 |
|
|
|
My Take: Why Christians should pray for Christopher Hitchens
By the Rev. Robert Barron, Special to CNN Perhaps you’ve heard of Christopher Hitchens. He is a British writer and cultural commentator who lives and works in Washington, D.C. For decades now, he has been observing the political/societal scene and writing about it in a particularly insightful, witty and acerbic manner. Early in his career, he was something of a Trotskyite, but in the years following September 11, 2001, he emerged as a strong advocate of the Iraq war and, much to the chagrin of his colleagues on the left, a supporter of George W. Bush. He is best known, certainly, for his recent contributions as a critic of religion. His book "God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything" appeared a couple of years ago and proved to be a bestseller. Since the publication of this text, Hitchens has traveled the country debating a series of religious thinkers—Christian, Muslim and Jewish—meeting them with an extremely swift mind and wickedly barbed tongue. Along with Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, he is one of the “four horsemen” of the New Atheism, the movement that advocates an aggressive, take-no-prisoners approach to the claims of faith. I think it’s fair to say that Hitchens is playing today the role that another brilliant Englishman, Bertrand Russell, played nearly a century ago, namely that of religion’s public enemy No. 1. Just a few weeks ago, I picked up Hitchens’s latest, an autobiography entitled "Hitch-22." The book is a lot like the man: by turns funny, strange, deeply wise, infuriating, outrageous, critical, sometimes just plain baffling—and never dull. Something that surprised and intrigued me was Hitchens’ affection for two of my own literary heroes, Bob Dylan and Evelyn Waugh. He echoes a number of top critics in saying that Dylan should be mentioned along with T.S. Eliot and W.H. Auden as one of the poetic giants of the 20th century. (Now I’ve said something like that for years, but people usually just write me off as an overly enthusiastic Dylan fanatic). And for Waugh, the author of, among many other novels, "A Handful of Dust" and "Helena," Hitchens has almost unlimited enthusiasm. Here’s why I say I was surprised: Both Dylan and Waugh are inescapably religious writers. In fact, I would argue that it is impossible to understand and appreciate their work apart from the deeply Biblical sensibility that they share. In songs from all parts of his career—"A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall," "Blowin’ in the Wind," "All Along the Watchtower," "New Morning," "Gotta Serve Somebody," "Every Grain of Sand"—Dylan draws on the Scriptures, and Waugh’s "Brideshead Revisited" is one of the greatest celebrations of Catholicism in all of modern literature. I confess I began to wonder whether, despite his brassy atheism, Mr. Hitchens didn’t have a good deal of sensitivity to things religious. This was on my mind when word came out last week that Hitchens was suffering from esophageal cancer, a particularly aggressive and unforgiving form of the disease. I realize that certain believers couldn’t resist the temptation to see in this misfortune the avenging hand of God: the one who for so long blasphemed God was now getting his just reward. But it’s always a very tricky business to interpret the purpose of the divine providence. After all, plenty of good, even saintly, people die prematurely from terrible diseases all the time, and lots of atheists and vile sinners live long prosperous lives before dying peacefully in their beds. Hitchens’ disease is indeed ingredient in God’s providence, since at the very least it was permitted by the one whose wisdom “stretches from end to end mightily.” But what it means and why it was allowed remain essentially opaque to us. Might it be an occasion for the famous atheist to reconsider his position? Perhaps. Might it be the means by which Hitchens comes to think more deeply about the ultimate meaning of things? Could be. Might it bring others to faith? Maybe. Might it have a significance that no one on the scene today could even in principle grasp? Probably. But what struck me with particular power as I surveyed the Catholic media was that the vast, vast majority of Catholics reported Hitchens’ disease and then, with transparent sincerity, urged people to pray for him. In making that recommendation, of course, they were on very sure ground indeed. Jesus said, “Love your enemies; bless those who curse you; pray for those who maltreat you." Christopher Hitchens is undoubtedly the enemy of Christianity—even of Christians—but he is also a child of God, loved into being and destined for eternal life. Therefore, followers of Jesus must pray for him and want what is best for him. Hitchens seeks by means of specious argument, insinuation, and sometimes plain smear-tactics to undermine religion. He ought to be opposed, vigorously, with counter-argument and clarification of fact. But all the while, he ought to be respected. One of the greatest Catholic apologists of all time, G.K. Chesterton, debated the agnostic George Bernard Shaw up and down England, and their arguments were often pointed and aggressive; but after the debates, the two friends could be seen drinking and laughing together. That’s a model of how a Christian treats his intellectual opponents. So read Christopher Hitchens; disagree with him and get angry with him; defend the faith against his attacks. And pray for him. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robert Barron. soundoff (1,319 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next »Post a comment
Next entry »Music festival brings world faiths together
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Dan Gilgoff and Eric Marrapodi, with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2010 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Help | Advertising Practices
Editor's Note: The Rev. Robert Barron, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, is founder of 
I just prayed for all of you. I know the creator of the Universe. He is God. Jesus, his son, came and died for our sins.
How can you claim that there is no God? If I can't prove He exists, then you can't prove He doesn't. So, by you claiming you know there is no God, you are claiming yourself to be all-knowing (which obviously you aren't).
By your own definition, you would be as ignorant and weak as you claim Christians to be. Do yourself a favor, study the probability of the universe to be a random event. It is almost mathematically impossible that it all happened randomly.
Hitchens himself, in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled", admitted that there could have been an intelligent designer. He did not call it "God", but he did admit that there could have been something. So, even he is not an atheist in the truest since.
Here is a secret: many Christians struggle with atheistic thoughts, but we have seen the way God has been involved in our lives and understand that this is simply a trick of Satan.
-I am not some ignorant Christian as you may think, I have an MBA and probably make more $$$ than all of you!
"bill" is a living example of a religous nutbar. And he ends with "and I probably make more $$$ than any of you"? What has money or an MBA have to do with belief in the supernatural, what has it got to do with rational thinking? Nothing, "bill" is a wacko that has a fear of death and going 'nowhere' but the graveyard. Like most religious nutbars they need 77 virgins or a land of 'milk and honey", give me a break will ya. What happens to the 77 virgins once he's done with them, now that they are 'slightly' used. LOL Women must love the idea of the 'virgin thing" Go ahead ask one what they think if it. Or do they get 77 Virgin boys???
CatholicMom et al,
I'll state the obvious: Hitchens doesn't believe that your god exists. It's the direct equivalent of someone who worshipped Thor and Oden telling you they would pray to their gods to save your soul and accept you into Valhalla. It's an utterly meaningless statement if you don't believe that person's religion is real. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but let's please leave those who have stated their nonbelief out of it. To force it on them anyway is disrespectful and narcissistic.
LeShon, What has narcissism got to do with any of this? You seem to be taking this discussion personally. This is a free discussion ( I love America!!) as long as we remain respectful of one another we can state our beliefs and opinions as we choose. Catholic Mom et. al. have been very respectful. I don't understand what YOURproblem is.
I really loved this piece. The gracious and kind-hearted tone is one that Christians do well to bear in mind. Thank you for these thoughts!
I'm going to hope for Hitch to defeat this awful disease. He is brilliant, and whether one agrees with him or not, one should always be open to having his or her ideas and beliefs shaken up by someone who is making a serious attempt at being logical and rational. Get well soon, brave man!
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful". Seneca, Roman orator and historian, c.37 B.C. That about sums up this debate. if you want to make a religious person look dumb ask them the following line of questions:
1. Do you believe in god? (presumably yes)
2. Do you believe in santa clause/ (presumably no...if they say yes, no need to carry on the questions for obvious reasons)
3. did you ever believe in santa? (presumably yes when they were a kid)
4. why did you stop believing in santa? (presumably because as they aged, they either realized on their own that it was implausible, or because their friends or parents told them he didn't really exist)
5. so why do you believe in god? (this answer will vary but you've already trapped them. we cannot prove that santa DOESN'T exist, so why stop believing in him? its simple...nobody with authority ever told them god didn't exist before reaching adulthood, where beliefs become so ingrained, most people will defend them regardless of their logic or lack thereof)
Note: if they are not christian you could use the same line of questioning using the tooth fairy or something else that's made up that children believe only to realize later does not exist.
Hear, hear! Mr. Hitchens is a patriot. Anyone who loves this country enough to do the work to become a citizen has earned the right to be called an American.
It seems that anyone of a truly intelligent mind would not stoop to such childish offenses. If you have a valid argument in support of atheism, then by all means – bring it. Keeping tabs on someone's grammatical errors will not further any argument or encourage any movement; it will not propel anyone forward, nor will it support the development of ideas or products to benefit society.
I turned my back on atheism over 10 years ago because I couldn't find one 'atheist' who could make a proper case against a creator. Your arguments are old and ineffective. New Atheism? I highly doubt it.
It's impossible to make a case against Unicorns or Leprechans existing either, so I guess you believe in them also. You are shifting the burden of proof. The burden is on the positive, which in this case is you.
I was pleased that Barron tried to put some thought into this piece on Hitchens, and I don't think badly of him, but it was trying so hard to be inoffensive and well-meaning and yet often having this guise torn open that he might as well have not written it. Many of Hitchens' Christian opponents were and are going to smugly "pray for his soul," secretly glad that the cancer gave them a chance to do so. Which is a lot more respectful than what his Muslim opponents are probably saying.
It's funny how easy it is for people to blame and trash God...then wonder why the world is in the condition it is today. God exists and so does Satan. Why is God the one to blame for all the bad things? Tragedies, disasters, and war are a result of our sins and evil acts. Ours! And when people are severely ill, don't you think it helps increase their humility? You realize that you are not completely in charge here.
But then again, I realize it's difficult to believe in a God you have not felt. I have felt the Holy Spirit and God's presence and it is the most amazing, peaceful, loving presence you can ever feel. If you don't believe in God, take a break from looking up reasons on why He does not exist and stop listening to Satan. Ask God to reveal Himself to you and open your heart. Get to know Him...
Ok, How are disease pandemics and earthquakes caused by people?
It is amazing that people–writing very anonymously–wouldcriticize Father Barron's obviously sincere hopes from Mr Hitchens' recovery. For those same people who turn this simple "public get well card" into a diatribe on their own beliefs, two questions. How can you objectively look someone in the eye, and not logically conclude that something as complex as the human eye was made by a supreme being–God? It is not logical to believe that the complexity you see in everyday existence could just evolve on its own from primoridal ooze. Oh by the way, where did the original 'matter' come to start with? And, I wouldn't take any of the atheists to Las Vegas with me. Why do you bet that you are right–and there is no God? Wonder if you are wrong and all God has said is correct. Why would you bet against that? If you are right, and you die and back to dust you go, no harm no foul. But if you are wrong, then you are setting yourself up for a long eternity, separated from God. The thinking man finds it pretty hard to conclude there is no God. A 4th century monk, Saint Augustine, was wiser than all the anonymous writer's on this talkback line. "Lord, let me not understand so that I may believe. Let me believe so that I may understand." It doesn't really matter what everyone says or writes. We will all come face to face with our creator at our death.
Well Falcon78, I like the way that you turn a public get-well card into a diatribe on your own beliefs, hypocrite.
"How can you objectively look someone in the eye, and not logically conclude that something as complex as the human eye was made by a supreme being–God?" - Because people that have bothered to study biology know that there are proven intermediate forms of the eye, that mutations have been proven to produce new traits in organisms on human timescales, and that life has had billions of years to evolve. The evolution of the eye requires no leap of faith. The idea that the eye was designed is a rejection of the evidence. - "If you are right, and you die and back to dust you go, no harm no foul. But if you are wrong, then you are setting yourself up for a long eternity, separated from God." - The only thing left that keeps Christianity going: fear of an imaginary bad place invented by a few ancient shepherds to scare the populace into obedience.
As a practicing Catholic and a huge fan of Christopher Hitchens, I really enjoyed this article. Religious people should respect Hitchens both as an enthusiastic thinker and questioner and as one who forces the religious to keep thinking and questioning, for it is by such intellectual exercise that Man discovers Truth. We people who pray should pray for Hitchens not that he may "see the light," but simply because it is the highest way we have of giving him the respect he is due.
Wanting the eternal and everlasting best for anyone IS respecting them.
Pray all you want but I'm sure CH would want you to do something more productive.
Religion and prayer is like playing pinball, it's just a "feel good" activity with no real dividend except for the pinball vendor.
The ability to herd sheople is insignificant when compared to the power of the force.
I think sending good wishes and positive thoughts to Christopher transcends God. It's a personal think to send one's feelings, energies and best wishes to another. Most use might use the conventional "God channel" to do so but I don't think it's entirely necessary. We can be messengers of all good things directly when greeting or meeting another. Why not through our thoughts over vast distances? God and politics, unfortunately, gets in the way of too many things and prevents a positive outcome. So in the spirit of being a "good person" I wish heartfelt good tidings to Mr. Hitchens wherever he may be and without reservation or religious construct.
Rev.Barron really spoke to me with this. For years I have been frustrated with American Christians for being too "Old Testament". It often seems like many of us completely ignore the words and teachings of Jesus Christ but still don't hesitate to invoke his name when convenient or act like complete pigs while telling people that we are going to heaven, not like those evil (insert any group perceived as different or not Christian enough here). Nothing caps off a long, hateful tirade on a cable news network like looking down at the person's name and seeing that he is a prominent Christian leader. Sure, this blog post has led to a comment section full of smug Christians patting themselves on the back for being better than those "silly atheists", but it is also a good reminder to be humble and keep in mind that we are all delightfully imperfect. What Mr. Hitchens is going through is something no one deserves, and it is not the vengeful hand of God. It is a disease, nothing but the outcome of genetics. Mr. Hitchens is an important philosophical voice, and that doesn't change because you don't agree with him. Don't rub your prayers in the face of a dying atheist. Because if you do that, the prayer's aren't really for him, are they? Be compassionate and let the man have his dignity.
He doesn't want your prayers. Many of us don't believe in any God, thank you very much. You can pray to your invisible god who lives with all the other "believers" in some invisible place...
Rev. Barron, I'm sending healing thoughts to both you and Mr. Hitchens. I wish Mr. Hitchens a full and speedy recovery, and I wish you insights that will enable you to make peace with the world that actually is. I don't believe in anything supernatural, Nature being so amazing that I don't think anything could ever top it!
Atheists' line of reasoning baffles me. "Religion is bad an atheists have morals; even better morals that Christians", or so they say. Ok, then without an overarching creator and moral lawgiver, what is 'good' or 'bad' or 'morals'? Without an owner or authority above mankind, all such statements about 'good', 'bad', 'right', 'wrong', 'ought' and 'ought not' are utterly meaningless. If the material universe is all that exists, then all of man's behavior can be reduced to biology, and all of biology can be reduced to chemistry, and all of chemistry can be reduced to physics, and all of physics is simply a description of what matter, energy, time, space, and impersonal forces do. Particles in motion (because that is ultimately what we are [in their view]) have no 'right' or 'wrong'. Atoms do what they do. There is no 'ought.' You can no more say a human is wrong for killing a baby than you can say the Earth is wrong for orbiting the sun. A killer and the Earth are both just particles in motion. Simply re-arranging the particles or putting a different label on them doesn't suddenly make one responsible and the other not. Unless we are more than just atoms stuck together, all statements about right and wrong are simply atoms moving and chemically reacting in a particular location (your body) producing sound waves out of your mouth or moving your fingers to type or write. Whatever sound or motions you atoms produce have no meaning, because there is no owner to say that these atoms ought to do this or that.
So with that, we can observe Atheists complaining about something that ought to be or ought not to be, but so what? Their words are just words with no authority and their meaning dies with them.
Here is a recent argument that demonstrates this absurdity:
Me: What is right and wrong?
Atheist: Whatever is best for society.
Me: Who decides that?
Atheist: No one, it's just inherent in our DNA. We are predisposed to survive.
Me: So, right or wrong is based on what enables us to survive?
Atheist: Basically, yes
Me: Well, what if I conceive of a way to kill every human being on Earth and I do it?
Atheist: That would be wrong?
Me: Why?
Atheist: Because then it would cause us to not survive.
Me: But wouldn't the idea and ability to kill everyone also come from the same DNA that drives me to survive?
Atheist: Yes, but it would be wrong.
Me: Why?
Atheist: Because we are suppose to survive.
Me: Why?
Atheist: (silence)
I find this thinking over and over. Atheists always ASSUME that the world OUGHT to be this way or that, but completely lack any justification for their declaration. But, without an overarching authority, such an 'ought' doesn't exists.
Read Dawkins' Selfish Gene. He brilliantly answers all of your moral questions.
Darth Vader: "Scott, how do you know god exists?"
Scott: "I just know it. Can't you see it all around you?"
Darth Vader: "You have not answered the question..."
Scott: "But read the bible, see his works..."
Darth Vader: "Scott, you are an imbecile, and the force in non-existent in you."
What a moronic atheist you've made up to debate yourself! Right and wrong are constantly changing labels that are based on the complex interactions of the law, culture, philosophy, religion, and biology. If we remove religion from that calculus, we would achieve a more consistent definition of right and wrong.
. Scott- you're mixing two different issues. Moral authority can exist outside of religious contexts, which would be the point of an atheist saying that someone "ought" to do something, which is fine when discussing human behavior. The second issue, whether the physical world "ought" to be a certain way has nothing to do with morals whatsoever. It's the crux of the debate over human origin. An atheist typically does not believe that the world "ought" to be any certain way at all. It is the way it is because those thing that were best conditioned to survive did so. Call it nihilistic if you wish, but part of not believing in mythologies, whether ancient or modern, is accepting our limited role and scope in the universe.
We are supposed survive because life would not existent without that mandate. We reproduce...its the basic tenant of life. If your next question is "why life" then you have no better chance of answering that I. The Bible says that God says so...life exists because God says so? That is not reason. That is an inability to consider finite life...its a scare tactic.
Instead, as an atheist, I take what is presented to you with logic and reason. I dont jump to a conclusion that blatantly expels reason FIRST and foremost in favor of a tale like that of Milton. Big Bang and evolution are theorized based on evidence.
Scott, why gravity? I can prove it exists by walking on ground...but why is it there? I dont ASSUME a monster is pulling us down to the ground, I just assume that its a formation of science within life. I dont assume that tides are a tug of war between the moon and earth...I just assume that it exists as a scientific mainstay. Why? I dunno...will never know. If God did it, then God will tell me that when revealed. But, I am not going to assume that God did it because a storybook told me to. I'm going to trust science because it uses my daily reason and logic to back its argument...the Bible uses no daily reason or logic.
Your argument is numbing.
Love these arm-chair apologists who "create" ignorant atheists that unwittingly fail under the assumed value and premise of the apologists argument.
There doesn't need to be an "owner" to define what is considered right and wrong. We are a social species, and the survival of the species benefits us all. If you do something that harms the species as a whole, that is wrong (think something that–if everyone does it–would create an insurvivable condition for the species). The same is true for the laws of physics. You don't need a physics book to define the way particles interact. When sentient beings (with the abililty to foresee outcomes of their own actions) become involved, the rules change and the creature determines what is good for it's state of being.
Another way of thinking about it is this: Would you want someone to do a particular act to you? No? Then that act is probably wrong and harmful. I don't do good so that I can go to some paradise when I die, I just do good for the sake of being a good person and not harming others... I believe in cause and consequence, not myths and fairytales.
Do you think being gay is wrong?
The biggest group of atheists in the world is about a billion Chinese. Do you seriously contend that they have no morals? Where's your evidence?
People to who "pray" to a deity that is supposedly omniscient need to think it through a bit. Presumably this god of yours already knows what you're thinking and what you want. Telling it information that it already knows is only going to make it madder.
As a Catholic, you certainly do exhibit extreme unction in saying, "Perhaps you’ve heard of Christopher Hitchens... "
It's you I've never heard of, Bob.
Please do not pray for me to mend my ways, Bob. If what you believe about "god" is true, that would interfere with my free will, and It hates that.
Hey CarminaB
I don't know. What is to get to the other side.