God Debate Redux: Christopher Hitchens On Christianity Today

The debate surrounding religion has been heating up quite a bit lately (not that it was ever exactly “cool”, mind you) due in no small part to a recent spate of books by such folks as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris (Letter To A Christian Nation), and most recently, Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything). And naturally, given the controversy, uproar, and acclaim the so-called “new atheism” has been engendering, the media has been sponsoring a number of debates and appearances.

A few weeks ago, Newsweek offered up an abridged conversation between Sam Harris and Rick Warren, and before that, Harris corresponded with Andrew Sullivan over on Beliefnet. Both of which were, if nothing else, interesting and thought-provoking conversations. However, I can’t help but wonder what the producers of Nightline were thinking when they decided to pit folks from the Rational Response Squad against Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

Yes, that Kirk Cameron. As for Comfort, he’s the guy you’ve seen on YouTube claiming that the banana is the “atheist’s worst nightmare” because its shape fits human hands. (Nevermind that bananas have been bred, by humans, to be like that.)

No offense to Comfort and Cameron, but my first thought was “Really? They’re the best Nightline could do?” Considering the numerous writers, theologians, and philosophers who serve as apologists for Christianity, Cameron and Kirk strike me as some of the least likely candidates for a debate.

Personally, I’m much more interested in the correspondence that Christianity Today is currently hosting between Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, author of Letter From a Christian Citizen and editor of Credenda/Agenda.

The first installment was posted earlier today. In response to Hitchens’ statement that “I hope I may be forgiven for declining to believe that another human being can tell me what to do, in the most intimate details of my life and mind, and to further dictate these terms as if acting as proxy for a supernatural entity,” Wilson writes:

[Y]ou make a great deal out of your individualism and your right to be left alone with the “most intimate details of [your] life and mind.” Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual? How does this individualism of yours flow from the premises of atheism? Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than they respect the internal churnings of any other given chemical reaction? That’s all our thoughts are, isn’t that right? Or, if there is a distinction, could you show how the premises of your atheism might produce such a distinction?

If you’ve spent any time in the debate — either “for” or “against” Christianity — then Wilson and Hitchens don’t really break any new ground or deviate from the standard talking points here. However, it’s still early and I look forward to seeing how their discussion evolves.

Enjoy reading Opus? Want to support my writing? Become a subscriber for just $5/month or $50/year.
Subscribe Today
Return to the Opus homepage