It seems that if the current president cared, they would take action immediately--especially in a state of perceived crises. Why does it always seem that during the last year of presidential office, the president never cares about any of the issues that the next candidates are trying to overcome?

For example, a gas tax holiday was proposed this election season by a candidate. Now, if the President of the United States cannot enact this now, what assurance is there that it could be enacted in the future? Furthermore, the candidate that proposed this "Gas Tax Holiday" is currently a senator and has the means to propose this legislation now, and without the help of the president. What gives?

Is it unreasonable to expect a candidate who promises certain changes to show efforts to make these changes now? Certainly running for the office of the President of the United States is not easy--on the contray, it takes extraordinary effort. So, why is it so difficult for a candidate to publish their proposed legislation beforehand? For some reason, it seems far less complex to bring legislation like this to congress than it is to run for president.

What if a candidate for the presidency, especially one already in office, presented their proposed bills to congress and to the senate before they were ever elected president? What kind of impact would this action have?

One, we would know that they were being faithful to the commitments that they have already made. Two, we would know that they were serious about the actions that they promise to take. Three, either through the rejection of these propositions, or the acceptance of them, an incredible dynamic emerges where that metaphorical "line" is drawn in the sand and we are allowed to see into the character of those who represent us in Washington.

But far be it for our president or our presidential nominees to take these issues to congress now. After all, as long as these issues are unresolved, then there are those who believe that these issues can be taken advantage of to secure for themselves a position in office. Truly, the test of selflessness would be to begin the process of change now, in a practical way--regardless of whether or not the presidency is ever attained. With the platform that a candidate has, it would seem reasonable that they would try to invoke as much change as they could. What happens to the aspirations and dreams of those voting for a candidate that never gets elected?