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. . .
“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?