 |
|
|
|
My Take: Why Christians should pray for Christopher Hitchens
By the Rev. Robert Barron, Special to CNN Perhaps you’ve heard of Christopher Hitchens. He is a British writer and cultural commentator who lives and works in Washington, D.C. For decades now, he has been observing the political/societal scene and writing about it in a particularly insightful, witty and acerbic manner. Early in his career, he was something of a Trotskyite, but in the years following September 11, 2001, he emerged as a strong advocate of the Iraq war and, much to the chagrin of his colleagues on the left, a supporter of George W. Bush. He is best known, certainly, for his recent contributions as a critic of religion. His book "God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything" appeared a couple of years ago and proved to be a bestseller. Since the publication of this text, Hitchens has traveled the country debating a series of religious thinkers—Christian, Muslim and Jewish—meeting them with an extremely swift mind and wickedly barbed tongue. Along with Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, he is one of the “four horsemen” of the New Atheism, the movement that advocates an aggressive, take-no-prisoners approach to the claims of faith. I think it’s fair to say that Hitchens is playing today the role that another brilliant Englishman, Bertrand Russell, played nearly a century ago, namely that of religion’s public enemy No. 1. Just a few weeks ago, I picked up Hitchens’s latest, an autobiography entitled "Hitch-22." The book is a lot like the man: by turns funny, strange, deeply wise, infuriating, outrageous, critical, sometimes just plain baffling—and never dull. Something that surprised and intrigued me was Hitchens’ affection for two of my own literary heroes, Bob Dylan and Evelyn Waugh. He echoes a number of top critics in saying that Dylan should be mentioned along with T.S. Eliot and W.H. Auden as one of the poetic giants of the 20th century. (Now I’ve said something like that for years, but people usually just write me off as an overly enthusiastic Dylan fanatic). And for Waugh, the author of, among many other novels, "A Handful of Dust" and "Helena," Hitchens has almost unlimited enthusiasm. Here’s why I say I was surprised: Both Dylan and Waugh are inescapably religious writers. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to understand and appreciate their work apart from the deeply Biblical sensibility that they share. In songs from all parts of his career—"A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall," "Blowin’ in the Wind," "All Along the Watchtower," "New Morning," "Gotta Serve Somebody," "Every Grain of Sand"—Dylan draws on the Scriptures, and Waugh’s "Brideshead Revisited" is one of the greatest celebrations of Catholicism in all of modern literature. I confess I began to wonder whether, despite his brassy atheism, Mr. Hitchens didn’t have a good deal of sensitivity to things religious. This was on my mind when word came out last week that Hitchens was suffering from esophageal cancer, a particularly aggressive and unforgiving form of the disease. I realize that certain believers couldn’t resist the temptation to see in this misfortune the avenging hand of God: the one who for so long blasphemed God was now getting his just reward. But it’s always a very tricky business to interpret the purpose of the divine providence. After all, plenty of good, even saintly, people die prematurely from terrible diseases all the time, and lots of atheists and vile sinners live long prosperous lives before dying peacefully in their beds. Hitchens’ disease is indeed ingredient in God’s providence, since at the very least it was permitted by the one whose wisdom “stretches from end to end mightily.” But what it means and why it was allowed remain essentially opaque to us. Might it be an occasion for the famous atheist to reconsider his position? Perhaps. Might it be the means by which Hitchens comes to think more deeply about the ultimate meaning of things? Could be. Might it bring others to faith? Maybe. Might it have a significance that no one on the scene today could even in principle grasp? Probably. But what struck me with particular power as I surveyed the Catholic media was that the vast, vast majority of Catholics reported Hitchens’ disease and then, with transparent sincerity, urged people to pray for him. In making that recommendation, of course, they were on very sure ground indeed. Jesus said, “Love your enemies; bless those who curse you; pray for those who maltreat you." Christopher Hitchens is undoubtedly the enemy of Christianity—even of Christians—but he is also a child of God, loved into being and destined for eternal life. Therefore, followers of Jesus must pray for him and want what is best for him. Hitchens seeks by means of specious argument, insinuation, and sometimes plain smear-tactics to undermine religion. He ought to be opposed, vigorously, with counter-argument and clarification of fact. But all the while, he ought to be respected. One of the greatest Catholic apologists of all time, G.K. Chesterton, debated the agnostic George Bernard Shaw up and down England, and their arguments were often pointed and aggressive; but after the debates, the two friends could be seen drinking and laughing together. That’s a model of how a Christian treats his intellectual opponents. So read Christopher Hitchens; disagree with him and get angry with him; defend the faith against his attacks. And pray for him. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robert Barron. soundoff (1,319 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next »Post a comment
Next entry »Music festival brings world faiths together
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Dan Gilgoff and Eric Marrapodi, with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2010 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Help | Advertising Practices
Editor's Note: The Rev. Robert Barron, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, is founder of 
As long as Love exist so does God.
There is no god, never has been, never will be. Jesus is as real as Zeus, who is as real as any other god humans have invented. You are an atheist with respect to thousands of gods, the only reason you believe your god is the right one is because you were born in this time period and in a certain geographical location.
Q
First you prove to me that everything came from nothing.....
Joesph- I've never claimed everything came from nothing (nor does science), but given your sidestep response, I assume you now recognize the futility of demanding proof of a negative. Existing for thousands of years doesn't actually offer any real evidence either. That people believe something doesn't make it true. Does the fact that many people believe in the tenets of Islam make it true? Will it become more true after another 1000 years?
No gods exist. Sorry, you're just talking to yourself when you pray.
Considering Judaism and Christianity have existed for millenia, I believe the burden of proof in God's non-existence falls to non-believers. I suppose that all those centuries of believers have been victims of the greatest on-going lies ever to exist? Wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution in case you're wrong? If this is all there is then you must absolutely fear death. I really pity those who think Man's intelligence is infinite and everything can and should be explained scientifically.
Joseph, prove Zeus doesn't exist...
"Hitchens’ disease is indeed ingredient in God’s providence, since at the very least it was permitted by the one whose wisdom “stretches from end to end mightily.”"
And, dear Rev., your evidence that this is from that invisible guy in the sky?
Dear Father Barron,
Judging from these responses, you've got your work cut out for you. It's a good thing you are so good at what you do – explaining the truths of the Catholic faith. I am praying for Mr. Hitchens and you!
Hitler wasn't a Christian you uneducated moron. Read a book some day. It might make you giggle with glee.
In his numerous speeches, he specifically references his Christian faith when targeting Jews for their alleged "Deicide". Then again, if he wasn't a "real Christian", what does that say of the faith so easily mislead by a monster?
Hitler was a Christian and the Catholic Church send birthday greeting to Hitler each year including in 1945 – these are facts – not Sunday School fiction that Hitler was an Atheist. Christians have the blood of 6 million Jews on their hands not Atheists. Stalin was a failed priest who studied religion for 4 years and was only booted out of the Russian Orthodox Church because he didn’t pay his tuition fees. Do your research.
Stalin was a proud atheist. And if you guys ever seen the history channel or opened up a book. Hitler ,in essence, made his own religion. Twisted and bended out of Christianity.
I want to put this fact, if you would pay attention to the doctrin it is clear that the Church teaches NOT to take ALL of the Bible literaly. For example, the book of Genesis is NOT a scientifical nor historical account, it is a PHYLOSOPHICAL BOOK. Nowhere does the Bibal say "TAKE IT SERIOUSLY", or anything like it.
Another fact is that the Bible is not a book, it is a collection of books in which it must NOT be read the same. For example, if you're in a library and you are going to read a biography of Washington, Alice in Wonderland, a newspaper, a poetry of Shakespeare, a medicin book, and a cooking book: are you really going to read them the SAME way?
Also I want to point out that the was made by God, BUT it is lead by humans, so we must NOT think that EVERYONE is a saint. We are not to be shocked by the things it's members do or react for it has happened to every institution church, nation, school, gender, ect.
By the way, I know that religion has done horrible things over the centuries, but it must not be called as if it was the ONLY one. In the French Revolution thousand religious people were killed in the name of freedom, justice, and reason. I'm not saying that those three are wrong, what I'm saying that those three were interpreted wrong, because science and religion DO go together. Why? Because the Church helps science understand the creation in a phylosophical way and science helps the Church understand the creation in a complex way. In other words: Science=How Church=Why.
Adding to the "Why must religion not be called the only one of doing horrible things?" is socialism-communism. One of the ideals of socialism-communism was no religion, which brought millions of death through people like Stalin and Hitler, which are the top two people who have killed the most.
God bless you all (believers or not) and please pray for all of the sicks! Bye
Can you provide a list of the stories that are metaphorical and which ones are literal for all of us? I am sure that everyone will share your opinion and we will stop all religious debate. If you were to read a history book (It really doesnt matter to me HOW you read it) you will discover that Hitler was a Christian and Stalin spent 6 years studying to be a priest. Please provide verifiable evidence of your gods existence and stop with your claimed "facts" that only you seem able to explain.
I wonder how the people who don't see any harm in praying for Hitchens would feel if they learned that Wiccans, for example, were casting spells to help Pat Robertson? I wonder what Robertson himself would think of that, or if anyone from any other religious tradition made a show of praying for him?
I did read the article.
We don't care if you read Christopher Hitchens and would prefer you actually questioned your bronze age books. You'll fight immediately and condemn us to or promise us a position in locations you have no evidence for. You'll defend your immortality with logical fallacies and pseudo science. Don't prey for us and get off your knees.
Nice of you to group "Vile Sinners" in the same sentence as Atheist. Yes, "pray" for him, because the Catholics/Christians know all, because it says so in a 2000 year old book that has been altered throughout that time. Maybe the horrible Atheist will see the error of his way. Apparently, the Catholic church is no different from Hitchens in assuming they have all the right answers.
You people make me SICK. Point less arguing over what? NOTHING- Religion is NOTHING! it always has and always will be NOTHING. Not one person on this planet NOT EVEN ONE has seen god in the flesh yet we have thousands and millions of people and their churches that promote all things god and holy .What a waste of buildings, what a waste of human time. All churches in existence should be burned down until I see birds poop on the crumblings of it's ashes. The only thing I believe in is fate and humans in this world your fate is nigh. Nigh to the end. See you till then. ~A
His Mercy will endureth for ever, it's eternal. Your Hate will consume you.
All this 'Pray for Christopher Hitchens' is just pathetic and sick. You're just underscoring every negative element of your cult that Christopher has helped us understand over the years.
You are attempting to profit off his illness and the arrogance is breathtaking, the mock triumphalist tone is tone deaf and attempt at opportunistic 'told-you-so' baiting makes me sick. At least wait until he's no longer with us, if it comes to that. Whether it's in one year or in twenty, you'll get your opportunity, please just hold out?
This is tacky and tasteless. Please stop.
I find it kind of strange that believers require "proof of evolution". They look at the mountains of evidence for evolutionary theory and attempt to disprove everything about it. They think that if they find holes in the theory they will discredit evolutionary theory. Yet, they require and seek no evidence for the existence of their god. Why do they not apply the same level of skepticisim to the theory of creationism? Science loves skeptics. If holes in a theory are discovered, it gives science a new opportunity to fill the gaps with new information that will further solidify our understanding. Eventually, science will fill any holes in evolutionary theory. On a side note, disproving evolution theory does not prove creation theory. Any theory requires it's own facts and proof. I am still waiting for any proof of creation theory that does not require the bible to validate it. If creation theory is valid, you will not need the bible to prove it because the facts will stand on their own merrit.
You can't honour creationism with the label "theory." The biblical creation story is a myth. It took something that the ancients knew nothing about, human origins, and told a story that explained something else, why the people rested on the seventh day. Of what actual use would a creation theory be to science? It's not testable through experiment. It isn't useful in predicting new discoveries. Without it being told in the bible there would be nothing in nature to even suspect that God was responsible.
jeff:
I have tried to post responses to you, but it appears that the administrators of this blog are "believers" and are deleting anything that does not conform to their "beliefs". I'm going to send cnn an email about the situation and see if we get any results; I'm not going to hold my breath.
Personally, I don't think any human is deleting posts. I suspect there are technical problems that drops posts when the thread gets a bit long. I've seen posts from both sides disappear that were completely bland in nature. I would be very surprised if they have anyone replying to complaints about it.
kate:
I am sure you are 100% correct, and it's past time that somebody called me on the comment. I just wanted to see what would happen.
The blog, however, is extremely erratic; prob due to lack of server capacity.
BradLW: You have to forgive my fellow believers in Christ here. They aren't typically taught to think for themselves, but rather to believe the "Word of God" at face value. That leads to some very silly conclusions. The sad thing is that many of the people teaching them have little experience or training, it becomes easier not to think but just to pass on what was taught to them. If you never think for yourself you end up passing on the same old junk you were taught by people that should have known better.
We don't all think the same, it's just that the radical ones tend to be the most outspoken. I'm sorry if we have offended you.
NL,
I didn't say that. Those are Brad's words, not mine. Nothing to see here.
"You may not believe in evolution..."
I didn't say I didn't believe in evolution. I question it's validity, that's all. I have no choice but to. The facts are the facts, and right now the facts clearly indicate the concept of macro-evolution is far from certain. This issue is clearly an issue of agnosticism, no?
Who is trying to force one's faith now? Unbelievable. I want science to continue to study the theory of evolution and to find the truth to its veracity should it be real. I DO NOT want, however, science to WANT evolution to be real because the concept has become so politicized that it now must be real, no matter what. Kinda like anthropogenic global warming, where the climate scientists cherry-pick and create selective Observation & Testing to find their biased results– as clearly evidenced by the email trail of climategate. Karl Popper would be flabbergasted with the AGW crowd, also.
“For the first time, the AAMC and HHMI are recommending that evolution be one of the basic sciences students learn before they come to medical school,”
Figures. Why would I expect anything different from the modern Fascist-Progressive culture in which we now find ourselves? In a truly free and insecure world, medical schools would choose the best overall students, regardless of whether they were home-schooled or not, regardless of whether they studied an unproven and highly politicized science or not.
Ridiculous.
Furthermore, my basic understanding of Darwinian medicine or Evolution as applied to medicine is that very little of it is new material. It is packaged material of stuff we already know. It's like a 'greatest hits' compilation of a rock band. Nothing in it is new, but packaged together it is a new group of material.
That's all it is.
Sorry, if I misquoted you. This site is really wonky. I find that I have to post something three times before it actually takes, if it takes at all. Weird, eh?
Isn't questioning evolution's validity the same thing as disbelieving in it? Just asking?
When I say that I believe in evolution what I mean is that, of all the ideas put forward as explanations for the origins of life, evolution makes the strongest case based on the evidence we have today. Creation myths were likely the best explanations people could come up with before the advent of science, but our knowledge has grown considerably since then, wouldn't you agree? Besides, which creation myth is the correct one? Intelligent design doesn't seem to even be interested in answering this, or how a creator could have designed all life from scratch.
Is it Fascist-Progressive to expect a certain standard of education of America's youth? Would you say the same of an expectation that students learn algebra or physics?
Your understanding of evolution's role in modern medicine is quite incorrect.
I haven't read the entirety of the countless posts here , but perhaps a comment about.....you know....the article?
Brad,
It's not so much they we do not know enough about the brain, we don't know enough about reality and where it came from. We know nothing. So if we don't know enough about our brains, how in the world are we ever going to figure out cosmology and quantum physics?
And, of course, we haven't figured out evolution. Too many unanswerable questions and contradictions. I don't understand your gap metaphor. Where did the two gaps come from? My understanding of the criticism towards macro-evolution doesn't involve such obtuse reasoning as would be suggested by your metaphor, but rather genuine criticism the evolutionists can't reliably answer.
"Of course you can respond that a little investigation behind the scientific sites discloses that there may be a definite "scientific" bias and such an observation would be true."
WRONG. Not a scientific bias, Brad. A bias based on NEEDING to prove evolution, much like theists NEED God to be real. This issue has forced the evolutionists into a position where it is now required that they find a predetermined result. Their fiddling and fudging and constant rewriting of their theories says volumes about this particular scientific pursuit.
It seems likely you would find objection with my website, because it is not FORCING the unproven concept of evolution, but rather honestly asking itself if such a theory is correct. Would Karl Popper, I wonder, lend his approval more to a "biased scientific" site like yours, or a site like mine that questions the current findings so that it may objectively find the truth?
Truthinscience appears to have PLENTY of secular scientists on their staff from the very finest universities in the United Kingdom.
"I don't care what people "believe" so long as they don't try to force their "beliefs" on me or anyone else by means of governmental support; that's called "theocracy" and theocracies have never been conducive to learning let alone the welfare of the general populace!!!!!"
I agree. Theocracy, however, is far from the only religion that threatens freedom. Progressivism/Socialism/Statism is an abhorrent cancer on personal responsibility and liberty, and is FAR, FAR more likely to afflict this world, right now in space and time, than theism ever would.
We need to be careful or we will be living the 20th century all over again. And no, I am not a conservative. I'm a Libertarian.
jeff:
You need to go and learn more about science.
" . . . we don't know enough about reality and where it came from."
reality [rɪˈælɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them See also conceptualism Compare appearance [6]
in reality actually; in fact
We can go down a real philosophical rat hole here, but I don't think that is necessary.
Science deals with the first three definitions, not the philosophical number “4.” Currently, the only reality that we are able to deal with is that provided by our five physical senses and we know that those are controlled by the brain. Anyone who would argue against this is either just being obstinate or has some major psychological problems. Current science is based on empiricism since that is what works best with our senses and provides us with by far the majority of our daily experiences to say nothing about all of the material advantages that have accrued to human kind as the direct result of using the five senses for investigation of the “natural” world as opposed to the “supernatural” world. Obviously the “supernatural” world is what religious people try to convince us unbelievers about; currently we ain't buyin it if we can't see, smell, taste, feel, or hear it; or any combination thereof. Therefore we know a lot about “empirical” reality. So you see, we do know quite a lot as compared to 350, 175, 86, 43 or even 22 years ago and the rate of knowledge acquisition is expanding exponentially. Do we know as much as we will know? Of course not! It's an ongoing journey(it's called “evolution”).
jeff:
“ . . . how in the world are we ever going to figure out cosmology and quantum physics?”
I hope you have your tongue in your cheek! You know the answer to what is basically a question that I would expect a grade school student to ask, not someone who at least has a speaking acquaintance with scientific methods.
“And, of course, we haven't figured out evolution. Too many unanswerable questions and contradictions.”
C'mon! This is basic xtian apologetics nonsense. By far the majority of scientists around the world – not just in the U.S.N.A – agree with the basics of evolution and are aware of all the benefits that have been derived from the Theory over the last 150+ plus years. There are – most probably – only mostly temporarily “unanswered” questions not “unanswerable” ones. Temporarily unanswered questions are what drives the scientific engine for goodness sake! Evolution is a lot more figured out than you currently seem to “believe”; do a little research and you will find that this is a true statement and you might even replace some of your “beliefs” with “knowledge”. Is the Theory of Evolution complete?
Again, OF COURSE NOT! If the doers of the world waited for “complete” answers before asking pertinent questions, we would still be in the dark ages without all of the wonderful things that science has, and continues, to provide. Only “believers” say ignorant thinks like, “my religion is complete because god put all the answers in my sacred book.”( and then of course they proceed to interpret the heck out of it even though all the answers are already there!)
jeff:
My “metaphor” is directly applicable to your statement,
“The gaps in the fossil record. They find more fossils every day, yet their results not only fail to lead lead them closer to a concrete understanding of evolution, but they continue to contradict previously held evidence for their belief. They are no closer now of proving evolution based on fossil records than they were when Darwin first proposed his theory in the 19th century. In fact, such contradictory and apparently befuddling findings have split the evolutionists into two groups.”
which, BTW is a COMPLETELY FALLACIOUS statement on your part. Goodness! All you have to do is read a couple of undergrad biology textbooks to understand how wrong that statement is!
The point of the “metaphor” is that every time that a gap is split by a new fossil find, “believers” say, “look; the evolutionists just doubled the problem again!”, I.e instead of there being one gap between “A
and “C” there are now two! No acknowledgment whatsoever for the fact that another small, verified piece of “knowledge” has been gained; i.e. we don't “believe” you so therefore it doesn't exist.
jeff:
“It seems likely you would find objection with my website, because it is not FORCING the unproven concept of evolution, but rather honestly asking itself if such a theory is correct.”
Noooooo; I find objection w/your website because it almost invariably presents articles that start out w/ the premise that evolution is not a valid scientific Theory. And “scientifically biased” is, to a certain extent, true of the science sites due to the fact that they start out with the premise that the scientific method works.
jeff:
“Would Karl Popper, I wonder, lend his approval more to a "biased scientific" site like yours, or a site like mine that questions the current findings so that it may objectively find the truth?”
Please explain the discrepancy between the immediately above and: “WRONG. Not a scientific bias, Brad. A bias based on NEEDING to prove evolution, . . .”.
You have used another common xtian apologetic ploy by equating “scientifically biased” with “biased scientific”. Hopefully you see the difference between the two. This type of thing will do nothing for your credibility.
jeff:
“Truthinscience appears to have PLENTY of secular scientists on their staff from the very finest universities in the United Kingdom.”
and this, mine:
“ . . . a little investigation into the movers behind the site gives one the uneasy feeling that there may be a definite "religious" bias to the site.
aren't even close to being the same thing. If the management of the organization is controlled by “religious” people (which it appears to be), one has to question whether or not the work done by its employees will be biased in the religious direction.
jeff:
“I agree. Theocracy, however, is far from the only religion that threatens freedom. Progressivism/Socialism/Statism is an abhorrent cancer on personal responsibility and liberty, and is FAR, FAR more likely to afflict this world, right now in space and time, than theism ever would.”
“Theocracy” is not a religion.
the·oc·ra·cy
–noun, plural -cies.
1. a form of government in which god or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2.a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3.a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
Again, history pretty well shows us that theocracies are among the most violent of any form of government.
It truly amazes me that each fundamentalist xtian group in our country seems to think that its doctrine and dogma will be the controlling ones.
No Jeff, I don't spend time there (still replying?) I leave the teachers to their teaching which is what they do well there. Personally, I don't have the patience for that. But if you have questions about evolution and the beginning of the universe, and it's obvious you do. That's the place to go and have the experts explain it.
jeff:
I think you have said it all when you say, "I've said it before and I will say it again: I really don't care if evolution is real or not. Such a concept doesn't change my belief in God as a creator or Jesus as a teacher. The two realities are not exclusive from each other."
It is exactly that type of "belief" vs "knowledge" that separates religion from science and may always do so.
One of the fascinating (to me) things about the human animal is that we have evolved(pursuant to the best current scientific evidence) in such a manner that allows the center of our being(the brain) to allow us to believe anything we want to regardless of how much scientific evidence is in opposition to any particular belief.
I once had a conversation, with a "born again" person, that basically went like this:
Me: People can believe anything they want to.
BAP: That's right, we can!
Me: Yup; we can be in a convenience store when our best friend comes in and robs the place at gunpoint and believe that it really wasn't our best friend.
End of encounter.
The point is that "belief" has, as best we have been able to determine to this point in space and time, the limitation that it is not based on any verifiable and falsifiable data. But "believers" will invariably say something on the order of, "I don't care what you show me, I know that god is real because I have experienced her/it/him in my life." Yeah, well, I have no doubt that they have experienced that type of brain activity, but that doesn't bring us any closer to "proof" that any god/s exists/exist. It simply shows us that we still don't fully understand the human brain; science continues to bring us closer and closer because of data derived from observation and testing AND OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . ..
Another example of what I call "typical" "believer" thinking is the following:
We can scientifically establish that we have "0" and "2", but we haven't yet established that we have "1". There exists a "gap" between "0" and "2"; that's one "gap". We are finally able, through OBSERVATION AND TESTING ad nausem, to show that we now have "1"; this obviously is a narrowing of the "gap" between "0" and "2". The "typical" "believer" response is that we now have two gaps where there was only previously one and therefore we have doubled the problem! What we actually have is a tremendous educational problem. Problem is, it is impossible to help educate those who aren't interested in learning!!! Particularly when that "learning" might make it necessary to change some "beliefs".
I have to disagree with you about the "truthinscience" site; a little investigation into the movers behind the site gives one the uneasy feeling that there may be a definite "religious" bias to the site. Of course you can respond that a little investigation behind the scientific sites discloses that there may be a definite "scientific" bias and such an observation would be true. The difference, of course, is that the "bias" behind most of the "scientific" sites is that that "bias" is based on . . . OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . .not "belief".
I don't care what people "believe" so long as they don't try to force their "beliefs" on me or anyone else by means of governmental support; that's called "theocracy" and theocracies have never been conducive to learning let alone the welfare of the general populace!!!!!
1