Sunday, January 24, 2010

Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven

This motivation seems to underlie Christopher Hitchens' anti-religious crusade. Of course, if his arguments were good, his motivation wouldn't matter.

20 comments:

Dan Lower / KKairos said...

Zing!

Steven said...

You look real cool when you basically admit your head is too fat and your ego too big to adopt one worldview.

unkle e said...

Let's give Hitchens credit for being honest. I think he said what many other people think but don't say.

Steven Carr said...

William Lane Craig says it best when he writes about serving God 'For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses. We all recognize this when we accuse some authority who presumes to take life as “playing God.” Human authorities arrogate to themselves rights which belong only to God. God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.'


Of course , atheists like Hitchens are angry about God's right to strike them dead at any moment He chooses.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Sort of off topic, but interesting in the comments thread there that Craig refuses to debate Loftus. Where are your conspiratorial posts Victor :)

Victor Reppert said...

Craig should go ahead and debate Loftus. You can quote me on that.

Steven Carr said...

I guess Hitchens will be reigning in Hell alongside hundreds of millions of Muslims, who are also refusing to serve in Heaven.

Or do Muslims get to go to Heaven, if they are sincere in their belief that Jesus was not divine?

Blue Devil Knight said...

I can appreciate Craig not wanting to debate former students.

Victor Reppert said...

I can too. On the other hand, this sentiment probably prevented what would otherwise be the Greatest Philosophical Debate in History, the debate on the status of universals between Plato and Aristotle, right in front of the Parthenon.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Hee hee. Quite.

Anonymous said...

I guess I would want to ask Hitchens if he was glad that he was alive. If he said, "Yes," I would ask him, "If you found out that you are alive because God created you, would you thank Him?" -- Bilbo

Anonymous said...

If he said yes to that, then I would ask him, "If you found out that the only reason that you continued to exist from moment to moment is that God kept you in existence, would you continue to thank him? -- Bilbo

Victor Reppert said...

And, on the other hand, if you think that God would be doing you a disservice by sustaining your existence if there were one, but, on the other hand, you think there is no God, then doesn't that leave you free to end your existence now in good conscience?

Steven Carr said...

' "If you found out that you are alive because God created you, would you thank Him?" '

And if you found out that the only reason Hitler, Satan and tuberculosis existed is that God created them, would you thank Him?

Steven Carr said...

So are Muslims trying to reign in Hell rather than serve in Heaven?>

Anonymous said...

Thank you Dr.Reppert:

http://telicthoughts.com/thank-you-professor-hitchens/#more-4657

--Bilbo

Steven Carr said...

SO are Muslims going to reign in Hell rather than serve the Lord Jesus they deny the divinity of in Heaven?

Jeeves' Star said...

Hi Steven,

You said:

"And if you found out that the only reason Hitler, Satan and tuberculosis existed is that God created them, would you thank Him?"

That's kind of an interesting question.
Isn't this what Augustine was dealing with in the Manichaeism heresy?
That matter/evil was like another force. I think Augustine stated that the correct view of evil wasn't so much a competing force as the privation of good.
If that's the case then it might knock the wind out of your comment.

Evil then wouldn't be so much another thing in competition with good - but either the absence of good or the distortion of good.

Chesterton said that in the modern world it isn't the problem that vices have ran wild - but that virtues have ran even more wildly about. And that they have become isolated from one another.

Steven Carr said...

So Hitler wasn't a thing? He was just a privation?

Cancer isn't evil? It is just the abscence of good?

And darkness isn't a thing which can be created? It is just the absence of light.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

Alphonsus said...

"So Hitler wasn't a thing? He was just a privation?"

HE wasn't a privation per se, but, rather, he was lacking in a number of things. For example, he seemed to be lacking the virtue of love.

"Cancer isn't evil? It is just the abscence of good?"

It certainly isn't a moral evil. It might be described as a physical defect and, therefore, the lack of something which the body needs to be healthy.

"And darkness isn't a thing which can be created? It is just the absence of light."

Yes, it is the abscence of light. Of course, you can create situations in which light is lacking, which seems to be what is conveyed by that rather poetic passage from Isaiah.