The following 352 words could not be found in the dictionary of 615 words (including 615 LocalSpellingWords) and are highlighted below:

able   about   above   abuses   According   accounting   acknowledge   action   acts   against   agree   alive   all   alone   amongst   an   and   And   animals   another   answer   apart   appearances   arguments   article   asks   aspx   assumed   assumption   at   atheist   atheists   attacks   attempt   au   audience   author   authoritative   authority   available   avoid   based   be   because   begin   being   belief   believe   believers   book   both   bring   But   but   by   called   can   catastrophes   challenge   China   choice   chooses   Christian   Christopher   church   cites   claiming   clear   colleagues   comes   concedes   confusion   consider   continues   conventions   course   credible   critic   crop   crucial   Dangerous   dangerous   decide   decision   decisions   deepest   defining   derived   disagreeable   disputes   does   done   doubt   dwell   early   Earth   eat   Either   either   equally   evidence   evil   example   exist   eyes   fell   Festival   festival   fierce   find   food   For   for   Forward   forward   found   from   full   ger1   ghastly   given   God   gods   good   Great   hand   happy   harshest   He   he   Heathens   heathens   herein   him   His   his   Hitchens   honest   House   human   humanity   humans   idea   Ideas   ideas   If   ignored   impact   in   In   inconsistency   Indeed   informed   inherently   inquiry   integrity   intellectual   intent   Iran   its   Jesus   Judeo   just   kindness   kinds   know   known   knows   lack   largely   Leap   leaves   lies   line   man   mankind   matured   me   mean   meaning   measure   men   mention   moral   morality   more   moved   must   myself   Name   national   naturalistic   Nazareth   needs   new   next   No   no   nothing   notion   objective   obvious   Oct   October   of   On   on   once   one   ongoing   Opera   or   other   Others   our   out   outside   Over   own   Palestine   perfect   Perhaps   person   Peter   philosophical   picture   point   powerful   previewing   priority   problem   problematic   program   provide   publicise   put   question   quick   reflections   regarded   reigns   rejects   religion   religiously   respectful   response   reveal   right   rigor   Russia   same   say   scientific   see   sensibilities   should   show   shower   since   Singer   sins   smh   smokes   so   solid   some   speaks   Stalinist   statement   steeped   still   style   succession   such   sundry   support   supreme   sydneyoperahouse   Syndey   talk   terrible   that   The   the   their   them   then   theocracy   there   these   they   think   thinking   this   though   to   To   today   tomorrow   tonight   too   tried   true   truly   try   two   unambiguous   unfortunately   unspoken   uphold   us   value   very   view   views   violence   want   ways   we   weaning   week   well   were   western   what   What   whatever   when   whether   Which   which   whilst   Whilst   whole   wholeheartedly   why   will   wisely   With   with   Without   without   wondering   words   world   worldview   worst   would   Written   wrong   You   you  

Clear message

Written in response to an SMH article previewing Hitchens talk at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas (Syndey Opera House, 3 Oct 2009).

Hitchens should reveal his own dangerous idea

On ABC's 'Q&A' program this week, Christopher Hitchens, author of 'God is Not Great', put forward once more his fierce challenge to our moral sensibilities. According to Hitchens, moral right from wrong can be found apart from God. No doubt more of the same will be on show tonight at the 'Festival of Dangerous Ideas' when Hitchens speaks at the Opera House.

Indeed, Hitchens rejects the whole notion of religion, claiming that it attacks us humans in our 'deepest integrity' ('Heathens above: God's harshest critic smokes in the shower' SMH, 2 October, 2009).

For Hitchens, and the new crop of so-called `new-atheists', humanity has matured to the point of being able to eat its own solid food when it comes to morality.

Whilst he concedes some value in religion's support of early philosophical and scientific inquiry, our needs have moved on. The weaning must begin.

But I must say, Hitchens leaves me wondering, does this man believe his own words?

In his book, and sundry appearances, he is very quick to point out (in his well-regarded powerful style) that some of the worst kinds of human violence or intent are religiously based.

He cites Iran's theocracy, the ongoing disputes in Palestine, and of course, the abuses of the western church as unambiguous evidence.

Whilst I find myself moved by his accounting of such terrible acts, the question I have is why does Hitchens find them so ghastly?

You see, for Hitchens, and his new-atheist colleagues, they want to have it both ways.

To see this, consider Hitchens 'two arguments' (against God-derived moral authority), which provide a perfect example of this confusion: Hitchens first asks, 'Name me a moral kindness or action that [believers] can do because of their belief but that I can't', and then, `can you think of one evil action done by a religion person? You can, and you can think of another, and another.'

In quick succession, Hitchens has just assumed that you and I know what 'moral kindness' is when we see it (not to mention an 'evil action'). But unfortunately for Hitchens' 'arguments', this assumption is just not available to him outside of a God-given, authoritative and objective statement on right and wrong: what is an obvious 'evil action' to me could be an equally obvious 'good action' to you. Which of our views is right?

With God out of the picture, Hitchens' 'arguments' lack any meaning.

And herein lies the crucial, unspoken inconsistency of this line of new-atheist thinking.

On the one hand, God doesn't exist and is to be ignored, whilst on the other, God's authority on morality reigns supreme.

Either Hitchens is happy with such inconsistency (which I doubt, he's too respectful of intellectual rigor for that), or wisely chooses to avoid an attempt at a credible answer to the problem of defining morality without God. I say wisely, since I believe he knows that such an answer is inherently problematic.

Without God, when humans decide on what is right and wrong or good and evil (whatever these mean in a naturalistic world-view), their decisions are nothing but conventions amongst men. What will tomorrow's decision bring? Perhaps Hitchens should dwell more on the catastrophes of Stalinist Russia or China's Great Leap Forward for his next book.

If Hitchens' arguments have any impact today, it is because his audience's morality is still largely steeped in a Christian worldview. The audience can agree with him wholeheartedly on the sins of mankind because -- whether they acknowledge it or not -- they see it with eyes informed by Jesus of Nazareth.

If Hitchens were truly honest with us, he would publicise in full his own 'dangerous idea' to try and clear-fell the Judeo-Christian morality he continues to uphold.

Others have tried this. Peter Singer's more honest (though disagreeable) reflections on the value of animals and mankind are well known.

The choice for Hitchens tonight is clear: either there is no God, and so no objective morality here on Earth, or, God is alive and well and His morality alone will be the true measure of us all.

Over to you, Christopher.

Leviathan: sangus/HitchensDangerousIdeas (last edited 2010-02-05 10:06:17 by sangus)