The Faith of Christopher Hitchens

I heard an interview with the author and thought it was interesting. He says that the point of the book is to encourage people with different worldviews to engage with one another constructively. Some reporters (who obviously did not read the book) have "debunked" Christopher's "deathbed conversion" which the book already does at length (i.e. the author never claims any such thing).

The Faith of Christopher Hitchens

At the time of his death, Christopher Hitchens was the most notorious atheist in the world. And yet, all was not as it seemed. “Nobody is not a divided self, of course,” he once told an interviewer, “but I think it’s rather strong in my case.” Hitchens was a man of many contradictions: a Marxist in youth who longed for acceptance among the social elites; a peacenik who revered the military; a champion of the Left who was nonetheless pro-life, pro-war-on-terror, and after 9/11 something of a neocon; and while he railed against God on stage, he maintained meaningful—though largely hidden from public view—friendships with evangelical Christians like Francis Collins, Douglas Wilson, and the author Larry Alex Taunton.

In The Faith of Christopher Hitchens, Taunton offers a very personal perspective of one of our most interesting and most misunderstood public figures. Writing with genuine compassion and without compromise, Taunton traces Hitchens’s spiritual and intellectual development from his decision as a teenager to reject belief in God to his rise to prominence as one of the so-called “Four Horsemen” of the New Atheism. While Hitchens was, in the minds of many Christians, Public Enemy Number One, away from the lights and the cameras a warm friendship flourished between Hitchens and the author; a friendship that culminated in not one, but two lengthy road trips where, after Hitchens’s diagnosis of esophageal cancer, they studied the Bible together.The Faith of Christopher Hitchens gives us a candid glimpse into the inner life of this intriguing, sometimes maddening, and unexpectedly vulnerable man.

Click to expand...

In our divided society can we still engage with one another respectfully and thoughtfully? Here is a great example of how to do it.

Taking a tour on the off topic boards. The name is clearly meant as an attention grabber and while I am not against doing so cause i understand these people want to sell books i dislike when it is so clearly there just for that reason. Take Hitchen's "God is not great: How religion poisons everything". That title is clearly meant to grab your attention and be instantly controversial and perhaps confrontational but it is not like Hitchens was just saying it to grab reviews. He pretty much believed the title 100%. So i prefer when authors make eye grabbing titles they do it with the full honesty of their views. Hitchens clearly had no faith so i think the title was not in line with telling you anything about what the book is about. Perhaps something like "Hitchens: The Life and (something)" would have been much better.

BobDigital said:

Taking a tour on the off topic boards. The name is clearly meant as an attention grabber and while I am not against doing so cause i understand these people want to sell books i dislike when it is so clearly there just for that reason. Take Hitchen's "God is not great: How religion poisons everything". That title is clearly meant to grab your attention and be instantly controversial and perhaps confrontational but it is not like Hitchens was just saying it to grab reviews. He pretty much believed the title 100%. So i prefer when authors make eye grabbing titles they do it with the full honesty of their views. Hitchens clearly had no faith so i think the title was not in line with telling you anything about what the book is about. Perhaps something like "Hitchens: The Life and (something)" would have been much better.

Click to expand...

Well, atheism is a kind of faith so I don't see it as misleading at all. The author was very close friends with Christopher.

The Brandon Five said:

Well, atheism is a kind of faith so I don't see it as misleading at all. The author was very close friends with Christopher.

Click to expand...

Atheism is not a religious faith it is the absence of a religious faith. Common misconception cause it is often classified incorrect by census takers.

BobDigital said:

Atheism is not a religious faith it is the absence of a religious faith. Common misconception cause it is often classified incorrect by census takers.

Click to expand...

It is still faith. It is not something you know, it is something you believe.

The Brandon Five said:

It is still faith. It is not something you know, it is something you believe.

Click to expand...

Faith and belief are not the same thing. They are similar but different

faith = believing without evidence (a subset of belief)

You can hold faith and non-faith based beliefs. Atheism is a non-faith based belief based on a lack of evidence.

For instance - i don't have faith that a monkey is not loose in my house. I have a belief that a monkey is not loose in my house.

I have this belief because i don't have a monkey in my house so i doubt one got in. It is a belief based on demonstrative facts and experience that can be demonstrated or provable to some degree.

I am not trying to show you up here just trying to make things more clear cause these things happen a lot with these words.

BobDigital said:

Faith and belief are not the same thing. They are similar but different

faith = believing without evidence (a subset of belief)

You can hold faith and non-faith based beliefs. Atheism is a non-faith based belief based on a lack of evidence.

For instance - i don't have faith that a monkey is not loose in my house. I have a belief that a monkey is not loose in my house.

I have this belief because i don't have a monkey in my house so i doubt one got in. It is a belief based on demonstrative facts and experience that can be demonstrated or provable to some degree.

I am not trying to show you up here just trying to make things more clear cause these things happen a lot with these words.

Click to expand...

You are splitting hairs. Both worldviews are based on believing things that are not verifiable.

The Brandon Five said:

You are splitting hairs. Both worldviews are based on believing things that are not verifiable.

Click to expand...

No I can not prove a negative. I simply don't see a reason to support your positive belief so i don't. Furthermore I agree that we should not stipulate something is true without evidence in some form otherwise you must stipulate any possibility you can imagine to be as likely true or not true.

I tend to work from the idea of give me evidence equal to the size of the claim you are making. God is a big claim so i think it needs some pretty big proof and i just don't see it. Maybe you have had some personal experience that has proven it to you but i have not and that can not be proof for me.

I am not trying to change your mind but just give you an understanding of my point of view.

BobDigital said:

No I can not prove a negative. I simply don't see a reason to support your positive belief so i don't. Furthermore I agree that we should should stipulate something is true without evidence in some form otherwise you must stipulate any possibility you can imagine to be as likely true or not true.

I tend to work from the idea of give me evidence equal to the size of the claim you are making. God is a big claim so i think it needs some pretty big proof and i just don't see it. Maybe you have had some personal experience that has proven it to you but i have not and that can not be proof for me.

I am not trying to change your mind but just give you an understanding of my point of view.

Click to expand...

The point is not that it requires someone to prove a negative or not. The point is that it is not provable either way.

The Brandon Five said:

Well, atheism is a kind of faith so I don't see it as misleading at all. The author was very close friends with Christopher.

Click to expand...

If any of you are familiar with mathematics or databases, this is kind of like the concept of null. It's often misunderstood to mean no value (i.e. zero or spaces), but it actually means an unknown value. In specific database instances, null can be programmed to be zero or spaces for that situation, but it's really an unknown value.

All of that was to relate to the question of how to tread atheism? I've witnessed many debates on is it a religion or not. My take is in theory it's not a religion, but in practice to some atheists such as Christopher Hitchens it's on their minds so much it's a virtual religion. I'd add that many communists were merely replacing worship of God for worship of the state, so is that atheism or a form of self-worship? These examples are different from people that don't believe in God or discuss it very much under the radar.

Whatever your outlook, there are things we don't know in the scientific way. We make assumptions about those things - call it what you wish: faith, belief, etc.

Most know this, but my outlook is close to Peter Hitchens

The Brandon Five said:

The point is that it is not provable either way.

Click to expand...

I have an invisible, immaterial dragon in my garage that demands monthly offerings or else it will curse you and you family, bringing misfortune to all you love. My dragon is a capricious sort, so he won't just curse you to everlasting suffering, he'll allow you to feel some blessings because that will worsen the pain when they are taken away.

Since my dragon is removed from all senses and there is no way to tell whether goodness is evidence against or part of its judgement, does that mean you need faith to disbelieve me?

Oswlek said:

I have an invisible, immaterial dragon in my garage that demands monthly offerings or else it will curse you and you family, bringing misfortune to all you love. My dragon is a capricious sort, so he won't just curse you to everlasting suffering, he'll allow you to feel some blessings because that will worsen the pain when they are taken away.

Since my dragon is removed from all senses and there is no way to tell whether goodness is evidence against or part of its judgement, does that mean you need faith to disbelieve me?

Click to expand...

How do you know George Washington lived?

So Larry's book has created a bit of a firestorm. Mostly from atheists who haven't read the book. That makes them seem like people holding on to a belief, doesn't it? I mean, if they were truly the paragons of reason wouldn't that require that they actually read it?

Here is a good write-up from someone who actually bothered to read it:

Holy war over the Gospel according to Hitchens

Others in Hitchens’s circle and on social media, virtually none of whom seem to have read Taunton’s book, falsely accused him of claiming Hitchens made a “deathbed conversion” and have similarly expressed rage, revulsion and disbelief.

The assumption is not only that Hitchens couldn’t possibly have been open to religious leanings, but that such a claim mustn’t even be made because atheism itself cannot be challenged. There is a word for such forbidden thinking. It is heresy. Atheism is the secular faith and the irony is that it’s these secularists who are behaving like fanatics.

Taunton’s book is sensitive, scrupulous and honest. It is also touching, affectionate and deeply personal. Refusing even to read, let alone believe, the evidence of this private friendship, those who damn religion for repudiating reason are doing precisely that themselves.

Click to expand...

The irony is that the intent of the book was to encourage people to come together and have civil discussions. That it has been met with such vitriol must be very discouraging to Larry.

The Brandon Five said:

How do you know George Washington lived?

Click to expand...

Compelling evidence.

If I didn't know any better, it would seem as if you were trying to dodge the question. So I'll ask again, since my dragon is removed from all senses and there is no way to tell whether goodness is evidence against or part of its judgement, does that mean you need faith to disbelieve me?

The Brandon Five said:

That makes them seem like people holding on to a belief, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

The straw atheists in question certainly appear to be doing so.

FWIW, you may find this interview edifying



Amusingly, Hitchens himself joked on a few occasions that there would likely be posthumous myths of his deathbed conversion.

Oswlek said:

Compelling evidence.

If I didn't know any better, it would seem as if you were trying to dodge the question. So I'll ask again, since my dragon is removed from all senses and there is no way to tell whether goodness is evidence against or part of its judgement, does that mean you need faith to disbelieve me?

Click to expand...

My point is that ************ is a historical figure. It's not like 1 billion Christians dreamed him up.

The straw atheists in question certainly appear to be doing so.

Click to expand...

These are some of the leading figures, so strike two. If you would like to see a good example of a strawman, see your own statement above.

FWIW, you may find this interview edifying



Amusingly, Hitchens himself joked on a few occasions that there would likely be posthumous myths of his deathbed conversion.

Click to expand...

I watched it. Not sure what was supposed to be edifying.

The book actually goes to great length explaining that he did not have a deathbed conversion, but thanks for playing. Strike three.

The Brandon Five said:

My point is that ************ is a historical figure.

Click to expand...

I know what your point is, it is a common apologetic trope that fails to grasp the distinction between well supported history and poorly supported history. You probably won't be surprised to know that the whole Jesus/GW comparison is well trodden ground that has been rebutted countless times. Here is one:

The Brandon Five said:

These are some of the leading figures

Click to expand...

"Leading figures"? Who are you referring to? What specifically did they say? I clicked the link, but it only loaded a couple paragraphs and you didn't provide anything of substance above. The quoted text was written not by bombastic atheists, but by someone building yet another straw man.

The Brandon Five said:

If you would like to see a good example of a strawman

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what a straw man fallacy is.

The Brandon Five said:

The book actually goes to great length explaining that he did not have a deathbed conversion

Click to expand...

I never said it did, but either way it is immaterial. You have video evidence of Christopher's wife refuting the idea that he was even leaning away from his strident position, let alone something as dramatic as a deathbed conversion.

Uhhh.... passed ball... or whatever.

My interest in this conversation is waning, but it will be reinvigorated if you answer the question I posed earlier with something other than dodges and apologetic tropes. Since my dragon is removed from all senses and there is no way to tell whether goodness is evidence against or part of its judgement, does that mean you need faith to disbelieve me?

Well this sure has gotten a little more combative than i hoped it would. Isn't that how it always goes : /

I find it is best simply to clarify differences and positions more than try to show them up.

BobDigital said:

I find it is best simply to clarify differences and positions more than try to show them up.

Click to expand...

This is precisely what I've tried to do, and why I entered this thread with a question rather than writing a long diatribe detailing apparent fallacies.

Oswlek said:

I know what your point is, it is a common apologetic trope that fails to grasp the distinction between well supported history and poorly supported history. You probably won't be surprised to know that the whole Jesus/GW comparison is well trodden ground that has been rebutted countless times. Here is one:

Click to expand...

Yeah, ancient history is not as well documented as the 18th century. What a shocker. That wasn't really my point. My point is that it is something that you believe without ever seeing it because you trust the testimony of others.

Oswlek said:

"Leading figures"? Who are you referring to? What specifically did they say?

Click to expand...

Lawrence Krauss.

Nocookies

More tinder was stacked against the author’s stake by Lawrence Krauss, de
scribed as an atheist and close friend of Hitchens. He sneered that Taunton had mistaken Hitchens’s civility for friendship since Hitchens had merely been paid to debate him. Yet Hitchens had publicly acknowledged Taunton more than once as his friend. Taunton was not allowed to respond, presumably because, as O’Brien informed us, Krauss refused to have a discussion with him.

Click to expand...

Are Atheists Afraid of God?

Consider a recent BBC “Newsnight” interview with Mr. Taunton. Flirting with “Saturday Night Live” parody, the smug host, James O’Brien, ensconced in a gleaming black-and-purple set with his interviewees on remote video, treated his Christian guest with imperious disdain. Failing to fluster Mr. Taunton by insinuating that the author was claiming a Hitchens conversion to Christianity—that’s not Mr. Taunton’s point—the host then turned to atheist activist Lawrence Krauss, who said that Hitchens was not Mr. Taunton’s friend at all, but was only in his company because Hitchens had been paid to debate him. Unmentioned: those two long, voluntary road trips, and the fact that Hitchens had even spent the night at his friend’s house. Of course to know this, one must have read the book.

Click to expand...

Oswlek said:

I never said it did, but either way it is immaterial. You have video evidence of Christopher's wife refuting the idea that he was even leaning away from his strident position, let alone something as dramatic as a deathbed conversion.

Uhhh.... passed ball... or whatever.

My interest in this conversation is waning, but it will be reinvigorated if you answer the question I posed earlier with something other than dodges and apologetic tropes. Since my dragon is removed from all senses and there is no way to tell whether goodness is evidence against or part of its judgement, does that mean you need faith to disbelieve me?

Click to expand...

I'd say your hopeful dragon is the very essence of a strawman. To compare an invisible dragon to an historical figure is just not a valid argument.

As for the core idea (the limits of reason), I refer you to:


The Limits of Reason

Godel’s theorems & the limits of reason - The Express Tribune

The Enlightenment hopes that man could reach truth purely by observations and logic, cannot be fulfilled even in the limited domain of mathematics. Godel proved what poets have always known, that transcendental truths are beyond the reach of reason: Iqbal easily transcended the realms of logic, But he could not plumb the depths of the mysteries of love. (Free translation of couplet from Allama Iqbal, Poet Laureate of the East).

Click to expand...

The Brandon Five said:

My point is that it is something that you believe without ever seeing it because you trust the testimony of others.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the video provided goes into great deal why this is a fallacy of equivocation. Allow me to illustrate

"I had cereal for breakfast last Thursday morning."
"My cat Azrael and I had smurfs for breakfast last Thursday morning."

Both statements are identical in subject matter and evidential support, but they clearly aren't close when it comes to how believable each is. Maybe after some probing you realize I'm a big smurfs fan so I really do have a cat named Azrael and the "smurfs" are just dyed marshmallows or something. Suddenly my claim doesn't seem so outlandish anymore since obsessive fans can be found all over. But until then, the latter undoubtedly requires more evidence before anyone would consider it.

The same goes for the GW/J comparison. If you want me to accept two historic dudes became leaders of men, that's fine. But once you add that one of the men rose from the dead and became (or already was depending on your interpretation) a god... well now you've got a much larger burden of proof on your shoulders. The fact that neither event can be recreated does not mean all claims about either have equal standing.

The Brandon Five said:

Lawrence Krauss.

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this. Very useful.

It isn't atheism that is motivating Krauss' skepticism, it is years of personal interaction with Hitchens. If he is wrong, he is wrong. His overbearing personality also has nothing to do with atheism; you see other non-believing scientists get on his case about it all the time.

If you aren't claiming that atheism is the driving force behind Krauss' behavior, then I apologize for not understanding your point.

The Brandon Five said:

Godel’s theorems & the limits of reason - The Express Tribune

Click to expand...

Godel's theorems - and the fact that nothing can be known absolutely - is of no consequence to science. Science makes no claims of absolute knowledge; all explanations are provisional to be modified or discarded once the evidence compels us to do so. Conclusions are only accepted as "true" if there is no refuting evidence and/or it allows us to make consistently accurate predictions.

Of course, there is the fact that, even if there are greater truths than science or logic can determine, neither Godel or anyone else has provided a methodology for discovering them.

EDIT: For anyone interested, here's a fascinating discussion that further elaborates on why Godel's theorem fails as a theistic apologetic.

The Brandon Five said:

I'd say your hopeful dragon is the very essence of a strawman.

Click to expand...

And here were find ourselves back at the beginning. First off, it would helpful if you stopped misusing terminology.

Strawman Fallacy

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

• Person A has position X.
• Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
• Person B attacks position Y.
• Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

I neither distorted you position, nor tried to refute a position with the distortion: hence, no strawman. Instead, I introduced an obviously different subject in an attempt to help us discuss belief and burden of proof with less emotional entanglement. The dragon's characteristics are borrowed from modern views on god, of course, but I never attempt to equate the two or say that belief in one requires belief in the other.

If you want to continue this conversation, then please ensure your response contains a sincere attempt to answer this question:

Oswlek said:

I have an invisible, immaterial dragon in my garage that demands monthly offerings or else it will curse you and you family, bringing misfortune to all you love. My dragon is a capricious sort, so he won't just curse you to everlasting suffering, he'll allow you to feel some blessings because that will worsen the pain when they are taken away.

Since my dragon is removed from all senses and there is no way to tell whether goodness is evidence against or part of its judgement, does that mean you need faith to disbelieve me?

Click to expand...

Any response that does not provide an answer will be interpreted as a lack of interest. If this is my last post in this tread, thanks for your time.