How Not to Argue (part 94) - the Sad Case of Christopher Hitchens's Hero-worshippers

It's amusing, if frustrating, to see the response of dogmatic unbelievers to my brother's thoughtful and generous remarks. It is clear that many of them find such thoughtfulness and generosity repugnant in their hero (and some of these contributions are embarrassing in their sycophancy). They would much prefer him not to have said this.

Why? He is not conceding the existence of God, or announcing that he is off down to the nearest church. He has simply said that there is in fact rather a good answer to a question which he originally thought unanswerable.

There are many possible implications of this. The most obvious is that it cannot really be true - in this case - to maintain that 'religion poisons everything'. The existence of the corollary, that people can do bad things for reasons of faith, does not undermine the truth of the basic premise - held to by me - that there are some good things that can only be done when people truly believe in a good God. Most of these acts involve selfless, indeed self-sacrificial courage. They are the things which most of us wish we could do and hope we will do if tested - but fear we won't.

And if that is so, then there is at least, on the face of it, an argument for the Christian religion. It is not a conclusive one - I don't personally think that the truth of Christianity can be established by facts and logic, as I repeatedly say. But it is a persuasive one, and one which cannot lightly be ignored.

So what do we get in response from the Atheistical Fancy? I have searched almost in vain for a rational, open-minded response to this (as also to the Isfahan quote also linked to the article). Tom Bumstead emerges with credit here, but few others do. And I see only more reason to stick to my explanation of the failure of Washington's finest scribblers (more interested in personality issues) to spot this interesting moment. It didn't fit with their picture of things, so they didn't realise it was important.

We get Mr Wooderson, who says: 'No doubt there have been many noble actions done by believers, and no doubt some moral actions are more likely to be performed by believers than non-believers. To suggest that this means that believers are somehow more altruistic, though, seems rather absurd.'

No doubt it would be, if anyone had made such a crude statement. But nobody did.

Mr Wooderson also takes me to task for candidly admitting that I would behave more badly without the influences of the Christian religion. Why is this seen as so discreditable? It's true. I would be dishonest to pretend otherwise, and if Mr Wooderson has never in his life been motivated either to do something desirable, or to refrain from doing something undesirable, by fear, I should be very much surprised. The important thing is, what are we afraid of?

And what can be sadder than those who think that a wearisome jeering cliche, entirely unsupported by any explanatory text which entitles the writer to jeer, is an original and witty remark, as in this from 'kristopher': 'Nice try Peter...but no cigar…!'

Nice try at what? And I don't actually want a cigar. What I want is reasoned, logical argument.

Then there is Mr 'Crosland', who (as so often) spoils an otherwise cogent case by dogmatism and hostility. He alleges that believers are pleased by my brother's grave illness. As a generalisation, this is a shameful falsehood, as Mr 'Crosland' well knows. No serious Christian could understand his faith and take such a view - and very large numbers of Christians have publicly declared that they are praying for him, and urged others to do so. Chided with this, Mr Crosland comes up with the following: 'Not so long ago, a member of the faithful celebrated Christopher's wholly natural illness thus: "Yay, he's got throat cancer, and it's no surprise that he has it in exactly the place where he has blasphemed so much".'

Who was this 'member of the faithful'? When and where? Was he or she representative of anyone but himself? Does Mr Crosland really think that this sort of thing is honest argument? If so, he disqualifies himself from any serious debate in future.

Among other irrelevant comments, someone called 'Graeme' says: 'There is no mention here of the original corollary question Christopher has asked many times. "Can you name any wicked action or evil statement that would be made or performed by a believer, but would not be made or performed by an unbeliever?" '

Well, actually there is an indirect reference. 'He went on to try to qualify it by saying that the same reason had been given by others for bad actions, but actually that has no bearing on the matter.' And readers are plainly directed to the full text of the discussion, where this point is made as it has been many times before. The implication that I have in some way suppressed an important fact is false. The important thing is that on this occasion my brother said something new, which deserved a wider circulation than it has so far received.

Then there's 'Gareth' , who says: 'Sorry but this is a non-argument. Many people have achieved great things and very evil ones through faith, either in a god or in themselves. But how many wars etc have been carried out on this basis (remember Dubya said God told him to invade Iraq -scary)? Us atheists have a very good reason to have high principles, we are highly tolerant and don't expect another chance.'

How odd. In what way is it a non-argument? Not least because my brother managed to persuade himself of the need to invade Iraq without any help from the Almighty. Meanwhile, the Bishop of Rome, and many other Christians, strongly opposed the Iraq war on sound doctrinal grounds. Is that 'scary'? If not, why not? People should stick to the simple point under discussion here. Everyone can do bad things and persuade themselves that those things are good. But are there some good things that can only be done by believers? And if so, does that alter the case against religion previously stated by CH?

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.