God IS Great: The Arrogance of Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens

“As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.” That’s how Christopher Hitchens ends the first chapter of his best-selling book god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Frankly, Hitchens’ book- cover to cover-  is nothing more than a rant. It stirs the emotions of the reader, to be sure. It has some facts scattered throughout. It doesn’t have much substance, though. In fact, the thought strikes me that his book is basically nothing more than a 307-page opinion piece gone horribly wrong.

I’d read this book when it first came out, but I thought I’d read it again since I am going to hear him speak soon. I got it used, so as not to contribute in driving up sales. One of the first things that leapt out at me was the incredible arrogance of the book. Now, he hasn’t gone so far as some atheists (who want to refer to themselves as “brights”), but he is incredibly arrogant, nonetheless.

A Proud Look

Wasting no time in flaunting his presumptuousness, on page 7 of his book he says:  “How much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one may squirm continually in awareness of one’s own sin?” Throughout the first few chapters, Hitchens asserts that Christianity is incapable of producing anything “intelligible or noble or inspiring” since the rise of science. He speaks of the wonder, majesty, and mystery of Hawking’s description of event horizon of a black hole and the symmetry of the double helix while he says of Jehovah: “Why, if god was the creator of all things, were we supposed to ‘praise’ him so incessantly for doing what came to him naturally? This seemed servile, apart from anything else.”

One has to wonder where Hitchens thinks the wonder, majesty, and mystery of nature came from in the first place. Art and music do not leap into existence on their own; it takes the will, power, and skill of a creator- a creator with passion and imagination- to form them. If we wonder at the creation, how much more should we wonder at the Creator? Hitchens would do better to be like his colleague Richard Dawkins, who at least admits the desire to feel grateful when he beholds the heavens.

Semi-intelligent Design

From Hitchens’ initial error in being arrogant a host of other problems come forth. For starters, he has espoused a Darwinistic/Atheistic worldview. He says of those that think like him: “We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than scientific factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.” This truism is not espoused solely by the Darwinistic and Atheistic faithful, however. It is accepted by Christians as well. As I’ve said many times before, Christianity was foundational and not incidental to the modern scientific movement in the West, and I can think of no Christian today that denies the importance of science and reason.

Rather, Christians have exercised reason and interpreted scientific findings (something we all must do) in concluding that there is a flaw in the atheistic and Darwinistic worldviews. “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could,” sang Maria Von Trapp, and she was quite right. Ironically, while Hitchens doesn’t believe in a Creator with a will and an intellect, he cannot avoid projecting those qualities on a theoretical blind process: “Evolution has meant that our prefontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee.”

Standardless Morality

Hitchens also believes that a moral life can be lived apart from God. However, I would ask where Hitchens got the idea that morality and immorality exist. I wonder why he thinks that the moral path is better than the immoral path. If you can get to the top by cheating and swindling and never suffer the consequences you most fear, why not do it? There is no judgment coming in the atheistic worldview. If no one finds out about it, why not go for it?

Humans know that there is a difference between right and wrong, and things such as character and guilt prevent the vast majority of us from doing terrible things. This conscience tells us that there is a “better” and a “worse” in us, and I would say that if there is a “better”, then it is reasonable to assume at some point there is absolute Perfection. If there is absolute perfection, would not this Perfection be the standard for all? A perfect Being is one of the major aspects of the Judeo-Christian God. Hitchens denies the existence of Evil, preferring rather to blame man’s actions on an evolutionary hiccup that has resulted in humans being only partially rational. If this is true, where did the impulse to be good come from? Furthermore, how can I know anything about morality at all if my bodily organs are in control?

Religiosity vs. Relationship

This isn’t to say that Hitchens doesn’t have some leverage in his war against religion. In a sense, religion as we have come to call it does poison everything. Violence done in the name of a god or Eastern religion is tragic. Violence done in the name of Jehovah God is both tragic and grossly hypocritical. Jesus made it quite clear that His Kingdom was not of this world, and Paul said specifically that our weapons are spiritual, not physical. Our Enemy is Satan, not flesh and blood. If humans are made in God’s image and are potential temples for the Holy Spirit, why would any human exercise physical might in the name of God? They wouldn’t.They might have used His name in their crusade, but they have employed nothing of His character and obeyed none of His commands.

While Hitchens may find scientific discoveries “more awe-inspiring than the rantings of the godly”, I would conclude by saying that Christians are not followers of a religion, but partakers of a Relationship with the Divine. Every scientific discovery we make reminds us that “This is My Father’s World.” Every moment we live we are conscious of the fact that it is in Him that we live, and move, and have our being. Every aspect of our lives is a gift from the Creator and Sustainer of life, and we are moved by gratitude to worship and obedience. It is love and awe that is to be the supreme motivator in the Christian life, not fear or lust for power and control.

Entertainment, Bible Narrative, and The Power of Shared Experience

Those of us who grew up in the 1980′s remember the popular slogan for Music Television: “I Want My MTV!” There were commercials, t-shirts, and a host of other paraphernalia on which the slogan was emblazoned. I came from a fairly conservative background and wasn’t allowed to watch MTV (not that we could, since the cable company STILL has yet to actually run cable to my parents’ house), but I was keenly aware of the mania that surrounded the cultural phenomenon that is still a fixture today.

For a number of years I’ve wondered what it is about entertainment (broadly defined in this article as reading material, music, movies, television, video games, and even the sin of pornography) that is so powerful. With the possible exception of reading, each of these forms of entertainment have a certain addictive quality. Of course, when I was a teenager I thought that the content of my entertainment was irrelevant. As I’ve gotten a little older, I’ve come to realize that there is a strange power in entertainment. I think I’m finally ready to take a “stab” at what that power is.

The power of entertainment is the power of a shared experience. When I read a book, watch a movie, or play a video game with a decent plot, I am involved in the experience. My heart races during the intense parts. I may like or dislike certain characters. I am emotionally and cognitively involved with the protagonist of every “story” I am told. Such is the power of narrative. It doesn’t matter whether or not the characters are real, I respond to them as if I knew them personally. Music seems to be even more powerful because melody, harmony, and rhythm blend together with the narrative of the lyrics. The musical elements reinforce the power of the experience.

This is what makes entertainment so wonderful….and so perilous. A protagonist that overcomes tragedy can strengthen us. A family in a movie that rallies during a time of difficulty can inspire us. Music that glorifies real love (as opposed to the whimsical, fickle sort) can draw us closer to a spouse. Entertainment that glorifies an immoral protagonist and emphasizes sensual “love” causes us to experience reality as the author sees it, sometimes quite graphically. We may be able to label actions, attitudes, and thoughts as “wrong”, but we cannot escape the experience. This is why we must be so careful what we allow our souls to imbibe.

I’ve also thought about the nature of sharing experience as it relates to the Bible. Perhaps the reason why God shared so much of His Truths through Old Testament narrative is that experience is so powerful. Most of the Bible, after all, is a narrative of one sort or another. There’s really very little in the Bible that doesn’t take the form of a narrative.

Perhaps God wants us to experience the lives of the men and women of the Bible. We can bask in the wonder of the Shekinah with Moses on Mount Sinai, slay the giant Goliath with David, stand boldly before the king with Esther, and sense the wonder of John as he writes: “And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father.” Experience is often a better teacher than men. How much better is it to experience life from those who have gone before, to learn the wisdom of the ages vicariously, than to have to learn everything the hard way?

Whether we consider the power of entertainment or the power of the Scriptural narrative, we cannot ignore or deny the hold that a “story” has on us. We must be careful to abhor evil, to cling to that which is good. Because it isn’t just a movie. It isn’t just the Bible. It’s an experience that, once shared, will be a part of us forever. If MTV is what I choose to watch, it really is “my” MTV.

Why I Use the KJV: Families of Texts

I sometimes get asked why I bother using the King James Version of the Bible. After all, there are plenty of translations that use modern language out there. However, I would like to suggest that readability isn’t the only issue when choosing a Bible version. We should be confident in the underlying text. We should also be comfortable with the translation philosophy and the purpose behind the translation. In this article, I’d like to trace the transmission of the Greek New Testament texts through history.

Texts are typically divided into families of transmission. There are three primary families that most students of the Bible will talk about: Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine (also known as the Traditional text or Majority text).

Western Texts

The Western Greek manuscripts are known for paraphrasing the words of Scripture. Now, I’m not opposed to paraphrasing when it comes to summarizing a passage of Scripture, when performing a play or skit produced from Scripture, or when teaching Bible. I am opposed to changing the original words of Scripture. If we cannot say with absolution and authority that God said something, then we shouldn’t even bother. If Jesus said “My words shall not pass away”, then He meant it. A quick read through Psalm 119 makes it very clear that God’s Word is eternal. The Western texts are a paraphrase of Scripture, not Scripture itself.

The Western texts also tend to add to Scripture from other books. This is most serious, since adding and taking away from God’s Word is a sin in the highest degree. I personally think that it is strange that anyone even considers these this group of texts to even be considered a family of text. The original words of Scripture have been paraphrased, taken away, and added to. It is no wonder that there are very few ancient papyri, uncials (Greek manuscripts written in all capital letters), or miniscules (Greek manuscripts written in all lower-case letters) available.

Alexandrian Texts

The Alexandrian texts originated in Alexandria, Egypt. Codex Vaticanus (found in the Vatican library) and Codex Sinaiticus (found in the trash-room of a monastery on Mt. Sinai) are usually placed in this family. There is some debate over exactly how many papyri and uncials are in the Alexandrian text family. The reason for this is that the majority of old manuscripts are really only fragments of manuscripts. However, for the sake of fairness, I am willing to go along with the assertion that the oldest manuscripts (uncials) and papyri are of this family. Those of modern scholarship (though I cringe to call it that) favor the Alexandrian text for the following reasons:

1. They believe the more difficult the original is to interpret, the closer it is to actual Scripture.
2. They believe the shorter the original is, the closer it is to actual Scripture.
3. They believe that older manuscripts are better manuscripts.

I have problems with all three assertions. First of all, there doesn’t seem to be any basis for believing that difficult is better. That assumption seems to be entirely arbitrary. This is believing that difficult is better than simple. This is a baseless claim.

To the second assertion, we must ask why shorter is better. This claim is once again arbitrary. Those who hold to this view maintain that Mark 16 should have ended with the disciples running scared from the empty tomb of Jesus. They believe that Mark never wrote of the women at the tomb or of Jesus’ ascension into Heaven. These people do not even believe that we can know the actual words of Scripture in the first place.

Finally, we come to the assertion that “older is better.” While this might be true of wine or cheese, it isn’t always true elsewhere. We must ask ourselves why these copies survived and others didn’t. First of all, the climate of Egypt is much  more suited to preserving parchment and papyri. It has very low humidity, less rainfall, and a narrow degree of temperature change. It would make sense for these texts to survive for longer periods of time. Secondly, Kirsopp Lake believed that the copiers of the Byzantine text type (having originated primarily in Antioch) would have emphasized a respectful disposal of worn-out manuscripts. A third explanation is that the Church (here capitalized to mean the body of true believers) did not heavily use the Alexandrian manuscripts since they were not in line with actual Scripture. In contrast, the Byzantine manuscripts were heavily used and therefore wore out much more quickly.

I also struggle with the acceptance of Alexandrian manuscripts because of the Gnostic apostasy that was heavily taught in Alexandria. I have few reasons to trust people who believed in such error. I would also point out that the two famous (infamous?) Alexandrian manuscripts were found in suspicious locations. Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library. This already makes it suspicious to some people’s minds, since many Christians are not Catholic because of doctrinal reasons. Sinaiticus, on the other hand, was found in a trash room, waiting to be burned. That the monks didn’t even consider Sinaiticus worth saving makes us suspect that they knew the errors it contained. Finally, we must consider that the Byzantine text is has, in recent years, been given a position of higher authority by some scholars. In fact, the American Bible Society’s Greek manuscript of 1966 has changed from the Alexandrian reading back to the Byzantine reading in thirteen different passages. (Zane C. Hodges, A Defense of the Majority-Text, pg 14.)

Byzantine Texts

The vast majority of New Testament manuscripts are of this family of texts. Zane C. Hodges writes that there are 81 papyri, 267 uncials, and 2,764 miniscules. Of these manuscripts, eighty to ninety percent are in agreement with the Traditional text. Some scholars, such as Riplinger, would put the percentage much higher, even as high as ninety-nine percent. Harry A. Sturz notes in The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism that the preservation of this vast body of manuscripts is God’s stamp of approval on this text. Indeed, it would make sense that the text most used by the early church would be the text preserved by God, and the vast numbers of manuscripts recovered throughout the centuries would be a great testament to God’s marvelous work of preservation. This was, in fact, the position of the New Testament church with regard to inspiration.
Many of these manuscripts appear to originate in Antioch. Textual critics argue that the Traditional text must be an edited version of the Alexandrian texts. This argument makes little sense historically for two reasons. First, a church which sent out missionaries across the known world was most likely a distributor and not a receiver of manuscripts. From the books of Acts and Galatians, we know that Barnabas, Paul, and Peter all ministered there. Secondly, Jews fleeing Jerusalem would have understood the importance of careful copying of Scripture and would have impressed this concept on all who were at the Antiochan church.
Another proof of the early church’s possession and use of the Traditional text is that the early church fathers quoted and paraphrased it frequently. Sturz lists eighteen examples of this as proof, citing Clement, Tertullian, Marcion, and Origen as examples. In fact, from the time of Chrysostom on, the Traditional text is the predominant text in patristic citations.While certain
The Traditional text is not only the most numerous family of texts, but is also used universally. These texts have been recovered from all over the Greco-Roman world. By contrast, the corrupt texts appear to originate in only Alexandria. The implication is obvious: the Traditional text is an accurate sampling of the text used throughout the known world in early times, while the Alexandrian texts come solely from Alexandria and the surrounding locales.

My point in all of this is that most modern translations come from the Alexandrian text family while most- if not all- older translations come from the Byzantine text family. That’s another story, though…

Survival of the Fittest and the Death of Secularism, Part 2

Dinesh D'souza

In my previous post, I listed some statistics regarding the numbers of Christians in the world. My purpose  in bringing those statistics to light is to point out that the secularist predictions that faith in God would become obsolete came nowhere near to becoming realized. In fact, if I had chosen to broaden the scope of my previous post, I could have included the number of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims in the world. While I do not believe in many- if not all- of the aspects of these religions, they prove nonetheless that humans have a deep need for a belief in the supernatural. Secularists, who are generally Darwinists and either Atheists or Agnostics, tend to be quite puzzled and frustrated by this development. In fact, the “New Atheists” are, as far as I am concerned, a reaction to the “failure” of religion to just….die.

The Darwinist has every right to be puzzled. A need to believe in the supernatural doesn’t quite fit their worldview, nor does it dovetail with any aspect of evolutionary biology. As D’nesh D’souza asks, “Why would evolved creatures like human beings, bent on survival and reproduction, do things that seemed unrelated and even inimical to those objectives?” Religious people in general do things that go against these supposedly innate objectives. They build cathedrals, sacrifice animals, fast, tithe, recite prayers, visit distant holy lands, evangelize people in the farthest reaches of the world, and some even die for their beliefs. All of these things, to one degree or another, go against these evolutionary objectives.

So how do the Darwinists explain this “anomaly”? Richard Dawkins speculates that there might be some “hyperactivity in a particular node of the brain” that causes people to seek religions. He also believes that the idea of the eternal “spreads because it caters to wishful thinking.” What possible benefit could their be for the human “animal” to develop comforting beliefs that are false? Would it really be helpful for me to imagine that the tractor-trailer barrelling toward me is really a fuzzy pink bunny? Does it really comfort me to imagine that the smell of smoke filling my house is actually the odor of freshly-baking bread? As D’Souza points out, wishful thinking of this sort would have been weeded out by the “survival of the fittest” principle long ago.

Randy Alcorn has a much better explanation. He reminds his congregation that if you pit the “came from nothing and going nowhere” explanation for your existence versus the “special creation of a loving God” explanation for your existence, only Christianity is capable of giving every single person on this planet a motivating sense of purpose. This sense of purpose is evidenced by the sheer number of conversions (mentioned in my previous post) as well as the size of the Christian family. While atheistic Russia is losing 700,00 people a year due to a low birth rate and atheistic Japan is set to lose 30 million in just a few decades, many more religious nations are producing two to three times as many children as would be needed to replace the current population. While atheistic worldviews view procreation as a means of continuing the species or- in a practical sense- a means of self-gratification, Christianity views children as a gift from God. Christianity simply offers people something that Secularism can’t: a sense of transcendent purpose. With that transcendent purpose comes confidence and hope. Darwinism insists that humans do adapt, Christianity helps people to adapt.

I will end this section with a quote from D’souza:

My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. Atheism is a bit like homosexuality: one is not sure where it fits into the doctrine of natural selection. Why would nature select people who mate with others of the same sex, a process with no reproductive advantage at all? It seems equally perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no higher purpose to life or the universe.

Perhaps a better explanation for a belief in religion in general and Christianity in particular is that God has made us to crave Him. In that sense, maybe Dawkins isn’t too far off after all…

But Deliver Us From Evil

Ravi Zacharias once said that evil has taken on forms that astonish the world. This was illustrated very dramatically when Bruce Pardo (left) drove to his former in-laws’ house and opened fire on his former relatives- dressed as Santa Claus. His first action when the door was opened was to shoot an eight-year-old girl in the face. Details are still sketchy, but he shot several others and then torched the house using a homemade flame thrower, which he had hidden in what looked like a large Christmas present.

I think we would all agree that what Pardo did was evil, and few would doubt that a man so deranged could be anything but evil. When we read the accounts of the survivors and police officers, when we consider the tragic events that took place on Christmas Eve, we are right to be horrified. Evil in all forms should disgust us, but this “new” form that Evil has taken on should shock and stun us. This is an appropriate reaction to sin. As the sensation of pain when we fall is an indication that our nerves are intact, reeling from the shock of such horrific accounts tells us that our soul is intact.

What is equally shocking, however, is that some are not shocked, amazed, or stunned by this tradgedy. Some have used the incident to joke about in-law problems. Some have used this event to point out the “problems” with Christmas. Most disturbingly, some have barely even noticed. Evil is spreading so rapidly and is making so many inroads into society, many have become desensitized and indifferent to its effects. It enters into the soul of our culture through movies, music, video games, television, and even art. These forms of entertainment have been known to mock the sacred, glorify violence, exalt immorality, and justify hatred while bankrupting the mind, skewing the will, and ravaging the emotions. What so often goes on in the name of entertainment is in fact the rape of the very soul of humanity. Let us remember the importance of crying for deliverance from evil, abhoring sin, and cleaving to that which is good.

What Lies Beneath

This week I’ve been working with my in-laws on remodeling a bathroom in our home. At first, we were  just going to replace the toilet because it had a very fine crack in the upper tank. However, we quickly realized that the “stick-on” tile had gotten too wet around the toilet, and we’d have to re-tile the bathroom too. Then we decided to also replace the shower, which turned out to be a good thing since we discovered a world of water damage beneath our bathroom. Both layers of plywood had rotted to the point that I fell through a few times while taking the tile out. In the end, we were left with joists and a two-foot section of plywood floor that was somehow still dry. The shower and toilet had been leaking in multiple places, and we had to completely replace the floor, shower, tile, and toilet as a result. It was a mess!

That wasn’t the worst of it, though. In the walls, floor, and beneath our house, massive amounts of mold and mildew were growing. The mildew was growing in “veins” between layers rotting wood. Now we knew why we were both so sick all of the time. We had no idea that such rottenness and filth were just inches away, buried beneath a thin layer of tile. It was there all the time, sickening us, damaging our house, and setting us up for a nasty surprise.

As a relative and I were tearing out all of the filth, it occurred to me that this was a perfect picture of what evil does to the soul. Evil isn’t just a label given to a random assortment of feelings, thoughts, or deeds. It is rather a category of feelings, thoughts, or deeds that violate, corrupt, and rot a person at their very soul. If enough people in a society imbibe evil, it will rot out the society as well.

God is not some cosmic killjoy bent on ruining fun and removing rights. He knows how to keep the human soul safe from rottenness and decay, and He wants us to enjoy our lives rather than ruin them. I’ve written before on how holiness acts as a fence to guard Beauty and prevent it from being spoiled. The Soul is a beautiful thing crafted in the image of its Creator. Holiness prevents it from being spoiled. We must never forget that morality and ethics are not just little buzzwords. Those are simply two aspects of the Law God has written into the universe. Obedience to Him doesn’t stifle free will; it promotes it, for only in obedience are we truly free to enjoy our Father’s world.

You Don’t Need God to be Good…

Ah, those crazy guys known as “the New Atheists.” They’re kinder, gentler, and eager to please. They’re also quick to point out that you don’t have to be a Christian in order to be a moral person. They cry: “You see! We don’t need God anymore! We don’t need Him as Creator, we don’t need Him as judge, and we certainly don’t need Him as Savior! We don’t need God to scare us into being good!” I have no doubt that there are many moral atheists out there. Most Westerners (and the vast majority of Easterners, for that matter) are decent people. I am, however, just a bit confused on one major point.

…but you do need God for there to be such a thing as Good.

How can you say that you are a good person, a moral person even, when you don’t believe God exists? If there is no God, where are we getting our basis of “good” from? Not from society, that’s for sure. Our customs and laws always change, many national laws conflict with each other, and there are some twisted societies, such as those set up by Nazism and Communism (both Atheistic societies, by the way) whose laws are the most immoral things around. Morality doesn’t come from nature, as that whole “survival of the fittest” thing doesn’t go too well when you applied to natural or social Darwinism. Only the existence of God explains any sense of morality. We aren’t talking about high ideals here. Good must either exist apart from the actions of mankind, or it does not exist at all. Only an immutable Being is capable of producing an immutable Law.

You don’t have to take a Christian’s word for it. Nietzsche was hardly a Bible-thumper in his day. He’s famous for his “God is dead,” statement. Most Christians are still quite up in arms over that , however, they forget Nietzsche’s point in making that statement. Nietzsche saw that moral absolutes have no foundations apart from God. If society ignores (or denies) His existence, there is a massive void in its structure that must somehow be filled. It’s a problem that has never quite gone away.

The New Atheists may be right when they say they are good atheists, but they will have a hard time proving it without God.

What’s Right for You IS What’s Right for Me

I’ve written a bit on what I have termed “The Law of Beauty.” I’ve spoken of how Beauty is a Sacred thing because it springs from the mind of God and because it is guarded by holiness itself. In fact, things are beautiful only to the extent that they “measure up” to God’s standard. I’ve even gone so far as to say that God’s Law of Morality is a natural result of the Law of Beauty.

Of course, the moment I assert that there is such a thing as a universal Law of Morality there will be some who cry foul. “You can’t say that there are things that are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. It’s up to cultures to decide.” I’ve simplified the argument, of course, but that’s what they’re saying when they get right down to it.

It’s not just my Christian belief that causes me to believe in a Law of Morality. There is evidence of it within human nature. There are certain common beliefs that express themselves regardless of what time or in what culture a person is born. While societies may have had different instances in which murder or stealing were considered acceptable, I am not aware of any society in which everyone could steal or murder for any reason. It may be acceptable in some cultures to be promiscuous, have many wives, or commit a homosexual act, but I am not aware of a culture in the world that permitted everyone to have any partner they wanted at any time they wanted. The same could be said for every category of immorality conceivable.

Consider also that even those who don’t believe in the Law of Morality are nonetheless at its mercy. They may vehemently deny that promiscuity is immoral, but they are deeply hurt when a spouse is unfaithful. Or turn the scenario around. They deny that promiscuity is immoral, but use every excuse in the book to explain away their affair. If there is no such thing as morality, why do they experience guilt? Why do they feel a need to excuse their actions if they did nothing wrong? And, furthermore, how can a person even make an excuse without the Law of Morality? Shouldn’t a person without an inner sensitivity to a Law of Morality be blithely indifferent to the “rightness” of their actions?

Think about it: a man may blame his adultery on the fact that his wife hasn’t treated him fairly on some point. Without the Law of Morality, what is the difference between fair and unfair? Why do we think that humans have any rights at all without the Law of Morality? There is a difference between legal rights and human rights, after all. Otherwise, we shouldn’t feel any outrage at the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, or Hussein. They were the leaders of their governments, the writers and maintainers of their respective laws.

If, however, there is a thing as human rights, then there are beliefs concerning those rights that are better than others. In theory, your own beliefs concerning human rights are better than Hitler’s. In asserting that one belief is better than another, you create the possibility that a perfect standard of rights does exist. This perfect standard of rights is the Law of Morality.