Moral actions Christians can perform that atheists can’t
Posted by MathewMay 23
Dr William Lane Craig offers a brief response to the challenge often posited by atheist Christopher Hitchens, and others: “Name a moral action that a religious person can do, that a non-religious person cannot.”
PDF 
18 comments
Comment by Gerry Twa on 23 May 2010 at 14:05
Tithing and the first commandment? Both of these are part of being a Christian. An atheist doesn’t need either one, because he doesn’t believe in any particular deity.
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 23 May 2010 at 17:52
The tithing remark was a comedic touch (indicated by the eruption of laughter in the audience and the large smile on Mr. Craig’s face, which were hard to miss). I would be quite embarrassed if I failed to recognize that.
Nevertheless, “the first and greatest commandment” is indeed one moral action that an unbeliever could not take, as Mr. Hitchens had requested.
Comment by Duane on 23 May 2010 at 19:59
Amy @ STR wrote a post about this back in 2008 that I think everyone should read. I am not going to post the whole thing here, but here is a teaser to pique your interest:
In debates, Christopher Hitchens often offers the following challenge: “Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever.” Leaving aside the fact that this challenge is based on a misunderstanding of the theist objection (he thinks the objection is that without God, we couldn't know right from wrong, when the actual objection is that there wouldn't be any right or wrong), the challenge itself is completely invalid when proposed by an atheist because, logically, it could never be answered to the satisfaction of an atheist, even if valid answers exist.
[Link]
Comment by Mathew on 23 May 2010 at 20:14
Good find, Duane, and a good read. Amy hits it spot on and Hitchen's challenge is reduced to nothing more than yet another meaningless piece of rhetorical fluff.
Comment by Rene Mulder on 24 May 2010 at 13:13
I believe Hitchen only responded to the comedic remark but not the serious remark…
The entrire debate was pretty good to watch. It felt balanced and not at all like those debates where they pit the well-versed atheist against the 'idiot believer'.
The link provided by Duane is a very good response to the challenge posed by Hitchens. I didn't think of that at all :)
Of course, no argument is ever going to convince him to change his view. I get a feeling that his problem [with faith] is more of a personal, possibly emotional problem rather than a logical problem.
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 24 May 2010 at 22:59
“It felt balanced and not at all like those debates where they pit the well-versed atheist against the ‘idiot believer’.”
No, instead they pitted a well-versed believer against an idiot atheist. I recommend the article posted at First Things, “Believe It Or Not” by David Hart, for a no-holds-barred analysis of just what I mean.
“I get a feeling that his problem (with faith) is more of a personal and possibly emotional problem, rather than a logical problem.”
His problem with the faith, at once both indicated by the substance of his arguments as well as predicted by the testimony of Scriptures, is a moral and spiritual problem; he is an unrepentant sinner at enmity with God. Your suspicion hits the mark squarely. But perhaps adding layers of further interest is the fact that his brother, Peter Hitchens, is a prolific conservative Christian, whose latest book, The Rage Against God, is a sharp and fascinating contrast to his brother’s vacuous tripe.
Comment by Duane on 25 May 2010 at 01:14
Hi Marc,
Marc: “…keep in mind when we hear Hitchens speak is that he had a shocking upbringing…”
I had intended to respond directly to this, but Ryft alludes to it somewhat (see Ryft's previous comment). His brother, I assume, had the same upbringing? I know you're not using that as an excuse though. But certainly it does seem to strike at the moral and spiritual problem rather than the intellectual or family backgrouind problem?
Comment by René Mulder on 25 May 2010 at 05:59
I'm afraid that I had a lot of trouble understanding that article, simply because of the use of so many difficult words. That's one thing that annoys me in these types of discussions. People seem to forget that not everyone's vocabulary or understanding of certain matter is on par with theirs.
As for Hitchens. Ryft, I think it was you who told me that – in regards to the question of when to use apologetics over evangelism or vice versa – once you get through the intellectual smokescreen you're likely to find the real source of the objection [to faith/God/religion].
There was a point in the Hitchens vs Craig debate where I felt that Hitchens was really exposing his real objection: “I don't want people telling me God told them what I can and can't do” (or something along those lines).
I think there is plenty to say about that position. I wonder if he feels the same about say…government (you could replace 'God' with anything else really).
Other than that, I agree with your thoughts on it as well.
Comment by Duane on 25 May 2010 at 18:16
Rene,
I think you are spot on with your observations. And actually, thanks to some lessons learned from a DVD series I am currently working through (called The Truth Project) I think that your offhand remark about government doesn't miss the mark either. In fact, Del Tackett demonstrates that this is exactly what has happened; the State has, for all intents and purposes, replaced God.
Comment by danstermeister on 3 Jun 2010 at 16:27
I disagree. If the God being prayed too and loved amongst all others is a spiteful, angry, malicious, maniacal god, then it is hardly a moral action to pray to it.
It is actually an immoral act.
Comment by Mathew on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:14
From where do you, a finite human, obtain your standard of morality by which to judge God, who is by definition an infinite being?
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 3 Jun 2010 at 23:18
“If the God being prayed to and loved amongst all others is a spiteful, angry, malicious, maniacal god, then it is … actually an immoral act.”
What a bizarre comment. As if anyone would disagree with that.
Comment by Freddy Hernandez on 4 Jun 2010 at 12:14
LOL.
What exactly is an infinite being, Mathew? Can you demonstrate that such a being exists in such a way that distinguishable from non-existence? (Not that it resides in no-space and no-time, a being like that, by definition does not exist.)
Comment by Mathew on 4 Jun 2010 at 21:12
… and your comment relates to the topic of morality, how?
Comment by Freddy Hernandez on 5 Jun 2010 at 10:41
If you're trying to assert that such a being has an absolute morality, you must first define this being an demonstrate its existence. An infinite being is merely a buzz word at this point to presuppose an absolute value of something – which has no merit without some sort of evidence behind it. Establishing something (like absolute, divine morality) as objectively existent demands demonstration.
With that, I come back to my previous question:
Can you demonstrate that such a being exists in such a way that distinguishable from non-existence? (Not that it resides in no-space and no-time, a being like that, by definition does not exist.)
Comment by Mathew on 5 Jun 2010 at 19:52
Your insistence on the same question places you at odds with what Hitchens was requiring.
Hitchens's challenge does not require that we demonstrate that a moral lawgiver exists; he permits the theist, for the sake of argument, to assume the existence of such a lawgiver and then asks “What moral action can a believer perform that a non-believer can't?” to which Dr. Lane Craig aptly responds.
If you have an actual rejoinder to Dr. Lane Craig's response, please share it instead the red herrings you propose.
Comment by Freddy Hernandez on 5 Jun 2010 at 23:05
Which is exactly why I'm not Christopher Hitchens and that isn't my argument. I asked you a question regarding your text – which in itself was a response to someone asserting something about their interpretation of the Biblical God (I assume, though it could be another monotheistic deity).
Here's the argument in a nutshell:
“If your God does demonstrably immoral acts, then praising him is immoral”
“God is infinite, we can't judge him from our puny perspective”
“Define God and demonstrate that he exists.”
“What?”
“Define God and demonstrate that he exists for this discussion to go any further – you can't assign attributes to something that doesn't exist. It's a kind of important step for the argument to even occur.”
“Red Herring LOL”
I always thought Hitchens' work was somewhat lacking in the logic department. However, you didn't post Hitchens' response to Craig – that would have been useful if you were interested in an alternative point of view.
The whole debate is on Youtube, it's actually not bad.
Hitchens repeats rhetoric and talking points, and Craig dances around in circles trying to prove things no one asked of him. They both do a great job, one I could never hope to do on my best day.
Comment by Mathew on 6 Jun 2010 at 22:06
Thanks for the inaccurate satire of my argument. To break it down, danstermeister made a comment with a moral judgement against an infinite being to which I asked by what criteria he makes such a judgement. You then demanded that I demonstrate that such a being exists yet this demand is the red herring distraction as proving it has no bearing on the question at hand: that God is the criteria for making moral judgements. You can legitimately assume God's existence in order to continue the discussion.