Christopher Hitchens is Dead

For once I'm glad no one reads this blog any more. I want (need?) to have a place to record these thoughts, and maybe even a sense that I've put them out there, as part of the public tribute to the man, without actually making them public in any meaningful sense of the word...

It was with deep, though unsurprising, sadness that I read the words this morning, "Christopher Hitchens is dead." Unsurprising describes my sadness, I fully expected to feel his death as a personal loss, and it also describes his death: we all knew it was just a matter of time, for he had been sick for so very long.

I never knew Hitchens. As I am a Christian, he would have considered me an enemy of all he held dear. So be it. But I was an "enemy" who was drawn into the writings and thought of this worldly British man of letters. Whether commenting on Central European politics, the work of George Orwell, or the poisonous folly of belief, Hitchens's writings had a way of speaking to my soul.  I found God Is Not Great to be neither a shallow defense of anti-theism (as some Christians had) nor a devastating argument which destroyed my faith (as some now ex-Christians have). Instead, I read the words of a man who cared deeply and passionately about his fellow humans and was pleading, through as carefully a crafted appeal of logic and rhetoric as he could muster (and that was, by no means, inconsiderable), for us to repent of our evil for the salvation of the world. While I disagree with his identification of religion as "evil" I certainly respect his evangelist's heart. And, if we are being honest, I cannot completely dismiss his arguments that religion has fueled much evil in this world...

As an American, I share my countrymen's predisposition to be impressed and enthralled with English accents. I actively sought out podcasts and youtube videos where I could listen to Hitchens speak, and speak he could, like no one else. I could (and I say this because I have) listen to Hitchens talk for hours. My first read through of God Is Not Great was not a read at all, it was a listening to of the local public library's audiobook version, read, of course, by the author. When I later read the printed word, the voice of the man echoed through my head. Since then, my brain has supplied his voice to all of his writings, be that in Vanity Fair or some his older works I tracked down and savored. Letters to a Young Contrarian works particularly well with a "read by Hitch" brain conversion. (Incidentally, my copy has a picture of Hitchens in trench coat and holding a cigarette, which echoes my other English anti-hero, John Constantine. A character I suspect Hitch would have deplored, being rooted in a world of angels and demons).

Christopher Hitchens, like all of the so-called "New Atheists," made me think. I know that many in the theological and apologetic communities dismiss the New Atheists as being but pale shadows of the (by comparison) Old Atheists. I am undoubtedly a more shallow thinker than my fellow Christians, as evidenced by my judgment that the New Atheists raise important points, some of which I do not believe have been adequately answered. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to see the answers as adequate. Maybe I'm too fallen to get it. Maybe that's why I can admire people like Christopher Hitchens. Maybe.

Or maybe I get that Hitchens and Dawkins and all the rest are human beings, made in the image of God, endowed by their Creator with value and worth and dignity and gifts that, while not being used, perhaps, according to His will, nevertheless, to the eyes of faith, still shine forth as testament to the creative love of our God. At least, that's how my Christian mind sees it.

Christopher Hitchens voice and writings have been a significant part of my life for a few years now. And as inappropriate as it may seem, I feel a profound sense of loss. But how much more those who knew the man as friend, as family? My heart goes out to those who have lost a real, physical presence in their lives. The world has lost a public figure, but they have lost someone with whom their life paths were intertwined, that real interdependence we have with those of our local tribe or clan. My prayers are with them, though many of them find such sentiment distasteful.

Christopher Hitchens, cancer stopped first your voice and now at last your words entirely. But it will take the slow cancer of the years to end your influence in the hearts and minds of those who knew you or were touched by your work.

Life on Other Planets? So, What?

A potentially inhabitable planet has been discovered!  This is cool. But it is not a source for meaningful discussion of apologetics. If there is life on other planets, it neither confirms nor denies theism in general nor Christianity in particular. Contrariwise, if there is no life on other planets, that neither confirms nor denies naturalism. The so-called anthropic principle does not provide a solid case for either supernaturalism or naturalism. Those who believe that life was designed by an Intelligence will see the anthropic principle as reflecting that position. Those who see life's origin in the interplay between chance and necessity see the anthropic principle as a description of the rarity of life.

For the naturalist, the anthropic principle suggests the search for extraterrestrial life is searching for a needle in a haystack (with the possibility that there is no needle). So, why do it? Because, if there is other life out there, it provides us with a different sample to study. Right now, we have a sample size of 1. One planet upon which we can study the history of life. That is a terrible sample size. Fortunately, we have a variety of species, a variety of environments, and (compared to our individual life spans) a variety of generations to study. But all of this is from but one planet, but one initial set of conditions, but one primeval ancestor. Another planet with life would allow us to see what things might be different, what things are the same, what is contingent, what is necessary... our understanding of life could be forever altered.

Or, we might find that on that planet that things were pretty much the same as here. That everything we know about life holds for that planet's life history as well. Which would be awesome! We would know that what we learned from our little sample size of 1 is true for our sample size of 2.

Of course, if there was life, and it was similar, the theist will say, "Well, yes, God created it the same in both places." And if there are radical differences: "Behold the variety of God's creative powers!" And, given a belief in theism, that would be perfectly consistent to say.

Which brings me back around to the point: the existence of life on other planets is not an apologetics issue. It is definitely of scientific importance. It would even have theological ramifications (certainly it raises issues of soteriology and missions/evangelism), but it does not weigh in, at all, on whether there is a deity.