In today's Wall Street Journal, Peter Berkowitz takes on the new atheists, and the result is a resounding victory for the new atheists. While accusing atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens of setting up a straw man, Berkowitz begins with a couple of Goliath-size staw men of his own. He accuses the atheists of claiming that "we can now know, with finality and certainty, that God does not exist." Of Christopher Hitchens he writes, "His arguments do not come close to disproving God's existence or demonstrating that religion is irredeemably evil." Actually none of the atheists claims that we know "with finality and certainty" that God does not exist. Dawkins and Hitchens merely proclaim God's existence extremely improbable, and on this point Berkowitz has no answer. Moreover, Hitchens can easily satisy his thesis short of showing that religion is "irredeemably" evil. He merely has to show that it is mostly evil.
Berkowitz then takes up some specific claims. Hitchens condemns the ancient Jewish practice of "an eye for an eye" as a harsh doctrine, which it is. Berkowitz counters that it's preferable to take an eye for an eye than to take "a life for an eye." Berkowtiz claims that Judaism established the notion of proportionality: that the punishment should fit the crime. In reality, the anthropological literature shows that proportionality is a very ancient principle that has been held in some form in many cultures. The basic idea is that if your tribe raids mine and kills 50 people, I am justified in raiding your tribe and killing 50 people, but I am not justified in killing 10,000 people. The best one can say is that the Old Testament (in sharp contrast with the New Testament) shares this severe morality with many of the other religions and cultures of the world.
Then Berkowitz takes up the story of God ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar--a story understandably viewed by Hitchens and other atheists in a dim light. Berkowitz, however, draws a rather strange lesson from the episode. "Hitchens's categorical claim that religion poisons everything is undermined by the common interpretation according to which God's testing of Abraham taught, among other things, that the then widespread practice of child-sacrifice was contrary to God's will and must be put to an end forever." So God's order to Abraham to kill his son teaches us that we should not engage in child sacrifice! What a way to teach this lesson! I don't know if Berkowitz's reading is a "common interpretation" in Judaism but it certainly is not in Christianity. Usually the story is read merely to demonstrate Abraham's unwavering fidelity to God.
Eventually it becomes clear what Berkowitz is up to. He doesn't particularly care about Christianity or even Judaism for that matter. He simply wants to unite Jews, Christians and atheists to fight "militant Islam" which for him seems to mean Islam in general. Now we see why his arguments in defense of theism are so bad. The whole project is political. I suspect that the atheists are laughing uproariously at Berkowitz's sophistries, and I for one am on their side here. With friends like Berkowtiz, does religion really need enemies?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 4)
1. etHi, men! today I found Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
nfhpannnnl at 10:34AM on Jan 24th 2009
2. If Dinesh's synopsis of Peter Berkowitz's article is accurate, then, for once at any rate, I am forced to agree with him.
Dinesh writes that "Berkowitz claims that Judaism established the notion of proportionality; that the punishment should fit the crime." But the Torah/Old Testament mandates that disobedient children be stoned to death. Does that punishment fit the "crime".
P.S. Given the truth of the old saw that says most people are better than their religions, the stoning of disobedient children in ancient Israel was extremely rare.
emelpe at 4:07PM on Jul 16th 2007
3. God ordered Abraham to sacrafice his son not to condone the killing of one's offspring but to see if God's command would be obeyed unquestionably. Abraham was willing to kill his son but God sent angels to stop Abraham. God Will always allow for a way out of situations for those who believe. How can one not look around the beauty of this planet and deny the existence of GOD. All of this didn't happen because of a big bang!
s0lmak0sa at 5:08PM on Jul 16th 2007
4. Berkowitz's attempts to disprove that god exists are odd, reason being, belief in ones religion is Faith. Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof.
I do believe he has an absolute right to have or not have faith in a God(s).
But again with the Muslim's. They aren't all radical, clothed in tradional garb, terrorists and every other adjective used today. Also, they all are, most certainly, not Arabs, K? K.
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peace
rhodalee at 4:23PM on Jul 16th 2007
5. God did not allow Abraham to have his son, Isaac killed. It's his message to mankind that human sacrifices do not cover sin nor propitiates Him or any lifeless idol. He allowed His Son to be killed and that could cover the sins of this world and reconcile man to God.
Antonio Apostol Jr. at 4:54PM on Jul 16th 2007
6. You are telling me God allowed his son to be killed. What a guy! God needs some parenting classes.
Van Messer at 5:12PM on Jul 16th 2007
7. I dont get it, Denesh is the most reviled person in the academic world.With his self-hatred and Caucasian worship. How can anyone take him seriosly
Timothy Hayes at 7:10AM on Dec 29th 2007
8. While I disagree with just about all of what Berkowitz says in his WSJ article in defense of religion, DD's claim that, for Berkowitz, "'militant Islam'... seems to mean Islam in general" is totally unjustified. Berkowitz mentions Islam just once:
"... today's bestselling atheists suppress crucial distinctions between the forms of faith embraced by the vast majority of American citizens and the militant Islam that at this very moment is pledged to America's destruction."
He accuses only "militant Islam", and not mainstream Islam, which could reasonably be included in the "forms of faith embraced by the vast majority of American citizens".
But, anyway, Joe Bob don't put NO stock in NO mythology 'bout the hereafter and such nonsense as that.
Joe Bob at 5:21PM on Jul 16th 2007
9. Just another bit of nonsense that suggests that some monster god would have his human-like son murdered to avenge acts against the father. This kind of myth allows rulers not unlike the current President to think that one can go and kill a nation to avenge one's father's mistakes and failures.
Religion divides humanity, that is what Hitchen's shows us in his book.
Eileen Regan at 5:26PM on Jul 16th 2007
10. I think Christopher Hitchens is interesting, and he is at least entertainng to listen to. I don't agree with all his talking points - although he was hilarious on CNN when speaking about Jerry Falwell's death. Love him or hate him, he is consistent.
David S. at 5:28PM on Jul 16th 2007
11. If you need to talk to a buddy, this is soooo cool!!!
http://www.fakebuddy.com/
Jackie at 6:25PM on Jul 16th 2007
12. This has nothing to do with the topic. Mr. D'Souza's spelling accuracy is atrocious. This isn't the first time he's had errors either. Seriously, we should expect better. How much do you get paid for this, sir?
oneblood at 6:45PM on Jul 16th 2007
13. This is ridiculous, none of you have any idea what you are talking about... First of all, the old testament's commandment of eye for an eye, arm for an arm, leg for a leg is not literal in Judaism, it is symbolic to mean rule with justice and deliver a perfectly just punishment as seen fit. If that means that you should kill a killer, then so be it, but this verse is not the place that teaches you that. In Judaism you do not gouge an eye-gouger or cripple a crippler.
If any of you were somewhat literal in Aramaic and had any knowledge of the Jewish Talmud (Ancient, traditional, in depth explanation of the bible and the official Jewish law) you would know this. Also the Talmud states that in order to qualify under the title of "wayword son" worthy of stoning you would have to be a male exactly between 13 - 13 and 4 months, with no children, who was seen by two credible witnesses to consume an unfathomable amount of meat and wine in one sitting, and who deliberately went against his parents' moral command. The result, the Talmud states, is that never in history was there, or will there be a child fitting of the title "wayward son". The whole reason of the existance of this law is to teach us other traditional lessons that the Talmud discusses.
Oh my, I love when atheists talk about religion so unwaveringly without having any background in the field and not having a clue of what they are talking about!!
d0r at 7:12PM on Jul 16th 2007
14. Berkowitz is an idiot; he wants to unite Jews and Christians to fight another religion? that is counter to Christianity: Sorry Berkowitz - our Crusading days are over. Maybe you can start of new brand of extreme Judaism/Zionism. And Atheists hate Christians and usually aren't even really Atheist (most I know become Buddhists). Keep reaching for the stars Berko-idoit-witz
John at 7:36PM on Jul 16th 2007
15. Christopher Hitchens is also an idiot because he is divisive, crass, egotistical, and overbearing. Attacking extreme Muslims and right wing Christians but giving a free pass to extremist Jews like Berkowitz who are war mongers proves Christopher Hitchens is giant hypocrit who's fear of being labled anti-semitic drives him to attach religions that have little power in his field. What a coward. Attacking subjects that other people hold dear is undiplomatic, hurtful, and leads to war and death. Thanks Christopher Hitchens you're a terrorist networks dream come true.
John at 7:42PM on Jul 16th 2007