The late Christopher Hitchens, may he rest in peace, was a popular journalist and outspoken atheist probably most famous for writing the 2007 book titled “God is not Great.”
Much like Richard Dawkins, his fellow member of the atheistic quartet known as the Four Horsemen, Hitchens made sure the word “God” was the smallest text on his book cover, wanting to make sure his contempt for God was known to everyone willing to listen to him. Not only did Hitchens achieve fame as a writer, he was also considered by many to be a formidable debate opponent, possibly because he was very eloquent, had strong command of the English language, and spoke really fast. Words just effortlessly flowed from his mouth.
True, Hitchens was clever, eloquent, and he spoke very fast. But brilliant? That is debatable.
For example, during a debate Hitchens once asked, “Why do we have religion in the first place? Why are we having this discussion? Because we are pattern-seeking mammals. It’s part of our evolution. We look for patterns. We’re designed to look for them and if we can’t find a good explanation, we’ll come up with a bad one rather than none at all. Most people would rather have a conspiracy theory than no theory. It’s very observable that there’s a lot of junk science around before good science arrives. Before we have astronomy we have astrology. Before we have chemistry we have alchemy. All these things are derivatives of religion because in a very sinister verse in the Bible that used to upset me when I was forced to listen to it as a little boy. It says, “Seek and ye shall find.” Yes, that’s exactly right. Seek and you will find. Seek for an explanation for volcanic eruptions when you’re living in a primitive society and you will think they’re probably a visitation from an angry deity and if you’re told you can postpone the next eruption by throwing a few live babies into the lava down the crater, that’s what you’ll do! Religion has just started. Religion has just begun.”
Before we start, I’d like to point out that earlier I mentioned Hitchens has passed away since this video was recorded and said that I hoped he is resting in peace. I suppose I could have said he’s a no good atheist and that I hoped he’s burning in Hell.
The reality is that is my fear, not my hope. I wouldn’t want anybody to suffer for eternity in Hell…I’m a big fan of temporal, not eternal punishment. Certainly not if they repent of their sins and invite Christ into their heart before they died. I’ll concede that I don’t have high hopes for Christopher Hitchens, based on what he just uttered in that debate. If you watch the video at the link above (which I helpfully transcribed for you), in his debate with Frank Turek it takes Hitchens less than one minute to rattle off (55 seconds to be exact) his angry rant against religion, but he makes several mistakes in the process. First, he said we are DESIGNED to look for patterns. Designed by whom? How can an unplanned and undirected process like evolution produce a design?
Does design exist, or is it only the illusion of design in an unplanned and undirected universe?
Either Hitchens chose to use the wrong word, or he neglected to use specific verbiage that would have corrected his mistake. If evolution (and atheism) is true, then there is no planner, no designer to credit for life, the universe, and everything, as Douglas Adams famously said. 42 is the correct answer. If you don’t know what the question was, you must not have read Douglas Adams. Google it.
While it is true that astrology preceded astronomy and alchemy came before chemistry, would astronomy and chemistry even exist without their predecessors? And for the record, chemistry has led to a revival of alchemy–scientists haven’t figured out how to convert other elements into gold, but they have figured out how to make synthetic diamonds out of a special form of carbon called graphite. I’m not sure Hitchens was scoring all the points he intended to score.
However, his most egregious mistake was referring to a quote from the Sermon on the Mount as “sinister.” Jesus was telling the gathered crowd, “Ask, and you will receive. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened for you.” What can possibly be construed as sinister about that?
The word sinister implies evil intentions. It suggests something bad or harmful is about to happen. Christopher Hitchens had an extensive vocabulary. He had to know the meaning of the word he chose to use. The question is, why did he use it?
Hitchens rapidly transitions from a bizarre argument implying there is something evil about Jesus giving his followers some of the best advice ever given. If we open the door to our hearts and sincerely ask the risen Christ to enter, He will accept our invitation and you will find the answers you’ve been seeking.
Hitchens deliberately conflates the activities associated with worship of a false god, Baal, to the one true triune God: Yahweh the father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That’s both evil and despicable.
The God in whom I personally believe is the God of the Bible. I must concede that the evidence for my particular God is not quite as strong as the evidence for an anonymous Creator God. The evidence for the anonymous creator God is detailed in four chapters of my book The God Conclusion. There is a chapter on what I call existential scientific evidence, a chapter on “supernatural” (perhaps extraordinary or unconventional would have been better word choices) scientific evidence, a chapter on intelligent design, and a chapter on morality. The probability that the God identified by the evidence in my book exists is greater than 99 percent, but the evidence that my personal God is this God is only about 90 to 95 percent. Conversely, the probability that atheism is true is remarkably low, much less than 1 percent.
How did I arrive at these estimates? I simply read what the experts have said about probabilities and combined their predictions about cosmology, chemistry, and other scientific disciplines into one cohesive and coherent argument that explains existence from start to finish.
But I digress. I never got around to addressing my question of why Hitchens would use a word like sinister to describe a quote from Jesus. What could be sinister about seeking truth? I’m fairly sure that if science could somehow disprove the God of the Bible, Jesus would want that to happen because Jesus claimed to be a fan of the truth. In fact, Jesus specifically said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Not just a truth, but THE truth.
Frankly, if science could be used to prove the God of the Bible isn’t real, Jesus would surely want that to happen. People who believe science is getting close to answering the most important existential questions simply don’t understand the nature and complexity of the questions.
There is nothing wicked or insidious about seeking truth when asking existential or theological questions unless you aren’t going to be receptive to accepting the most logical answers.
It turns out that belief is God is quite logical and very reasonable.
Speak Your Mind