 |
|
|
|
|
December 16th, 2011
04:45 PM ET
My Take: An evangelical remembers his friend Hitchens
By Larry Alex Taunton, Special to CNN (CNN)– I first met Christopher Hitchens at the Edinburgh International Festival. We were both there for the same event, and foremost in my mind was the sort of man I would meet. A journalist and polemicist, his reputation as a critic of religion, politics, Britain's royal family, and, well, just about everything else was unparalleled. As an evangelical, I was certain that he would hate me. When the expected knock came at my hotel room door, I braced for the fire-breather who surely stood on the other side of it. With trepidation, I opened it and he burst forth into my room. Wheeling on me, he began the conversation as if it was the continuance of some earlier encounter: “The Archbishop of Canterbury has effectively endorsed the adoption of Sharia law. Can you believe that? Whatever happened to a Church of England that believed in something?” He alternated between sips of his Johnnie Walker and steady tugs on a cigarette. My eyebrows shot up. “‘Believed in something?’ Why, Christopher, you sound nostalgic for a church that actually took the Bible seriously.” He considered me for a moment and smiled. “Indeed. Perhaps I do.”
There was never a formal introduction. There was no need for one. From that moment, I knew that I liked him. We immediately discovered that we had much in common. We were descendants of martial traditions; we loved literature and history; we enjoyed lively discussion with people who didn’t take opposition to a given opinion personally; and we both found small talk boring. Over the next few years, we would meet irregularly. The location was invariably expensive, a Ritz Carlton or a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. He disliked cheap restaurants and cheap liquor. In his view, plastic menus were indicative of bad food. I never ate so well as when I was with Hitch.  Christopher Hitchens, standing, debates his friend Larry Taunton. More than bad food, however, he disliked unintelligent conversation. “What do you think about gay marriage?” He didn’t wait for a response. “I don’t get it. I really don’t. It’s like wanting the worst of both worlds.” He drank deeply of his whiskey. “I mean, if I was gay, I would console myself by saying, ‘Well, I’m gay, but at least I don’t have to get married.’” That was classic Hitch. Witty. Provocative. Unpredictable. Calling him on his cell one day, he sounded like he was flat on his back. Breathing heavily, there was desperation in his voice. “What’s wrong?” I asked, anticipating some tragedy. “Only minutes ago, I was diagnosed with esophageal cancer.” He was almost gasping. I didn’t know what to say. No one ever does in such moments, so we resort to meaningless stock phrases like, “I’m sorry.” Instead, I just groaned. I will never forget his response: “I had plans for the next decade of my life. I think I should cancel them.” He asked me to keep the matter private until he could tell his family and make the news public. Hesitatingly, I told him that while I knew that he did not believe in such things, I would pray for him. He seemed genuinely moved by the thought. “We are still on for our event in Birmingham, right?” He asked. I was stunned. Sensing my surprise, he continued. “I have made a commitment,” he insisted. “Besides, what else am I going to do? I can’t just sit around waiting to die.” Hitchens brothers debate if civilization can survive without God As time approached, he suggested a road trip from his D.C. apartment to my home in Birmingham, Alabama. “Flying has become a humiliating experience, don’t you think?” He said. “Besides, I haven’t taken a road trip in 20 years and it will give us a chance to talk and for me to finally take you up on your challenge.” Arriving in Washington some five months after his diagnosis, I was shocked by his appearance. Heavy doses of chemotherapy had left him emaciated, and hairless but for his eyelashes. His clothes hung off of him as though he were a boy wearing a man’s garments. He was, nonetheless, looking forward to our journey, having packed a picnic lunch and, predictably, enough Johnnie Walker for a battalion. After breakfast with his lovely wife, Carol, and his sweet daughter, Antonia, Hitch and I headed south on an eleven-hour road trip. “Have you a copy of Saint John with you?” He asked with a smile. “If not, you know I do actually have one.” This was a reference to my challenge of two years before: a joint study of the Gospel of John. It was my assertion that he had never really read the Bible, but only cherry-picked it. “Not necessary.” I was smiling, too. “I brought mine.” A few hours later we were wending our way through the Shenandoah Valley on a beautiful fall morning. As I drove, Hitch read aloud from the first chapter of John’s Gospel. We then discussed its meaning. No cameras, no microphones, no audience. And that always made for better conversation with Hitch. When he referenced our journey in a televised debate with David Berlinski the next day, various media representatives descended on me to ask about our “argument.” When I said that we didn’t really argue, they lost interest. But that was the truth. It was a civilized, rational discussion. I did my best to move through the prologue verse by verse, and Christopher asked thoughtful questions. That was it. A bit put off by how the Berlinski event had played out, Hitch suggested we debate one another. Friend though he was, I knew that Hitch could be a savage debater. More than once I had chaired such engagements where Hitch went after his opponents remorselessly. Hence, I was more than a bit anxious. Here he was, a celebrated public intellectual, an Oxonian, and bestselling author, and that is to say nothing of that Richard Burton-like, aristocratic, English-accented baritone. That always added a few I.Q. points in the minds of people. With hesitation, I agreed. We met in Billings, Montana. Hitch had once told me that Montana was the only state he had never been in. I decided to complete his tour of the contiguous United States and arranged for the two of us to meet there. Before the debate, a local television station sent a camera crew over to interview us. When he was asked what he thought of me, a Christian, and an evangelical at that, Hitch replied: “If everyone in the United States had the same qualities of loyalty and care and concern for others that Larry Taunton had, we'd be living in a much better society than we do.” I was moved. Stunned, really. As we left, I told him that I really appreciated the gracious remark. “I meant it and have been waiting for an opportunity to say it.” Later that night we met one another in rhetorical combat. The hall was full. Christopher, not I, was of course the real attraction. He was at the peak of his fame. His fans had traveled near and far to see him demolish another Christian. Overall, it was a hard-fought but friendly affair. Unknown to the audience were the inside jokes. When I told a little story from our road trip, he loved it. The debate over, I crossed the stage to shake Christopher’s hand. “You were quite good tonight,” he said with a charming smile as he accepted my proffered hand. “I think they enjoyed us.” “You were gentle with me,” I said as we turned to walk off the stage. He shook his head. “Oh, I held nothing back.” He then surveyed the auditorium that still pulsed with energy. “We are still having dinner?” he asked. “Absolutely.” After a quick cigarette on the sidewalk near the backstage door, he went back inside to meet his fans and sign their books. There was something macabre about it all. I had the unsettling feeling that these weren’t people who cared about him in the least. Instead, they seemed like a bunch of groupies who wanted to have a photo taken with a famous but dying man, so that one day they could show it to their buddies and say, “I knew him before he died.” It was a sad spectacle. Turning away, I entered the foyer, where 30 or so Christians greeted me excitedly. Mostly students, they were encouraged by what had happened onstage that night. Someone had spoken for them, and it had put a bounce in their step. One young man told me that he had been close to abandoning his faith, but that the debate had restored his confidence in the truth of the gospel. Another student said that she saw how she could use some of the same arguments. It is a daunting task, really, debating someone of Hitchens' intellect and experience, but if this cheery gathering of believers thought I had done well, then all of the preparation and expense had been worth it. The next day, the Fixed Point Foundation staff piled into a Suburban and headed for Yellowstone National Park. Christopher and I followed behind in a rented pick-up truck. Accompanied by Simon & Garfunkel (his choice), we drove through the park at a leisurely pace and enjoyed the grandeur of it all. The second chapter of John’s Gospel was on the agenda: The wedding at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine. “That is my favorite miracle,” Hitch quipped. Lunching at a roadside grill, he regaled our staff with stories. Afterwards, he was in high spirits. “That’s quite a - how shall I put it? A clan? - team that you’ve got there,” he said, watching the teenage members of our group clamber into the big Chevrolet. “Yes, it is,” I said, starting the truck. “They enjoyed your stories.” “I enjoy them.” He reclined his seat and we were off again. “Shall we do all of the national parks?” “Yes, and maybe the whole Bible, too,” I suggested playfully. He gave a laugh. “Oh, and Larry, I’ve looked at your book.” He added. “And?” “Well, all that you say about our conversation is true, but you have one detail wrong.” “And what is that?” I feared a total rewrite was coming. “You have me drinking Johnnie Walker Red Label. That’s the cheap stuff. I only drink Black Label.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Larry Alex Taunton.
Next entry »My take: My love/hate relationship with Hitchens
« Previous entry'Tebowing' leads to teens' suspension
|
  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 Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's note: Larry Alex Taunton is the founder and executive director of the 
Wow the comments on CNN never cease to amaze me. Somehow Hitchens is being "punished" by death. Do you all not realize that you will face the same punishment. I will never understand how people that call themselves "failthful" carry so much hate. You know what I say follow the golden rule religious or not-
Unfortunately the ability to comment anonymously only seems to bring out the idiots. I follow many Christians on Twitter, and have seen nothing but compassion for Hitchens posted since the news of his death. Polar opposite of the numerous appalling comments on here. I cannot picture someone who is truly walking the Christian walk making light of or mocking Hitchens' death.
you tend to like hitchens for his backbone. For his ability to fight the norm. And he constructed arguments that are very complicated and may never be fully understood. But he died not knowing Jesus. And probably convinced many others not to believe. But unfortunately, he won't be in heaven. He is currently suffering an unimaginably horrible eternity. He now knows he was wrong. And those thoughts will be as vivid as a strong heat from the sun on your skin.
fda – he's dead. He feels nothing. Get a grip and stop your delusional fanasy.
fda, he is in blissfull oblivion. There is no heaven and no God. You are fool and should listen rather than talk.
I have proven god in my mind. I can see the evidence. I don't pretend to be all knowledgable, but to me, there is no lies in Jesus. He came to the world so you could believe and hes left a trail of breadcrumbs so that you may believe.
I have never met anyone who was able to prove that God does not exist. In fact, most arguments are based on trivial misunderstandings of the bible that can be easily explained if you look further into knowledge.
As knowledgeable as Hitchens was, he never made a substantial argument to prove his main point.
Stop brainwashing the kids with the religious nonsense! That will eliminate religion in a hurry. Look at Vietnam, where religion was not taught during the Communist era. I believe the number of atheists are around 90%. It really is that simple.
@fda: Jesus is irrelevant, if he ever even existed – and there is no historical evidence that such a person ever existed. There are only religious accounts, which as well all know are totally objective and unbiased (right). But whether or not he existed is irrelevant given that his supposed "teachings" have been perpetuated. But there are two "minor" problems with these so-called teachings. 1) Nobody follows them today, because they are un-followable. 2) If someone did follow them they would be a danger to themselves and to society at large. So you can stop the Jesus-Jesus thing because it's not only laughable, but an insult to anyone with any intellectual honesty.
i read up to the first line... questioning the veracity of Jesus. What a pathetic person you are. Denying history to form your own arguments.
@fda: Cite a single credible *historical* account of Jesus Christ. And no, I don't mean the bible, or anything written by a religious wackjob. I mean historical account conveyed by a secular historian. You know, those pesky people who insist on facts.
Religion is not based on reason, logic, evidence, facts, and probability. What is it based on? Not much at all – the only thing that remains is creative story writing. But JK Rowling and others are so much better at it!
That's exactly why religion and religious believers cannot be taken seriously.
+1
@ BC: So you just threw a majority of the planet under the bus. Seems a little contrary to your previous entry about how social evolution is creating a greater (more widespread?) ethical system without religion.
Russ,
religion is a social construct. So was Communism, Socialism and Nazism and slew of other approches to organized living. Evolution usually takes millions of years. Most of these social experiments don't last very long.
@ BC: "Religion is a social construct." Would you agree with Feuerbach, then, that "all theology is anthropology"? All talk about God is really just human projections? If so, that assumes a closed system (no miraculous; nothing from 'outside' us can speak into this existence). And it's a rather bold statement to make considering how little we know of the visible universe, much less what's beyond our current capabilities.
"Over millions of years" – do you believe in entropy? Why not equally believe our society is (like the universe) on its way to an inevitable heat death, as Hitchens believed? What hope does evolution have in the face of entropy?
Religion is far from pure fiction- Christianity, is based on testimony. Historical records of the Hebrews, and The New Testament is based on people who bear witness to historical events of the times. Ultimately, all of life is based on your decision what testimony you believe. Science is the written description of observation and interpretation of theories and testimony by experimentation. History is written description and testimony of observation of events. Religion and philosophy is written description of interpretation of theories regarding the purpose of existence and being human. A caveat here – I believe in the Theory of Evolution, but a case in point is that there is more eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Christ than there is to anyone seeing the mutation and evolution of species across history. You live be what others testify to you and your experience. It is up to you to determine what you have faith in.
Russ, we might end up in a heat death, but I think the sun has something like 2 billion years to go before it explodes. I'm not too worried, yet. 🙂
You are right on Russ
Russ – this "testimony" bit is nonsense. The scientists make progress only because they reject "testimony" and "experience" of prior discoveries and forge ahead with new independent findings based on reason, logic, evidence, facts, and probability. And that's not in the Bible, is it?
@ BC: I didn't make the testimony argument. That was "armyduck." However, Richard Bauckham has made that very case strongly in his recent book "Jesus & the Eyewitnesses." CS Lewis made similar arguments in his famous essay: "Fern Seeds & Elephants" on why the Bible cannot be treated as myth.
Per your question on "testimony" being in the Bible: it is the primary assertion of the New Testament authors. See especially Luke 1:1-5, or 1 Cor.15:1-7.
But to go outside the Bible & appeal to another atheist: Friedrich Nietzsche famously said – "it is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science" (from "the Gay Science"). In other words, the very argument you are using against religion equally undercuts such faith in science (or as some have more accurately called it: scientism).
Hitchens's thoughts on gay marriage may be witty, but they are hardly unpredictable. It is a very common line of thought among gay people. This sort of ignorance is what fuels the myopia we call religion.
I find this piece to be sincere in its fondness for its subject, but marked with the typical creepy Christian condescension, loaded with implications that the famous atheist was a believer and just didn't know it. I also find it hilarious for a Christian to criticize people for wanting to say they knew a "famous but dying man." Imagine your distaste, then, had you been there to see the "disciples"?
Everybody knows that "gay marriage" is a farce, a ploy to get credibility "because we are just like you".
Is "Gay marriage" a farce because it's not like hetero marriages performed in a drive-thru church with an Elvis impersonator or like a 72-day marriage for Kim Kardasian or like Rush Limbaugh's 4 marriages?
Observer – gay marriage is a farce because it serves no useful purpose at all.
@Bob Crock
You said, "gay marriage is a farce because it serves no useful purpose at all."
And in that respect, and every other, it is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage. So, should we just abolish marriage, altogether?
Thank you, Larry. What a wonderful story.
May he find Peace .
Wake up and smell the coffee....Hitch is DEAD! He is decomposing as I write. He isn't looking or finding anything. Dead is Dead!!
Rot in Hell!
Didn't Jesus say a little something about loving everybody? You're not being a very good Christian now, are you?
Jesus would be proud of your Christian response.
It is what it is.....Christ CLEARLY spoke and His word shall NOT return to Him voided, but shall accomplish that what He has spoken. Sadly, Hitchens made a TERRIBLE EVERLASTING choice. He chose a curse over a blessing and WORSE of all, Hitchens chose DEATH over LIFE.
HeIsGod,
Hitchens didn't choose to die. He likely enjoyed his life far more than you are enjoying yours.
Last I checked, Hitch didn't choose to die since he didn't commit suicide. And for the record, Christ didn't "CLEARLY" say anything. More accurately, some folk tales and myths were passed down through several generations, committed to paper by men with their own personal views and biases, edited, re-edited, translated, edited again, passed on to kings so they could pick their favorite bits, translated again, translated back, edited to fit the purposes of another leader, re-translated, and so forth. Hell, the Catholics are STILL re-translating their version! If there was ever something Christ DIDN'T do, it's say anything clearly.
There is NO heaven or hell, except in your delusional beliefs. Rotting or another way of saying decomposing IS happening! It will happen to each of us eventually.
Well, whatever he was he's a believer now.
Actually, he's dead now. But thanks for being condescending.
OMG, you again Reagan80? Worshiper of the second worst president in history? (Dubya is #1) You have NO credibility.
He is decomposing. His brain is DEAD! It seems yours is also dead.
Needless to say a bottle of Johnny Walker Black was purchased in his memory today. While I might not have agreed with him on every aspect (really, who possibly could, he was so unique in opinions) I massively respect his terrifying intellect, fantastic wit, and lovely humor. I also greatly admired his beautiful hedonism and incredible ability to retain all of his cognitive powers while frequently smashed. Hitch will be missed in our home, many hours were spent in front of the warm glow of the monitor enjoying his brilliantly reasoned debates. Truthfully, I think debating Hitch would fall just under drinking paraquat on the list of things I'd never want to do. But boy was it ever fun to watch him annihilate opponents! Since I'm not quite atheist because I'm far to egotistical to just accept "going poof" at death and therefore demand an afterlife, I hope Hitch is off somewhere with a glass of scotch and a cigarette getting to know Galileo, Darwin, and other great thinkers.
Don't forget John Paul II, Thomas Aquinas, Evelyn Waugh, C.S. Lewis and Reinhold Niebuhr.....hope I can be a reincarnated fly on the wall for that one 😉
I'll second that one!
I personally didn't like his style. Way too convoluted. He liked to get himself wrapped up in layers of bullshift.
At least your honest about the wish-fulfillment demand of an afterlife. Most people are not. I also disagreed with many things Christopher Hitchens said, but I always enjoyed his reasoned arguments.
I thank the author for writing this piece on his friendship with Hitchens. Perhaps if more people would follow the example of these two and and their rigorous intellectual exchange rather than resorting to soundbites, things would be better. But they won't. They will attempt to convert and de-convert their rivals with uncharitable remarks.
Christopher, get ready to meet your Maker. If they'd have given you an enema before you died thay could have buried you in a matchbox. Remember? What goes around comes around
You are a bloviating moron to suggest that Hitchens's death is somehow a comeuppance for something bad that he has done.
My, how "Christian" of you.
apparently JESUS this one thinks that people "die" as some sort of punishment for trangessions rather than the natural process of life.
How very Christian of you.
Nothing on here says Richard is a Christian. If he thinks he is, he needs to do some serious self-examination and Bible study.
Like many of us, naturally I have friends and family who practice varying degrees of religion. I (almost) never talk politics or religion with family and friends. That just never seems to end well when you are a left wing Dem atheist. But that very point proves to me that we can live side by side in harmony (if not in truthfulness). And I think one of the biggest take-aways is that lying is not necessarily a bad thing. We should not rush to the conclusion that lying is a bad thing. Sometimes it is the ONLY thing that keeps Thanksgiving dinner civilized. One of the nice things about these blogs is that we can be honest (and/or obnoxious) and have a little fun with each other in anonymity. I would just say this to the blog community. Have fun and be tolerant, and don’t take everything so seriously. Some of you are so serious you actually keep track of what other bloggers have revealed in the past. Let’s keep the creepy out of it, that is where I have to draw the line.
Happy Holidays to one an all, and I think we can all morn the loss of a mighty mind.
You are either rational or not. Religion is not based on reason, logic, evidence, facts, and probability. What is it based on? Not much at all – the only thing that remains is creative story writing. But JK Rowling and others are so much better at it!
That's exactly why religion and religious believers cannot be taken seriously.
Bob, it doesn't matter if they can be taken seriously. They can't. We know that. But we still love them and live with them and work with them so we need to chill out. Doesn't bother me.
Ungodly. Sure, it's all good until they blow your brains out because "Allahu" told them so.
Bob "Crock" (good name for you)
It is far more likely that a Caucasian Christian will mug me on the street and blow my brains out than someone that some "Allahu" follower. I as-sume you mean "Allah"? You are a dip sh-it.
All we need to do is remove the exclusionary principles from religion, and there would be so much peace and justice in our world! For those who don't know, the exclusionary principle says that yours is the one true way, that all others are false or misguided or evil, and unless they choose your path, they cannot reach salvation. An Infinite God must have created Infinite ways to salvation, don't you think? I would love to ask the author "where is your friend right now? In the arms of your Jesus, or in everlasting torment for not bowing down to your god?"
@ Jim: excluding exclusionary principles? sounds a little self-refuting, don't you think?
But if all is relative, why do we need morals? Who decides on what's right and what's wrong? If there is no accountability for wrongdoing, we have chaos.
Funny how Taunton describes Hitchens' followers as "they seemed like a bunch of groupies who wanted to have a photo taken with a famous but dying man, so that one day they could show it to their buddies and say..." as though we atheists can't think for ourselves and chase our hero's around, while he described his own followers in glowing terms, as though he was their defender against the secular world like they are in the minority. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atheist, by their very nature are skeptics and take pride in thinking for themselves. It is we who are the hated minority and studies have shown our knowledge or religion and Christianity in particular to far exceed those of the mainline Christian. This shows the Tauton's true character or lack their of. I believe "Hitch" would be disappointed in your depiction.
I'm sure Hitchens had followers other than atheists. I am a Christian who had a lot of respect for him, and would have loved to have seen him in person. All celebs have people who chase after them for their own gain but don't really care about them as people. I don't think the author was necessarily indicting atheists specifically.
I think you missed his point entirely. He wasn't classifying all atheists as mindless groupies, rather he was characterizing these particular attendees as not really caring for the man himself. The whole objective of this piece wasn't to provide a defense for Christianity or an attack on atheism. it was to describe the deep relationship that these two men had, despite their ideologies being vastly opposite. If only we could all conduct our relationships with civil discourse, even when we disagreement with one another.
Missing the point entirely, of course I didn't? What a gross mischaracterization of my comment. It was obvious that he was trying to convey the special relationship he and Chris had. I just didn't see what value was added by denigrating his followers, be they atheist or not, as though he understood their real motivation for coming to see Chis. I think the comment revealed the his true feelings concerning Chris' followers. Had that been left out, I could have actually believed it was a special based on mutual respect.
A stirring example of how people of polar opposite ideologies can still be civilized. Something for Americans to think about....but I suspect this lovely story will be lost in the dust of the battle that rages around us all....
Nothing too it. It just shows that Hitchens was smart enough not to argue with religious fools about their convictions.
Bob, how sad it must be, to be you.
AK, not sad at all. Just think, I'm not bound by some silly rules handed down from re-writes started 2000 years ago!
You sure, Bob? If what the Bible says is true, you are bound, whether you like to think you are or not.
No reason at all to believe it's true. Do you know anything about the Aztec or Mayan religions?
When Hitchens got esophageal cancer, we knew once and for all what God thought of people who used their abundant gifts to advocate for war.
And Gandhi took a bullet in the guts.
@ Caldwell: you must really hate Abraham Lincoln.
Funny, I read a book once where this guy who advocated for peace got nailed to a cross. I guess we know what God thinks of those guys, too.
Where does James claim to be a Christian? Sounds like an anti-war protester who disagreed with Hitchens' support of Iraq.
Elliot Carlin, you dare call Hitchens a fool and show that man no respect on his death day, yet you follow a god that is claimed to be loving but resorts to brutal torture and demands animal sacrifice. Seems you are the fool, a very stupid, pretentious, and pathetic fool at that.
People are ethical because we have evolved as social animals. Being "ethical" helps everyone in a social pack of animals, so it dominates. This "revelation" didn't come from god or religion, but evolution.
Interesting, but like many other such explanations that are imprecisely stated, it sounds like you theory might not be falsifiable...
Bob Crock – Do you believe in objective moral values? What about true altruism?
bob- right on. Thanks.
When I heard of his death, I couldn't help but to laugh....NOT BECAUSE HE DIED, but because of fact that he would be seeing for himself how wrong he was for what he wrote about God and of His non-existence. Oh well, he made a choice.....A TERRIBLE EVERLASTING CHOICE.
He would have laughed at you, too.
Sure. You've met God, been to heaven, and now you are back to post about it on CNN.
Observer – From where he is and where I will be, it wouldn't be possible.
Bob – Oh, yes, I have met God 16 years ago....He is the most amazing thing that has happened to my life. You should do the same, God is AMAZING!! I am YET to go where my Father God wants me to be, in heaven.
Spoken like a true drug addict.
Actually, he wouldn't see anything different than anyone else when they die. Your brain and body simply ceases to function. No Heaven. No Hell. I never am ceased to be amazed at how arrogant people can be in professing extraordinary claims as if they are fact. Zeus, Apollo, and Horus don't exist. Why do you think the Christian God exists? Why do you think we actually know the answer of what is responsible for our creation? It's amazing the obvious questions people fail to ask.
Clearly you are no Christian, HelsGod. No true Christian would laugh at the prospect of someone dying without Jesus.
Ah, HEIS, a/k/a/ LaChapparita, the resident loon of CNN. Of course you couldn't help but laugh. And yes, it is because he died. And your post illustrates that.
More importantly, you laughed because you're absolutely INSANE. Just like your other posts on CNN, this one reveals you to be the spiteful, hateful, shrew that you are, all the while purporting yourself to be a loving, concerned Christian.
Hitchens made a choice not to believe in myth. In fairy tales. And now he simply is no longer aware. But if he were alive, you can bet that he would be laughing at you, just as we are. And rightfully so.
Oh, NiGHTCELT, you mad me laugh so much!! Too bad that all of you unbelievers will see EXACTLY what Hitchens is seeing right now. I hope you won't be the fool he was and seek Christ NOW while He able to be found.
BTW, I never laugh at people dying, I did laugh at the fact that Hitchens wishing to have believed before he died.
Jennifer – Did you MISREAD my comment? Did I say I laughed because Hitchens died without Christ? No I didn't, so go back and re-read it again.
I read it perfectly, Hels. Why would you find humor in an atheist learning he is wrong after he died? That's pretty depraved. You have a lot of growing up to do.
HEIS is one of the Watchtower cult, by the way. For anyone who might find these facts further amusing:
She proclaims loudly and quite often that she is the "apple of God's eye." You know, lest you should doubt her admonitions and warnings. Because of this she has the Living Word of God. She also thinks she's a preacher and when she's not extolling these talents, has no problem lying to those on CNN threads that she knows are atheists.
Why, you might ask? Because Christ has personally granted her untold rainchecks, so that she can lie today and be forgiven tomorrow. She freely admits that Christ will always forgive her later for anything. If she killed tomorrow, it wouldn't matter so much because she's got a raincheck from Christ.
Does this put into perspective what you're dealing with? You're welcome.
Derek – There are actually many rational arguments that can be formulated to defend the existence of God. Cosmological arguments, other scientific arguments, philosophical arguments, moral arguments, arguments based on the reliability of the Biblical text, and existential arguments. I mention these so that it can be known that Christianity is based on reason and logic, and that no one is expected to put faith in something that has no rationale to it.
I find it amusing that Christians resort to some sort of proof argument when it is convenient. Supernatural phenomenon has no proof in the natural world. Christian belief is, and should be based on faith, and faith alone. To try and defend religious belief by eating from the tree of knowledge (thinking for one's-self), is a sin. Faith is the cornerstone of Christianity. It is what allows the follower to deceive one's self that some higher power is in control. They take solace in their faith when events around them make no sense. Faith, by it's very nature is based on a lack of rational thought. The true believe does not need to resort to reason to reinforce their belief. To do so, reveals doubt. Like Linus in the pumpkin patch... "If the great pumpkin...". "Oh no, I said if!"
Bob – You said "Faith, by it's very nature is based on a lack of rational thought." Let me respond to that statement. 'Credo quia absurdum' or “I believe because it is absurb” is a dangerous creed to follow. Yet for many who place themselves decidedly outside of the Christian fold, such as yourself, this creed sums up everything they feel in relation to “faith.” The New Testament was written in Greek and the Greek noun “pistis” is translated “faith” in most translations of the Bible. The consensus translation from Greek lexicons gives "pistis" the definition meaning "trust, confidence in, or assurance". Even some scripture that uses the word "proof" comes from the same Greek word "pistis" as a noun. . As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof. Examples of this usage are found in the works of Aristotle and Quintiallian. My sole point in all of this is to assert that nowhere does the Christian biblical text advocate acceptance of concepts that lack any rationale. You may argue against the rationale that a defense of the Christian faith provides, but don't present the argument that "faith" means believing in something where there is no logical basis, as this is certainly not what the Christian "faith" means.
Furthermore, in response to your comment that "Supernatural phenomenon has no proof in the natural world." Please provide your thoughts on how life evolved from non-life, as must be the case within the "big bang" and evoluation worldview. Nowhere in the natural world has life evolved from non-life, and therefore if this did take place, then it would be considered a supernaturual phenomenon. Additionally, nowhere in the natural world has one species evolved into another species and no fossil evidence exists to support this view. Natural selection does exist and can be proven, but not one species evolving into another. Again, if this happens (which is the view that the naturalist/evolutionist places its "faith" in), then again, this is a supernatural phenomenon. Where is your proof for these?
Hawkeye, your assertion that because the scientific community lacks a rational explanation for the ultimate question of "how did we get here"" must necessarily drive us toward a belief in some supernatural being. This is a typical argument for those that lack an understanding of the scientific process. I could ask you the same by asking who created your God? Science does not claim to know all of the answers. Science is not a religion that is here to provide comfort to the masses. It does not need to. We are content with solving small problems which builds knowledge in an incremental fashion. Every good scientist knows you attack large problems in small pieces. If we conjectured an answer based on observation or intuition without a testable hypothesis then it nothing more than theory. They remain such until proven via repeatable experiments. When that question is one of the ultimate nature of man and his role in the world, than we have a religion or philosophy. For science to attempt to answers such questions would make us no different that early man who when he gazed at the heavens invented gods to provide comfort to him uncertain times. For man made the early gods that Christians scoff at just as later man made the Christian god.
We can play word games about the origin of the word "faith", but the idea of taking Christianity's belief on faith alone is indeed a centerpiece, and in fact defines Christianity. To suggest otherwise, is disingenuous. I suspect the real reason, Christians resort to pseudo-science to shore up their belief is because deep down, they "want to" and in fact "need to" believe in God and cannot get their by faith alone. Their belief defines them as a person and it is frightening to have their paradigm threatened. That is at the heart of their dislike for atheists. We cause you to confront your doubts. Your goal in answering the subject the original post was to try to sway the poster to some scientific basis for the existence of your god. Doing so allows you to gain comfort in your lack of faith and if you can encourage others to you cause then you gain additional comfort in their confirming your reasoning. Well, just because you want something to be true is not a scientific argument for its existence.
Just a couple of points for clarification. When Bob references "theory" I assume he means it in the lay sense given a "scientific theory" is the highest attainable level in the physical sciences (higher than a "law" which is restricted to very specific conditions/applications) and only reaches this level after relentless testing and mountains upon mountains of supporting physical evidence.
@Hawkeye – Abiogenesis is the study of how life actually began, i.e. the initial bioreplicators (pre-cell) and how these organized within lipid layers to produce protocells. There is considerable evidence supporting many scientifically plausible mechanisms, i.e. the mechanisms are simple chemistry, natural and not supernatural. Once established, we also know via simple replication and mutation, that there is a truly astounding functionally "creative" potential (e.g. RNA aptamers, combinatorial chemistry, etc). No we don't see life arising in similar fashion in recorded human history principally because the environment is not what it once was (e.g. our radically different oxygenated atmosphere). We may never know exactly how, but this investigation is separate from the physical evidence supporting evolution. Speciation, the transition of one species into another via a restricted gene flow/reproductive isolation actually happens on a regular basis and has been observed in real time, in the lab and in the wild, in organisms ranging from inverts through all the major classes of vertebrates (e.g. Cichlid fishes in Lake Malawi and Victoria). The various examples of "ring species" actually demonstrate speciation in process (e.g. the Greenish Warblers of the Himalayas). Fossils are relatively rare. The vast majority (i.e. 95+% by some estimates) are marine invertebrates. Because of this density and available resolution, one can observe speciation events within the invertebrate fossil record (e.g. trilobites, molluscs, etc). Because vertebrates are far less prevalent and cannot provide this same temporal geologic/paleontologic resolution, what we see are transitional/intermediate forms at higher levels of taxonomy, i.e. genus, family, order. It's no more "faith" to accept this supporting physical evidence than it is "faith" in accepting the evidence supporting the "Germ Theory of Disease". This is an erroneous conflation of "faith" in what can be assessed via methodological naturalism (the investigative mechanism of science; not to be confused with "metaphysical naturalism") and the "faith" of that which cannot be tested with natural means...
Thanks Q for adding the clarification, you are absolutely right. I tend to try and stick to general concepts here. Thanks for the introduction to Abiogenesis, I plan on reading further. I have had some graduate course work in Biochemistry. Enough to be dangerous, and to satisfy my desire to understand how mutation and evolution are responsible for the processes of life. I would also like to thank all the thoughtful posters on this tread, believer and non-believer, Hawkeye, Jennifer, Derek and Bob Crock. I can think of no better way to honor Mr. Hitchens than through a healthy discussion of religion. Thanks!
@Bob – No worries, your intent was pretty clear but non-science folks tend to erroneously latch onto and confuse "theory" with a "scientific theory" intimating the latter is just a guess, whence the often repeated "evolution is just a theory". For Abiogenesis, there's lots of good material and a great place to start is in the RNA-world hypothesis. Jack Szostak (recent Nobel Laureate) from Harvard has done incredible work in this area. From there, you can go up or down in "complexity". With just a little reading, you'll see why many of improbability claims made by creationists fail on statistical and/or "irreducible complexity" grounds (e.g. the flawed contention that initial replicators like modern cells would have simultaneously required wholly functional proteins and nucleic acids). Unfortunately, and perhaps an explanation for much of the disconnect between laypersons and practicing scientists, much of the relevant materials are within scientific journals requiring subscriptions to get access to the articles. Still, PubMed is a great search engine and you can find many freely available articles. The PLoS journals are also a great resource and are freely available online. Happy reading!
@Bob – Thanks for the response and I too enjoy reading the thoughtful posters from all parts of the spectrum. I would like to respond to a couple of things. First, I was not implying that the ultimate question of "how did we get here?" must necessarily drive someone to a belief in a supernatural being. Rather, I was simply trying to show the parity that exists between a Christian believing in a supernatural creator and a naturalist believing that life came from non-life. Both hold to the occurence of the supernatural, that is, both require something that has not been seen or replicated under our current scientific laws and properties. Therefore, the creationist's views are perhaps not seen quite as absurd when one admits that evolutionary worldview requires the same belief in a supernatural phenomenom. I'm not saying you then must believe in a creator. Based on all of the scientific knowledge we have (atheists and theists), a supernatural event must have occurred because of what we see in the universe today. Therefore, both worldviews rely on the supernatural with no hard evidence. Each worldview (atheism and theism) shape our interpretation of what we see around us. The question could be: which worldview provides the best explanation for what we see?
On the topic of abiogensis, full disclosure that I am not a biologist or anything of the like. Darwin did not directly mention the idea of chemical evolution, but it is a natural extension of the logic of naturalism. Thomas Huxley, stated the ability of life to come from nonlife. The idea of life coming from nonlife, spontaneous generation, was a popular idea from the time of the Greek philosophers. Louis Pasteur had performed experiments that showed spontaneous generation was not possible; so Huxley called the idea of the origin of life “abiogenesis” and said the evolution of protoplasm from nonliving matter had happened only in the early earth and could no longer be observed. This fact seems to disqualify it from scientific study.
It seems that the Miller-Urey line of research is a proof of concept for how amino acids could have arisen from inorganic precursors, but appears to be a long way from life itself. The most common abiogenesis theories claim that life arose at hydrothermal vents in the ocean. However, recent studies show that The process by which individual molecules are linked together to form a larger molecule (a polymer).polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in salt water. Other studies show that the early oceans were at least twice as salty as they are now. I suppose my main objective here is to provide a perspective that as a theist, I embrace and welcome scientific discoveries, but caution a reader to make sure the facts are known and know the worldview of the person interpreting the facts.
@Hawkeye – With all due respect, the field of abiogenesis has moved far beyond the Miller-Urey experiments and we know that the available niches in which the various requisite chemistry may have transpired are many and varied. Nonetheless and again, regardless of how it actually began, the evidence from every relevant discipline indicates biological evolution. Science is not concerned with a "worldview". It's only concerned with what can be reliably tested and the predictions which come from consistent observations. It does not begin with or rely upon metaphysical assumptions. It appears the only folks who invoke "worldview", as if this had any bearing, are those who insist empirical evidence somehow conform to their a priori metaphysical desires. Whether or not one believes in god(s) does not change the mechanisms of genetic mutation, the order of the fossil record, or the observable splitting of one species into two.
You state, "This fact seems to disqualify it from scientific study." False. Science need not directly observe or exactly replicate an event in order to deduce the likely mechanisms which produced it, e.g. forensics. It's never 100%, but without question, the scientific process is the most effective "truth" detection apparatus available to humans.
This is a wonderful article. It paints an awesome picture of a man that the world is truly lessened for losing. Thank you Mr. Taunton for sharing your personal memories with us.
Am i the only one who thinks Rik Warren likes to get front and center when these things happen?
Rick trires to use every opportunity to get his fat face on the air. For him, it's all about the benjamins.