As does Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Eric Margolis, Justine Raimondo, PCR, and any other paleo you can think of.
Posted on 06/06/2005 6:16:55 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens, the British writer who has fallen in love with American neoconservatives, recently said this about people of faith: "I can't stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity, or who is a person of faith. I mean, that to me is a horrible, repulsive thing."
Well, it doesn't really matter what the old-left, born-again neoconservatives think. I cite the quotation, from a radio interview in the United Kingdom, to set the stage for the point that atheism and Darwinism are matters of faith, not scientific fact. They are rationalizations for another form of secular faith: materialism.
It is impossible to prove there is no God, just as it has so far been impossible to prove that life began as a single cell in some primordial pond. If either of these beliefs was just a matter of reason and science, then the people who hold it would feel no hostility against those who disagree with them. But, as my example shows, they are hostile to people who disagree with them.
The atheist-Darwinist-materialist acts exactly like the religious zealots he professes to scorn. He is evangelical, dogmatic and tends to view people who disagree with him as either idiots or enemies. It seems that humans are incapable of living without faith. They just have different gods.
Intelligent design is a far more plausible theory than the belief that life in all its incredible profusion and complexity is a mere accident. There is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species. What the fossil records show is exactly what mankind has seen since we learned to write: Some species die out. Some don't. Occasionally, some genetic mutation will cause a slight change in some life-form, but never to the extent of creating a new form of life. The fact that one occasionally sees an albino squirrel does not mean that all of squirreldom will become white.
The war between materialists and people of faith has gone on for millennia. It is going on today. There are very important philosophical differences between the two camps. The materialist believes he has no responsibility to take care of others. That's why Darwinism and its survival-of-the-fittest claim were seized upon by the materialists as a perfect rationalization of their selfishness. People of faith, however, feel a God-given responsibility to help their fellow human beings.
Every tyranny has been materialistic, though some tyrannies are frequently disguised with a false altruistic covering. As we have seen in communist countries both past and present, the reality contradicts theory. The reality is rule by an oligarchy that enslaves the population. As George Orwell so perceptively saw, everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others. In the Soviet Union, the aristocracy was replaced by the Communist Party leadership, and the top communist acted with the same absolutism as the czars of old. The communist czars, however, were a million times more murderous than the old czars.
Today, the selfish materialists have trotted out another god — the free market. The market, these people claim, if left free will always make rational economic decisions. Once again, reality contradicts theory. Unregulated capitalism will make the rich extremely rich and the poor extremely poor. "Rational" and "moral" are two different and unrelated things. In the unregulated early days of capitalism, industrialism created hellish conditions for the working men and women. The capitalist, unless constrained by religious faith or, in the absence of that, government regulation, can be as ruthless and brutal as any commissar. It may be rational to close a factory in America and move it to a country where desperate people will work for pennies, but it darn sure isn't moral.
Keep in mind the bet as expressed by the French genius Blaise Pascal: If you bet there is no God and you win, you win nothing, but if you lose, you lose everything. If you bet there is a God and you win, you win everything, and if you lose, you lose nothing. Rationally speaking, God is the best bet.
I prefer to live in a country of people of faith rather than in a country of people like Christopher Hitchens. People who claim there is no God intend to play God themselves, with us as their subjects.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2005 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
>>I prefer to live in a country of people of faith rather
>>than in a country of people like Christopher Hitchens.
I prefer to live in a country where people get to choose to have faith, shun religion like Hitchens, or something in between.
Faith is part of the human equation. Herbert(?) wrote a good sci-fi metaphor about it: the human race had splintered into off-world colonies - each based on seperate aspect of society: war, art, sex, science, religion, etc. All aspects were necessary for the continued survival of the species. Without Faith, where would we be?
That was Gordon R. Dickson, the Dorsai/Childe cycle...SF fyi...
Christopher is a very bright guy - but regarding religion, well, he is a nihilist. I disregard everything he says, therefore.
Big shock! Remember kiddies, this is the same guy who had the audacity to attack Mother Teresa on the occasion of her funeral.
Think about that the next time you wish to read his wares.
"That was Gordon R. Dickson, the Dorsai/Childe cycle...SF fyi..."
Yes yes yes. I thought I had it wrong. Apologies to GD. Thanks for unclogging my memory :)
We should mail Hitchen's a copy.
Hitchens thinks about Christianity way too much. I suspect he is a seeker who is in denial.
"Hitchens thinks about Christianity way too much. I suspect he is a seeker who is in denial."
As are many who negatively obsess about it, IMO.
Gordon R. Dickson, the Dorsai/Childe cycle...
Frank Herbert wrote The Dosadi Experiment.
People like Hitchens can pose as most intelligent when they dismiss the hard-won wisdom of the ages as just religious superstition.
Hitchins is brilliant, generally. While he has a mind block concerning religion, generally he is pretty accurate. Therefore, I only disregard his occasional embarrasing rants against religion. In general, he seems to avoid the subject altogether.
What a convenient thing to say. Can you prove any negative?
As a results of this quandary, I figure it is beyond me to to understand - so it seems a useless exercise to speculate. So, why worry and got all bent out of shape over an issue that the greatest minds can only speculate about a mystery that will probably never be solved.
Actually, you could say it's the other way around and Hitchens' statement on despising believers only proves it. Hitchens writes what he believes unlike almost everyone else on the left. I respect Hitchens, he's a great writer, he has no hidden agenda. He writes in the British tradition of slashing invective and acts as the Devil's Advocate to puncture sanctimony. Hitchens also attacks fellow lefties, he coined the word 'islamo-fascism' and has stuck with his Kurdish friends in opposing Saddam and murderous Baathism.
Charley Reese has become obsessive about the 'neo-con' threat and sees everything in that light.
As does Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Eric Margolis, Justine Raimondo, PCR, and any other paleo you can think of.
True, C. Hitchens just about foamed at the mouth at the mention of Mother Theresa. Called her a hypocrite, relentless. He didn't explain, and I wondered what was at the bottom of all that. He's probably written about it at length.
There is no blue whale between my ears; since the mass of a blue whale is 1000x the mass capable of filling the space between my ears (all aspects of physics conforming to the time/space dimensions of earth at present,) my proof is self evident.
I think.. :-)
You are cheating as well. Let's be analytical and do what mathematicians do. In order to prove that X is not true, assume it is true and see if that leads to a contradiction. Assume God exists. Then what does that imply? It implies billions of things that people hold a priori without any proof. As such it is impossible to prove the negative. In your example, you know what a blue whale is and how much mass it occupies. No straightforward implication exists for the existence of God.
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.