Posted on 12/17/2011 5:32:02 AM PST by Kaslin
When Christopher Hitchens died this week, I trust that after he did so, something miraculous happened.
That’s what my faith tells me.
It’s not in good taste to speak ill of someone recently deceased. But in this case, I think Hitchens would approve, or at least shrug it off with indifference, many of the screeds written for or against him.
But, while reading the eulogies about Hitchens I get the feeling, more than anything else, of a life wasted on unbelief.
Everyone dies, and then…that’s it… or is it?
Is all that’s left behind for a writer like Hitchens a mass of manuscripts and his ability to endure- or not- over the generations?
Hitchens would argue so. But I would argue no.
Because I believe that the things you do in life to bolster faithfulness; the things you do in life to support belief in anything or even something are much more important, either way, than the things you stand against.
Faith is the most important part of life and probably the most neglected.
This is not merely a religious argument. It’s an argument against skepticism as an end rather than as a means to something. It’s an argument that understands that unbelief requires much more faith than faith does and provides us with little substance.
If Abraham Lincoln had merely been against the spread of slavery rather than also believing in the God-given equality of man, 45 million people could be in slavery today.
But let’s get back to Hitchens.
His view of the miraculous is a good example of how faith is the most extraordinary part of human existence.
He dismisses our existence as a mere accident of…well he doesn’t know what.
But if we are just an accident that happened, sentient beings with the ability to know right from wrong, of knowing the natural law from right here in our heart, of comprehending our own existence and even rejecting our existence, well that’s probably the greatest miracle of all.
Is more improbable that man with knowledge of natural law was created by a knowing and loving God or just on accident? It certainly would require a great deal of faith to believe that it was on accident.
I’m not a mathematician, but I’m guessing the odds of me being here, occupying this space and time, on accident, would be quite astronomical.
Reverse engineer the "Infinite Monkey" theory that says that if you have an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters that one monkey will accidentally bang out the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. This is a much-used thought experiment that deals in big number probabilities.
In Hitchens' universe, William Shakespeare was that improbable, infinite monkey, as are you. In fact, in Hitchens universe, Shakespeare is even more improbable than our infinite monkey, because our infinite monkey only accounts for the odds of creating Shakespeare's works, rather than creation of Shakespeare himself.
What atheists would have you believe is the improbable multiplied by infinity by accident.
That's why I think increasingly advances in biology and physics suggest that an accidental creation is the most improbable faith of all.
For example, the theory in quantum mechanics called the Uncertainty Principle- which so far is consistent with what has been observed in physics- increasingly suggests that everything remains only a probability until it is actually observed. Without observation, nothing actually exists.
If that’s true- Einstein rejected the possibility of the Uncertainty Principle- none of us really exist nor does the universe exists without an all-seeing being. There is just no other explanation for the universe.
In Hitchens’ universe, a universe without an all-knowing being, freed from bonds of both time and space, would suggest that our existence is only a probability, not a reality.
The awareness of our own existence, our self-consciousness therefore makes belief in a sterile universe without a Creator, an unknowable act of faith.
But instead of faith all you are left with is the certainty of doubt.
The lesson you find has the moral authority of a South Park episode.
And none of the humor.
That’s not great.
That’s an episode of The View.
Atheism, Baha’i and Judaism all leave you in the same place...without explanation for universal, invariant, abstract entities (which are necessary for reason) and without explanation for unity and diversity in existence. Only the triune God of Christianity provides the conditions for the existence of both in creastion. Yet, reason alone won’t get you to belief in Christianity. However, reason alone should be enough to get you to disregard the others.
not all you have described concerning Ransom's resume precluded his ability to write about Hitchens before or after Hitchens death....he obviously had a problem with Hitchens' beliefs....I do not know that he did NOT write about Hitchens before his death. but if he waited till after his death to criticize, then that is a cowardly act.
ping
“Your arms are too short to fight with God.”
Then Ransom should have picked a different title other than "Hitchens is NOT Great". Beyond his intentions; that does make it a central thesis.
That said; we are all familiar with what atheists claim - and what should be the irreconcilable - 'random' universe.
If he wanted to talk about this world view or even Heisenberg; for that matter; then by all means; he had a story w/o Hitchens name on it. At least per title.
But, while reading the eulogies about Hitchens I get the feeling, more than anything else, of a life wasted on unbelief.
That is quite a negative judgment, and he uses this 'waste' to discuss; what otherwise; could be shared, w/o 'damning' Hitchens - again and worse; post mortem.
All to say and yes; just MHO. . .
There are two paths, but they are very different. One leads to death and one leads to life. For life, one must love the Lord that made you with all you heart and soul and mind and body and your neighbor as yoursefl.
Great article. I think this expresses it. Hitchens was just the village atheist. What happens to him now is up to God, and the Lord is known for His mercy, so while we should pray for him I don´t think he necessarily condemned himself to Hell. He will, however, have to pay for anyone he misled.
But imagine knowing that your intellectual contribution is going to be defined by little more than being like the shabby crank in the small town who defined himself by being the village atheist. The village atheist, like Hitchens, didn´t even have any convincing or intellectually interesting ideas. He was just a crabby old man who felt things hadn´t gone the way he would have done them if he had been God.
Hitchens could write and it´s a pity that he was reduced to this...by himself. And he will disappear soon from human thought - but ironically enough, he will never disappear from the mind of God.
We judge things. That’s what we do. That’s what you’re doing, what prompted you to leave a comment. You “evaluated,” and felt the need to leave your opinion ...
A good description of FR and why I love it.
God is not great: Hitchens
Hitchens is not great: God
If you haven't I wonder if you can understand it at all.
On what data do you base these assertions?
“That is quite a negative judgment, and he uses this ‘waste’ to discuss; what otherwise; could be shared, w/o ‘damning’ Hitchens - again and worse; post mortem.”
I think your attack on Ransom is unfounded and over the top. Your accusation that Ransom is ‘damning’ Hitchens is imaginary and hyperbolic. Ransom in his article deals with the post-mortem aspects of this “eulogy”, and contrary to this being a “quite negative” judgement, what milder “judgement” than this article and what more appropriate time could there be to deal with someone whose claim to fame is a book of blasphemy?
And he is talking to G-d now.
Good response. Hitchens didn’t pretend to have all the answers, but he asked the right questions, honestly.
Go to your local Chabad House. Be enlightened, it will change your life...Just advice, not judgement..
I always love the “Why Judge?” or the “Who are you to Judge” type statements. We make judgements all the time about people. We could not make it through one day without this ability. Hitchens judged and did so with a LOUD often times harsh, hateful voice. Who indeed was Hitchens to JUDGE??
Hitchens wrote on many different topics for at least 30 years. He was, for the most part, a war reporter, not a religion writer. I should know, I have most of his books and frequently peek into them for a bit of intellectual enjoyment. So, I for one, will remember him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.