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 4 of 4)
46. my favorite way of entertaining myself is watching all these TV ministers of different religions running up and down the podium, screaming while trying to deliver messages to their congragations and at the same time watching members of the congregation nodding their heads in approval - what a circus -
Jerryzay at 9:04AM on Jul 17th 2007
47. can anyone in his sane mind believe that a human being (who eats and goes to the bathroom just like you and me) come back to life after being dead for 3 or 4 days - God did not create us - we created him just like we created Santa Claus -use your common sense
Jerryzay at 9:07AM on Jul 17th 2007
48. Very amusing argument/discussion about nothing! Such silly questions as, "Is there a God (god)?", or "Does He (he) exist?" Of course He,he, she, and it exist! Otherwise, how could we go on blabbering about it? God lives within the Human Mind, where he was born in the first place, in primitive times, in response to our puzzlement over the 'strange' occurences in Nature, and particularly our grief over death -- all of this combined with our many dreams. And He grew in size and Might, at the command of the Alpha types among us, who seized Him and made Him their ever ready instrument of Empire. Just look at the history books. Has not the High Priest been forever the Right Arm of the Emperor, except only in vice versa, where he even trumped the Emperor, to be himself the Top Dog!
And all this silly matter of correctly 'interpreting' the 'scriptures', whether they be Talmud, or 'Old' or 'New' Testaments, and all that stuff (per dOr at 7:12 July 16) so authoritatively pronounced) -- so ambiguous, and multi-biguous, that you can take from it what suits your purpose, whether it be Crusade, or Inquisition, or 'converting' the Indians, Slaughtering the Infidels, Suicide Bomber ...
Let us somehow divest of all One-True-Religions, One-True-Churches, True-Gods, Chosen-Peoples, and any other such stuff. Let those who like to, enjoy the pomp and ceremony on Sunday mornings (or any other times), sing the hymns (and hyers)if they wish, and hear the inspired lectures, and enjoy the coffee, donuts, and endearing discussions that follow. But let none of them presume divine ordination. Then the next step is to Outlaw War in all of its various and nebulous forms, thereupon all of those of us, fortunate enough to survive the ongoing tribulations, to enjoy to the fullest, the pleasures and joys and glories of this marvelous and beautiful paradise, this EARTH, and doing all that we can to aid It (the EARTH) in sustaining Itself.
ACB Esperanto: Language of Peace, Joy, and Prosperity to All!
Allan C. Boschen at 2:01PM on Jul 17th 2007
49. D'Souza is so wrong on many points. The KEY to the story in Genesis 22 is Abraham's response to Isaac's question. "Where is the Lamb?" Abraham had faith that the LORD would provide the sacrifice. He obeyed in faith because working out of God's Providence is not clearly seen by fallen man. We live and obey by faith. God provided the Lamb for THE sacrifice when He sacrificed His Son as a blood offering for fallen man's sin.
Kdub at 10:17AM on Jul 17th 2007
50. Bruce,
Christians do not believe that the Old Jewish Law of "an eye for an eye" was a command to do harm. I can't speak for all Christian faiths, but Catholics see it as you do, and I suspect most other Christians do as well. It was a cap on retribution in an uncivilized time. To prevent escalated violence.
Jesus, in Mathew Chapter 5, says clearly, "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." He then goes on with examples that do not go contrary to the law, but fulfill their intent.
When He mentions the "eye for an eye" he is going one step further, saying give up your justified revenge of an eye for an eye and forgive from your heart and forego any personal retribution. (not talking about state punishment for crimes or a law of justice.)
Jesus was not saying something contrary to the Jewish law and going in a different direction. He was going in the same direction. Limiting violence. He was explaining it and taking it one step further, through God's law of loving your neighbor, (a law given to the Jews, God's Chosen people)
The 4th century St. Augustine argued this very same thing with a man named Faustus. Here is a link to the full discourse
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140619.htm
And following is an excerpt where Augustine agrees with your interpretation of "an eye for an eye."
God bless you.
Elisa
PS (not to Bruce) while on the subject of Abraham, the scripture clearly says from the beginning of the passage that God was testing him, with no intent of child sacrifice. One interpretation of this passage has always been from ancient times that the God of Abraham (the one true God) abhored the child sacrifice of the pagan religions and false gods. This is not a new interpretion.
________________
Here are Augustine's words.
25. Nor, again, is there any opposition between that which was said by them of old time, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and what the Lord says, "But I say unto you, that you resist not evil; but if any one smites you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also," and so on. The old precept as well as the new is intended to check the vehemence of hatred, and to curb the impetuosity of angry passion. For who will of his own accord be satisfied with a revenge equal to the injury? Do we not see men, only slightly hurt, eager for slaughter, thirsting for blood, as if they could never make their enemy suffer enough? If a man receives a blow, does he not summon his assailant, that he may be condemned in the court of law? Or if he prefers to return the blow, does he not fall upon the man with hand and heel, or perhaps with a weapon, if he can get hold of one? To put a restraint upon a revenge so unjust from its excess, the law established the principle of compensation, that the penalty should correspond to the injury inflicted. So the precept, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," instead of being a brand to kindle a fire that was quenched, was rather a covering to prevent the fire already kindled from spreading. For there is a just revenge due to the injured person from his assailant; so that when we pardon, we give up what we might justly claim. Thus, in the Lord's prayer, we are taught to forgive others their debts that God may forgive us our debts. There is no injustice in asking back a debt, though there is kindness in forgiving it. But as, in swearing, one who swears, even though truly, is in danger of perjury, of which one is in no danger who never swears; and while swearing truly is not a sin, we are further from sin by not swearing; so that the command not to swear is a guard against perjury: in the same way since it is sinful to wish to be revenged with an unjust excess, though there is no sin in wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the man who wishes for no revenge at all is further from the sin of an unjust revenge. It is sin to demand more than is due, though it is no sin to demand a debt. And the best security against the sin of making an unjust demand is to demand nothing, especially considering the danger of being compelled to pay the debt to Him who is indebted to none. Thus, I would explain the passage as follows: It has been said by them of old time, You shall not take unjust revenge; but I say, Take no revenge at all: here is the fulfillment. It is thus that Faustus, after quoting, "It has been said, You shall not swear falsely; but I say unto you, swear not at all," adds: here is the fulfillment. I might use the same expression if I thought that by the addition of these words Christ supplied a defect in the law, and not rather that the intention of the law to prevent unjust revenge is best secured by not taking revenge at all, in the same way as the intention to prevent perjury is best secured by not swearing at all. For if "an eye for an eye" is opposed to "If any one smite you on the cheek, turn to him the other also," is there not as much opposition between "You shall perform unto the Lord thine oath," and "Swear not at all?" Matthew 5:33-34 If Faustus thinks that there is not destruction, but fulfillment, in the one case, he ought to think the same of the other. For if "Swear not" is the fulfillment of "Swear truly," why should not "Take no revenge" be the fulfillment of "Take revenge justly"?
Elisa at 10:14AM on Jul 17th 2007
51. Kdub, the lamb has to be a REAL lamb, not a metaphorical one. Levitical law and all that says so.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:26PM on Jul 17th 2007
52. ACB Esperanto: Language of Peace, Joy, and Prosperity to All!
The ideal language for the role of Universal Second Language (USL),
For the ultimate enhancement of EDUCATION,
And thereby, for the first great step in empowerment of The UN,
Toward the goal of Better & More Effective Operations at all levels,
Most particularly resolving conflicts among nations, and thereby:
Outlawing and Eliminating WAR !
acboschen at 2:12PM on Jul 17th 2007
53. The western religions have established a very acceptable and superfine spirituality. I like their concept of "Faith" being a factor in accepting a higher authority who may be behind all the mystery. I believe that not even one person belonging to the moslem community was harmed after 9/11. Einstein once said "because of over all evidence that we see, we must be humble." (My quote may not be accurate!)He is also the one who said that "God doesn't play dice." Berkowitz's opinion is one among a multitude. We don't have to take it to ur heart!
sushley, Rishi Kumar at 6:24PM on Jul 17th 2007
54. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Bri at 8:49PM on Jul 17th 2007
55. According to Islam, it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was almost sacrificed by Abraham.
Also, has everyone forgotten that God allowed Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter?
mrreindeer at 10:00PM on Jul 17th 2007
56. Hitchens', D'Souza's, and some of the hidebound atheist specious arguments presented here on the Berkowitz piece, and on the grand question in general, only point out how dogmatically religious the virulently non-religious can be. As an ex-atheist of the Ayn Rand stripe, I can personally attest to the many rhetorical gymnastics and logical contortions you have to maintain to uphold atheism. Hitchens and D'Souza - you are so much better than this. Leave behind your anti-religious prejudice and the embarrassingly silly arguments this produces and get back to what you're good at - defending the civilization that Thesim, specifically, Christian Theism, gloriously created.
One day you may say with me and many others - "I was once an atheist but my faith wasn't strong enough."
Bmoon at 10:05PM on Jul 18th 2007
57. I've been an atheist since 4th grade and to be quite honest, it doesn't take any mental gymnastics or logical contortions whatsoever. You must have been religious all along without realizing it... and objectivism is not the sanest philosophy to begin with.
The reason we're virulent about it is because we can see what modern religion is heading towards and to the sane person, it's very scary.
So you go ahead and hang out with the Jim Joneses, the Ted Haggertys, and the Oral Robertses and Ayatollahs. We'll hang with the Mark Twains, Benjamin Franklins, John Lennons, and Albert Einsteins.
Bri at 3:28AM on Jul 18th 2007
58. To Bmoon:
I once was a theist, but I found I could no longer engage in the mental gymnastics, shenannigans, and logical contortions in order to sustain the faith. I grew up. I stopped believing in god.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:29AM on Jul 18th 2007
59. Don't you love when god groupies like Dur come up with sophistry like, "the Jewish Talmud (Ancient, traditional, in depth explanation of the bible and the official Jewish law)"
Great, "in depth" nonsense explaining mythology.
The Talmud is just the delirious ravings of ignorant priestly guys written over centuries about nothing.
bernarda at 5:55AM on Jul 19th 2007
60. RE: REAL OR METAPHORICAL LAMB?
Reading Genesis 22:18 "And in your seed shall ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH be blessed; x x x, " I was wondering how this promise of God to Abraham could be fulfilled today, unless the nations of the House of Judah, of the lost (from view) House of Israel, and of the Gentiles, would come together and believe that a real, living Lamb of God was bruised and killed during the Passover and before the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Were the prohecies of Isaiah fulfilled during that period from 4 B.C. to A.D. 31 or on yet some future date? "For he (a seed) shall grow up before him a tender plant, x x x." (Isaiah 53:1), thereafter, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, x x x" (verse 5) and then, "x x x: he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, x x x." (verse 7). Further: "he was taken from prison and from judgment: x x x? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: x x x." (verse 8). Then: "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth." (verse 9) Finally: "Yet IT PLEASED the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when you shall make his soul an offering of sin, he shall see (resurrect) his seed, and he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." (verse 10)
This seed was born of a real virgin, the daughter of Heli, the descendant of Nathan, the son of David, the descendant of Abraham. (See Luke 3:22-34 of the New Testament.)
After the death and resurrection of the Lamb of God, the following Law could be complied with in spirit and in truth: " For you desire not sacrfice; x x x: you delight not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise [these sacrifies]." (Psalm 51:16-17)
Antonio Apostol Jr.
Antonio Apostol Jr. at 12:29AM on Jul 23rd 2007