I too, like Hitchens, wrote an essay in response to Gerson's editorial.

re: hitchens

i haven't read gersons' piece,but i had to take this on. since hitchens is CONSTANTLY throwing the jews in the blender with christianity and islam, i think it's only fair to occaisionally pick them out, dust them off and let them take a shot. hichens writes:

Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.

first, the general: any time a believer performs an ethical act because his religion commands him to, against his nature and even non-religiously based ethical convictions, he is doing something a non-believer could not do. here's how: the perfect control group for an experiment would be a person EXACTLY like the believer, sans only belief. the person himself is his own control group- that is, its clear he wouldn't have performed the act if his religion had not commanded him to do so.

now the specific. an example from judaism:

one of the 613 commandments is to visit the sick. the rabbis argue about how often, whether to bring flowers, and yards and yards of minutae, but they all agree on one thing: the commandment is inclusive of the whole human race. that is, if an orthodox jew knows someone who is sick, he is commanded by his religion to visit the person, family member or not, friend or not, jew or not.

if i need to draw you a map from here, about how few people would go to visit some sick guy across town who you only met once, a week ago, and didn't like him much, and how many times a year the average orhtodox jew has to make such a decision, and what percentage of them "do the right thing"...:)

point being, whatever the percentage, those who do are in fact fulfilling the criteria of hitchens' challenge and i wish he were offering a prize...

cue smug little cakewalk and a slight cringing in anticipation of thrown cups of beer.

Terrible example, you need to read the entire challenge. The key part you over looked is "that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever".

I personally know people who aren't religious that go to hospitals to help sick patients on a regular basis. So while they go because they genuinely want to help your example is a requirement of their religion. Thus you haven't fulfilled the challenge.

ah, but the perfect control case is not some non-religious do-gooder :) but a person who, exactly like our religious example, wouldn't make the visit if not commanded to do so. so, by definition...

hey, i'm takin' a shot at it, no need to be nasty. attacking my reading comprehension is ad hominum. :)

It's affirmed again: the Amerikan court system is now nothing more than an extension of the traitorous Republican Party, from the Supreme Court on down. Good luck getting justice in an Amerikan Court if you're not a corporation or a member of the Bush Crime Family.

http://tinyurl.com/25rgkk

Thanks again to all the Republican voters who have totally sold this country out. They are traitors, each and every one.

btw, just on a technical level our hypothetical religious person is doing something every day that a non-believer cannot do by definition: make a choice based on a belief in the supernatural.

i could be shot down like a dawg fer this, i know.

i win-TKO! (not?)

sorry, i mean an ETHICAL choice. needed to tighten that up a little.

oh, wow, the hirsi ali interview! you can actually see the blood spurt as lewis lands a punch! but the lady maintains her dignity (gossamer though it may be) through the brutal onslaught...oh, the humanity!-

signed, bored, and a little creeped out.(man, he's rippin' on a BLACK victim of GENITAL MUTILATION! who has actually READ the koran!)

i'm pretending to be a troll. how 'mi doin'?

had me fooled

beautiful. keep up the good work.

Zeitgeist was very disappointing, although it had a high production value etc... tainted by the data-fitting of conspiracy theorists.

Folk at my university were part of the FEMA teams on-sight shortly after 9-11, and I sat in an office with a piece of recovered trade center steel for over a year. I'll soon have a doctorate in Materials Science and Engineering. Buildings collapsed because planes full of jet fuel crashed into them.

Gerson starts strong, rubbing gently the ready reader with a values argument and dialogiamus (the G.K. Chesterton quote).

(Oh, baby. I love a good rhetorical debate about God. Oh yeah!)

But then, Hitchens turns up the heat, warming his audience with disarming, self-deprecating humor, to which the reader is persuaded by his likeability.

(mmm baby! Not too fast. You know what happened last time.)

Gerson’s concessio (“If God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth, it would not, of course, mean that everyone joins the Crips or reports to the Playboy mansion.”) gives us ultimate, rhetorical hand job, and him the upper hand in the debate.

(Mmmmm, baby. Yeah!)

“Heavenly dictatorship?” More like, heavenly syncrisis.

But, not to be outdone, Gerson pumps up his virtue by creating a strong sense of stability by making argument that the “irreverent trinity’s” recent barrage of bestsellers is merely a trendy thing. He insinuates it may be here today gone tomorrow, while the word of God always has and always will (even though, one logically supposes with the stern warning against denying the existence of God in the Old Testament, atheist have been making the same argument for as long as theists. )

(Say my name!)

An event to which Hitchens whips out his super-large, and superlative, logos: "Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever."

(Ooo! Oh! God! Yes, yes, YES YES!)

I love a good rhetorical debate about the man upstairs.

Hirsi Ali tells Avi Lewis: "I lived in countries that had no democracy ... you grew up in freedom ... I don't find myself in the same luxury as you do"

I'm pretty sure the American Enterprise Institute houses Ms. Ali far far away from Washington DC's poorer neighborhoods. In fact I'm pretty sure she's living a life that a very very small percentage of US citizens get to live. So actually yes, Ms. Ali does find herself in the same luxury as Avi Lewis does. The difference is that she want to look at the world as black and white, while Lewis wants to look at the grey all around as well.

Regarding Iran, the Islamic fundamentalists would be having a much harder time there if the US hadn't constantly interfered with Iranian domestic politics, and constantly threatened its external security over the past decades. We have Hindu fundamentalists in India who demand the same sort of rabid social conservatism, so its not an "Islamic thing" alone.

If the Christan right had free reign over US politics (which they might still have if conservatives keep getting voted to power), the US would cease to be the open democracy it still is now. The difference between Iran and the US is not the difference in their dominant religion, nor simply access to an open market (because that leads to feudalism) but rather the progressive values that have been allowed to (relatively speaking) flurish through the 20th c, and which are now under threat.

Jonathan, I don't think the challenge is asking how many times a religious person would do noble acts over a secular person. Not only that, but if a person is being coerced by a religion to do ethical acts, how is this in any way ethical—especially in your example?

Your illustration, I would argue, is far from ethical, but I guess it would depend on how you define an ethical act. If I as a secularist would, say, out of obligation for meeting requirements of community service in order to be eligible for admittance at a prestigious university, donate my time to picking up trash or work at a hospice, the acts in and of themselves could be considered “ethical” acts. The intention certainly is not there, if that is my only reason to do so. The act of visiting, however, is not benefiting the sick person. The only thing it could do is make the person feel loved, yet if the Jew is doing it in order to complete his or her obligation it would be as if I were to hypothetically tell my mother I love her when in fact I don’t. It technically could leave a positive ambiance, but the fact that it is disingenuous strikes it off the ethical list in my view.

Most scientists are secular than religious according to resent surveys. Many of them are furthering our understanding of medicine and generating medical therapies that actually benefit other people’s lives. Let’s assume for the purpose of this argument that all the scientists and physicians that are secular are helping others indirectly because their primary goal is only to make money. Technically they are benefiting others and doing noble deeds by decreasing human suffering. The acts themselves are ethical, but could this really be satisfactory to the essence of ethical philosophy? If the answer is only to find instances where people do noble deeds as a requirement and not out of sincere compassion then I could find numerous examples where secularists are obligated to do ethical acts because they are required (i.e. scientists and medical doctors who “have” to cure the sickly). If this is the case, my example beat your feeble obligated visit.

By the way, don't take offense at my rebuke. I did not intend to come off as overly critical and an ass. If I did, my apologies.

erick, i don't understand your "pre-apology" at the end there. your case was stated in a perfectly gentlepersonly way, throwing in "feeble" to spice things up. unless i missed some vicious between-the-lines sarcasm.

so, your response is two-pronged. 1st, you say no act, no matter how "good" the consequences performed without altruistic intent or under "coercion" can be considered ethical.

It technically could leave a positive ambiance, but the fact that it is disingenuous strikes it off the ethical list in my view.

well, i don't happen to agree, but what we are disagreeing on here is a matter of definition. i'm hoping hitchens would be generous enough to include my definition in his challenge, especially since it's pretty hard to know what's in peoples hearts. in any case, regarding "intent" and "coercion": if our hypothetical religious jew throws up his hypothetical hands and says "god, i want to do good. but i don't know what good is. you do, so i'll do what you say"- which is not hypothetical at all and is in fact a common attitude toward religion, at least among what are known affectionately as "simple jews"- here the religious person has the intent to do good, an "coercion" would be an unfair and uncharitable description of his relationship with his imaginary friend.

the second prong of your argument says that if, for the sake of argument, you give me my definition of ethical, well then you can find plenty of secular do-gooders who do good for non-altruistic reasons.

this is of course true, but a very slippery slope. start taking this to logical extremes and you'll soon be left without ANY altruism. the fireman saves the child for pay, the neighbor because he's afraid of what people will say if he doesn't take the chance. you'd wind up trashing wonderful things like volunteer fire departments as a bunch of overgrown kids looking for excitement, glory and the respect of their peers.

but the real reason my argument still stands is because its almost, but not quite, a tautology. the religious person is performing an act that the SAME person, without religion, would not perform. i think this fits hitchens criteria.

isn't it beautiful in its simplicity?

The act of visiting, however, is not benefiting the sick person.

i was a little surprised at this statement. i hope it means that you've never been bedridden for any length of time.

From Hitchens:

"...the delusion that we have been created diseased, by a capricious despot, and then abruptly commanded to be whole and well, on pain of terror and torture."

One of the most concise summations of Christianity I've ever read.

the religious person is performing an act that the SAME person, without religion, would not perform. i think this fits hitchens criteria.

Says whom? I don't think you can make such an assumption about what a person does on their own free will. This question is more complex than you are letting it be. I would visit a friend in the hospital, if they needed it. I'm not religious. I'm confused on how visiting a friend in the hospital is something only religious people do.

i was a little surprised at this statement. i hope it means that you've never been bedridden for any length of time.

Personally I'd rather be visited by a friend or family member rather than a stranger who simply feels obligated. If I wanted a stranger to visit me, I'd prefer beseeching a nurse. At least I know the nurse will tend to my illness as well as keep me company.

Your example of a Judaistic command serves as a very good example that any nonbeliever could perform and you aren't even recognizing it. Barring barriers such as visiting a sick person in a prohibiting country like Iran, for example (which even a Jew could not do, not to mention that few Jews even know of the command), nothing prevents a nonbeliever from visiting sick people of any faith or non-faith.

In fact there are lots of doctors who go around the world treating the sick without a care about religious belief. For example "Doctors of the World-USA" is a human rights organization that treats vulnerable people in countries that have poor human and civil rights. Doctors Without Borders, a humanitarian (not religious) group also does similar work around the world, and it has neither political, religious, or commercial interests.

You will find far more non-religious reasons for doctors to treat people of any belief or non-belief than religious Jews who do the same.

Norm:

I'm just curious. Why did you remove the zeitgeist link?

The act of visiting, however, is not benefiting the sick person. The only thing it could do is make the person feel loved

I agree with Jonathan. The act of visiting a sick person and making them feel loved is very important. Feeling mentally good aids a person in having the will to do the concrete things that help a person to heal in that love gives a person the courage to summon up the energy to do what needs to be done. (When one is sick and near death, that energy is not all that easy to summon up)

Jo Ann:

I agree, it depends on the person but it's generally true most people are weak and need support.

The second atheist, Matthew Scheck, puts it rather well,

"Is it any wonder we atheists find religious people so inherently misguided, childish, petty, uneducated, unenlightened, stupid, and flat-out crazy?"

Which part does Michael Gerson not understand?

This is as good as Hitchens's description of the Vatican, "maladapted elderly virgins". It was in one of his interviews.

Dar,

Depending upon the severity of the illness, even the strongest person can become weak when dealing with overwhelming circimstances.

There is something about love that is very powerful. And when one is feeling extremem physical pain, the touch of someone's hand is very comforting. For me at least.

Maybe some people don't need others love and are that strong. I don't know.