Here's what's interesting.
Hitchens does not try to argue that Polanski's rape of the child was evil. He does not try to argue that Polanski's flight from justice was evil. He doesn't try to argue that Polanski's suing to protect his good name in England was hypocritical and evil. He does mention that Mohammed was betrothed to a girl when she was six, and took her when she was nine — but he does not argue that this was an immoral act. He also clucks and tuts about a Roman Catholic figure.The closest Hitchens comes to a moral statement is, perhaps, his last sentence: "I would rather live in a country where children are protected and their predators prosecuted, and even (which in Hollywood is evidently not always the same thing) disapproved of."
"I would rather," Hitchens says. Well, just so. As an atheist, he cannot argue for what is transcendently better or worse, more or less moral. Note that Hitchens is left with just two things:
- His preference
- Brute force of law
Hitchens cannot affirm, but Hitchens must assume, the absolute morality that comes from the God of the Bible. No atheist can live according to his stated premises. He can deny the ground he stands on; yet stand on it, he must.
Posts
11 comments:
Hitchens is on pretty safe ground. Only perhaps 0.05% of atheists are aware of the origins of the moral ground upon which they stand. Blissfully ignorant, they listen to Hitchens and smile with adoration.
Great post. I wish I had my 30 hrs a week to blog back ...
That's it. I'm done. It won't get better than a nice word from Turk.
I've long seen the affects of athiesm in my profession. Justice is hard to come by when right and wrong is relative.
The Polanski mess is appalling.
I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that the Hollywood folks would not be able to discern what is true. So many of them spend their lives pretending to be someone else.
Acting would be the "perfect" escape for those who don't want to face reality, don't you think?
H
They're all aware of the moral ground on which they stand...they just deny it no matter how absurd they get.
It will be interesting to see what the Hollywood/Atheist moral standard-bearers will do with the latest revelations about hero, Ted Kennedy.
PG-13 warning......
In a chapter of his autobiography, the late Senator Ted Kennedy confessed to having slept with over 1,000 women and spending more than $10 million in hush money to keep his womanizing ways a secret. If you crack open the book, however, you won't find a mention of this in there anywhere. That is because horrified family members and advisers cut it out before the book was published.
A close source also revealed to the National Enquirer that before he died of brain cancer at age 77 on August 25, Kennedy also revealed that he had planned to seduce Mary Jo Kopechne on the night she drowned.....Ted had hoped his book would tell the truth about his life, but family members decided to hold off on including certain parts of the book out of respect to the family's reputation. Even though it was removed from the book, it seems the revelations leaked out regardless. [emphasis mine]
Now, it IS the National Enquirer, however, they DID break the John Edwards story, so there you go. The question is, will there be outrage from the Hollywood elites toward the National Enquirer about "outing" this story? If Kennedy's actions aren't 'wrong', what's the big deal? You know they're not gonna be outraged at Kennedy's rampant womanizing, treating them like so much pork in the federal budget.
DJP: You hit the nail on the head here with you Hitchens comments. The point you make is the very same point that DW has tried repeatedly to make to Mr. Hitchens, both in the CT debate and afterwords, thus far without success.
Paula, the Hollywood/Atheist crowd will do what they do best...raise the iniquitous celebrity to near mythical status in death.
They'll applaud him , cheer, and uphold him as a "hero" or a role model, and defend his sordid life as "exemplary", just like they do David Lettermen, Jon Gosslein, Perez Hilton and others.
Hitchen's makes his position on the Polanski matter very clear .. he berates Hollywood for their blatant white-washing of Polanski's crime, and even in the title of the related article he calls the crime 'vile'. This seems to me that he is making a moral judgment about the evil of Polanksi's rape, without needing to actually use the word 'evil'. That's just interesting writing.
Then Dan Phillips has the audacity to claim that an atheist cannot argue morality ... Is he suggesting that a lack of belief in the supernatural = a lack of morality? Evil is a natural phenomenon like any other, and is well within the understanding of anyone living on this planet. It doesn't take a belief in the supernatural to know that raping a child is evil.
Which begs the question ... if Mr Phillips lost his belief in god today, would he suddenly lose his grip on morality? Perhaps he should stay blinded by his false sense of superiority.
Hi. I'm Mr. Phillips. This is my blog.
Columnists seldom if ever create their own titles. "Vile" is not his word, it's the subtitle. That leaves you with nothing to back up your assertion about Hitchens.
Next point?
Well, I'm not "suggesting" that atheists can't make moral arguments. I'm stating it outright: atheists can't make moral arguments.
Next?
"Evil is a natural phenomenon like any other." OK, then it is neither good nor bad, like any other phenomenon.
Next?
"...if Mr Phillips lost his belief in god today, would he suddenly lose his grip on morality?"
Well, I don't believe in "god." What is that? Lower-case means a non-specific god... but in that case, you should say "a god," not "belief in god [sic]."
What I believe in is God, capital G, the specific specific God Jesus revealed. Here's why.
And yes, of course, if I did not believe in God, I'd be as lost and clueless as any atheist. Because atheists by definition cannot speak of morality.
They must, because God made them that way.
But they cannot do so legitimately. It really isn't rocket science.
Post a Comment