Hitchens-Wilson Debate Sparks Comment and Correspondence

Posted: April 22, 2009 by Rick Hogaboam in Debates

christopher-hitchens-doug-wilson-debate-collision1

Steve Cornell commented as follows:

Mr. Hitchens, you’re the one, sir, who is blasphemous in speaking of Christ’s act as “sorcery”. The more I listen to you, the more it confirms my calvinistic beliefs that man can not see the kingdom of God apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Hitchens and the other “new atheists” who look to enlightenment reasoning for any kind of ethic, definition of beauty, etc. are only fooling themselves. The apostle Paul hit the nail right on the head when he wrote in Romans that they suppress the truth, as God has clearly made known to man His eternality and His creative power.

Steve added:

I like Wilson’s example of counterfeit bills and how they do not disprove the authentic ones. Hitchens, for such a “brilliant” guy, sure has poor reasoning skills. Perhaps he should use this logic program: http://www.logospressshop.com/index.php?p=product&id=87&parent=16
Oh, wait a minute, that’s a Wilson product…guess he wouldn’t.

It was commented by one in response to the posted Hitchens-Wilson debate:

Hitchens’ question was not answered: every religion thinks that there’s is “authentic” and all others are “counterfeit”. Wilson says, “the one that I believe is the one that I believe.” Laughable.

My very brief response is as follows:

I can understand why this response doesn’t suffice for you, however the same question can be asked of Hitchens, who claims to be a skeptic, but is pretty vehement and certain of the absurdity of the claims of Christianity. Hitchens essentially believes what he believes as well. As far as exclusivity goes in moral and religious claims. Either everyone is right, no one is right, there is a measure of truth in various claims, or one is perfectly right. To even provide such options presumes that one stand in judgment over what is right, authentic, etc. OR that one who is transcendent has revealed what is right. I believe in Divine revelation and am captive to it. Though the idea of the cross is “foolishness” to those seeking wisdom, it is the power of salvation to those being saved. I acknowledge that it is full of mystery, but it isn’t anti-rational. Almost every movie and work of literature share common redemptive themes that are shadows of the one true redemptive story in Christ.

Hitchens would find nothing praiseworthy in anyone who has ever laid down their life for the temporal salvation of another if he were to remain consistent with his worldview. If he did find such an act heroic and praiseworthy, I would ask Hitchens why such is the case? He could only state that such is his preference or he could honestly state that it is indeed foolish for a firefighter to risk his life in order to save an elderly person or infant, or anyone for that matter.

Anyhow, what do you believe? and how would your answer be any different that Wilson simply saying that he believes what he believes? Don’t we all?

Steve Cornell also responded:

I could be wrong, but I thought Wilson answered that question in stating that the resurrection proved the authenticity of Christ’s claims, and therefore our faith. He can deny the resurrection all he wants, but orthodox Christianity is based upon a person who lived in actual time and space, and an event that took place in that same time and space. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to this event, many of whom were women. Why would the writers of the resurrection accounts even dare to mention that women were the first to witness this event?

Rick is right, every single person is going to have their own presuppositions, and ultimately the question is: “by what standard do you stand in judgment over what is true, good, beautiful, etc.?”

Like Hitchens, many people will claim the standard for any kind of ethic, etc. is based upon human reason or intellect. But, what happens when you have a brilliant mind like Jonathan Edwards? Does his views then trump Hitchens?

Joel Wilhelm also added:

He’s using Van Til’s TAG argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

Van Til and Bahnsen moved this along. It’s all about presuppositions. Hitchens has no logical or real reason to believe in “good” or “evil” if we are just atoms and energy.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. joelmartin says:

    He’s using Van Til’s TAG argument:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

    Van Til and Bahnsen moved this along. It’s all about presuppositions. Hitchens has no logical or real reason to believe in “good” or “evil” if we are just atoms and energy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s