I am currently in Atlanta for the ACCS conference — and what a great time that is — but it turns out that John Lennox was also in town for another conference just a stone’s throw away, and through a fortuitous set of circumstances, we wound up seated next to each other at dinner last night.
Keith and Kristyn Getty were also here for the ACCS conference, and were also at the dinner, and Kristyn happens to be John Lennox’s niece. Nate was seated across the table, and he was one of the producers of Collision, and Louis Markos was also across the way. As you might imagine, the discussion was lively. The talk turned naturally to Christopher Hitchens, and “atheists that we have debated.”
We also spent some time talking about Larry Taunton’s book, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens, which (you may have heard) has received a barrage of criticism from astute non-readers of it. As Oscar Wilde once put it, “I never read a book I must review; it prejudices you so.” This would be the kind of review that claimed that Taunton claimed a deathbed conversion for Hitch, when he did nothing of the kind. In any case, when it came out I reviewed Taunton’s book for Books & Culture, which, if you missed it, you can find here.
But there is more than one way to be unfair to a book. There were other reviews, like David Frum’s in The Atlantic, where his take on Taunton was simply snarky and uncharitable, as though he were nothing more than a social climber, using the bodies of deceased atheists.
But Lennox debated Hitchens, as have I, as did Larry Taunton. We all debated the same man, the man described in Taunton’s book.
In any case, last night we spent a good bit of time talking about a bunch of atheist debates, and our discussion was merry. There are incompetent atheists, who are scarcely worth the powder. There are humorless atheists like Dawkins who maintain that man has no soul and tries to conduct himself as living proof of that proposition. And there are lively and clever atheists — like Hitch — who were quite formidable in debate.
But being formidable in debate is not the same thing as having solid arguments. Hitchens was clever and very quick, and you had to keep your eye on him every minute. He was the master of the non sequitur, but not the kind of non sequitur that made audiences go, “Whoa, he’s evading the topic under discussion.” It would be the kind of non sequitur which, when delivered in that accent of his, makes audiences look at you like you were, kind of rumpled, just taken out of the doofus locker. He was also a master of supercilious browbeating and bluster.
He was also clever enough to know what he was doing. Frum took Taunton to task for noticing things that anyone not actively a Hitch-idolater should and would have noticed about him. Frum represented Taunton as casting Hitchens as some kind of a coward, when we in the Approved Circles all know he was a Man of Courage. This is nothing but hagiography for atheists. This is just the Eulogistic Lie Royale.
Now Hitch was a courageous contrarian, depending on the enemy. But when your adversary is the Hound of Heaven, courage does not really enter into it. Defiant courage in the face of the Ancient of Days, the one before whom Heaven and earth flee away, does not deserve the name courage.
And Hitch was, as I have mentioned, very clever, which means that he was not prepared to go to the wall for something he had not thought through. Taunton describes Hitch, not as converting on his death bed, but rather as simply carving out a space for himself to think about the subject without having to deal with the howls of outraged fans. He makes no claims about the ultimate decision Hitch made, but simply maintains that in private Hitchens did not give the subject the back of his hand. That is quite true — Taunton is exactly right.
For those not disposed to take my word for it, or Lennox’s, or Taunton’s, let me appeal to the public record.
Non-believers go through three reluctant stages as they are thinking about the prospect or possibility of converting to Christianity. The first stage is, “You are wasting your time on me. I’ll never convert.” That tells you that they have at least thought about it. The idea has crossed their mind.
The second stage is, “If I converted, . . .” The sentence could be completed with any number of things — “would I have to give up beer?” or “I wouldn’t be that kind of Christian,” or “I would want to be a missionary.”
The third stage is, “When I become a Christian . . .”
In his public discussions of this subject, after his diagnosis of cancer, Hitch was manifestly a bit past stage 2. He said in various ways, on different occasions, that if he cried out on his death bed, this would mean the cancer had got to his brain, or the medications had really messed him up. The Christopher Hitchens everyone knew would already be dead.
Notice that he did not say that if he converted on his death bed, “you can be assured that some pious evangelical nurse is telling lies about me.” On this subject, Hitchens did not resort to an ad hominem. He spoke the way he did because he was clearly nervous about letting his team down. He thought it was a distinct possibility that he might do something like that, and so he was giving his atheist supporters an accounting of it beforehand.
I indicated this in my review of Taunton’s book, and it has been implicit here. But let me finish by making it explicit. Taunton’s book is an honest accounting of an atheist’s struggle with himself, and it is an account written by an honest and insightful man. He fudges no answers on behalf of Christian sensibilities, but being — like Hitch — a man of courage, he fudges no questions on behalf of atheist sensibilities either.
If you haven’t yet, I urge you to get and read the book.
Self-Poisoning the Well?
Funny how it gets thrown around by Christians that they have to hear about some kind of believable confession before they’ll allow a guy out of hell.
PerfectHold says:
Believe me, if I had the authority to keep people in or allow people out of Hell, we’d all be in bad trouble.
I wonder what people would say to you, if they got mad at you?????????
It’d be something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Good_Life_(The_Twilight_Zone)
“Wish him into the cornfield?”
Or
“You’re a very bad man?”
“The cornfield with the lot of ya” is what I’d eventually say. And condemn myself in the process.
I hear ya. I’ve often thought the same thing. At first our friends and the folks that make us happy would stay, but eventually we’d cast them all away, until the only one left is us, due to our inherent selfishness. That’s why it’s ultimately better, as you’ve said, that God picks and not us.
“Oh A-Dad,” I would say sadly, letting my blue eyes fill with gentle tears.
Interesting video on the moral problems with the 10 Commandments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=577ckT2xQEE
Interesting piece on the moral problems with the 10 Commandments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=577ckT2xQEE
I formed the impression in the CT debate that he was an intellectual thug–beyond snarky and just downright mean. I guess he knew his arguments were weak and preferred to keep the attention elsewhere. Glad to hear he wasn’t all bad.
You clearly haven’t watched a single debate. There is not one where he did not wipe the floor with Wilson or anyone else. It’s not really a hard debate.
He didn’t wipe the floor with John Lennox.
Or Wilson. But Randman knows that. :)
Having seen him talk at various times it seems apparent that he was, despite his caustic bombast, a likeable guy. Fun times at the pub. Likewise Jillette Penn. Unlike Dawkins who comes across as a narcissistic bore.
I concede though, that public personas and media bites do not always give an accurate portrayal.
“There are humorless atheists like Dawkins who maintain that man has no soul and tries to conduct himself as living proof of that proposition” Yes
And of course, “tries” is the operative word there.
Pastor Wilson,
Will you join Sye Ten Bruggencate to debate Lawrence Krauss and Penn Jillette? Jeff Durbin and Apologia Church said they are more than willing to host the event.
Thanks for your work.
I might pay money to see a Wilson/Jillette debate…
And if Sye Ten Bruggencate can’t make it, Uncle Si Robertson would be a fun replacement.
Just make sure there’s lots of tea.
I’d pay to see Andrew Sullivan debate gay marriage with this preacher. I doubt if Sullivan and his husband would be inviting him over to a bbq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTeWotpM5tI
Doing something like that would be a lot of fun.
Doug, if you do it, I hope you put a lot more prep work in than you did for your debate on gay marriage with Andrew Sullivan. That was a very poor showing. You did not acquit yourself well. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Sullivan mopped the floor with you.
Live debates are not your forte. You express yourself much better in writing.
Sullivan played the sentimentality card. That may have worked for a segment of the audience, but it didn’t address Wilson’s arguments. Sullivan didn’t really come to debate Wilson. He simply came to repeat his agenda, and claim how mean someone would have to be to oppose it. Sullivan had no answer to Wilson’s direct questions about how to stop the polygamist who is standing next in line demanding to get his marriages recognized by the State. Sullivan could only try to wave the problem away because he had nothing at all to offer to oppose polygamy. This demonstrated that Sullivan… Read more »
Sullivan played the sentimentality card. That may have worked for a segment of the audience, but it didn’t address Wilson’s arguments. Doug didn’t have much in the way of arguments. He started off by praising Sullivan, saying that Sullivan was a really great guy, because he didn’t compare people who oppose gay marriage to our evil Christian forefathers, who Doug said weren’t “morally serious people”, but were driven by “irrational hatred” and “blind phobias” in their opposition to interracial marriage. But then he never said why polygamy shouldn’t be legalized. He can’t. Because, as Doug himself admitted after the debate,… Read more »
So, basically, since you don’t like that Doug opposes racial vainglory, you think he’s a poor debater. Seems about par with those who think Doug is a poor debater because anyone who believes in God is a poor debater.
So, basically, since you don’t like that Doug opposes racial vainglory, you think he’s a poor debater. Really, Ian? In my long post, I had no valid criticisms? You think I just made all that stuff up because I disagree with Doug on race? Do you have any idea how incredibly stupid your comment makes you look? That part about Doug giving the game away by denouncing people with narrower views on marriage as “irrational” and “haters”? That never happened? I just made that up? And when I said that Doug only had one point until his closing statement, and… Read more »
Regardless of what Doug said, I wondered: If you had to make a purely secular argument against gay marriage, what would you use? Would you use the thousands of years argument? Do you think that the decision in Loving led inevitably to Obergefell? And do you think that Loving leads inevitably to plural marriage?
I don’t claim to be a good debater. And maybe Doug has debated well in the past. But I refuse to pretend that he did even a passable job in that debate with Sullivan. His performance in that debate was abysmal. He, like me, is much better at expressing himself in writing, and should stick to that. There are several secular arguments: Homosexuality is freakin’ disgusting. Homosexuality is freakin’ perverted. Male private parts go with female private parts. AIDS Rectal Gonorrhea Many homos have to wear diapers because their sphincter is so worn out that they’re constantly leaking fecal matter… Read more »
I agree that with you that it did. Obergefell owed something to the privacy issues raised in Griswold and Roe, but I think it owed more to the principle that the government has no valid secular purpose for telling us whom we may and may not marry.
I think it might be possible to argue that plural marriage is demonstrably bad for society if it could be proven that it is associated with poverty, higher dependence on welfare, or clear harm to children. But I generally think that it will continue as it is–not precisely legal but tolerated.
I agree that with you that it did. Obergefell owed something to the privacy issues raised in Griswold and Roe, but I think it owed more to the principle that the government has no valid secular purpose for telling us whom we may and may not marry. Much more. If the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equality means that it’s invidious discrimination to pass a law that people have to marry within their race, then it’s also invidious discrimination to say that people have to marry outside their sex. There’s no way around it once you agree that laws against IR… Read more »
I don’t see how the reasoning in Roe applies. That case rested on finding an imaginary privacy right in the Constitution. But marriage isn’t essentially about privacy; it is about governmental and societal recognition of a relationship that is clearly public. Even if you narrow the issue in Loving to the question of race (Can something become a crime solely because of the race of the person performing the act?), the larger issue was: does government have a right to say that some marriages are not in the best interest of society, or of the participants therein, or of the… Read more »
You’re exactly right. Roe doesn’t apply. But you can’t call SCOTUS “tyrannical” for “ignoring the will of the people” (48% of the people) and “trampling states’ rights” in Obergefell when you’ve spent decades praising SCOTUS for ignoring the will of 80% of the people and trampling states’ right in Loving. You can’t even mention Loving, because you support it, which means that all your talk of states’ rights and the will of the people is sheer hypocrisy. These guys don’t care about “tyranny.” They’re all for SCOTUS trampling states’ rights and flouting the will of the people when they like… Read more »
All of your criticisms spring from the foundation of “Racial (though you may term it cultural) pride is a virtue, and anyone who rejects that attitude is clearly 1) a coward, 2) probably physically weak/impotent, 3) liberal, 4) a Marxist, 5) obsessed with social justice and virtue signalling. Narrower – that is to say, racially vainglorious. You did not make that up – but I happen to think that is a point of agreement I share with Doug, and much as I hate to say it, Sullivan. And it’s fundamentally the same point – not a different one, as you… Read more »
Brawndo! It’s got what plants crave!
All of your criticisms spring from the foundation of “Racial (though you may term it cultural) pride is a virtue, and anyone who rejects that attitude is clearly 1) a coward, 2) probably physically weak/impotent, 3) liberal, 4) a Marxist, 5) obsessed with social justice and virtue signalling. The geniusness just keeps on comin’! Right. I don’t really think Doug looks foolish showing up for a utilitarian debate, relying almost solely on a utilitarian argument in his opening statement, and then, when he can’t come up with A SINGLE REASON BESIDES POLYGAMY THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS BAD, says, “I’m not… Read more »
I missed this previously. There is only one brilliant comeback to the gay marriage argument, and that is what Doug said: what you are arguing for is not marriage, but the destruction of marriage. It is useful to guard against erosion, and attempt to rebuild. Ian, you can call me names, but you can’t lie. And this is a flat out lie. Not only did Doug NOT say Sullivan was arguing for the destruction of marriage, he explicitly stated that gays wanting to marry AREN’T seeking to destroy marriage, which he said would be impossible, because straights destroyed it long… Read more »
When I was listening to the video, that was my paraphrase of Doug’s closing statement. If you want to take “paraphrase” as “flat out lie,” sure. go ahead.
If I were to attempt to harmonize your paraphrase of Doug’s statement with my paraphrase of his closing statement, I would say that Doug would say straights destroyed the practice of marriage, but gays are attempting to destroy the definition of marriage.
You can’t just make stuff up to suit your feelings by “paraphrasing” the speaker’s “intention” by claiming he really meant the exact opposite of what he’d explicitly stated just minutes before.
Keep diggin, Ian!
Facts don’t matter, because I’m a racist, so you can just make up whatever “facts” you want!
As a reactionary, you would tell me to keep digging. But, in fact, I’m just watching you fizz.
You just can’t stop the geniusness, can you?!
If you are not primarily opposed to Doug’s main argument because of racially vainglorious beliefs, then answer this: if Doug condemned interracial marriage in his exchange with Sullivan, but otherwise made the same argument, would you be so angry with him? Or do you think that there’s no way to argue against gay marriage that does not also argue against interracial marriage?
If you are not primarily opposed to Doug’s main argument because of racially vainglorious beliefs, then answer this: if Doug condemned interracial marriage in his exchange with Sullivan, but otherwise made the same argument, would you be so angry with him? What are you talking about? I’m not angry with him. He said a debate about atheism would be a fun thing to do. I told him if he was going to do it, he should spend a lot more time prepping than he did for the Sullivan debate, because he acquitted himself very poorly that night. Then someone came… Read more »
Do you generally spend as much time picking apart the arguments of those who do not touch you emotionally (with contemptuous asides)?
You may be right that my skin is too thin. I do not think I’m wrong that your comments display more than jocular razzing, but real contempt for those who disagree with you.
Ian, don’t give up hope: http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20160629_Why_police_were_called_to_a_South_Jersey_third_grade_class_party.html On June 16, police were called to an unlikely scene: an end-of-the-year class party at the William P. Tatem Elementary School in Collingswood. A third grader had made a comment about the brownies being served to the class. After another student exclaimed that the remark was “racist,” the school called the Collingswood Police Department, according to the mother of the boy who made the comment. The police officer spoke to the student, who is 9, said the boy’s mother, Stacy dos Santos, and local authorities. Dos Santos said that the school overreacted and that… Read more »
Whenever I talk to a real devotee of social justice, they immediately block me because I am clearly a Trump supporter. I guess I should take comfort from the fact that when I talk to a real alt-right all-round intelligent, experienced dude who knows how to razz those stupid SJWs, I am mocked for voting for Hillary. I don’t believe that people can win arguments. I think that presenting my understanding of the facts is worthwhile for the unconvinced, or to encourage those who agree, or possibly that God might take advantage of the opportunity to work in the life… Read more »
I think that presenting my understanding of the facts is worthwhile
If you really believe that, then go for it!
It would be a nice change of pace from coming on here and saying I’m a racist so therefore all my valid criticisms of Doug’s performance in the Sullivan debate are wrong.
So, go ahead – give that presenting your understanding of the facts thing a try.
Who knows? You might like it!
My understanding is that you think Doug is wrong about interracial marriage, and that this wrongness is key to how he is weak when arguing about gay marriage. Am I incorrect? That seemed to be the overwhelming root of your several very long posts about the Sullivan/Wilson debate. I acknowledged your other points, but either I do not agree with you that they are weaknesses, or I said they could have been done better.
Still waiting for you to enlighten me on the question of the interlinked natures and relative values of interracial and gay marriage.
Edit: Nevermind I had rememberd the ending vote wrong…
The evidence for Doug being a poor debater is the vote at the end. He let Sullivan play to sentementality unchecked.
What are you talking about?
Do you do nothing but take drugs around the clock?
According the to vote at the end, Wilson WON the debate decisively.
I thought it was the other way…
As usual, you were quite wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhxteVaoLjY&t=139m35s
Which is laughably absurd. The place was obviously packed with Christ Church members who were never going to admit that a homo mopped the floor with their pastor.
In this instance I agree with you.
Can you let Jeff Durbin know of your willingness to participate in the event so he can begin to arrange it?
Thanks.
I would love to have been a fly at your table, Douglas! What a discussion that must have been – thank you for relating this story and your analysis.
Carving out the space? Ridiculous. As if Hitchens needed to do such a think in order to think about something so simple. With his remarks about death-bed conversions, Hitchens was pre-empting the very subject of this column: A certain strain of wish-fufilling, dishonest christian who would take advantage of any opening to run their agenda post-mortem. As an aside- as someone who spent a portion of his life struggling with narcotics, the notion to worry about or wonder what you may say under the influence is pretty obvious. lord know what came out of my mouth. And I didn’t even… Read more »
I think it unlikely that Darwin converted on his deathbed. I don’t see evidence that Christopher Hitchens became a Christian.
Nevertheless, we don’t desire the death of our opponents, we desire their repentance. In the public arena Peter took the side of God and Christopher took the side of the atheists; even so, it would be a delight to discover in heaven that Christopher did in fact call out to God and that God heard him and extended grace to him.
Did Taunton claim that Hitchens converted?
No, he misrepresented Hitchens using his phrase ‘two sets of books’. Implying that Hitch may have been using a ‘fraudulent bookkeeping method’. Spiritual (in the christian sense) behind closed doors. Wish-fulfillment at best. More likely dishonest apologism.
Why is it implausable for Hitchens to have not been as polemicly anti-God in private as he was in public?
Because RandMan dearly wants it to be implausible. Nobody could be conflicted about something he holds so dear, obviously.
Because there is no evidence for that and it goes against everything Hitchens ever said or wrote. The idea being to imply that he (Hitchens) was a man of two minds regarding faith-based thinking. Nothing shows otherwise. No evidence. Just dishonest conjecture. Christian wish-fulfillment.
While ‘two sets of books’ might not be the best way to discribe Hithchens thinking about God and faith, Wilson Lennox and Taunton arriving at the same opinion of Hitchens is evidence of more than wish fulfillment.
They may or may not have ‘the same opinion’ of Hitchens for whatever that may mean. They certainly share a worldview that is challenged by what Hitchens advocated. To be fair, Hitchens had the reason, fact and evidence cards to play. Hardly an even match-up.
There are incompetent atheists,…. There are humorless atheists like Dawkins
But you repeat yourself.
Reading The God Delusion makes one come to the conclusion that honestly, I am not retarded enough to be an atheist.
Any real believer sees through a talmudist whether he feigns religion or the opposite same. Those taken in are taken in in similar planes, the world view seems reasonable to those on the same geography. They can’t explain the tectonic shift these fakers made from hippyfied democrats to war Hawks at the Iraq of no offense. The shift overwhelms with angular momentum those in a two dimensional left/right world. Talmudist left/right are there own grasping fists. They may be strangers killing an Arab but they are absolutely not tourists. You can not welcome them to the inn of theism innocently.… Read more »
Christians should at least appreciate that Hitchens’ objections to religion were often moral ones (as opposed to religion’s lack of usefulness or its imposition on the personal will). He never railed against religion for insisting that people can’t always do what they wanted to do. Rather, he rejected it because he felt it empowered and enabled the most wicked to do anything they wanted to do, whether it was priests molesting children or clerics calling for violent jihad. Good people would be good anyhow, with or without religion, but bad people can use religion as a means of convincing others… Read more »
“Good people would be good anyhow, with or without religion”
That itself is a religious belief, something that Doug often calls out and exposes.
Enlightenment:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/christopher-hitchens-christian-conversion-book
https://www.facebook.com/notes/lee-burvine/hitch-the-very-last-interview/1578590585804095
Good stuff. Haven’t heard Lennox debate Hitchens. Will search on youtube.
Somewhat related…Can we discuss Peter Enns great work on evolution? It’s greatness in apologetics…
Favorite memory of the many great memories of Hitchens vs. God’s mouthpiece
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mLr3bOG8zQ
To say, I don’t know which religion is true is an act of humility. To say, none of the religions have truth, no one can be sure there’s a god is actually to assume you have the kind of knowledge, you just said no other person, no other religion has. How dare you? See, it’s a kind of arrogant thing to say nobody can know the truth because it’s a universal truth claim. To say, ‘Nobody can make universal truth claims.’ That is a universal truth claim. ‘Nobody can see the whole truth.’ You couldn’t know that unless you think… Read more »
As many people on here are aware, I’ve devoted my life to fighting racism. A big part of winning the battle to end racism is understanding where it comes from. Of course, when it comes to white people, racism isn’t a mystery at all – as we all know, white people are filled with hate and it informs their every thought and action (except for me and my friends, of course). But what about the harder cases? It’s no secret that there’s a lot of bad blood between Asians and blacks. But why should that be? Asians never held blacks… Read more »
You didn’t even mention “roof Koreans”…
It was Yoko they ought’ve crucified!
Hi and greetings from England. Thanks for your interesting article. I’m writing because I need your help / advice. You may know that Great Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron resigned a couple of weeks ago, after losing the UK’s Referendum on membership of the European Union. We’ve now entered a 2-month election campaign for a new Prime Minister. And finally there’s a serious Christian Conservative candidate on the slate! It really would be great if we can get her elected in September. I thought that maybe we could get some help from the Christian Conservative community in the States, but… Read more »