Hitchens and D'Souza debate Christianity v. atheism

Atheist Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza debated at King's College in New York City the topic, "Is Christianity the Problem?" Hitchens obviously said yes while D'Souza said no. I thought it interesting that Catholic theologian Michael Novak thought D'Souza got the best of it.

You can decide for yourself by viewing or listening to the debate here.

Atheists and atheism on the defensive

Recent debates by atheist Christopher Hitchens with defenders of God and Christianity, author Dinesh D'Souza and Oxford scholar Alister McGrath highlights the changing intellectual climate regarding debates on the existence of God and the Christian God in particular. In a nutshell, atheists and their defenders are on the defensive. This is pointed out in an interesting article in World magazine written by Marvin Olasky.

Back in the days of the Scopes trial and even before that, Theists and Christians tended to be on the defensive. Today, the roles are reversed. Advances in science pointing to design and an Intelligent Designer and the utter devastation wrought by atheistic ideologies like Marxism and Nazism have changed the terms of the debate and provided powerful evidence for the theistic, Christian position.

In the debate between between D'Souza and Hitchens, you can sense it even in the tone of taken by the debaters. D'Souza said in essence, I'll debate you on your own terms, using science and reason while Hitchens reverted to name calling, generalities, and accusations. The latter usually occurs when the side you're defending is weak and lacks evidentiary support.

I saw this a few years ago when a state Senate committee took up the proposed science standards and the topic of evolution came up. Those who oppose the materialist foundations of evolution simply argued that new scientific evidence, drawing into question evolution and other scientific theories, be included in the discussion. The atheistic representative and other supporters of evolution saw a grand religious conspiracy at play and made broad, generalized accusations. Defenders of including new evidence simply made scientific arguments. It struck me that this mini-debate was a microcosm of Scopes in reverse. That same dynamic is being played out in many other venues on the broader topic of God v. no god and design in nature v. Darwinian materialism. As always, I believe the truth will ultimately win out.

The atheist as intolerant and narrow minded

There is an interesting column in City Journal written by Theodore Dalrymple entitled what "What the New Atheists Don't See. It on the new crop of atheist writers, Chrisotpher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins who are making the New York Times best seller list.

He takes to task the new atheists who cavalierly heaping scorn on religious folks and their belief in meaning and purpose beyond themselves. These folks say we can do it on our own without the help of God who transcends our little worlds. Dalrymple goes on to point out the consequences of men who think they can do it on their own. He says,

"Of course, men—that is to say, some men—have denied this truth ["we continue to long for a transcendent purpose immanent in existence itself, independent of our own wills."] ever since the Enlightenment, and have sought to find a way of life based entirely on reason. Far as I am from decrying reason, the attempt leads at best to Gradgrind and at worst to Stalin. Reason can never be the absolute dictator of man’s mental or moral economy.

He especially goes after Harris when he says,

This sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none, combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance, reach an apogee in Sam Harris’s book The End of Faith. It is not easy to do justice to the book’s nastiness...

Harris tells us, for example, that “we must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” I am glad that I am old enough that I shall not see the future of reason as laid down by Harris; but I am puzzled by the status of the compulsion in the first sentence that I have quoted. Is Harris writing of a historical inevitability? Of a categorical imperative? Or is he merely making a legislative proposal? This is who-will-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest language, ambiguous no doubt, but not open to a generous interpretation.

It becomes even more sinister when considered in conjunction with the following sentences, quite possibly the most disgraceful that I have read in a book by a man posing as a rationalist: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.”

Let us leave aside the metaphysical problems that these three sentences raise. For Harris, the most important question about genocide would seem to be: “Who is genociding whom?” To adapt Dostoyevsky slightly, starting from universal reason, I arrive at universal madness.

Lying not far beneath the surface of all the neo-atheist books is the kind of historiography that many of us adopted in our hormone-disturbed adolescence, furious at the discovery that our parents sometimes told lies and violated their own precepts and rules. It can be summed up in Christopher Hitchens’s drumbeat in God Is Not Great: “Religion spoils everything.”

What are the consequences of the loss of the religious foundations of our society and culture? Dalrymple says,

The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies.

He also makes the interesting observation that atheists often heap scorn on religious people for their metaphysical beliefs. Dalrymple points out that the atheist belief in Darwinian natural selection is also making a religious statement.

It is true that he would say that everything is part of God’s providence, but, again, this is no more (and no less) a metaphysical belief than the belief in natural selection as an all-explanatory principle.

What makes Dalrymple's comments especially interesting is he does not consider himself "a believer."