Apparently, You Can Go Home Again

I like Christopher Hitchens. A lot. In the past his religion-hating I took to be a nuisance, and didn't give it much though. Now, on an ideological crusade, I'm pretty embarrassed for him. Wilson & Olasky pretty much mop the floor with him, especially Wilson (despite remaining, particularly Wilson, consummate douchebags).

The debate is also completely unfair: there isn't a Reformed or Presbyterian mini-pope (or highschool-theology dork) out there who isn't up to his eyeballs in apologetics. They know the song and dance inside and out. It's all minutiae at this point: debates within debates within systems within systems. Hitchens isn't outgunned because he isn't more clever or intelligent than Wilson or Olasky, he's losing because on this issue he's still in grade school.

What I'd really like to see is Hitchens (or Wilson or Olasky) debate a Doubter. Someone who understands the deeper problems with Religion: the problem of evil, the goodness of God, sovereignty v free will. But right now it's ideologue v. ideologue, people who believe that God definitely exists and that the Bible is completely Divine revelation vs. a guy who believes that the Bible is self-evidently nonsense. The skeptic would have a field day with both.

I honestly don't think a skeptic would fair much better against Wilson. Skepticism would significantly compound the issues that atheism brings to the table but it would be no less undermined by Wilson's line of argument. I also wouldn't consider the debate mediocre simply because Hitchens, for all his wanton intelligence, doesn't get it. This debate has played out much like the Wilson-Drange debate and the Bahnsen-Stein debate (though Drange and Stein at least made an effort).

Josiah, I am surprised that you are so quick to say that Wilson has mopped the floor with Hitchens. I havent listened to the Olasky debate yet, but in all fairness to Hitchens in his debate with Wilson, it doesnt even seem that he has had a chance yet to respond (unless I am missing the link or something). I was a careful follower of the debate with Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan, and I found as the debate went on Harris became more clear and pointed, and Sullivan became more vague and mystical. I wouldnt be surprised if the same occured in the debate between Wilson and Hitchens if it were given time to evolve.

It is easy for a Christian to fall back on the line of argument that Wilson pursues and naturally excels in. CS Lewis has made this line of argument extremely popular. The Christian simply dismisses any positive affirmations that an athiest might make by pointing to the athiest's denial of an objective morality in the universe. He in a sense puts the athiest in a corner and tells him to shut up every time he tries to say ANYTHING. Because if there is no God, nothing can ultimately be objectively said.

But this line of argument can only be used so much before it becomes exhausting and just downright immature. I wasnt that impressed with Wilson. He avoids the more important issues. Why do we so readily accept the literal historicity of the events in the Bible and why are we so prone to believe that the system of justice it illstrates is without error? Wilson dodged those questions in favor of your standard "Shut up because you dont believe in objectivity" approach.

Now I dont think Hitchens first letter was anything to be ecstatic about. Its a less than impressive opening. Harris is far more interesting and articulate if you ask me. But I wouldnt start declaring victory for Wilson just yet. Wilson has already used his best card if you ask me and its probably all downhill from there.

Todd, you may be right about giving him more time. I think the presuppositional method feels like a hit in the dark to someone who's never heard it. You're asking someone to give an account of things they, and everyone they know, has taken as given for their entire lives. Even if they can do it, they may not even know what you're asking. So far, though, Hitchens really doesn't even seem to understand what Wilson has said to him, and shows no signs of doing so. Wilson has, on the other hand, been really articulate and clear in making the argument. In my score keeping, it's Hitchens: 0, Wilson: 1.

To think that Hitchens can give a response is to presume the faultiness of Wilson's argument. Althought Hitchens (and all atheists with him) desires reason, society and "innate moral understanding" to be authoritative he simply has no basis. Many atheists aren't even willing to concede that atheism is a worldview; they wear Ockham's Razor like a badge all the while ignorant of the blood streaming down their chests. When a Christian like Wilson comes along to point out that they're bleeding they either refuse to look down or childishly respond, "No, you're bleeding!"

Todd, I don't see how the number of times an argument is used counts against its potency or maturity as an argument. Ignorance isn't really a viable response (if it isn't for us then it certainly can't be for them) but how else can the atheist respond? Your questions about the historicity of the Bible and is system/structure of justice don't make sense outside of a worldview that has no source of authority and no standard for judging; that's what Wilson's argument says. Until the atheist can establish such points, he's in no position to be making criticisms of other views (even if they are contrary atheists).

Heres what I hear you saying Jared.

How can Hitchens even give a response unless he presumes Wilson is right? Although Hitchens desires to be right, he simply has no basis until he presumes Wilson is right. Hitchens isnt even willing to concede that all of his arguments are just faulty presumptions. Why cant Hitchens just be thankful when a a guy like Wilson comes along to point out that he's wrong?

How can Hitchens be anything other than ignorant until he presumes that Wilson is right? Todd, your questions are really pointless until you and Hitchens are willing to presume that Wilson is right. Thats what Wilson has been trying to say all along! Until Hitchens presumes that Wilson is right, he is no position to critique Wilson for being wrong.

Wow, I guess we should all be in awe of the rich tradition of Reformed Apologetics and how it has helped us to better dialogue with the unbeliever. The fact is, Wilson can presume hes right until hes blue in the face, and feel confident that his faith is intellectually impenetrable. That's not going to speak to a guy like Hitchens one bit. And it doesnt change the fact that (gasp) for all we really know with our limited little pea brains, Wilson could be wrong.

for those keeping score like scott, you have to remember to subtract points for things like the wank-a-thon found on the consummate douchebags link. that would leave us with 0 to 0, or even 0 to -1, as is usually the case with atheist-christian debates in my opinion. this will definitely be the last one i read...unless of course don graham gets in the mix.

Jeff - My point system is based just on the arguments at hand, not comments made on Wilson's blog, by him or or his fans. I've been very impressed with how Wilson has handled this thing. I daresay the guy sounds winsome! I'm almost ready to resubscribe to Credenda/Agenda. I've long since written him off as unnecessary to my own life, but having read this, I'm wondering where I put all my old Van Til books. Maybe there's some value to this approach after all. At the very least, it seems like this is not the same Wilson I have grown to dislike so much. And since I adore Hitchens to the point of wishing I could name my children after him (my wife sees it differently), I'm so happy to see this debate taking place. If it could go on a long time, I think Hitchens might actually be able to understand Wilson's main point, which is quite powerful, and though old to us who cut our teeth reading Van Til and Francis Schaeffer, quite effective when arguing against a moralizing atheist humanist like Hitchens.

I like that Wilson is basically Wilson in this debate, too. Someone mentioned somewhere that they found McGrath's debate with Dawkins disappointing because of how PC McGrath was in the debate. I hadn't heard that debate, but I immediately thought of how I have rarely wanted to make a challenge to a nonbeliever, on the grounds of wanting to never offend. I guess I can learn from everyone, though. This isolated moment, I think the pairing up is really good, and if Hitchens can either come to understand the main philosophical point or quit dodging the question (out of love and respect for Hitchens, I'm more willing to say it's simply confusion than cowardice causing Wilson to have to repeat himself for four letters straight), I think Wilson has been a very good representative of the orthodox Christian faith. I have always thought Hitchens reminded me of Wilson, too, which makes me think Wilson probably deep down really likes Hitchens, personally. Which is maybe why this is going so well. I always had the impression that Wilson only likes his croonies, but this makes me reconsider.