I’ve been reading through this debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and theologian Douglas Wilson on whether Christianity is “good for the world”. It’s not particularly interesting, most of the points have been made before and the two of them seem to talk past each other most of the time. But I want to make a quick comment on this statement by Wilson:
Take the vilest atheist you ever heard of. Imagine yourself sitting at his bedside shortly before he passes away. He says, following Sinatra, "I did it my way." And then he adds, chuckling, "Got away with it too." In our thought experiment, the one rule is that you must say something to him, and whatever you say, it must flow directly from your shared atheism — and it must challenge the morality of his choices. What can you possibly say? He did get away with it. There is a great deal of injustice behind him, which he perpetrated, and no justice in front of him. You have no basis for saying anything to him other than to point to your own set of personal prejudices and preferences. You mention this to him, and he shrugs. "Tomayto, tomahto."
I am certainly willing to take the same thought experiment. I can imagine some pretty vile Christians, and if I couldn't, I am sure you could help me. The difference between us is that I have a basis for condemning evil in its Christian guise. You have no basis for confronting evil in its atheist guise, or in its Christian guise, either. When you say that a certain practice is evil, you have to be prepared to tell us why it is evil.
This makes the mistake of assuming an equivalence between a specific religious belief (which is a positive statement about the world – such and such exists) and atheism (which is a negative statement about the world – such and such doesn’t exists).
What Wilson is saying in the second paragraph is this: “I have a set of common beliefs – God, etc. – with the guy on his deathbed, from which I can build a critique of his behaviour.” But framed this way the argument he’s making largely disappears. If the atheist on his deathbed shares some common beliefs with Hitchens (rather than being a complete nihilist) then clearly the latter, who has reasons for not choosing the same path, can also build a critique. If they have nothing in common beyond their atheism then asking him to convince the other guy is just as reasonable as asking Wilson to convince an ardent Satanist.
6 comments:
Oh man... I mean - oh, Matt, of course. I hope you do not need this dialog (methinks of somewhat doubtful value) to decide between atheism and... er... whatever.
I don't know about Mr Wilson, but Hitch is gaining so much weight that, with due respect to his abilities, he is getting on every horse in his vicinity - and beyond it. There is a danger that he will become an intellectual black hole soon, sucking in every possible subject for a dispute in the known universe...
I think Wilson is appealing to something of a false dilemma here. An atheist is simply not going to sit there next to this dying man agonising about how the bugger didn't get his comeuppance, because an atheist isn't going to think the person is "getting away with" anything through death. Indeed, the person's ambivalence toward his actions are completely irrelevant the moment his brain ceases to function. Only the results of his actions are relevant, and worthy of correction. It's not as if death is a back door for the villain to escape through and spend the rest of eternity gloating about his misdeeds.
Wilson's thinking smacks of the ignorance that had the Royalists digging up Cromwell's rotting carcass only to execute it. It's derived from the belief that there is a hereafter. If you believe death is a finality, whether or not a villain goes to his grave repentant is absolutely besides the point. The only thing the atheist needs to agonise about is how this individual was allowed by society to commit these misdeeds in the first place and what can be done to prevent the same thing happening in the future (because, as has been put forward in countless discussions, society cannot and does not tolerate extreme acts of selfishness, particularly when those acts are deleterious to others, because it undermines the stability and cohesiveness of that society).
As it is, if I was sat next to a villain on a level with Stalin for example, I wouldn't waste his final minutes contemplating how all this affected my personal philosophy. I'd just spray the bugger in the eye with a can of Mace and be done with it. It wouldn't necessarily stop the next villain from terrorising society and then offing himself before he can be adequately punished, but it would certainly make him think twice about pausing in the final act in order to gloat about it. So long as somebody lives, retribution is possible.
You could say: "You're dying free now, but one day science will be able to bring you back to life. And then you'll do some seriously nasty prison time."
This has in common with Wilson's position that (a) it subsitutes punishment for moral judgement, and (b) there's no reason to think it's true.
(PS just noticed the new blog sub-heading, Matt. The two negatives do of course cancel each other out...)
The two negatives do of course cancel each other out...
It's intentional. At least, it is now.
"Society cannot and does not tolerate extreme acts of selfishness, particularly when those acts are deleterious to others, because it undermines the stability and cohesiveness of that society."
If only that were true of the society we're living in today!
"If only that were true of the society we're living in today!"
Are you living in a society where selfishness is universally tolerated and goes unpunished rather than provoking legal action or, at the very least, social exclusion?
Post a Comment