Christopher Hitchen’s Debates
For the third time in two weeks I watched a debate where Christopher Hitchens was one of the debaters. As the author of God is NOT Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he makes an interesting case. As an apologist I want to learn the enemies tactics in confronting the message of Jesus’ uniqueness. So I watch with eagerness.
The first two debates were between Dr. Frank Turek, an author and speaker, and Hitchens. The last debate was with William Lane Craig, a Christian philosopher The first two debates were markedly different than this last one and rightly so. Craig is a philosopher and one of the best debater’s out there today. Hitchens is informed, witty and aggressive in his style. As he says, he believes he’s on mission to awaken people to the poison of religion, no matter what religion it is.
Both Turek and Craig presented classical arguments for the existence of God. Although Craig is an “evidentialist” he began with classical arguments. Craig presented the cosmological (cause) argument, the teleological (design) argument, the moral argument, the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and a personal subjective witness to Jesus. As far as debates go Hitchens never countered any of these arguments with good reasonable arguments. What he did in all three arguments was present how religion has failed, even attacking Mother Theresa’s character.
It was watching this last debate, which our College and Career group sponsored, that I began to understand Hitchens’ argument better and why it has such appeal. In saying that, I don’t think Hitchens won any of the debates if we judge the topic of the debate. In two cases the topic was, “Does God Exist?” The other topic was, “Which Worldview Best Describes Reality.” In none of the arguments did Hitchens present a moving case. This is what he did – he appealed to people’s pragmatic nature.
Pragmatism decides truth by what works. In actuality, it is not a good test for truth. However, Americans love pragmatism. We like when something works. What we are really saying is we like results. So Christopher Hitchens’ appeal is not to a deep philosophical idea, but to the failings of religion, or where religious people have acted out in some barbaric fashion thus denying the faith they proclaim.
Hitchens likes to conflate all religions together – this is his “straw man,” and then he attacks that idea. So he’ll point to circumcising young girls in Africa as a religious rite, the destruction of the Amalekites, suicide bombers, and other practices and point out how dangerous religion can be when adherents believe they are hearing God’s voice. He tries to claim Hitler and Mussolini were Catholics because they had political relations with the Vatican. He’s very quick to point out any corrupt religious system or leader.
There’s a point where Hitchen’s always offers a challenge for anyone to tell him some moral action which is prescribed by religion which he cannot do. Then he solemnly turns to the audience and asks what horrible thing someone who believes God is on his side is capable of! In other words, Hitchens is morally capable of any good thing, but religious people are the real danger.
As I mentioned Hitchens likes pragmatism. As a practiced journalist he knows how to turn a crowd, evoke a response, and get under your skin. He’s very apt at what he does. However, Hitchens is not a philosopher or trained as an apologist though he does understand the categories. He continually plays on the ignorance of the crowd as well when he plays bait and switch.
For instance, his challenge of naming a moral action that he cannot do is a ruse. He refuses to see the moral law as something everyone can do. The Bible even tells us this in Romans 2:13-15. And yes someone who believes God speaks to him but doesn’t understand judgment and the message of the Bible is capable of horrible things. Certainly, someone who believes god has chosen him to commit suicide by blowing himself up in a crowded market is dangerous. However, so is anyone who doesn’t think they are answerable to anyone!
The problem isn’t that religious people will do something horrific. It’s when religious people do not have the truth of Scripture and or not know that God would not violate his nature. Hitchens continually brings us the Amalekites because he doesn’t understand a couple of things from the Old Testament. God told Israel to wipe out the Amalekites because the time of their judgment had come. This was also in reference to the land and Israel’s possession of it. As an atheist Hitchens wouldn’t understand nor believe in the judgment of God. As an atheist he is ignorant of the God of the Bible. His understanding of God is skewed awfully. The mood of America today is complicit with an “anti-judgment” mentality. Hitchens’ construction of God should he construct him would be a “nice god” who would do his bidding.
Chrhistopher Hitchens is on a book tour where he sells his books and speaks about the content. He’s sold a lot of books and debated many people. It all draws attention to him and the unsuspecting admire his pragmatic assertions. Of the five arguments Craig presented, Hitchens didn’t address any of them with a counter argument. Neither did he as Craig said, give good reasons to not believe in God. The fact that religious people Christian or not, do not represent their beliefs correctly does not prove that religion is not true. It certainly doesn’t prove God does not exist.
Christians especially have acted out of concert with traditional orthodox Christian beliefs. Hitchens is so resolved in his position that he willingly forfeits his closing statements. He did this in all three debates. In one debate Turek made him give a closing statement. One can only question why he wouldn’t sum up of his case against God. I won’t venture here why I think he does it. I have no proof.
The problem with the new atheists is that they are filled with rhetoric but no substance. They cannot explain away intelligent design, the moral argument, nor the cosmological argument with any force. All they can do is point out failings of religious people. Nothing new there. What the new atheism does do is get people riled up with their rhetoric. They believe they must silence anyone who presents a religious belief.
