Independent of the Dubai issue, I think he is right about the "what-about x" argument. I have seen it many times before. Like in religious debates, an atheist might hear the argument, "so if you don't believe in God, where do you get your morals from?" as though that has anything to do with whether God exists.
I'm fearful of sounding like a redditroll, but Hitchens handles this particular topic well. He asks people to name a single moral act believers can do that nonbelievers cannot do. Then, when no one has an answer, he asks a corollary; name a single act of evil done entirely in god's name.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg
That attitude makes me uneasy. Atheists are tempted to dismiss religion and sit back, confident in our superior rationality. But what we should do is try to learn even more from theist errors. The errors are not just limited to the obvious (to us) errors like faith in the supernatural. There's also obedience to authority. The Milgram Experiments show that plenty of good people will do evil in certain circumstances.
I don't think Hitchens handles the topic well, at least not as you present it.
In the first comparison we compare two groups, we find both with the ability to do moral acts. Next we compare the two groups again, but this time we are surprised when we find both groups are capable of non-moral acts. Also, we jump from a simple comparison of believers and non-believers to the use of god's name.
The point just doesn't say much more than, "people are capable of good and evil". A religious person would only become troubled that evil people are misappropriating their belief system to back their evil acts. i.e. Hitchens point will not faze a religious person.
A better response would be to show in the positive that a similar morality to Christianity can be built from a few well reasoned assumptions. This would address the GP's wish to show that morality is not dependent on a religious system. It is important to remember, from a religious persons perspective morality is defined by God. Responding with annoyance gets one nothing and shows that a person may be vulnerable to the same shortsightedness.
I suppose it depends where in the conversation you are. Sometimes you have to start from scratch with people who believe religion has a monopoly on morality. If the conversation doesn't require such basics, then by all means jump forward.
"The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself...
The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists. Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.
Our inability to alter what is actual frustrates our grandiose delusions of being sovereign over everything. Yet t he truth is we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say “no.” We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument. "
I don't buy that argument. Basic morals is just a minimum requirement for a society. We need to work together as a community, so for it to work there has to be a set of rules. You can see the same with packs of lions or other types of animals.
Anti-social elements will not survive long on their own. People/animals who work together has a better chance of survival. Those who can't work with others, are therefore removed (gradually) from the gene pool.
Anyway, it is very dangerous to base morals on religion. Only religion can make someone say "It's wrong to kill people, unless they believe in another religion"... What is the moral basis for that? If you removed religion from politics, they would not be able to say that.
There is some old saw that intelligent people believe so many strange things because they are smart enough to convince themselves...
I've seen that even in non-ideological areas, for people with "too large" verbal talent, which believed their own bullshit. But that might pass with age.
