D'Souza vs. Hitchens: "Is Christianity the Problem?"

Right now I'm watching the D'Souza/Hitchens debate on CSPAN-2. (Quick--turn on your TV!) I've already watched most of this on the web, though not all the way to the end. (I had not yet reached the point where Douglas Groothuis heard a serious error from D'Souza. I would agree with Groothuis's assessment on this, assuming he reported it accurately.)

Hitchens began with a rather sidewise word of appreciation for the "appallingly polite and fulsome faculty and staff" of The King's College in New York, hosts of the debate. I know some of the faculty and staff there; the school is associated with Campus Crusade for Christ, the organization with which I work, and I helped lead a week-long conference there a few years ago. (It was one of the high points of my career--not that I had anything to do with the conference, but that for about a week I had an actual key to part of the Empire State Building. I thought that was pretty cool.) Anyway, there was at least one point on which I can agree with Hitchens: there are some great people there.

After Hitchens's opening statement, D'Souza compared his own position to that of a mosquito in a nudist colony: where to begin? If I were to try to rebut Hitchens's statements I would have the same problem. His view of Christianity is so distorted, in so many ways, that it's hardly worth refuting. It reminds me of what William Vallicella wrote recently: the atheist does not deny what the theist affirms. He distorts theism and denies whatever he makes up about theism. At least that's what Hitchens did in his opening statement.

For example, he thinks the Bible teaches that no one knew that stealing was wrong before the Ten Commandments were handed down at Sinai. If that were true, it would be ridiculous, and he indeed ridicules it. He's ridiculing something other than Christian (or Jewish) belief. Is that supposed to matter to Christians (or Jews)? Later he explains that what's wrong with religion is that Islamic extremism threatens peace in the world. Is that supposed to matter to Christian belief? He worries that a person who says he has God on his side can do anything, that nothing is forbidden to such a person. "Just because of faith, and a sense of divine endorsement," a person can feel permission for any atrocity.

But this is a contentless statement. Christianity itself forbids injustice, and mandates love and truth. If Hitchens wants to complain about a faith that allows a person to do anything at all, I'll line up right with him. But he seems to think somehow this applies to Christianity. (The question, after all, is whether Christianity is the problem.) Where does he get that from?

The discussion on cosmological design could have been enlightening--some good points came forth--but the format became unfortunately chaotic. Hitchens brought forth a question about Catholicism and fascism (at about 45 minutes into the debate), which D'Souza answered by showing how Hitler hated and co-opted Christianity. Yes, the church was fooled by this (some of the church, that is; not all of it). But the 20th-century atheists, as D'Souza pointed out, killed more people in a week than the infamous Inquisition killed in three centuries.

A Tongan national asked Mr. Hitchens what ethic he had to offer them. Before Christians came there Tonga was, he said, "a mess," and in nearby Fiji they "ate men for dinner." Hitchens completely ducked the question, asking why this revelation (of Christ) did not come sooner to Tonga and to other nations, and he re-phrased the problem of evil. Those aren't bad questions, but they weren't what was asked. D'Souza brought the question back to a strong declaration of the values that Christianity brings with it when it comes to a culture. The world has not understood justice and equality apart from Christianity. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a statement of Christian values, and not those of other beliefs or ideologies. We all owe this to Christ and to the Scriptures.

Hitchens responded that "if you accept it for one you accept it for all." If you believe Christianity does something good, you have to believe that Islam and Mormonism do to. Now, why would that be true? I don't get the argument at all. He kept speaking of things like "the central lie of all religions," as if there was much agreement between all religions. It's not true. It's not just the fact of belief, but the content of belief that matters. How could that not be obvious?

Well, as I write, the debate is moving toward a close. I'll close too. (I've been posting updated versions of this several times over the past 75 minutes.) I recommend you watch and listen. As I said earlier, it's available on YouTube.

Posted: Sat - October 27, 2007 at 07:36 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

D'Souza vs. Hitchens: "Is Christianity the Problem?"

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson