Christopher Hitchens, militant pundit, dies at 62

Cancer weakened, but did not soften Christopher Hitchens. He did not repent or forgive or ask for pity. As if granted diplomatic immunity, his mind’s eye looked plainly upon the attack and counterattack of disease and treatments that robbed him of his hair, his stamina, his speaking voice and eventually his life.

“I love the imagery of struggle,” he wrote about his illness in an August 2010 essay in Vanity Fair. “I sometimes wish I were suffering in a good cause, or risking my life for the good of others, instead of just being a gravely endangered patient.”

Hitchens, a Washington, D.C.-based author, essayist and polemicist who waged verbal and occasional physical battle on behalf of causes left and right, died Thursday night at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston of pneumonia, a complication of his esophageal cancer, according to a statement from Vanity Fair magazine. He was 62.

Hitchens was no fool. He merely found many religious superstitions such as anti-birth control positions as harmful to modern society.

You say that "Hitchens was no fool." And yet who but a "fool" would set himself up as the prime criterion for the judgment of what is "harmful to modern society?"

And that he can infallibly tell you what is "superstition," and what is not?

To say that something is "harmful" or "beneficial" implies that there is an a priori criterion of judgment, according to which the truth of Reality can be reliably perceived. Hitchens simply locates this criterion in himself.

Please explain to me how he is warranted to do this, dear magritte. And then explain to me how, if Hitchens can be such an infallible (albeit "self-selected") criterion, on what basis are we to conclude that the same privilege cannot apply/extend to anybody and everybody else?

If the truth of reality resides only in our own minds, from our very partial perspectives, then it seems to me there's no sense in talking about Reality at all.

IOW, if everyone is his own "criterion," this is tantamount to saying that there is no criterion; there is only "opinion." And one man's opinion is just as good as any other man's.

Is this your position?

Tons of strawmen in your response, but I’ll address a few points.

Hitchens never claims to be the grand arbiter. It was his opinion, which is equally valid in such matters to those of the religious bent. Infallibility is only for Popes, if I recall.

Hitchens believed religion is superstition. As David Gibson said “The problem is that one man’s superstition is another man’s religion, and vice versa. Many Protestants today still see Catholicism as being rife with superstition, ... while atheists and agnostics would see bien-pensant Protestants as worshiping an equally absurd form of the supernatural.
”

Something being harmful doesn’t require an a priori criterion of judgment. He didn’t like poor Indians dying in the rathole hospitals of Mother Teresa. Some people thought it was just fine. Both positions are valid.

I’m of the opinion that the true God is the incorporeal God of Abraham. “I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the Lord, that does all these things.” (Is. 45:6-7). I believe God is incorporeal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and immortal. I understand that my belief is based a lot on the fact that I was raised in the Judeo-Christian culture, therefore giving me a pre-disposition to accept it as more truthful than say Baha’i. An open-minded analysis of most religions shows that all have there own internal logic and could just as easily be as true or as false as say Christianity or any of its many flavors. They all have their particular holy books, icons, after-life beliefs, creation beliefs, supreme beings and the like. We may find out after death the truth. Or not.

Here’s a few quotes to sum up:

“What we call reality is an agreement that people have arrived at to make life more livable.” Louise Nevelson

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” Marcus Aurelius

Well, dear friend, it seems Hitchens had some "unresolved issues" that he did not have time to resolve before his death.

But our Lord is a just, merciful, and loving God. I have no reason to believe that He instantly condemned Hitchens for all eternity because such "issues" were not resolved by the date of his death, the "first death." (It is only the "second death" that brings utter oblivion that lasts for all eternity — the total separation from God forever.)

WRT Christopher Hitchens, I'm hoping that C. S. Lewis — an Anglican Christian — is right: Lewis maintained that post-first-death, the soul of the dead man has an opportunity to cleanse itself of its sins before presenting itself to Christ for the Final Judgment, which will relegate it either to eternal life or eternal death. The Catholics call this "region" of post-death spiritual cleansing and renewal Purgatory.

The Lord wants to save all His children — but He will not, and does not, force them into salvation, against their free will.

I'm praying for the soul of Christopher Hitchens. By the Grace of God, I hope he will find the Peace, Light, and Love of Christ where he is now; and that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that he shall be reconciled with the Lord of Life via Jesus Christ, and enter into eternal Life, a life more abundant than we mortals can possibly conceive.

Godspeed, Christopher!

You wrote: “What I can’t understand is why Hitchens “hated” Mother Teresa, from his youth.”

In addition to my previous post, here’s something else I found. bttt

American Thinker
December 16, 2011
Christopher Hitchens Is Dead. Dammit.
By James G. Wiles
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/christopher_hitchens_is_dead_damnit.html

[....Large snip.....]

“.....Nevertheless, one item about Christopher Hitchens which made the blogs must be told here. I thought of it when I first learned of Hitchens’ cancer diagnosis in 2010. ....”

[NOTE: “made the blogs” is a hot link to a 2007 thread on FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1901636/posts ]

[...snip...]

Here is the thread he links to:

In Drunken Rage, Atheist Guru Hitchens Bullies Hero Priest of 9-11 (Father Rutler!)
Poe ^ | 9-19-07 | Richard Poe
Posted on Monday, September 24, 2007 8:19:12 PM by Diago
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1901636/posts

Two of the comments in the above thread:

Hitchens is bitter against God because when he was still a boy, his mother committed suicide...his younger brother Peter, who was much younger and didn’t remember his mother, is not as bitter.

My oldest (adopted) son had a similar deep set rage because his mother died, and although he continued to believe in God directed this rage against me and others in terrible outbursts .

So pray that Hitchens finds the love of God. Unlike other “anti God” professionals, Hitchens doesn’t hate God out of pride but out of sorrow. .......

30posted on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:19:18 PMby LadyDoc
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1901636/posts?page=30#30

To: LadyDoc

“Hitchens is bitter against God because when he was still a boy, his mother committed suicide...”

Absolutely so, which he has now so many years later conveniently disguised — buried in the dirt, so to speak — as a lark against a teacher who merely suggested certain botanical features were of God’s making.

“So pray that Hitchens finds the love of God. Unlike other “anti God” professionals, Hitchens doesn’t hate God out of pride but out of sorrow.”

On the contrary, I find that he does so as he has found the much baser but far more common sin of pride extremely self-rewarding. atheists thrive on the notoriety it brings, and for Hitchens, some rare lucre.

If memory serves, Hitchens addressed an atheist convention in Virginia earlier this month, no doubt for his 30 pieces of silver. Yet it takes nothing more to expose Hitchens as a “bright” fraud than to review his passion for grounding the Hitchen children in religious instruction ...[Are You There, God? It’s Me, Hitchens.] http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/31244/

New York Magazine: “And what if one of your children found God? Would that be a problem?”

Hitchens: “Not at all. My children, to the extent that they have found religion, have found it from me, in that I insist on at least a modicum of religious education for them. The schools won’t do it anymore. And I even insist, though my wife [who is Jewish] isn’t that thrilled, on having for our daughter a little version of the Seder.”

Almost all of Hitchen’s major debates/monologues are on Youtube. I highly suggest everyone watch as many of them as they find tolerable. I find him pedantic on the topic of religion — hypocritical (see above); strident; fearful; loaded with strawmen and appeal to emotion; and totally ignorant of the destruction and genocide that was wrought in the name of atheism in the 20th Century.

33posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:22:18 PMby StAnDeliver(=)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1901636/posts?page=33#33

Are You There, God? It’s Me, Hitchens.
Christopher Hitchens on religion (no thanks), Iraq (not a mistake), and his own loud reputation.
http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/31244/
By Boris Kachka
Published Apr 26, 2007

Excerpts:

Hitchens, who started questioning his faith at age 9 (and wrote a polemic against Mother Teresa called The Missionary Position), has finally written the ultimate attack book, God Is Not Great. He spoke to us about his favorite religious stories, Karl Rove (infidel?), and the one time he found himself praying.

You say in your acknowledgments that you’ve been writing this book your whole life. Do you think it’ll mean as much to others as it means to you?

No, it’s one small step for C.H. into one enormous argument dominated by giants in philosophy and theology and science.

So what makes it different from recent atheist screeds by the likes of Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins?

I don’t think Richard Dawkins would mind me saying that he looks at religious people with this sort of incredulity, as if, How possibly can you be so stupid? And though we all have moods like that, I think perhaps I don’t quite.

And what if one of your children found God? Would that be a problem?

Not at all. My children, to the extent that they have found religion, have found it from me, in that I insist on at least a modicum of religious education for them. The schools won’t do it anymore. And I even insist, though my wife [who is Jewish] isn’t that thrilled, on having for our daughter a little version of the Seder.

Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?

Well, I don’t talk that much to them maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.

I appreciate what you have written. Again, I think ID begs the question, how rare and “unique” is the information and complexity we see? The assumption is that the structure is very orderly and complex. But we have only a limited vision of what is in the universe, and beyond. It is hubris to “assume” that we have much information, and “therefore” we are a ‘miracle.’ That leap has always escaped me, but if it helps to quiet your mind and give you a sense of purpose and order, you are welcome to it!

As I have always told my students, ‘Science studies local cause & effect relations, such as “Hotter rocks, due to solar flares, cause frogs to develop more toes, to stay of those hot rocks.’ But, this does not answer the broader question — where did the sun, and the frogs, and the dust they came from, all come from? That is a larger question, and concerns the “FIRST” cause of everything, is left to theology.

Science and theology — these are two types of knowledge, or understanding. They are not enemies, they address different questions.

I am an atheist because I have no interest in speculating about the latter question. But having said that, I have no hostility to those who want to “fill in the blank” with specific hypotheses, there!

Cheers,
4L

You wrote: “...I’m hoping that C. S. Lewis — an Anglican Christian — is right: Lewis maintained that post-first-death, the soul of the dead man has an opportunity to cleanse itself of its sins before presenting itself to Christ for the Final Judgment, which will relegate it either to eternal life or eternal death. The Catholics call this “region” of post-death spiritual cleansing and renewal Purgatory. ...”

bttt

A Message from the Academy of Farts and Sinuses
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2011/03/message-from-academy-of-farts-and.html

Did I just hear the distant bleating of a rump trumpet? Then we must be in hell or among the tenured, where the two ends of the digestive tract are routinely reversed — where pompous gasbags talk trash and pull facts from their behind. The technical term is zonal confusion. The colloquial term is bullshit.

But first had each of them stuck out his tongue
Between his teeth, as signal to their leader,
And he made a trumpet of his rump. —Canto XXI

Upton notes that Inferno, Purgatory and Paradise all correspond to states of being. Although it certainly smells like something crawled up and died here, if it’s too much of a leap, you needn’t regard them as postmortem, since their odor is readily detectable in this world. ....”

Tons of strawmen in your response

Oh really? Kindly point them out.

Yes, we know that Hitchens "believed religion is superstition." So what? Does that make it so, just on his say-so?

What is clear is that Hitchens wants us to believe this; i.e., to believe that he is "right" about this. And we are to trust him in this, because in his own mind, at least, he is "right" or "correct" about this. That is, he invites us to accept his judgment as the valid criterion that you and I must rely on in our own understanding of Reality (of which we are "parts and participants").

But if Hitchens denigrates Truth in principle — which he does, by the way, in making it indistinguishable from mere "opinion" — then why should we listen to him at all?

You quoted a couple of notable skeptics:

“What we call reality is an agreement that people have arrived at to make life more livable.” — Louise Nevelson

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” — Marcus Aurelius

Both these skeptics are speaking of a world devoid of Logos, devoid of God. God has been deliberately banished from their respective worldviews.

Of course, no human can really "banish" the Creator from His Creation. If they try, they simply render created Reality totally senseless, unintelligible.

Regarding Aurelius' comment especially: "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact" — Is the world itself, as it is, in its magnificent, orderly evolution "from Alpha to Omega," a fact, or an opinion?

If the world were predicated on "opinion," then it couldn't be anything at all. It would cease to exist. The world does not conduct its business (so to speak) according to anyone's "opinion," rather it does so according to universal law.

Plato — probably the greatest philosopher who ever lived — drew the telling distinction between aletheia — Truth — and doxa — opinion.

The point he was making is that there are many "doxa," but only one Truth of Reality. What makes "doxa" a "doxa" is its departure from Truth — which the great Heraclitus described as the "Logos, one and common." Meaning that this one Logos universally orders all of Reality; but (as Heraclitus further noted), this one-and-common-to-all Logos is completely inaccessible to men who are "asleep," men who function cognitively entirely within the scope of very private "dream worlds." Which the great philosopher Eric Voegelin has most helpfully classified as "second realities."

It seems very clear to me that Christopher Hitchens was very much a "dreamer" in this sense — and thus that Reality was simply "a bridge too far" in his imaginative (dream) life....

Does any of this make any sense to you at all, dear magritte?

I have read many pages of pro and con on the Hitchens Case Against Mother Teresa, and the disappointing part of it is that so little of Hitchens' reportorial skill (knack for details) and even less of his usually elegant wit was involved. He got much of it straight-out factually wrong; he misinterpreted so much of what he did have (stupidly, not what one would have expected from him), and he quite lost his wit and went straight for sexual contempt and bludgeoning.

The quip about "Vatican roulette" is telling. "Vatican roulette" is what some used to call the calendar/rhythm method, which is what my mother would have used 60 years ago. It's like comparing --- oh, from top of my head --- a Univac I with a Mac Pro. Calendar/rhythm predicted ovulation, always dicey. Modern NFP detects ovulation by direct observation of leading indicators. A 2007 study in Germany found it to have a 99.6% method effectiveness; the World Health Assn puts it at a lower effectiveness (when combined with lactational amenorrhea method) at 95% - 99.5%, still comparable to the Pill, putting the avoidance or achievement of pregnancy totally in the hands of the woman but without cost, without lifelong dependency on the pharmaceutical industry or the state, and without and risk of ending up hormonally disrupted, thrombotic, or dead.

These details may not be important to you, but the point is that for a naturally inquisitive person like Hitchens to show no interest in it whatsoever, and so to thoroughly misconstrue the practical significance of NFP, shows a faltering of intellectual vigor on his part. Quite a let-down.

For some reason, Hitchens was uninterested in trying to comprehend a person whose inner life confounded his expectations. For instance, in "Missionary Position," (1997) me made the assumption that Mother T. was buoyed up by the naive self-satisfactions of the do-gooder, the warm fuzzies of chatting with an "Imaginary Friend", the emotional shallowness of brain-stunted full-stop certitudes. When it came out in 2007 that not a bit of that was true (in the posthumously published "Come Be My Light,") Hitchens hadn't the honesty to say, "Hmm. This is unexpected. I guess none of my assumptions about her inner motivation were true." Instead, he launched into a new ambush by saying she was a hypocrite -- for not being what he thought she was!!

(I'd go on but my son wants to use the computer!)

Let me wrap up by saying that Hitchens, whose writing I always leapt to read and usually enjoyed very much (whether I agreed with him or not) managed to be at once superficial, misinformed and vicious on the particular subject of one old woman whose life he really couldn't make heads or tails of.

I relished so much about Hitchens and hated to see him go. The meaning of his life is a mysterious thing. On his account, he would say that ultimately all of it --- his suffering, his satisfactions, his life, his death--- means nothing. She'd say it means everything. For his sake --- I hope she's right.


 
Christopher Hitchens dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the
entrance.
 
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.
 
'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We
seldom see a celebrity around these parts, you see, so
we're not sure what to do with you.'
 
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
 
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What
we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in
heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'
 
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says
the CH.
 
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
 
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he
goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds
himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the
distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all
his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
 
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to
greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good
times they had while getting rich at the expense of the
people.
 
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster,
caviar and champagne.
 
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly &
nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They
are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it
is time to go.
 
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the
elevator rises.....
 
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven
where St. Peter is waiting for him.
 
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
 
So, 24 hours pass with the CH joining a group of contented
souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and
singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it,
the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
 
'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in
heaven. Now choose your eternity.'
 
Christopher reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I
would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been
delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'
 
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down,
down, down to hell.
 
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of
a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
 
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the
trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from
above.
 
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his
shoulder. ' I don't understand,' stammers the MP.
 
'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and
clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne,
and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a
wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
 
What happened? '
 
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, ' Yesterday we were
campaigning.....
 
Today you voted.

magritte: How about those religions older than Christianity?

esquirette: Judaism is older and it is the foundation of Christianity. Its purpose was to demonstrate that 1) man is a sinner and 2) man cannot save himself.

margritte: Are they merely ABC, as you so say?

esquirette: Yes. There are only two religions: Salvation by works, and salvation by God. All religions aside from Christianity are the former. The Good News of the Gospel is that God Himself came into the world to lay down his life to make a way to satisfy the penalty for sin, and make a way for man to be saved. This is the message of joy in Jesus’ birth. “God and sinners reconciled.”

magritte: In fact, there are a number of parallels between Vishnu and the Christian god Jesus that some consider are so strong that Christianity is merely an extension or replication of Hinduism.

esquirette: There are many flavors of the ABC religion of works. Hinduism is one of them.

margitte: All religions are “manufactured” and are just humans trying to make sense of life. No way to know which is right or which is wrong.

esquirette: There is a lot of faith in that statement. It claims faith in an effect (life) without a cause (the Creator). It claims faith in the notion of ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ thereby betraying a fundamental belief in the Christian worldview of ultimate good and evil, among other things. The one religion where God is the ultimate truth, and where He humbled Himself to save mankind is Christianity. All others demand that man work for his salvation, and there is no way of knowing what is enough. When Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished,” it was. He did it and not we. That is the God to trust.

Nobody knows who goes where.

No, that's not true. While it may be best left as a mystery with many, many people, a person who openly rejects even the concept of God is not going to get access to grace. Who was it that said "No one comes to the Father but through me?" Who was it that Christopher Hitchens rejected? Same person, right?

I am a Christian.

Then why don't you believe Jesus?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

And why are you approving--not tolerating, ignoring or politely taking issue with--a post that calls your Lord an imaginary friend and calls the realtionship you have with Him "kowtowing?"

I refuse to believe that heaven is an arrogant country club full of people that think exactly alike.

Good. But you seem to be missing that it is a place that can only be entered by those who have a relationship with Christ. There's a question many evangelists ask people: "If God asked you, 'Why should I let you into Heaven,' what would be your answer?" The only acceptable answer to that question is "Because I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior." There will be liberals and conservatives who can answer it that way, people who married their high school sweetheart and people who had eight divorces, people who died virgins and people who did every perverted act they could think of before they got saved, doctors and drug dealers, war heroes and peace activists, Olympians and couch potatoes, homeless people and billionaires.

But those who say there is no Savior, no relationship and no Heaven to get to will not be able to answer that question that way, will they?

As for arrogant, it is the opposite. I'm saying nobody...NOBODY...deserves to get in. We're all scum. Some of us are saved scum.

If atheists are going to Heaven, why are you trying to convert your wife?

Because at the end of the day, it’s the threat of Hell that is the bottom line. No compassionate God would really allow such a thing. If he did, he wouldn’t be worthy of worship. You know... if there were a religion that offered a third alternative, I wouldn’t mind it so much.

My comment was simply that many of the Christians are full of how in love with Christ they are, etc. and NOT leading with Hell.

But somehow, the atheists I have seen most often, are FIXATED with standing up "as a free man, beholden to none, and without the craven fear fo punishment."

C.S. Lewis started out as a staunch atheist. As he wrote of his attitude in his autobiography,

[T]here was one way in which the world, as ... rationalism taught me to see it, gratified my wishes. It might be grim and deadly but at least it was free from the Christian God. Some people (not all) will find it hard to understand why this seemed to me such an overwhelming advantage... I was, as you may remember, one whose negative demands were more violent than his positive, far more eager to escape pain than to achieve happiness, and feeling it something of an outrage that I had been created without my own permission. To such a craven the materialist's universe had the enormous attraction that it offered you limited liabilities. No strictly infinite disaster could overtake you in it. Death ended all. And if ever finite disaster proved greater than one wished to bear suicide would always be possible. The horror of the Christian universe was that it had no door marked Exit.

I'm very familiar with the feeling myself. But I'm not going to attempt any apologetics on this point, as I used to be an atheist, and it bugged my when people tried to talk back: I always took it as mere sophistry and a desperate scrabbling attempt to avoid the obvious, where only the few, the hardy, the brave, dared to face the bleak truth.

But I *do* owe you a riposte, for food-for-thought's sake. You had written:

You know... if there were a religion that offered a third alternative, I wouldn’t mind it so much. For instance: if you’re good, you go to Heaven. If you’re bad, you go to Hell. If you’re not particularly good OR bad, you just go into a kind of wilderness and wander around alone. That would be fine...Mountains on the horizon. Caves to explore. Very silent, no wind. Just me and my cats. That would be fine. I just want to be left alone. Most humans irritate me.

One of the stock complaints about those Christianists is that their religion is mere wishful thinking, the whole "I want to believe" thing. The way your post was phrased, it almost made it sound like an "I want to DISbelieve."

Full Disclosure: I'm a cat person too. Click on my FReeper homepage and look at the top photo.

Cheers!

The assumption is that the structure is very orderly and complex. But we have only a limited vision of what is in the universe, and beyond. It is hubris to “assume” that we have much information, and “therefore” we are a ‘miracle.’

I'm not referring to the information "we" have ("we" don't have much); I'm referring to the information which accounts for the "very orderly and complex" universal system, taken to be One single, integrated and all-encompassing Whole.

4Liberty, you mentioned that you have no use for FIRST causes. My problem is I don't know how to imagine the problem of universal order apart from FIRST Cause. AND even more stunning, I find I need FINAL CAUSE, too.

I am not a theologian; but I may be a philosopher; and these are philosopher's questions.

You wrote:

Science and theology — these are two types of knowledge, or understanding. They are not enemies, they address different questions.

I basically agree with you, but with a little "tweaking": I'd say science and philosophy (it has been said that theology is "the queen of metaphysics") are two different modes of understanding. Certainly I do not see them as "enemies"; nor do I see them as necessarily mutually exclusive. To me they are more like complementarities, in Niels Bohr's sense. They employ different methodologies; but at the end of the day, the sum total of human knowledge depends on both science and philosophy/theology. As you say, "they address different questions," by means of different formalisms.

And I think the same can be said WRT FAITH and REASON. They are not mutually exclusive, rather they are the two complementary modes essential for the human mind to think at all.

Everybody — even the "atheist" — has faith in something. For instance, if a scientist did not have implicit faith in the sheer intelligibility of the world, he'd have nothing to do.

In short, he takes the intelligibility of the Universe for granted: It is his basic working presupposition. Still he may claim to be uninterested in the reason for this intelligibility, for this would be to engage in "speculation." Possibly he senses (like I do), that you can't account for "intelligibility" without reference to FIRST and FINAL Cause.

So just leave the problems of universal and biological order to the philosophers, I guess!!! [plus the information science types, complex systems theorists, mathematically-inclined theoretical biologists, physicists, et al.]

"Science studies local cause & effect relations...." Its time concept is unidirectional, irreversible, linear — moving past, to present, to future. This is the temporal line along which physical causation occurs, serially, locally. Yet both relativity and quantum theory point out certain defects in the Newtonian model — the heart of classical physics. Perhaps the biggest challenge: There's nothing in Newton that can possibly account for non-local causality.

You wrote:

I am an atheist because I have no interest in speculating about the latter question [i.e., First cause]. But having said that, I have no hostility to those who want to “fill in the blank” with specific hypotheses, there!

Well I'm really glad to hear you are not hostile to me, 4Liberty! Still I don't think I'm doing anything along the "fill-in-the-blanks" line here. I do not expect to find God "in the gaps." I am not interested in constructing specific hypotheses. I am simply engaged in a search....

Thank you so very much, 4Liberty, for writing! I truly appreciate hearing from you.

You had quoted:

Hitchens is bitter against God because when he was still a boy, his mother committed suicide...his younger brother Peter, who was much younger and didn’t remember his mother, is not as bitter.

My oldest (adopted) son had a similar deep set rage because his mother died, and although he continued to believe in God directed this rage against me and others in terrible outbursts .

So pray that Hitchens finds the love of God. Unlike other “anti God” professionals, Hitchens doesn’t hate God out of pride but out of sorrow. .......

Interestingly enough, C.S. Lewis's mother died when he was a child (read Surprised by Joy for details; and see also his Narnia prelude/Genesis, The Magician's Nephew. The protagonist's mother there was facing death as well, and yet, with all my finely-honed sentimentality / BS detectors going, the depiction of Digory as sad over his mother struck me not as a literary device, nor yet as maudlin, but strangely genuine. I didn't know why at the time, but only after a number of years when I read Surprised by Joy did I get it.

It seems that many atheists are very angry at God for creating an imperfect world; imperfect enough not to have shielded them from specific personal trauma.

As for Rove, as we say on FR, "FUKR".

Cheers!

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.