Hitchens vs. Ken Blackwell: Is America a Christian nation?
posted at 8:00 pm on April 8, 2009 by Allahpundit
Mmmmmmm, that’s good comment bait! Not as interesting as Doug TenNapel’s recap of Hitch’s debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, but fun nonetheless. This devolves relatively quickly (and predictably) from an argument over whether America is Christian by origin into an argument over how Christian America will remain; my own feeling is that the country will become more secular as science and technology become more able to explain “magical” phenomena, but that a backlash to that progress will emerge in the form of hardening of religious attitudes among the true believers. What that will look like, I have no idea.
The jumping-off point here is Newsweek’s new poll on post-Christian America. I was most impressed while reading the data with how constant the country’s religious belief has been, but do note the results of question 17. An all-time low.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Not even close, many of us read about muggers and some, such as myself, have personally been mugged. If someone told me that there was an alley full of muggers I refer to my past experience, based in reality, and avoid that alley.
Ann NY on April 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Apologies for the late reply. My comment on magic being used to explain religion is based upon some claims that are made in more than one brand.
I really don’t want to start an ideological war on this, but, one of the claims which seem to be fundamental in Christianity is the raising of the dead. That, to me, would fall well within the realm of magic.
Other instances, such as water to wine etc, only fan the flames, I’m afraid.
The “explaining” part comes about through indications that supernatural events are an integral part of the religion.
BTW, I don’t have a religion. I simply am. I need no further excuse.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM
On the identity of the writers:-
John of Patmos:- Jehovah is a gracious giver of my killing.
Every proper noun in the Bible is a pseudonym, which serves to describe a part of the narrative.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:04 AM
When one starts out with a God who creates light out of nothing and then proceeds to make the universe…
…then resurrection and water to wine aren’t that big of a deal (to accept).
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 11:04 AM
No – that’s completely wrong.
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Your post is quite valid, in its assertion. The problem that I have is with a belief in anything of a supernatural nature. It is a circular argument, requiring belief in something that is without foundation.
Some people are prepared to believe in the supernatural, others, such as myself, require proof that would override the logic that dictates a lack of the supernatural -ie, outside of this universe and its laws.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Check their etymology. It will take awhile, I can assure you, but my statement stands.
For example, Matthew:- gift of Jehovah.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Every “discussion” over the existence of God really boils down to two firmly held but contradictory beliefs.
The atheist looks at the heavens and the world and in its great beauty, wonder and order sees a happy yet random coincidence that brought everything into being.
The person who believes in God (and those that believe in gods) looks at the heavens and the world and in its great beauty, wonder and order sees the handiwork of a greater being (God).
These two views are entirely opposite of each other and completely ridiculous to the other person.
The best we can do at that point is to shake hands and agree to disagree.
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Spot on! Agreed.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:28 AM
I don’t think that the explanation of “magical” phenomena discounts the existence of God. Understanding the laws of physics doesn’t diminish the awe for the creator of them.
Queen0fCups on April 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM
No, you’re still wrong.
See, for example, Peter, Paul, Pilate, Caiphas, Herod and the list of Jewish Kings going back to Solomon and David.
Please don’t confuse the ancient tradition of naming people after thoughts and events and believing then that the names are completely made up.
All of this brings me right back to what I said earlier: So why should people who have rarely, if ever, studied the Bible and current Biblical scholarship, think that they can debate the “truthfulness” of what the scripture is reporting?
If I need to explain to you typical Jewish naming customs, then we can’t have a back-and-forth dialog about the “truthfulness” of the Bible.
If you continue to insist that you “know” what you don’t know, then our conversation has come to an end.
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM
And on that note, Happy Easter. :)
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM
And a big old Happy Spring Solstice right back at you!
(no ill will intended, just a wink and a smile and a wholehearted wish that you have a wonderful weekend)
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Non sequitur – worse yet, utterly MOOT.
The fact of the matter is this: Thanks to the “public school system” and its alliance with the “entertainment industry”, the vast majority of our children are ALREADY complete, utter MORONS. Not because they were BORN morons per se, but because IGNORANCE has ascended the throne to take its place as THE most desirable, admirable, “coolest” and most “awesome” attribute that any young person can possess. If I had to write a one sentence synopsis of the culture of our youth in this modern day America, it would read something like this: “The stupider, the better.” THAT’s what we’ve ALREADY taught our children.
My collie says:
Collie, you’re an incurable optimist.
CyberCipher on April 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
The introduction of a creator when talking about the laws of nature explains nothing. Such ideas only help in closing down the thought processes of those that accept such things. Yahweh explains no more about physics than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Annar on April 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Belief in at least the possibility of the supernatural is more rational, reasonable, and logical than the materialist/naturalist view. I came to this conclusion years ago, having thrown off the strict religion of my upbringing and embraced un-belief.
Evidence supports this thesis: Paradox lies at the very foundation of the universe: Light is both a wave and a particle. e and pi, two of the fundamental constants essential for the mathematics that describe how the world fuctions, are irrational numbers – decimals that go on forever without repeating. Fractal mathematics, which are extremely useful for describing real-world phenomena, are based on the square root of -1, the “imaginary number.”
The very existence of our universe as it is is highly improbable. If the strong and weak nuclear forces were very much different, the universe would either be all hydrogen (because you could not fuse two H atoms) or all helium, because you could not pull apart a He atom to make a heavier atom. The constant that describes the ratio of these forces is called i, and it is just about equal to 1. But the factors that go into it are on the order of plus and minus 10,000.
Finally, our brains are finite, fragile, and fallible. They’re good for 80 years, plus or minus a few years. One good head-shot and it’s goodnight, Irene. And everyone makes mistakes.
So the notion that there does not and can not exist – anything that the human brain cannot comprehend, that there is nothing that it cannot measure… IMO is sheer foolishness.
skydaddy on April 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM
“Being” in the context of my post could be used as a variant of “entity”, rather than some sort of physical creature. Whether said entity is ethereal or corporal in nature, is irrelevant to the concept under discussion.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 5:00 AM
Err… “Being” isn’t anywhere in the post you referenced.
one of the claims which seem to be fundamental in Christianity is the raising of the dead. That, to me, would fall well within the realm of magic.
Other instances, such as water to wine etc, only fan the flames, I’m afraid.
The “explaining” part comes about through indications that supernatural events are an integral part of the religion.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Heh… These would only constitute “magic” if the followers of the religion were expected to perform the same feats. ]
Some people are prepared to believe in the supernatural, others, such as myself, require proof that would override the logic that dictates a lack of the supernatural -ie, outside of this universe and its laws.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Actually, while “gods” (personifications of natural phenomenae) are supernatural beings, “God” (the foundation of reality)is not.
For example, Matthew:- gift of Jehovah.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM
My name–Jason–is the Greek word for physician. That doesn’t make it a psuedonym. Please find a name that isn’t a word in its source language?
q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Religious_Zealot on April 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Not to be contradictory so soon after the earlier expression of inter-camp goodwill, but here’s my take on the situation: today’s world is full of people who are as theologically illiterate as the world was math-illiterate two thousand years ago.
One one side, you’ve got people who think that texts of religious education should be read like historical documents (the equivalent of adding 2 + 2 and getting 5).
On the other side, you’ve got people who have discovered that 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 5, and believe that by virtue of that discovery they have mastered calculus.
q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM
The word “being” is in my 9:24 PM post, which was the first one that you replied to, and in which we both agree on the word “supernatural”. However, i wished to assert that i was not thinking in terms of a “person”, as such.
As to magic, I don’t think it necessary for followers to perform it, only believe in it having been performed by their supreme being, and using that as part of their Creed.
Naming, generally, applies some sort of epithet to a person, and in some cultures is used to denote an actual title. My point was that the Bible, if under serious study, must allow for the possibility that the Biblical names were chosen for a particular purpose, and that said names may not identify any actual person.
The real problem with names comes when there are people who believe that the Biblical lineage is actual, rather than allegorical.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 7:17 PM
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 7:17 PM
AHA! There may have been some crossed wires…
Your post:
And yet you find no absurdity in the idea of a supernatural being? Oh, well.
OldEnglish on April 8, 2009 at 9:24 PM
My answer:
The idea of supernatural beings is ludicrous.
q2600 on April 8, 2009 at 10:25 PM
My objection was to the term supernatural, not to beings.
As to magic, I don’t think it necessary for followers to perform it, only believe in it having been performed by their supreme being, and using that as part of their Creed.
That requires a supernatural entity who performs supernatural feats. Such feats would be “magic,” and exceptions to the nature of reality. Note that this is fundamentally different from the concept of Supreme Being, which is the basis of reality rather than an exception to it. Also note that “their supreme being” is an error; there can by definition be only one Supreme Being. Hindus may use the name Brahman where Christians use the Tetragrammaton, Chinese religion may refer to the Dao in one circumstance and Nirvana in another–but they are all simply culturally-flavored understandings of Supreme Being.
I agree with your expanded explaination of Biblical names. There is a lot of allegory and symbolism in the Biblical texts that goes completely unnoticed by most so-called Bible scholars.
q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM
“Their supreme being” was used, not to differentiate between religions, but to state that I don’t believe in such an entity, at all.
I guess that this is where I am at odds with all religions, I simply do not accept the idea of anything supernatural. I suppose that it boils down to the origin of the universe – I don’t think that it ever had one. Big Bangs being merely an infinite cycle.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Are you responsible for your own existence?
davidk on April 9, 2009 at 9:40 PM
The rejection of the supernatural is a presupposition based on no proof.
The acceptance of the supernatural is logically supported.
Infinite cycle = infinite regress which is absurd.
davidk on April 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM
No – the natural cycle is.
Gravity might have something to say about that. Pity that we won’t be around to find out.
Supernatural, and logic, cannot coexist, logically. By definition, the supernatural defies logic, because it would have to exist outside of an infinite universe.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:11 PM
I guess that this is where I am at odds with all religions, I simply do not accept the idea of anything supernatural.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Nor do I, as I mentioned at the beginning. I can see how this would put you at odds with mythology, but how does it put you at odds with “all religions?” Buddhism, for instance–how is the idea that by letting go of attachment mankind can forgo suffering supernatural?
I suppose that it boils down to the origin of the universe – I don’t think that it ever had one. Big Bangs being merely an infinite cycle.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM
How do you square that with thermodynamics? Even assuming that a “Big Crunch” would give rise to a new “Big Bang,” the Crunch couldn’t possibly account for all matter/energy every time. Some would escape at every iteration, as the system became more disordered, and eventually the cycle would end.
And that’s without even considering the question formal cause.
q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 11:19 PM
By definition, the supernatural defies logic, because it would have to exist outside of an infinite universe.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Actually, “supernatural” refers to something which operates outside the physical laws of the universe, not its boundaries. A vampire, for instance, would be a supernatural creature–but would exists right here on Earth.
q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 11:21 PM
“Their supreme being” was used, not to differentiate between religions, but to state that I don’t believe in such an entity, at all.
OldEnglish on April 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Sorry for three consecutive posts…
Why do you insist on referring to Supreme Being as a person? While the Abrahamic traditions use personification in reference to Supreme Being–since the concept was arrived at through discussion of tribal deities–most religions don’t. The Dao certainly isn’t an “entity,” nor is Nirvana nor Brahman. Supreme Being is a metaphysical principle–the formal cause (to reference my previous post) of existence.
q2600 on April 9, 2009 at 11:31 PM
hitchens just steamrolled the man
brilliant stuff
lexhamfox on April 9, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Some matter would escape to – where? If Gravity is, indeed, limitless, it would still capture it – eventually. If so, the laws of thermodynamics would remain intact.
Metaphysics is, in my opinion, a cop-out. A long-winded way of saying “I don’t know, but it must be something.” It is the art of pondering the imponderable, while avoiding the natural laws that govern the universe.
Sorry for my apparent insistence upon referring to a “person”, in regard to the supernatural. I don’t know how else to describe the subject. I fully agree that it not a person – it isn’t anything, for it cannot exist.
Quite so, which is why vampires don’t exist.
OldEnglish on April 10, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Comment to “OldEnglish” and “Religious_Zealot”
The problem with most atheists is their self-delusion of
being wholly logical and “scientific.” I’m a non-theist–
i.e., an atheist subscribing to an ecumenical form of
“atheism” under the acronym “NAAAAH.” What does that
mean? It stands for “Not All Atheists Are Asininely
Hubristic,” which, in the vernacular, means “Not All
Atheists Are Ass-Holes.” Thus, I’m not an “AHA” atheist
(AHA = Asininely Hubristic Atheist)
OldEnglish and Religious_Zealot apparently agree with this
statement:
“The atheist looks at the heavens and the world and in its
great beauty, wonder and order sees a happy yet random
coincidence that brought everything into being.
The person who believes in God (and those that believe in
gods) looks at the heavens and the world and in its great
beauty, wonder and order sees the handiwork of a greater
being (God).”
A problem common among atheists is that they arrogantly
think their reasoning is immune from leaps of faith. A
problem common among practitioners of particular religions
is that they embraced a particular religion (most commonly
the one taught them by their parents) without first having
asked and answered the deity/no-deity question in the
abstract. Thus, when they finally get around to asking
and answering the question, their reasoning tends to be
the same as a lawyer who’s already committed to a
particular client and thus is obliged to view all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the client.
Let’s examine what OldEnglish and Religious agree to be
generally correct descriptions of the contrasting views of
atheists and theists.
The theist sees the awesome complexity of the universe and
concludes nothing that awesome and complex could happen
except by design– i.e., it could not possible be an un-
caused effect.
The AHA atheist sees the awesome complexity of the
universe and not only accepts it as an un-caused effect
but also asserts it to be illogical and/or unscientific
and/or unintelligent to hypothesize the universe as an
effect of a greater, vastly more complex un-caused effect.
The NAAAH non-theist sees the awesome complexity of the
universe and at first wonders how such awesome complexity
could have occurred spontaneously without cause. But
then, in reasoning backward that nothing so awesome and
complex could exist without a cause (a designer) realizes
that the assertion that there must be a deity is a
conclusion swallowed by its premise since surely such
deity would have to be vastly, vastly, vastly (on to
infinity) more awesome and complex than the universe, and,
hence could not exist without there having been a “cause”
(i.e., a super-diety who created the deity). Knowing that
LOGIC would take one to infinity on what is a logically
pointless trip, the NAAAH simply says, “I don’t believe
the existence of the universe is proof of a ceator any
more than I would believe the existence of a creater to be
proof of a super-creator.”
BUT, the NAAAH non-theist also recognizes that it is
likewise illogical for an atheist to assert that the
universe is the only un-caused effect and that it could
not be the effect of an antecedent cause. Thus, no one
seriously claiming to be “logical” or “scientific” could
dogmatically assert there to be no “deity.”
What ought to be the “bottom line” for theists and non-
theists is how humans ought to relate to each other, to
themselves and to the universe. Non-theists respect
theisms most harmonious with the broadly accepted moral
codes advocated by most religions but reject those which
haven’t (or can’t) stand the test of time.
Most non-theists readily concede the great value in non-
fanatical religions. They inspire many, many people to
engage in the kinds of behaviors that are best for
ourselves, the free-choice nature of our being, and our
posterity (and avoid the kinds of behaviors least
conducive to such goals). Most non-theists recognize that
the Golden Rule is perfect as an aspirational foundation
for morality and that common-sense is all that is needed
to derive corrolaries to it (i.e., even if I were to be an
attempted murderer who would not want anyone to stop me, I
can’t common-sensibly expect non-murderers to stand idly
by because they want to treat me the way I want to be
treated rather than killing me to prevent the murder of
another.)
What’s needed between theists and non-theists is the final
sentiment on which “OldEnglish” and “Religious_Zealot”
also agreed: “The best we can do at that point is to
shake hands and agree to disagree” and neither of us engage in the arrogant presumption that the other is an idiot as long as “the other” is not a fanatic.
Jim Wrenn on April 10, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Christopher Hitchens is an overblown pseudo-intellectual who, like Bill Maher, another overblown pseudo-intellectual, must constantly attack those of religious belief because Hitchens and Maher are so unconvinced of their belief system that they must convince themselves.
At least Hitchens deserves credit for realizing that Islamic Terrorism is a real threat unlike Maher who is just beyond redemption and a caustic idiot.
nelsonknows on April 10, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Great post, Jim W.
The logic of going beyond the beyond has given me many a headache, which is why I finally came to the conclusion that there is no beyond, but that I do not understand what is. The question of who created the creator also settled me into thinking that there is none.
Others are content to see the universe as being more than Mother Nature, and I have no proof that they are wrong, merely my own conviction. Logic, to me, says the universe is entirely natural in its existence and composition, but I must allow that others may see things differently.
OldEnglish on April 10, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Quite the contrary. “In the beginning was the logos.” The metaphysical logic was prior to the universe. (And, no, “metaphysical logic” is not an oxymoron.)
You know the universe is infinite? How do you know that?
Again infinite regress is illogical i.e., absurd.
(I further find it curious that you somehow think that logic is material.)
davidk on April 10, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Not so for this theist. I looked at both scientific evidence and logic.
I don’thave time to elaborate–gotta go to work.
davidk on April 10, 2009 at 7:28 AM
Ken Blackwell was a far better choice for head of the RNC than Michael Steele. The GOP chose sizzle over steak.
bw222 on April 10, 2009 at 7:32 AM
Anything other than an infinite series of cycles is illogical. There would have to have been an infinite period of nothing, prior to the universe, and that is contradictory.
If the universe can expand, it can contract. The number of cycles is immaterial.
Metaphysics is a cop-out for someone trying to understand that which is beyond us all, and, as an answer, touting the notion that there is an “other world” solution to difficult questions about cause and effect. It is usually applied when someone is trying to con others into believing that which is not real.
As for logic, I see it as cause and effect.
OldEnglish on April 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM
It’s Good Friday.
I like Hitch. He defends what he thinks is just. I have no reason to think of him as dishonorable.
If Christianity is dead or dying I think it’s because sacred doctrine stultifies more than inspires.
If a holocaust were to bring us to our knees and we had to begin again, Hitchens drivel would be laughable to those re-builders so full of energy and hope and Wisdom.
Materialists can tell you everything about a tulip, but in the end they haven’t really explained anything. Without imagination. No interest in why. No civilization could rebuild on such arid ground.
It didn’t take the Soviets but a few years to realize that the eradication of man’s interest, love and need for the supernatural, was an impossiblity. Science will never change that. As Lewis wrote, we seek God for the same reason we seek food.
One last thought on this Good Friday, if liberty is to be preserved, people of good will will have to stand together. As Queen Elizabeth said, we shouldn’t need or want a window into another man’s thoughts.
From and older but still relevant piece, Tom Wolfe Tom Wolfe covers a thing or two:
Eirenic Rebel on April 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Last time I looked at US currency…..
IN GOD WE TRUST
(all others pay cash)
Bevan on April 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Indeed, there cannot be nothing. “Nothing” cannot exist.
Something must exist.
Being cannot not exist or it would not be being.
Therefore, the “something that must exist” is being.
It must be timeless, having its existence within itself.
That is total nonsense.
davidk on April 10, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Hitchens has that disgusted atheistic “I’m going to hell” look.
Craig- head held high, smiling.
Craig did a number on Anthony Flew too….
Flew seemed to respond in a way that he never knew what hit him….
Rock on Craig….
CynicalOptimist on April 10, 2009 at 7:44 PM
I guess you didn’t know – Anthony Flew has become a believer in God. Or at least in the existence of God. I heard it from his own mouth.
Squiggy on April 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM
When you’re in the mood, give yourself a headache or two (as i have done) and contemplate the idea of infinity containing one, expanding universe, all without a beginning. It will drive you nuts, and cause you to realize that a sine wave – which governs the motion of all components, applies to the universe itself.
I don’t understand how this could occur, but it is the only logical explanation that fits infinity.
OldEnglish on April 10, 2009 at 8:52 PM
These would be laughable “contradictions” if it wasnt so sad that these are denoted as wisdom by small minds.
Too much ignorance in that posting (and that whole site) to even start dismantling it. I seek intelligent debate from those seeking guidance, not the folly of the self-righteous
GD on April 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM
We still are a Christian nation, regardless what the few state on a tv program or in some low rated magazine with a mission to destroy Christianity. God has blessed this country for over 200 years for a reason just as God has blessed Israel for thousands of years, belief in the God- given gifts and practices we have had.
Because the few wish to destroy what the framers had in mind with the “establishment clause” including the phrase “AND FREE EXERCISE THEROF” there WAS no seperation of church and state, only what the ACLU lawyers wish it to be, a country without Christianity. May the ACLU rot in hell.
One more thing, in the end God wins and so do the Christians!!!
dthorny on April 11, 2009 at 2:16 AM
“Occur” is operative word. Stuff cannot just occur without intelligence cause (dare I say an “Intelligent Designer”?). That’s the main problem (in my mind) about Darwian Evolution.
An expanding universe in a infinite “something” still has to have a beginning. And where did the “idea of infinity” come from? If you are refering to a spatial infinity, it, too, must have had a beginning, but then it would not be infinite.
Your comments contain the seeds of pantheism or panentheism.
As I stated earlier, the only “thing” that must exist is being. And then looking at that which has come into being (and anything with a time dimension has to have a beginning) and looking at what that Being has created (if I may be allowed that leap) one can infer certain attributes of that Being, which attributes point to the God of the Bible.
I have made a lot of jumps in my argument, so you can pick apart pieces of what I’ve said. But I assure you, the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is logically supported.
davidk on April 11, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3