Of course Christopher Hitchens won every debate. “Can you prove it?” being the standard parry thrown at Revelation, which is in itself an elusive concept, one that is insubstantial, unpalpable, unfamiliar to common human experience, something outside esthetics and utilitarian values. The discussion may bebome quite heated, but as a rule it is sterile: the skeptical are not amenable to persuasion and vice versa. But what proof would be acceptable?
A “valid” challenge or question is one that is amenable to solution. A question which, by its very nature, cannot be answered is not “valid.” If, by the very definition of the concept, we cannot “prove” say, the classic example of Divine authorship of the Torah, then the demand for proof is in itself not valid. The debate may be sparkling and bubbly, but fruitless. There are indeed facets of revelation that can be explored, but not scientific, material proof.
Moses by Michelangelo. Image:http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/michelangelo%20buonarotti?page=20
With regards to the written law, Moses was simply one of the first of many scribes, all of whom performed the same function, that of recording the Written Law as they heard, or saw it, word for word. For the Jews, the inability to understand the Written Torah creates what they consider anomalies, whereby every word is considered sacred from the concubines of Esau to the Ten Commandments. While interpretational texts like Kabbalah offer another stratum of meaning, apart from the literal, the Bible remains an ultimate mystery in that one can pronounce words but not grasp ideas.
Obviously, as Hitchens well knew, there is no answer as to how revelation at Sinai took place, a question similar to the one about communicating the Torah to Moses. Probably, it is better to present the question, the issue, than to pretend to resolve it. Though the atheists play their hand well, to the traditionalists, whatever took place at Sinai was unparalleled, unique, not comparable to anything we could be able to comprehend from our own limited experience.
ADDENDUM:
(see link at end)…The death of Christopher Hitchens is a tragedy. That much is affirmed by virtually all the countless individuals who knew him, or knew of him. But Christians experienced the death of Christopher Hitchens with a special sense of tragedy, for we could not think of his death merely on his terms. We have no choice but to believe that Christopher Hitchens, with all of his amazing gifts, will have to face the very God he so aggressively dismissed and denied. As for that deathbed change of heart he warned us all not to hope for — we have every reason to hope that it happened in spite of himself.
For that matter, every single believer in Christ has come to believe and be saved by grace alone — in spite of ourselves.
There are important lessons to be learned from the life and career of Christopher Hitchens, and they are lessons we must not fail to contemplate. In the final analysis, Christians have far less to fear from atheists or antitheists as we do from what Hitchens called “the generalized agnosticism of our culture.” We agree with him that the question of the existence and identity of God is nothing less than the most powerful and urgent question humanity will ever confront. Read More:http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/01/11/learning-from-christopher-hitchens-lessons-evangelicals-must-not-miss/
COMMENTS