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 3 of 4)
31. Berkowitz is welcome to his opinion, but why do he and other religious editorialists insist on grouping Daniel C. Dennett with people like Christopher Hitchens? Daniel C. Dennett does not hate religion, nor does he even dislike it. All he's saying in his book is that it is a natural phenomenon, and should be achknowledged as such. He does not engage on the all out attack on religion that Harris or Dawkins do. His book isn't some exercise in polemic, and to group him with people who are militantly anti-religion like Hitchens does WSJ readers a major disservice in terms of information.
Judo at 12:53AM on Jul 17th 2007
32. OMG! WTF! god blah blah and yaddy yaddy. Christianity's construction of god is as patently perverse as that dweeb berkowitz's intention to curdle as many minds with rhetoric other than religion. berkowitz's argument/proposal is farcical and therefore moot.When will we recognize that it is not fundamentalist islam we are "fighting" and worry so much about. in our collective anxiety we have separated the world into US and THEM. the "us" and the "them" share something though- a rigid mindset. both sides want to defeat the other's mindset. this is a hot war and the battle cry is "i'm right. you're wrong. therefore we WILL kill you" this i'm right and you're dead mindset is the only enemy to recognize. So US and THEM are really not different afterall.
boredwell at 1:13AM on Jul 17th 2007
33.
Odd that you would make this post because you've also put forward your fair share of strawman arguments regarding science and atheism. Most recently in your post about the discovery of an Albino mountain goat. You set up the ol' strawman that science had stated it was a "law" that there were no albino goats which was proven wrong by the observance of one, leading to your conclusion that modern science is "not skeptical enough", otherwise implying that science is not skeptical enough about the presence of God.
You of course won your argument against the strawman, but the premise of your argument being that science had accepted it as "law" that there were no albino mountain goats was in fact, completely false. Modern science had never to that point observed an albino goat, but it was never presumed that there were none anywhere out there just because they hadn't seen one, nor does it state that there is no God. However the longer they went without finding evidence of an albino goat the -less likely-it was to exist, but at no point was it ever quantifiably stated that there were none anywhere because the possibility, however remote, still existed.
I believe that is similar to the argument Hitchens makes for the absence of God, and the one you're now defending.
Peter at 1:34AM on Jul 17th 2007
34. I must agree with others on this: Dinesh is certainly the pot calling the kettle black.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:01AM on Jul 17th 2007
35. To dOr & leo613: I would never claim to be an expert of the Jewish religion, but I guess I thought I knew more about it than I do. I would like to thank you both for taking the time and having the patience to educate me about a matter, specifically the status of the Talmud in the Jewish religion, of which I was ignorant. Knowledge is good.
emelpe at 2:02AM on Jul 17th 2007
36. @ peter (comment 32)
Ya gotta wonder what DD's response to your comment would be, supposing he actually gave a shit...
Remembering what happened before last (say) Tuesday does not seem to be a Neo-con 'thang'.
Nevertheless, about the post... I am confused that DD seems to be 'trying' to be fairminded about Berkowitz's editorial... there must be some rivalry at the Hoover Dam ... or whatever...
(personally, I picture them all standing at the 'lookout' looking down at the rushing water saying in a loud... but still squeaky... voice saying, "Isn't God great!!?!")
Yes, yes ... I know.. the Hoover Institute is a MENTAL institution... still... the imagination 'wonders' ... you know...
... this sudden 'fairness' on DD's part does not compute... BZZT..BZZT...
"Danger Will Robinson... Danger..."
pboyfloyd at 2:03AM on Jul 17th 2007
37. The phrase "an eye for an eye" etc in the Torah is not a command to harm anyone. That's a classic misconception of Christians who really do not understand the Bible. The concept of "an eye for an eye" represents the first time in history that justice was made consistent, essentially universal justice for all. It was a revolutionary concept at the time, because in biblical times justice was meted out on an arbitrary basis, depending on who was in charge at that moment. An eye for an eye PROHIBITED doing worse to a person than his crime warranted. For instance, it forbade killing someone for the crime of burglary, for instance. That's part of the beauty of the Torah. It provided an uncivilized world with a template of civilization. Judaism civilized the pagan world and gave us rules to live by. These ideas have been misunderstood and twisted by Christians through the ages. And, by the way, with regard to the New Testament's forgiveness, etc, more death and destuction, torture and misjustice has been done by the Christian church than any organization or force in history. So let's not be too high and mighty, Christians. Before you criticize the Torah, do a little learning.
Bruce at 2:30AM on Jul 17th 2007
38. Irrespective of whether God exists or not, religious people tend to be the least moral and the most cruel people in any society. Fundamentalists of any religion tend to be the most degenerate, inhuman and defective people. Maybe God exists - I don't know - but his followers are, without doubt, the cancerous growth on the body of humankind.
Rafael at 2:59AM on Jul 17th 2007
39. You Aethiest fools that are holding court on weather God is dean or not forgot to invite God to the meeting, to defend Himself on why He has allowed mankind to dismiss Him as DEAD. Once again, you existentialists are hard at work trying to rip the throne out from beneath God's arse and set it up as your own. In your mind, since you have decided upon the death of God, you now are of a mind to set yourself up as god. Well if no one is home, why not rob the palace, eh?
Next time I dare you to invite God to your next Aethiest cook out and the 2.1 billion Christians, the 1.4 billion Muslims and the 1.8 billion faithful of other religions (A few of the Dead God's good friends) and see if we can't somehow convince you fools that God is not dead. Because 5.3 billion believers can't all be wrong. Invite me...and I'll show you how God can cook.
Brian at 3:14AM on Jul 17th 2007
40. oneblood-Can you be more specific ? Which words are misspelled ?
John K. at 3:28AM on Jul 17th 2007
41. 5.3 billion can't be wrong?? Once EVERYONE thought the sun circled the Earth... billions of people... all wrong!!
Once EVERYONE thought that humankind would never fly... billions of people... all wrong!
Once EVERYONE thought disease was caused by evil spirits...billions of people... all wrong!
Just because you're in the majority does not mean you're right.
Religion is an addiction and when anyone questions it, there's an alcoholic-like denial... it would be amusing if it wasn't so freaking dangerous.
Bri at 5:27AM on Jul 17th 2007
42. I personally will attest that God's not important or "existant" till your in the hole fighting for your life. I was a proud and mocking person too once. I still struggle to believe but I do know that
Atheism is not good.
BTW, about the "Sun revolving around the Earth" comment, how about:
Billions of people once believed that Man came from Apes. That's right, one species amidst millions becomes humanoid and wonder of wonders, there's still Apes!
And you say believing in God's a stretch???
The Missing Link is between your ears ;-)
Craig at 7:45AM on Jul 17th 2007
43. Not so long ago man learned to release a few atoms from their bonds
The result the Atomic Bomb
Imagine if the source of those atoms & that which binds them (The Word of GOD) were to simply let go
Now that's what I call a Big Bang (LOL)
Mankind has to remember that we did not place CHRIST upon the Throne
When we proclaim CHRIST as LORD we need make no apologies
For one day every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess CHRIST is LORD
Thankfully GOD remembers that we are but Dust
KNIGHTSTEMPLAR at 7:55AM on Jul 17th 2007
44. Craig, you don't know evolution enough to begin to criticize it. Man did not descend from apes that live today. Man and modern apes have a common acestor that went extinct millions of years ago.
If you want to believe in some creation myth, that's just fine, but you should admit that you take it on faith.
Joe Bob at 8:13AM on Jul 17th 2007
45. "Imagine if the source of those atoms & that which binds them"
Indeed, you have a vivid imagination.
Joe Bob at 8:16AM on Jul 17th 2007