Christopher Hitchins debate... makes strong arguments

[upbeatjonm]

I just listened to a debate I downloaded featuring a debate with Christopher Hitchins and Alister McGrath on atheism vs. Christianity. I certainly was dismayed to find that Hitchins had the strongest arguments. I kept waiting for McGrath to bring some good arguments back, but he was more interested in being polite, while Hitchins landed knock-out punch after knock-out punch.

Has anyone else listened to this? How do you counter Hitchins’ arguments?

Dismayed.

Jon

 

[FickleFreckled]

Aren’t there always stronger arguments against faith than for faith? That’s why faith is faith; it can’t be proven.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Has anyone else listened to this? How do you counter Hitchins’ arguments? Dismayed. Jon >>

Again? It seems there was just a discussion on this Hitchens-McGrath debate a few weeks ago. Let me find that thread for you…

Hitchens, a good apologist? (CA thread with link to Hitchens-McGrath debate)

I agree that McGrath is kinda weak as a debater. He is a much better theologian and writer. Hitchens has a harder time with his own brother (Peter Hitchens) and Dinesh D’Souza (author What’s So Great About Christianity?).

Lay out some of Hitchens arguments or statements, we can deal with them here (and probably have dealt with most of them here). For a book length reply to the idea that “Religion Poisons Everything” (subtitle of his book) there is Oxford theologian/philosopher Keith Ward’s book:

Is Religion Dangerous? (his answer is No)

“Is religion dangerous? Does it do more harm than good?..I will come clean at once – I think such assertions are absurd. Worse than that, they ignore the available evidence from history, from psychology and sociology, and from philosophy. They refuse to investigate the question in a properly rigorous way, and substitute rhetoric for analysis. Oddly enough, that is just what they tend to accuse religious believers of doing…My conclusion will be that religion does some harm and some good, but most people, faced with the evidence, will probably agree that it does a great deal more good than harm, and that we would be much worse off as a species without any religion. I will go further, and say that it is very important that there should be some religion about, if humans are to have a hopeful future. Of course not all religions are the same. It is quite important what sort of religion we choose, and of course we should choose the religion with the highest intellectual and moral standards that we can find. But I will on the whole let the evidence speak for itself…” (Keith Ward, Is Religion Dangerous? [2006], page 7-8)

The book is especially a reply to Dawkins “Root of All Evil?” documentary on religion, but applies to Hitchens as well. I have no doubt that Hitchens is gonna be slaughtered by William Lane Craig next year (April 2009, look for the Craig comprehensive debate list with upcoming debates).

Phil P

 

[upbeatjonm]

Ok, one strong argument is this: if we agree that humans have existed for say, 100,000 years (assuming we don’t buy the literal Adam and Eve story and young-earth creation), then why would God let humanity suffer without God’s intervention for 95,000 of these years? Then once God reveals himself, He let’s the Jewish people rape and pillage their enemies?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Ok, one strong argument is this: if we agree that humans have existed for say, 100,000 years (assuming we don’t buy the literal Adam and Eve story and young-earth creation), then why would God let humanity suffer without God’s intervention for 95,000 of these years? Then once God reveals himself, He let’s the Jewish people rape and pillage their enemies?

This is a recurring question and it has a name: theodicy, or the problem of evil.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

There are probably dozens of threads on this question alrady in these forums.

It really is one of the most interesting questions.

The short answer that I find most satisfying is this: suffering is necessary to God’s purpose which is not human comfort but human elevation from sinfulness.

As to the timeline, well, human progress takes time. Humans were not ready in 100,000BC. They had trouble in 30AD. They have trouble today.

 

[upbeatjonm]

Just watched another debate, with Hitchens and D’Souza, in which Hitchens meet’s his match. Very good debate.

Jon