September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        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 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Oprah Winfrey Show – A Platform to Advocate the Use of Adult Stem Cells? | Main | 3 Down, 47 to Go... »

April 03, 2009

Comments

Audio from Hitchens' debate at the Christian Book Expo with William Lane Craig, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel and others can be found here.

Vox Day pretty much destroys Hitch's "arguments" in his book, The Irrational Atheist.

You can download a free copy at his site, FYI:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/

Excellent post, Melinda.

Does anyone know how many debates Craig has had with Hitchens? I'm pretty sure it's more than 3. If so, I'd be very interested if Craig or anyone else has compared the debates. Does Hitchens change his arguments at all in new debates with Craig, or is it pretty much the same thing every time?

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the sense that Hitchens is not really an atheist. It seems like he very much believes in God and he is extremely angry with Him.

"There’s no point in even trying to persuade religious people to believe and behave different since we’re also just acting the way we’re programmed to."

I think just the opposite is the case. If we act the way we're programmed too, then that is every reason to try to persuade people. Persuasion is what reprograms people. It seems to me that persuasion would be more effective under determinism than it would be under libertarianism.

I like what Doug Wilson wrote to Hitchens in their debate for Christianity Today:

You say that you cannot believe that Christ’s death on the Cross was salvation for the world because the idea is absurd. I have shown in various ways that absurdity has not been a disqualifier for any number of your current beliefs. You praise reason to the heights, yet will not give reasons for your strident and inflexible moral judgments, or why you have arbitrarily dubbed certain chemical processes “rational argument.”

That’s absurd right now, and yet there you are, holding it. So for you to refuse to accept Christ because it is absurd is like a man at one end of the pool refusing to move to the other end because he might get wet. Given your premises, you will have to come up with a different reason for rejecting Christ as you do.

But for you to make this move would reveal the two fundamental tenets of true atheism. One:
There is no God. Two: I hate Him.


I thought a better tittle of Hitchen's book would be "Ranting on Religion", because that's a much more accurate title that would better set the reader's expections. I was also dismayed by his lack of arguments.

Alas, I suppose book titles are very marketing driven.

One question:

Melinda >> Hitchens tells us a nice story about the sociological beginnings and need for religion in a pre-scientific world....It’s a story because there is no proof, no argument. It’s simply a way to account for one view of the historical development of religions.

Melinda (later in the same paragraph) >> Similarities in religious accounts aren’t proof of fantasy and copying, but instead could be examples of recounting something true that might have come from a common experience or awareness.


Sounds like a nice story. Is there proof or argument for this? I'd be interested in seeing more about this.

Tom,

I agree Hitchens is an awful atheist. There's much better ones out there. He's not helping the discussion at all.

<> But for you to make this move would reveal the two fundamental tenets of true atheism. One: There is no God. Two: I hate Him.

But don't Christians do the same thing all the time? Let's just change the names around a bit.

One: There is no Allah.
Two: I hate Allah (he is merely a character, and the center point of a religion that enslaves millions of people in false beliefs)

One: There is no Mormon Elohim.
Two: I hate Mormon Elohim (he is merely a character, and center point of a religion that enslaves millions of people in false beliefs)

One: There is no Arminian/Calvinist God (take your pick)
Two: I hate the Arminian/Calvinist God (he is merely a character, and center point of a religion that enslaves millions of people in false beliefs)

Christians are quite skeptical of other beliefs, and decry their stranglehold on people and entire cultures. Sounds a lot like skeptics, agnostics, and weak atheists.

As for me, I don't know where I stand. I'm just noting the similarity.

Daniel, ive actually seriously pondered that question

Jim, "your right", but speaking strictly to the original statement I think that misses the point a bit. I think that statement speaks to the obvious hatred for something that apparently doesnt exist, to such a degree that you'de wonder if you could possibly be so angry at it if it werent actually there, if that makes any sense.

Actually Allah and Elohim do exist.

They are simply demons called "Allah" and "Elohim."

This puts your argument in serious trouble. As a Christian, I'm not skeptical that other religions follow demons. It's a Biblical truth, after all.

(Your point about Arminian/Calvinist God makes no sense, as neither group denies the other is worshiping the Trinitarian God, it's a dispute over theology not existance.)

Hi Mike,

Mike >> ...to such a degree that you'de wonder if you could possibly be so angry at it if it werent actually there, if that makes any sense

Yes, it makes sense.

I never got the impression that Hitchens hates God, just all religion, and all the associated gods just come along with his disdain for religion. But it's been awhile since I read his book, and it's quickly forgotten anyways.

But let's just go with the thought that Hitchens actually hates God.

I don't have his book here, but I assume he hates Allah just as much as the Christian God.

Does a person's hatred of Allah speak at all about the existence of Allah?

I see what your getting at now, and thankyou for pointing that out. Someones hatered wouldent neccessairily speak to the excistence of something speciffic, such as Allah, or even the Christian God, but may point to something going on. Atleast to the degree which hitchens criticizes, it atleast makes me wonder why he seems so hateful if its just a big fairy tale. His rage seems a bit misplaced in light of his criticisms of the Biblical God (even if they are inaccurate), and, IMO, betray his personal opinion if he were merely mad at the institution. But I dont know him, so in some ways that is a bit of speculation.

Hi Hitchdumb, thanks for the comments.

>> Actually Allah and Elohim do exist. They are simply demons called "Allah" and "Elohim."

You might be right. I'd be interested in appraising the evidence for this.

Right now, I'm just at the level of seeing them as invented characters. How can we tell the difference between a demon and an invented character? I'm not aware of any way to measure or evaluate the difference.

Either way though, people are likely being deluded.


>> Your point about Arminian/Calvinist God makes no sense, as neither group denies the other is worshiping the Trinitarian God

That probably wasn't a good example. I was thinking about the extremes on that particular issue, where you will see some claims that the other side is following a severely false gospel and severely false beliefs about God. It comes to a point where some Christians reject that other Christians are worshiping the same God. I hope that makes more sense. I'm sorry for being unclear in my original message.

I'm only reviewing patterns of skepticism amongst Christians and others. More to the point, we don't tend to hate the invented gods, we tend to disdain the religions and their effects on people and cultures. So, in that general sense, Hitchens/skeptics and Christians have a lot in common.

None of this proves a darn thing. Just trying to talk it through.

Male Falsetto>> but may point to something going on. Atleast to the degree which hitchens criticizes, it atleast makes me wonder why he seems so hateful if its just a big fairy tale.

Yeah, I don't know him either, but he definitely seems like quite a strong personality.

I imagine if he was a Christian, he would probably make a lot of Christians squirm in embarrassment! Maybe he's better off on the side. :)

"How can we tell the difference between a demon and an invented character? I'm not aware of any way to measure or evaluate the difference."

How about testimony? Muhammad and Joseph Smith testify they had a relationship with spiritual beings. Are they liars? Perhaps, perhaps not. But if they did meet spiritual beings, it's likely the beings were demons based on the what was transcribed by the witnesses.

"It comes to a point where some Christians reject that other Christians are worshiping the same God. "

Very rare. The question is really about salvation, not existance.

"So, in that general sense, Hitchens/skeptics and Christians have a lot in common."

Except the atheist makes a unsubstantiated truth claim about the existance of God, while the Christian can point to the Bible and say "Yes, there are spiritual beings called demons that do exist."

See Vox Day's entry on "The Subtraction Fallacy" --

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/03/lexicology.html

Jim T,

But don't Christians do the same thing all the time? Let's just change the names around a bit.

I probably should have provided more context for the quote I gave. My apologies.

Doug Wilson wasn’t merely asserting that Hitchens just hated God. Wilson (as usual) was using some of his fine-tuned acerbic wit to point out that Hitchens evaded and never addressed any actual relevant issues within the debate and that he only made complaints against God. That amounts to absolutely nothing in the form of an argument against God’s existence.

Thus it stands that since Hitchens only has complaints against God (and not rational reasons), he must just hate him.

So to respond to your comparison, I do not think that Christians are doing the same thing in regards to Allah, Mormonism, etc. Christians offer rational arguments to believe in the Triune God of the Bible and offer counter arguments to demonstrate why Allah, Mormonism, etc. is false.

You should read the whole debate between Wilson and Hitchens. I think you would enjoy it! You can read it here:

http://philgons.com/docs/Hitchens-Wilson-Debate.pdf

Tom, thanks for the info.

You know, having this sort of conversation with Hitchens as the example skeptic is probably just fraught with problems. Some might consider he has good entertainment value, but he seems to be lacking substance.


Again, Wilson said>> But for you to make this move would reveal the two fundamental tenets of true atheism.

If I read this correctly, Wilson is making a claim against his perception of true atheism, not just Hitchens. Certainly, there are many atheists and skeptics that offer rational arguments for their position. Is Wilson making the claim that all atheists are just theists deep down, but that they hate God? I've heard that sort of accusation used before, which seems ludicrous to me, but maybe I'm reading too much into Wilson here.

Tom >> So to respond to your comparison, I do not think that Christians are doing the same thing in regards to Allah, Mormonism, etc. Christians offer rational arguments

Well, you're correct when comparing rational theists to an irrational atheist. :) I was probably assuming the best-case scenario of comparing rational theists with rational atheists (yes, they both exist).

Which just goes to show that a thread about Hitchens is a bad place to have this discussion. Lesson learned!

Thanks again for the discussion.

Hey Melinda,

If it's OK to post a comment, I wanted to link that analysis I sent you before of all of Hitchens' case against God, which he used in his recent debate with Frank Turek.

I posted it here:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/analyzing-christopher-hitchens-case-against-god/

Also, Apologetics 315 has audio and video of a very recent panel discussion with William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens.

Here:
http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-god-of-christianity-exist-and-does.html

I listened to Mr. Hitchens book on CD. He is the narrator of his book. The term that Melinda used, "bile" is even more apparent when you hear him speaking his book. I wanted very much to understand his argument, but I could not find one in his material. I, too, was left with not much more than a feeling of pity for the man.

The comments to this entry are closed.