Bashing Mother Teresa: Christopher Hitchens Goes E. O. Wilson One Better
| October 31, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Culture, Ethics, Evolution |
| 
In THE DESIGN OF LIFE, Jonathan Wells and I describe E. O. Wilson’s attack on Mother Teresa as follows (the context of the discussion is that whereas traditional morality must come to terms with the problem of evil, evolutionary morality must come to terms with the problem of good):
For E. O. Wilson, goodness depends on “lying, pretense, and deceit, including self-deceit, because the actor is most convincing who believes that his performance is real.” Accordingly, Wilson attributes Mother Teresa’s acts of goodness to her belief that she will be richly rewarded for them in heaven. In other words, she was simply looking out for number one, acting selfishly in her own self-interest, looking to cash in on the Church’s immortality. As Wilson puts it, “Mother Teresa is an extraordinary person but it should not be forgotten that she is secure in the service of Christ and the knowledge of her Church’s immortality.”
Not to be outdone in bashing Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens launched this missile on in a recent Dennis Miller interview (go here):
Mother Theresa spent her whole life saying (that what Calcutta needs) is a huge campaign against family planning. I mean, who comes to that conclusion who isn’t a complete fanatic? She took – and I would directly say stole…millions and millions of dollars and spent all the money not on the poor, but on the building of nearly 200 convents in her own name around the world to glorify herself and to continue to spread the doctrine that, as she put it — when she got her absurd Nobel Peace Prize — that the main threat to world peace is abortion and contraception. The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to.
66 Responses to Bashing Mother Teresa: Christopher Hitchens Goes E. O. Wilson One Better
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
—-”Sorry, I forgot. You are right. I am deluded. I guess the Lutheran church is no longer “Biblically oriented”:
Insofar as they recognize gay relationships, that is correct. If they changed their “doctrine,” which the article you alluded to states, then either their old interpretation of Biblical morality was false, in which case it should never have been trusted, or else their new interpretation of Biblical morality is false, in which case it cannot be trusted now. If you are seeking truth, look for a Church or a moral source that doesn’t change its story.
—”So if I’m understanding this correctly, it is okay for someone to be gay, for that is how they were made, but they have to be celibate to remain moral?”
I didn’t say that they were “made” that way. Quite the contrary, I submit that, for the most part, cultural conditions cause it, meaning that it is a learned behavior based on a multitude of factors. There is no credible evidence to suggest that homosexuals are born that way. So, there are a lot of reasons to think that they can change with the right help and under the right circumstances; that which is learned can be unlearned. In the meantime, yes, homosexuals must remain chase to be moral, just as single heterosexuals must remain chaste to be moral.
Granted, it is a trial, for some a severe one, especially in a sex-crazed culture such as ours, but morality imposes trials on a lot of people. That is why moral relativism has become so popular and why some churches avoid all the hard sayings and change their doctrines to harmoize with the current zeitgeist.
By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one.
“If they changed their “doctrine,” which the article you alluded to states, then either their old interpretation of Biblical morality was false, in which case it should never have been trusted, or else their new interpretation of Biblical morality is false, in which case it cannot be trusted now. If you are seeking truth, look for a Church or a moral source that doesn’t change its story.”
I find it hard to believe that whatever Church you belong to has not changed a single thing since its inception, in which case the same consequences would apply. Nevertheless, let’s say, as you put it, the old interpretation was false. So what? How does that corrupt all trustworthiness?
I think we can both agree that there are many issues in addition to this one that are up for debate. After all, how many denominations of Christianity are there? I’ve asked repeatedly how you know your interpretation is right, and haven’t received an answer. Is it those who follow the Bible word for word? Does your church enforce ALL the laws in Leviticus?
I have a feeling that no matter what evidence I provide, you will write it off as a divorce from the Church to begin with, and therefore not worth recognizing as a legitimate example. This stategy reminds me of someone…
“By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one.”
Too easy. Those issues shouldn’t even be up for debate.
—”I find it hard to believe that whatever Church you belong to has not changed a single thing since its inception, in which case the same consequences would apply. Nevertheless, let’s say, as you put it, the old interpretation was false. So what? How does that corrupt all trustworthiness?”
My church has never changed a dogmatic teaching. On the matter of your question, it should be evident that one should not trust a moral authority that can’t make up its mind about morals.
—”I think we can both agree that there are many issues in addition to this one that are up for debate.”
Sure.
—”After all, how many denominations of Christianity are there?”
Tens of thousands.
—”I’ve asked repeatedly how you know your interpretation is right, and haven’t received an answer.”
OK. Fair enough. I guess I owe you that much. I know my answer is right because it comes from the one Church that Christ founded over two thousand years ago, which never has and never will change its mind about any doctrine. However, that is one issue that I will not press [indeed, I will not mention it again] out of respect for my hosts.
—”Is it those who follow the Bible word for word? Does your church enforce ALL the laws in Leviticus?”
No.
—”I have a feeling that no matter what evidence I provide, you will write it off as a divorce from the Church to begin with, and therefore not worth recognizing as a legitimate example. This stategy reminds me of someone…”
The two tests are these: Is it Scriptural, that is, does it reflect the whole of God’s word, not just one part of it, and is it consistent with the natural moral law, which also cannot violate Scripture.
By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one.
—-Too easy. Those issues shouldn’t even be up for debate.
I agree, and I salute you for saying so.
“On the matter of your question, it should be evident that one should not trust a moral authority that can’t make up its mind about morals.”
I wouldn’t call it indecisiveness, and the Church isn’t a moral authority anyway.
“No.”
Why not?
Berceuse, I have pushed the envelope too far already. Thanks for putting up with me.
StephenB @ 59
From us.
I want to live for as long as I can and so do most other people. The Golden Rule applies: you don’t try kill me and I won’t try to kill you.
Simple.