There's still a world of disagreement; of course there is. But the tone Hitchens strikes in this essay enables, even invites conversation and debate. I can't help but think that Jesus would have enjoyed speaking with someone like Hitchens (well, Hitchens as he conducts himself in this particular Slate article). Of course, unless Hitchens brushes up on his Aramaic, they probably wouldn't have found very much to say to each other . . .
HT: Doug Chaplin
6 comments:
I'm sure that Jesus could manage some English if he wanted to have a conversation with Chris. :-)
You just had to go and ruin the sarcasm, didn't you? Thanks, Wile E.
Congratulations on your 200th post, Rafael!
I don't think I want to debate with Hitchens, or others like him; but I sure would love to ask him a bunch of questions, like—"Are you looking for empirical truth or for scientific evidence?" "How do you respond to Michael Behe's arguments regarding the development of, say, the human eye or the blood clotting cascade? What does scientific evidence reveal about such things?" "Where do you go when the lights go out and your skin begins to crawl and you know your life is a hopeless trail of tears and failures without any purpose and every thought is meaningless..." —you know, the important stuff.
At least he is civil in his condescension, and I'm sure he doesn't mean to be condescending.
Thanks, Don.
I share your unease with acerbic people like Hitchens, but that's the point. I don't expect Hitchens to say nice things about Christians, so when he does I want to acknowledge it. If Hitchens's magnanimity continues, then he becomes a valuable opportunity for the Church to speak/defend the gospel in the face of doubt. If it ends, then we now have a foil against which to compare his later statements and clarify why those future statements are unhelpful.
I also share your questions about naturalistic evolutionary theory and the scientific integrity of those who don't entertain such questions. But that was my point about leaving the really important questions open. When someone like Hitchens asks if I'm looking for truth or dogma, if I'm willing to suspend faith to ask if Jesus really rose from the dead bodily, and how I respond to persistent arguments against the truth of the gospel, I can answer, Yes.
If Jesus isn't the son of God, and if his death was but one more in the eternal progression of human mortality, then my faith is refuse, even worse than bodily emissions. But, having asked those questions, I am even more confirmed in my faith that Jesus is the son of the living God raised from the dead. I can't prove it, no. But I am convinced of it.
Your blog is definitely the most "over my head" thing that I read on a regular basis.
Well, that and Eli's "I Spy" books.
Rafael, I agree. I am really, really interested in meeting folks in their own milieu, mostly because I think my 'milieu' is somewhat 'mildewed'. I think the first task of apologetics in this age is to get folks to ask the right questions—which usually means letting them do the talking whilst I stew in my own juices and practice the prayer of George Costanza: "Serenity NOW!" Needless to say, I am still working on my Christlike openness...
Post a Comment