by Sam Harris
18th December, 2011
via SamHarris.org
The moment it was announced that Christopher Hitchens was sick with cancer, eulogies began spilling into print and from the podium. No one wanted to deny the possibility that he would recover, of course, but neither could we let the admiration we felt for him go unexpressed. It is a cliché to say that he was one of a kind and none can fill his shoes—but Hitch was and none can. In his case not even the most effusive tributes ring hollow. There was simply no one like him.
One of the joys of living in a world filled with stupidity and hypocrisy was to see Hitch respond. That pleasure is now denied us. The problems that drew his attention remain—and so does the record of his brilliance, courage, erudition, and good humor in the face of outrage. But his absence will leave an enormous void in the years to come. Hitch lived an extraordinarily large life. (Read his memoir, Hitch-22, and marvel.) It was too short, to be sure—and one can only imagine what another two decades might have brought out of him—but Hitch produced more fine work, read more books, met more interesting people, and won more arguments than most of us could in several centuries.
I first met Hitch at a dinner at the end of April 2007, just before the release of his remarkable book god is not Great. After a long evening, my wife and I left him standing on the sidewalk in front of his hotel. His book tour was just beginning, and he was scheduled to debate on a panel the next morning. It was well after midnight, but it was evident from his demeanor that his clock had a few hours left to run. I had heard the stories about his ability to burn the candle at both ends, but staggering there alongside him in the glare of a street lamp, I made a mental note of what struck me as a fact of nature—tomorrow’s panel would be a disaster.
I rolled out of bed the following morning, feeling quite wrecked, to see Hitch holding forth on C-SPAN’s Book TV, dressed in the same suit he had been wearing the night before. Needless to say, he was effortlessly lucid and witty—and taking no prisoners. There should be a name for the peculiar cocktail of emotion I then enjoyed: one part astonishment, one part relief, two parts envy; stir. It would not be the last time I drank it in his honour.
Since that first dinner, I have felt immensely lucky to count Hitch as a friend and colleague—and very unlucky indeed not to have met him sooner. Before he became ill, I had expected to have many more years in which to take his company for granted. But our last meeting was in February of this year, in Los Angeles, where we shared the stage with two rabbis. His illness was grave enough at that point to make the subject of our debate—Is there an afterlife?—seem a touch morbid. It also made traveling difficult for him. I was amazed that he had made the trip at all.
The evening before the event, we met for dinner, and I was aware that it might be our last meal together. I was also startled to realize that it was our first meal alone. I remember thinking what a shame it was—for me—that our lives had not better coincided. I had much to learn from him.
I have been privileged to witness the gratitude that so many people feel for Hitch’s life and work—for, wherever I speak, I meet his fans. On my last book tour, those who attended my lectures could not contain their delight at the mere mention of his name—and many of them came up to get their books signed primarily to request that I pass along their best wishes to him. It was wonderful to see how much Hitch was loved and admired—and to be able to share this with him before the end.
I will miss you, brother.
Christopher Hitchens was the cold hard slap in the face that many of us needed to wake up out of the fog of religous thought. You Sam Harris are like a gentle prod away from zealous certainty and toward reasonable enquiry. I’m sad that Hitch had to go but glad that we still have people like you in the world.
It’s sad to think that up to the point of death the he still denied the Creator.
He was given a great mine and yet was hoodwinked by foolishness.
What’s sad is that you look at such a fulfilled, bountiful and constructive life of someone with such a reasoned and thought out position and have to jump onto a post of a friend of his talking about this life, love and respect for another to call such a great orator foolish.
Shame on you.
No Davo, I called the Atheistic religion foolish…and I said Christopher had a great mind. Try to look at the detail. Thanks
Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in a god or gods, outside that, everything is up for grabs.
Try and understand what you are talking about before calling people foolish simply because they lack your belief in a supernatural super-entity that controls everything. Hitchens denied the claims of religionists that a god exists, that’s not foolish given the reasoning and logic that leads to such a position.
Pull up your ego, your arrogance is showing.
Of course it’s a religion, it’s a belief system that has central teachings, key leaders (preachers), an agenda, and even passionate defense of popular views, and conventions (Church) for like minded people to come together.
How ridiculous, by your definition a football club would be a religion.
It’s doesn’t have a belief system, it is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
There are no central teachings, there are people explaining why they don’t believe in a god, many of those reasons are the same. But outside that people differ on many things. I differ in agreement with Hitchens on many many topics, the only thing we have in common is the acceptance there is no credible evidence for the existence of a god.
There is no ‘agenda’, most atheists don’t care or speak up, they simply don’t believe in a god. Of course there are many areas many atheists agree on (for example the use of reasoning and logic in coming to decisions) but that’s hardly ‘religion’.
Tax consultants have conventions, that’s not a religion. Many interest groups have conventions at which discussions on topics occur. At the last Global Atheist Convention there was a number of speakers I differed in concepts with, so what!
religion
Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
So, you are stating that Atheism is the common belief in no god, or personal deity….to me that sounds much like a faith belief system.
No personal attack intended, but I would observe that Atheism’s agenda is quite well noted in willing to dismantle any construct that may observe regard to a higher divine being, or god.
So, the logical question is.. if not from a god… simply where do you believe the universe came from, how did it come into existence?
How is that faith? Faith is the belief in something despite the lack of evidence, atheism by it’s very definition is the description of a lack of belief in something, sheesh. It’s not rocket science.
It always makes me wonder why religionists are so bent on stating atheism is a belief/faith, as if they intrinsically see that as some sort of slight on atheism. It’s totally ironic coming from a belief system based on faith to use it as some sort of downgrade toward a lack of belief in your claims.
Atheism is not capital A. It is simply atheism, which just means a lack of belief in a god or gods. What’s so difficult in that to understand?
Atheism has no agenda, some atheists may have an agenda or goals in life, or activism or the like, but atheism itself is not an agenda anymore than theism is an agenda. Christianity isa form of theism that is extremely diverse and it has central doctrine, atheism has NONE. It is simply a description for those without a belief in a god, just as theism is a description of those with a belief in a god. Both say nothing more nor explain anything more than that. Theists can be all sorts, atheists can be as well. It is simply a description of a position on the existence of a god.
With regard the universe, just because you claim to have an answer does not make your position somehow stronger. I am happy to say I may not ever know. You however are making the scientific claim that you do know.
I may have ideas on how it could come about (for example the concepts put forward by one of the speakers at the convention Lawrence Krauss) that the universe came from nothing, which according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle shows that at a quantum level things pop in and out of existence all the time. There is also observable physical evidence of this and specifically in the Casimir Effect
Needless to say I see no reason to believe in some sort of supernatural force that is mega-complicated as any type of explanation for the universe, it just pushes back the argument to ‘who made the creator’.
If you have evidence that the universe could not have come about by natural means, by a simple force that always existed, and had to be a highly super intelligent one, then please present it. So far no one has been able to show any evidence for their claims.
I’m quite happy to change my position given evidence, to date there is none. I am open minded in that regard, not close minded in saying ‘I have the answer and it’s a god’, a claim that is not falsifiable at all, anymore than saying a family of supernatural super-leprechauns danced the universe into existence.
Saw a poster yesterday. It had a cartoon picture of the angels reporting to gOD. They said that gODs perfect universe had been created according to hIS divine plan. “Good”, replied gOD ” Now; let’s wait 14 billion years or so & explain to an illiterate band of goat herders how to behave!”.
I certainly defend you right to stand upon your position.
However a thought comes to me when I hear ‘who made the creator’. In a sense it’s believing that there must have been something always in existence, And I would agree with that.
Since it is the case that something does now exist, logically I’d conclude that something has existed always. That is to say, If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows that something has existed always. The question then becomes, What is the “something” that has been in existence always?
Also, when I look at a great painting with use of colours, design, shades, shapes…I would logically firstly consider that there must have been an artist, a creator if you will, even if it was not a popular thought.
Yes you might think that, but that does not make your position correct.
There is evidence something can come from nothing, as to the universe it may have, or it may not have, we just do not know at this stage and maybe we never will.
The thing is, you not only claim that ‘something’ has always existed, you claim this force is not just a simple force that produces complex reactions (as we see in everything else around us) but take the position that it is a highly intelligent super entity.
Now if the universe is to complex to have not been created, and the ‘creator’ as proposed by yourself is even more complex, following your logic it must have been created too. All you are doing is pushing back the problem and making a god of the gaps. I see no reason at all that the ‘something’ that always existed could not have been just a simple force, even if that was indeed the case and the universe did not just happen the same way we see things happen at the quantum level all the time.
With regards your painting on the wall. I can also find and speak to the creator of it, failing that, inspect it and what it is made of and how. There is tangible evidence as to how it was made and for what reason. I’ve seen other paintings before and I can make them myself. It is not anything like pointing at the universe and saying ‘must have been created by someone intelligent, and that intelligent thing has a plan for me’
Biological organisms reproduce and carry all of the information necessary to make copies of themselves, whereas a painting does not. It’s one thing to conclude that an object which can’t make a copy of itself (because it lacks the reproductive capacity and instructions) must have been created, but it doesn’t follow that living, reproducing organisms must have been created. There is however, an extremely good explanation for this in evolution, a simple explanation that we have mountains of evidence for across a myriad of sciences that converge on the same concept in regards how the mechanics of evolution work.
To me, it just seems you have thrown your lot in with the idea ‘this isn’t understood and it’s way to complex for me to understand, therefore a god did it’. That’s not at all open minded, that’s close minded. It’s saying ‘I don’t have an answer for all this, therefore this is the answer’.
Well myself and others can’t just accept this claim as fact. That’s what makes us atheists. There are many of us, we are all around you and there is nothing wrong with that. I am quite happy to investigate all the things around me using the brain and reasoning I have, I can’t see any ‘creator god’ if there turns out to be one of some sort, and actually happens to care (another matter) condemning me for using the faculties given me anyway.
Anyway, this is totally off topic in a new item by a friend of ours remembering his dead friend. Do you make a habit of jumping in on a eulogy to make a point? I think it’s rather bad taste, and if you watched the first video I posted Hitchens made the same point.
Hi,
I watched the film you posted…Interesting
here’s one I came across today.
Thanks Davo, Bevan
http://youtu.be/fP9CwDTRoOE
William Lane Craig? You have to be kidding. I hope you are even up to discussing it, and are not just posting it because it makes you feel all warm inside.
That’s how he debates, and why people like yourself swallow it hook line and sinker. But people like Dawkins needn’t bother. It looks good on your guys resume, but not so good on anyone elses. This stuff has been dealt with time and time again.
He is a good professional debater but debates don’t define reality. Craig simply argues the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Dawkins is a scientist not a professional debater as is Craig, and reality is not defined by how well you put forward yourself on a day. Scientists deal with realities, not verbal gymnastics.
Bertrand Russell, in his 1948 debate with Copleston, touched on one of the problems with the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument Craig presents as his cornerstone.
This is the Kalam :
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
William Lane Craig, then states : “The logic of the argument is valid and very simple; the argument has the same logical structure as the argument: ‘All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.’ So the question is, are there good reasons to believe that each of the steps is true? I think there are.” (Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 72.)
Here is Bertrand’s approach to the first flaw in the argument :
“I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all. . . . I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother–that’s a different logical sphere.”
Sure he impresses those that do not inquire, as he is extremely good at a chess game of logic, thru his preperation for debates. Most debating him are not prepared for his ability in that regard, namely because it is a gish gallop of claims.
Let me deal with it here.
The problem is it is still supposition. His first premise is something he cannot know, and thus the logic of the whole argument is lost. I can go into concepts of space/time etc as well, but to try and keep it understandable, I will try and keep it brief.
The supposition that anything caused must have a cause is flawed logic when one creates the answer ‘therefore god’, as this leads to the logical conclusion, that this god must have a cause, in infinite regress. The comment by Craig himself over infinites only substantiates the illogic of the arguument, it doesn’t detract from it.
He makes the supposition that time has specific formats that fit his model. Where for causality to occur, there must be time. Where there is no time, there is no causality. It is a paradox of creation. The problem for Dr Craig, is he has to prove that which no scientist yet knows, is the version of time that he defines it as AND explain how something effectively comes from nothing, with no causality.
It also leaves one having to make the leap to explaining how one gets from this ‘creation’ to the concept of a god as put forward by christianity, explaining how one understands something that is beyond all that can be known. It is a leap from what looks to be simple, to explaining how this ‘force’ would be the massively complex one described, and not extremely simple, as we see with any other process within the universe.
For sure, Craig could be right, but as I stated above, it is not evidence as there are clear errors in the logic, and he cannot know, so there is no proof in what he states, his chances of being right are no where near advanced by his argument. It at BEST puts forward the possibility of a ’cause’, but from there all he is doing is making assumptions to define that cause.
Lets put it this way, even if everything needs to have been created, there is nothing in what Craig is claiming that says this force must be supremely intelligent, as compared to a mindless simple naturalistic force. He simply claims it must be intelligent and all knowing, all loving, all powerful etc. A leap to a conclusion with no evidence.
Davo,
Perhaps you should not have dignified Bevan’s crass use of this post of Sam’s Eulogy to try and score a point and to prop up his own self delusion by replying. I hope members of Christopher Hitchen’s family did not see Bevan’s shallow tasteless comment.
However, having replied, you did well, even if the logic will be lost on him.
Rationalism has lost a talented warrior. How I admired Christopher’s ability to draw on his broad education, his eloquence, his logic, his humour and directness in debate. I am truly saddened by his early exit from life but the echos of it will persist.
You didn’t even watch, yet I took an hour to watch yours….so much for being open
What? I did watch, I have seen it before.
I replied refuting his claims over a first cause, the basis of his whole position and that which if you watch the video, WLC says Dawkins does not confront!
Well I confronted it.
You are not even responding to anything, you are simply posting dribble with no reasoning to back it up, no logic and no evidence.
Why should I be surprised really?