DEBATE ON ATHEISM
It was billed as “The Great Debate,”
but it could not hold a candle to The Warren-Flew Debate (1976) or Warren-Matson
(1978). Part of the reason was the
format: the main speeches were five minutes, and the rebuttals were only
two. It would be difficult to make even
one good argument in that length of time; so instead, the audience received
interesting points on both sides and a few good sound bytes.
Another limitation was the broad
scope of the discussion. They took it
upon themselves to try to deal with, not one, but three questions, which meant
that none of them received adequate attention.
Also, there were no overheads or PowerPoint. Even though there were about 7,000 in
attendance, one wonders how anyone knew of the event, since UCF did not even
post it on their Website.
Representing the atheists was
Christopher Hitchens, an Englishman somewhat
reminiscent of Flew at times in his ability to babble without saying anything
meaningful; he is the author of the book, god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
Representing the Christian position was Dinesh
D’Souza, author of the book, What’s So Great About Christianity?
The two had held a similar debate in
“What About God?”
This first topic
is obviously not put in the form of a proposition; it comes across more like a
casual curiosity. Apparently people
cannot endure something as harsh as, “I know that God does not exist” with 20-minute
speeches, in which the assertion is supported with evidence. Hitchens began by
saying that one of the most important things in life was taking risks. (If God does not exist, there are no
objective moral values. So on what basis
did he conclude that taking risks is one of the important things in life?)
Second, he agreed
with Socrates that everything must be doubted.
Does this maxim include everything? If so, then we must doubt the truthfulness of
the statement that everything must be doubted.
If we doubt that assertion, then it means that some things are not to be
doubted, which involves us in self-contradiction.
He argues
correctly that there are lots of things we do not know and provided several
examples. Uh, okay, but the fact that we
do not know all things does not mean that we cannot know some things. Hitchens then said
that faith is useless, although no proof was given. Apparently we are supposed to agree with him
because: a) he is English, b) he is intelligent enough to be an atheist, or 3)
we had not yet heard his opponent.
He postulated
that if you believe Christianity, you can believe the Muslim religion; one is
as good as another. It is doubtful,
judging from the question he asked D’Souza later, that he even believes that
one himself (see the final paragraph).
Hitchens spoke against a God who decided everything before
you were born. Whether D’Souza believes in Calvinism or not, he did not say, but
apparently Hitchens thinks that pre-destination
represents the Christian view. It does
not. One of the observations about Flew
was that he ripped apart Calvinists when he debated them (since their position
is faulty), but he could do nothing against
A final comment
from the first speech was that one could just as easily argue that being a
Christian made one a worse person as a better person. This assertion is laughable and does not
square with reality. One wonders why one
of the nation’s top “intellectuals” would say something so inane. Thomas Jefferson disagreed with that notion;
he said that the Bible made people better husbands, wives, and citizens.
D’Souza’s First Reply and Follow-up Comments
Dinesh (no religious affiliation was named) devoted himself
to making one main point. He said that
Religion (God) and Science have the same root.
Science answers how man came
to be; religion answers why,
and therefore there need be no conflict between the two. He said that science uses inference to draw deductions
while Christianity relies on revelation.
In answer to the
objection that God cannot be seen (and therefore lacks empirical evidence as
proof for Him), D’Souza made the argument that even
scientists explain phenomena in terms of the effects of something they cannot
see. In order to explain certain observable
phenomena in the universe, scientists have postulated dark matter and dark
energy. According to the theory, dark
matter and energy comprise about 95% of all matter and energy. Likewise God is the unseen causality in the
universe that explains the effects that are observable.
The speech was
concluded by affirming that only the Hebrews’ account of the creation matches
the scientific one. The Bible says there
was no universe—then suddenly there was one, which is what occurred.
In Hitchens’ first rebuttal, he did not offer much except to
say that the universe was flying apart at a fantastic rate and that future
organisms, who will be far different from us, will observe our sun burning out. His claim about human beings being entirely
different organisms was nothing but an assumption.
D’Souza’s rebuttal included two observations. First, he called the audience’s attention to
the fact that he was not using the Scriptures to combat his opponent; he was
arguing from reason alone. Second, he
used an updated version of an illustration advocated by brother
Warren: If a Voyager explorer landed on another planet and recorded that there
were cities there, including skyscrapers, roads, etc., we would conclude—without
having ever seen a single individual—that intelligent life lived there and had
designed these things. Intricate design
proves an intelligent designer. So it is
with the universe.
What About
Christianity and Other Religions?
Dawkins’
statement, “9-11 was a faith-based initiative,” was refuted on the basis that
the Muslim religion is the only world religion that kills. This was not the best point to make in light
of various examples used later. A better
point by D’Souza was that other religions instruct
people how to ascend to God. Christianity
is the only one that brought God down to man’s level.
He also said that atheists often make the
argument that people are only Christians because they were born in
The first speech Hitchens gave on this topic covered a great deal of
territory. He said that the fascism of
Nazi Germany was compatible with Christianity by virtue of the fact that all of
the churches in
Next, Hitchens tried to tie Emperor Hirohito’s
“What is the
value of love?” Hitchens wanted to know, “since it is
unquantifiable? And what is its value if
it is compulsory? What value are love
and fear, since they both must be commanded?
And why love anyone else, since it is commanded?” He affirmed that no one can love another as
he loves himself; so everyone always stands guilty before God.
The response was not
as good as the questions. Dinesh said that love was voluntary not compulsory. Much more could be said about these
questions. First, love is a commandment. Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, and He spoke of loving
God and one’s neighbor (Matt.
The fact is that
we do not keep commandments perfectly.
We cannot “be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect.” We continually fall short, which is the reason
that God continually extends grace to the faithful. While we do not attain the ideal, it remains
our goal.
The atheist
protested that Adam and Eve were punished for their curiosity—for seeking
knowledge. They were not punished for
wanting to learn in general; they sinned by seeking the kind of knowledge that
was forbidden—one that directly violated God’s authority.
Hitchens said that Jesus’ promise to return with a kingdom
was a vain and sad promise. He added
that “Christianity is all man-made, and it shows.” No, Jesus received His spiritual kingdom when
He ascended into heaven. Premillennialism
is a false doctrine.
“What about Science and Religion?”
The first comment
that Hitchens made was that a man can be a good
scientist but hold crackpot views (on religion, presumably). He cited two examples of men who were
excellent scientists but who also held strange, unscientific views. One made several attempts at alchemy, and the
other was a spiritist. This is a point worth considering but is
easily answered. In the 1800s the idea
of alchemy was very popular, but experiments proved the idea wrong, which is
good science. Spiritism was also popular;
no less a logical thinker than Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock
Holmes mysteries, was a “believer.” The
reason these two things do not compare to scientists who believe the Bible is
that the Bible is not a fad, like alchemy, spiritism, or phrenology. The Bible is a well- attested document and
legitimate since its inception.
The Bible is
deficient, according to Hitchens, because it does not
know anything about marsupials. It does
not mention cats, either. What are we to
make of that? It does, however, mention
fools (Ps. 19:1).
D’Souza turned Hitchens’ argument
back on him by saying that many atheists are illogical and irrational. As an example, he described the response that
someone would have if they picked up a Shakespearian play. No one would assume that a monkey just sat at
a keyboard and typed such an intricate thing.
Intelligence was required.
The comments on
this fact sidestepped the issue entirely.
Hitchens spent his response time saying that
we do not know whether Shakespeare wrote Hamlet
or some other author. D’Souza replied that he had never commented on proving who
the author was—but that the evidence showed that the play itself had an author. A reading of the play was sufficient to know
that an intelligent being wrote it.
Personal Questions
Each debater was
allowed to ask his opponent one question he would like for him to answer. Hitchens wanted to
know on what basis anyone could be a Christian, since religion itself is false,
of dubious historicity, and of no value, morally speaking. D’Souza wondered
how he could question the historicity of Christ or Christianity. One might debate its value but not its factual
basis. He pointed out that one does not
need to believe Muhammad’s doctrine to note the historicity of what
occurred.
Hitchens made one of the most peculiar statements of the
evening when he said he did not doubt the sincerity of the Christians who were
put to death. It is this fanaticism, he
averred, that proved to him that Christianity is not legitimate. What?
Does he believe nothing is worth dying for? Apparently, he would not defend his country or
save someone from a burning building.
His wife should learn martial arts because he might consider it too fanatical
to give his life to save her.
The personal question
that D’Souza asked Hitchens
was: “Have you ever had any doubts about your atheistic position?” He did not answer that question. Instead, he spent his time responding to Pascal’s
Wager, which results in the question: “What will you do if you discover there
is a Day of Judgment and that God exists?”
He answered that he would probably agree with Bertrand Russell and tell
God that He should have given us more evidence (which is foolish, since God
gave us both a natural and a supernatural revelation of His power and Godhead,
Romans
Audience Questions
Three questions
had been submitted ahead of time for the debaters. Hitchens was asked
how he explained men like Stalin and other Communists and their killing of
millions in the name of godlessness.
Incredibly, he tried to link Stalin to religion and said that the
Russian Orthodox Church produces Stalin icons.
(Would that be the Russian Orthodox Church that was controlled by and
authorized by the Communist government?
No one can take such an assertion seriously.) He also claimed that
The question for D’Souza involved commenting on Voltaire’s claim that
religion was invented for psychological purposes. D’Souza reasoned
that if Christianity was made up to make us feel better, then how can the doctrine
of hell be explained? If mankind was
just trying to achieve some sort of wish fulfillment, he would never have conjured
up a place of torment.
The atheist
responded that not all of our wishes are innocent. Also, people have a need to see others
suffer. (The problem with saying that is,
when standards are applied to others, they end up involving oneself or one’s
family; so hell still would not have been “invented” by man.) He added that mankind is created sick and commanded
to get well, which is false. Calvinism
may so teach, but the Bible teaches that God created us well and commanded us
to stay healthy.
The last question
was: “Why, with all the miracles in the world, are no amputees getting new
limbs?” It was D’Souza’s
turn to sidestep a question. He cited a
study in which he said that in one year’s time after winning the lottery or
losing a limb, people are back to their previous levels of happiness. The lottery winner’s elation spikes at first,
just as the one who loses a limb becomes depressed, but after one year both
have come to grips with their respective situations. When Hitchens
pointed out his evasion, D’Souza added that Jesus was
more concerned about healing people spiritually than physically.
If D’Souza believes in modern-day miracles, he would have a
hard time answering the question. People
with severed limbs in ancient times probably did not survive. Jesus did restore an ear—and raised Lazarus
from the dead after he had been buried four days.
Hitchens wanted to
know if D’Souza would prefer him as an atheist or a Muslim;
the answer was an atheist. (Would Hitchens have asked this question if he believed Christians
and Muslims were equal? The query
implies that he knows the Muslim religion is far more dangerous.) All in all the discussion brought forth several
interesting questions; neither side probably won any converts, but many college
students were in the audience, and the applause for the Christian position was
enthusiastic.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please
refer to this article as: "<title> (
Return
To Article Index