What difference does it make if Francis Collins is a Christian and Christopher Hitchens is an atheist? Hitchens has cancer and Collins is working on individualized cancer treatments based on genetics. But that is the hook for this Telegraph story:
The author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything said that he is a “guinea pig” for a new personalised medicine partly developed by Dr Frank Collins, a geneticist with very strong religious views. The two had often met in the past as adversaries in the debate about whether God exists. Against the odds they had become friends. Now Hitchens is one of the few people in the world who has had his entire genetic make up mapped and is receiving a new treatment that targets his own damaged DNA. “I’m an experiment,” Hitchens said. “These are early stages, but in theory it should attack the primary site of the tumour. “If that does happen, it won’t just be good news for me, it will be very exciting in the general treatment of cancer.”
Dr Collins is a former director of the National Human Genome Research Project and is now the director of America’s National Institutes of Health. He is the author of a bestselling book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
I trust an atheist geneticist would just as readily help a Christian or a Muslim as Collins is helping an atheist. It. Should. Make. No. Difference.
The real and exciting story here is the advance of individualized medicine:
The prognosis looked very grave until a few weeks after his diagnosis he was asked if he would like to be a guinea pig in the new science of genome sequencing as a possible cure for cancer. Samples were taken from healthy tissue and from his tumour and on each of them six billion DNA matches were run, in order to catalogue any mutations found in the cancerous cells. He was warned to have no expectations. But in the New Year came the good news that there is a genetic mutation found in the tumour for which there already exists a drug. Having been on varying types and doses of chemotherapy, he is now on a regime of one pill a day.
Hitchens deserves our best wishes–and for those so inclined, prayers–although as we’ve discussed here at SHS, praying for him should not be used as a cudgel in the religion versus atheism disputes. Let’s hope this works, both for Hitchens and for the future betterment of cancer therapies.
March 26th, 2011 | 1:14 pm
Get well, Mr Hitchens! We need you now more than ever!
March 26th, 2011 | 2:49 pm
Reductive polarization – a technique for implanting the idea that a particular group (in this case, Christians) are fundamentally less capable than others of doing or being some socially valued task or function (in this case, caring for a person outside their immediate identity-group – which is, in this case, Christianity).
When a Christian visits a sick atheist, the Christian should of course make a good-faith effort to say what will be comforting and good to hear.
But it is not at all clear that all non-Christians are going to hear “I’ll pray for you” as inappropriate.
Of course, anything said sneeringly or sarcastically is offensive. That’s as true for “I hope you get well” as “I’ll pray for you”.
I refer only to sincere attempts to convey good wishes. Just as we are cultural villains if we wish someone a Merry Christmas, we are now also to be cultural villains if we don’t find atheist-friendly ways of conveying that we share the sense of loss and anxiety.
You could, of course, just say “I know it’s not your custom, but I will offer my prayers for you, because that is what I do for that which I care about.”
But, of course, saying that, it immediately becomes obvious that you’re going out of your way to say unnecessary things, and for what? Because atheists find prayers so offensive that they have the right to…to what? Demand that you tiptoe around whatever makes them uncomfortable?
Given how hard it is to know what the right thing is to say to a sick person, it might be worth remembering that most sick people dread being ignored more than they dread being prayed for. And yet the primary reason why people exhibit avoidant behaviors around sick and bereaved families is because they “don’t know what to say” and are “afraid of saying the wrong thing”.
Atheists are throwing fuel on this fire. They are saying, in essence, “yes, if you say something religious to an atheist, you’ll hurt that person – and you’ll be selfish! and BAD!”
Clear enough in the case of Christopher Hitchens. Not at all clear in most real-life cases, where people aren’t so open and articulate about what will and won’t comfort them.
I don’t know of anyone who goes to the trouble of visiting sick people, who does not make a good faith effort to try to talk about what will comfort the person being visited.
I think that what atheists are demanding here is something more than that.
I think they’re going for the effect I have heard called “reductive polarization”. The same thing they did on the war on Christmas (if you wish someone a “Merry Christmas” you’re being culturally insensitive and all that).
Imagine if a Christian were dying and an atheist expressed continued hope that a cure would be found. Imagine that then the Christian then said nasty, biting things belittling his faith in the powers of science, and expressed contempt for the atheist’s moral weakness and general inferiority of character, in that only a moral weakling would fear death.
AW Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:10 am
@Blake, Agreed. I’m an atheist, and I appreciate it when someone says, “I’ll pray for you.” Yes, I believe it’ll do about as much good as sprinkling me with snake blood and doing the voodoo jig, but it means that this person cares and is doing what they think is best. It’s no different from saying, “best wishes” or “you are in my thoughts.” Frankly, I’d be [ticked] if a Christian friend didn’t find me worth praying for in my time of need.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:41 am
AW: Welcome. In the earlier post and thread that I liinked, I quoted Hitchens about this issue and noted there were two ways of “praying” for the atheist. One is as you stated. The other is as a dig, as a way of being arrogant. It is the latter to which I object.
March 26th, 2011 | 2:53 pm
I should clarify something I said:
When I said “clear enough in the case of Christopher Hitchens…”, I meant, it is clear enough what he believes, and what he does and does not want to hear. It is not as clear what other people believe, or will find comforting.
I did not mean to convey that it is clear that Christopher Hitchens is “throwing fuel on the fire”. Hitchens is not one of the people I had in mind, when I spoke of atheists trying to exacerbate the culture wars.
I wanted to make that clear, because I admire how thoughtfully and carefully he speaks.
March 26th, 2011 | 4:23 pm
Agreed with and particularly enjoyed this post, Wesley. Thanks.
March 26th, 2011 | 6:50 pm
Very good to hear — and yes, you’re right: an atheist would (I trust) do the same for a believer.
Being adversaries doesn’t mean being enemies.
HW
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 26th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
HistoryWriter: That’s the best thing you have written on this blog. Very nice.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, Great point! that’s the great thing about this blog, as well, the respectful disagreement, that takes place.
Maybe HW and Wesley could have a beer sometime, no doubt arguing about the latest in bioethics :)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Only if he buys. : – )
HistoryWriter Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:22 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
I’ll buy. But you have to come to New Jersey to collect. :-)
HW
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
@HistoryWriter, I say you both debate an issue, in front of an audience at the bar, and whoever is the winner, buys :)
March 26th, 2011 | 7:16 pm
I have another headline for them: Jewish Composer Tutors Christian Musicologist in Music Theory, Prays with Christian before Test!
March 26th, 2011 | 7:44 pm
Good news! I hope the old boy makes it.
March 26th, 2011 | 11:41 pm
I wish Hitchens all the best and it is a good thing that Dr. Collins is doing for him and all the rest of us as well. Dr. Collins is using his position at the top of the NIH to help someone he has come to know through their discussions on opposing sides of the religion debate. Fortunately, on the science side, Dr. Collins actually does have some evidence to work from.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 27th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
@Quine, I’m guessing that Wesley doesn’t want to turn this into a relion vs. atheism, debate, but I think you’re wrong to imply that, Dr. Collins, a man whose erudition measures up to the best of the best, has no credible evidence to support Christianity. There are very good arguments, and empirical evidence, to support Christianity.
March 27th, 2011 | 7:08 pm
I hope the best for Christopher Hitchens. While I think he’s wrong on atheism, he’s a man of considerable intelligence, moral commitment, and talent, and we should all wish for him a happy, and long life.
March 28th, 2011 | 8:19 am
Pointing out that Hitchens the atheist is being helped by a Christian is important, because (a) most obviously it’s the truth and (b) the truth under question exposes the myth of the heartless dumb Christian.
March 28th, 2011 | 9:39 am
I think this guy summed this whole situation up very nicely (also a bit profanely, so be warned):
http://xkcd.com/836/
March 28th, 2011 | 10:52 am
I really take issue with the premise of this article as some sort of “gotcha!”. In the U.S., Hitchens is more likely to have some aspect of his treatment connected to a Christian than he is to have some aspect of his treatment be connected with a heterosexual. Francis Collins is one of but thousands of scientists who’ve had a hand some treatment keeping Hitchens alive. Hitchens therefore owes his life to the Catholic, Protestant & Jewish versions of Yahweh, the first two’s versions of Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Krishna etc. If he owes all of them, then he owes NONE of them.
March 28th, 2011 | 4:28 pm
Pointing out that Hitchens the atheist is being helped by a Christian is important, because (a) most obviously it’s the truth and (b) the truth under question exposes the myth of the heartless dumb Christian.
If you assume that Christians are heartless and dumb, maybe.
But the presumption that everyone does think Christians are heartless and dumb is problematic.
And that a newspaper would not only make this presumption, but suggest it, is problematic.
To treat it as newsworthy that a Christian would help, befriend, be kind to, or be sympathetic to the concerns of an atheist is inherently insulting.
March 28th, 2011 | 7:10 pm
Most interesting. I am always interested in reading about Dr. Collins, as I met him many years back when he was studying the genetic disorder I have. My sons and I participated in his study and was able spend some (limited) time talking to him. He discovered the chromosome and helped advance knowledge of neurofibromatosis as well as cystic fibrosis. My impression of him was that he is not only brilliant, but kind, and only wants to help discover cures, or at least treatments for people, regardless of their beliefs. I wish only the best for him and Mr. Hitchens as well.
April 27th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
“Lo Mr. Hitchens, I have been drawn to your writings, and will admit that most times you are right on the money, although I may not always agree-but what do I know!!!!! Anyway the best of luck in your recent fight-keep on living just to annoy a few malcontents and illwishers. You certainly have a way with words!
May 17th, 2011 | 5:30 pm
If you want to pray for someone, it is not necessary to tell that the person that you do. I don’t think it is wrong to tell the person but in some cases it might be less appropriate. If you donate a gift to charity, the action in itself should be the ultimate satisfaction, the source of it is less important. I admire Christopher Hitchens, and I hope that he gets well soon.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 17th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Ditto.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact