Subscribe to our monthly "Perspectives"
resources
for 
What
Is A Family? And Why It Matters!
During a recent debate at King's College, New York, between Neo-Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, and Christian academic and author, Dinesh D'Souza, argued about whether Christianity was good for the world. Christopher Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything, has introduced a novel strategy on the part of the Neo-Atheists in their attack against religion, and in particular: Christianity. He introduces a previously unheard of strategy in his attack on Christianity when he claims that not only can atheism proscribe a moral code it is actually a far superior moral code than that of Christianity! Stunningly, to support this claim Hitchens cited the morality shown by the "Good Samaritan" to buttress his argument. This seemed to catch D'Souza off-guard who didn't adequately address this argument.ABOUT DEBATING
Tremendous credit needs to be given to Dinesh D'Souza for standing up in the Public Arena to defend the claims of the Christ and the Scriptures. I hope that more intelligent Christians are inspired by Dinesh D'Souza's courage to enter the hostile public square for Christ. There weren't many times when I had to cringe during this debate. This contrasts with the efforts of many Christians I have heard who have participated in similar debates where either their lack of researched and relevant knowledge, or a clear strategy, has led to unnecessary embarrassment.
Public Debating seems to be a peculiarly American phenomena. Australians don't debate well for various reasons. As such there are rarely any public debates in Australia of this kind. Australians generally find debates to be about personal attacks rather than intellectual rigour. Good debaters necessarily bring to the podium an aura of intimidation and an ability to intimidate. Really good debaters add to these qualities an intimate knowledge of their subject, a passionate belief in their case, and a strategy to outmanoeuver their opponent. Based on this criteria, Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza are two of the best. This was acknowledged by the moderator of the debate and by both of the debaters (who were quite gracious toward each other in expressing their compliments to each other before the debate began). Even though each debater was passionately opposed to the other's position they clearly held mutual admiration for each other.
These types of debates have the value of immediately challenging the proposition of someone presenting an assertion or argument. All too often assertions are made critical of Biblical Christianity which, because they are not countered (immediately), become a stumbling block to some people maintaining or adopting a commitment to Christ. But in this instance, many of the views of Hitchens which have rocked some Christians were able to be immediately challenged and shown to be irrational, illogical and even wrong, by D'Souza. But conversely, some of the arguments and assertions put forward by Christians in support of their claims can also shown to be weak or faulty in this type of arena (which has the potential to stymie the entire Christian Gospel).
For example, Dinesh referred to Einstein being a "theist" (a God-worshiper) in support of his argument that the belief in God was intellectually acceptable. This claim isn't strictly correct- even though many Christians have also made the same assertion. Hitchens quickly pounced on this slip with the correction that Einstein was a deist (someone who acknowledges possibility of a transcendent God) but was not a theist. But when Hitchens introduced the Good Samaritan as an atheist it seemed to be such a novel assertion that it caught Dinesh D'Souza off-guard and wasn't therefore similarly pounced on.
HITCHENS' ASSERTIONS
As well as the standard arguments of atheists which might be summed up as: a lack of scientific proof for the existence and certain identity of God - Hitchens has introduced the assertion that previously was one of the main tenants of Christian Apologists: the moral argument. He asserts that Atheism is a superior moral-code to that of any religion- but especially Christianity - but then goes further by asserting that Christianity is actually fundamentally immoral. He lists wars, executions, clergy abuse, ecclesiastical oppression, and the brainwashing of innocent children as just some of the Church's immorality. D'Souza rightly rebutted this assertion by the counter-assertion that most of those immoral acts have been carried out by atheists to far, far, greater degrees. D'Souza then argued that authentic morality requires an absolute standard of rightness, which must be a person of supreme and ultimate moral purity and authority- this can only logically be: God. But Hitchens appealed to a centuries old humanistic argument developed by an 18th century Prussian philosopher, Immanuel Kant, that morals can be deduced rationally from reason.
Hitchens highlighted many of the atrocities committed by the Church to show that not even Christians honour an objective code of morals which therefore means that Church authorities know that God doesn't exist. D'Souza very reasonably countered this assertion by showing that such atrocities were not done in obedience to Christ or the New Testament and pale dramatically in range and scope compared with the atrocities committed by atheists. For example, the Inquisition which is frequently cited as one of the most atrocious crimes of the Church, where "heretics" were executed, is generally thought by atheists to have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent people over its 300 year duration. In fact, Dinesh D'Souza points out, on average less than 7 people a year were executed. Another such myth is the "Salem Witch Trials" which is thought to have resulted in the needless death of thousands of people. In reality however, only 18 people were executed. Albeit, conceded D'Souza, still a tragic waste of life.
But when it came to the concluding remarks, Hitchens linked the irrationality of "God" with the irrational notion, in his point of view, that morals come from God's character and authority. Morals, asserts Hitchens, come from control-freaks, who deceptively use the guise of religion to make people do what they want! Hitchens describes the God of the Bible as a cruel, murderous, immoral, prudish dictator who has no regards for human rights. This picture of God bears an uncanny resemblance, in Hitchens' mind, to those who claim to represent Him. The ultimate example of this immoral God according to Hitchens is the barbaric death of His alleged Son. Surely a loving God would not execute His own Son so needlessly, Hitchens asserted. This was Hitchens' 'deathblow' to Christianity. Strategically, it was a rather anti-climactic way to culminate his arguments. Then almost out of no-where came Hitchens' proof-text that he was right: Jesus Christ's story of the Good Samaritan. All of the "religious" people in this story showed no moral virtue. It was the non-religious Samaritan who demonstrated a much higher sense of morality than these religious authorities. Therefore, argued Hitchens, religion (and especially Christianity) is of little value in making a person moral.
But Dinesh D'Souza only superficially dealt with this absurd argument by pointing out that none of the characters in the story were Christian and that Jesus was actually drawing attention to the Good Samaritan as the only one who behaved in a "Christian" manner. Dinesh then moved in for the rhetorical kill by unleashing a genuine killer-blow to atheism's objections. Dinesh D'Souza discounted all of Christopher Hitchens' arguments by calling the hand of the atheists: the real objection of atheists is not intellectual, but moral- even their intellectual objections to morality were not intellectual, but moral! D'Souza trumped Hitchens by turning Hitchens' argument about morality back onto the atheists to show that their real objection to the notion of God is that they don't want Someone telling them what to do and what is absolutely right and wrong.
WAS THE GOOD SAMARITAN AN ATHEIST?
One of the accusations of Hitchens' about Christians is that they know the Bible is not really "God's Word" which is proven by the fact they don't really believe it. He cites the controversial Scripture in Matthew 27:52-53 ~ "The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Amazingly Christopher Hitchens bases his conclusion that intellectually-honest Christians cannot believe the Bible because of that passage. Dinesh D'Souza perhaps realised what a red-herring this was and didn't lose focus by engaging in this entirely different debate.
But still I was troubled by Hitchens' earlier assertion that the Good Samaritan was an atheist and that Jesus was actually making the point that all religions are immoral and only atheism is able to provide a fair moral code. This is, of course, exegetical vandalism. If Hitchens' submitted this thesis in a Hermeneutics class he would be graded an "F". But what I found bewildering was that no sooner after Hitchens had lambasted the Bible as silly, man-made, and immoral, he would attempt to use it to make a moral point! Logicians call this a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
John Piper preaches a sermon on the anvil of the Bible in which he uses an illustration of a huge blacksmith being admired by a young boy. As the blacksmith pounds and works the metal on his anvil the boy asks if the anvil will break under the strain. The blacksmith tells the boy that this anvil was owned by his father and his grandfather before him. It has lasted over a hundred years and will be around in a hundred to come. It's not the anvil that wears out, he told the boy, it's the hammers! This anvil, said the blacksmith, has worn out many, many hammers. John Piper draws the analogy that the Bible is like that anvil and the objections of atheists (like Christopher Hitchens) are no more than hammers which will very soon be broken by the immovability of the anvil. They will then be tossed aside and forgotten. In one or two hundred years the assertions of Christopher Hitchens will lie where their fragmented pieces are being tossed by intellectually rigorous Christians like Dinesh D'Souza. And the anvil of the Word of God in which we find Christ-like characters like the Good Samaritan will still be standing to serve not merely as a moral-code but as a moral-mirror to show sinners like me and Christopher Hitchens of our need for a Saviour like Jesus .
(c) Dr. Andrew Corbett, 5th January 2008
[Printable WORD format of this article: Click Here]
[This debate can be viewed by clicking here.]
|
