Dealing with Typical Atheist Arguments Against God As Represented by the Late Christopher Hitchens

At one point about a decade ago, before he died at age 62 of esophageal cancer, Christopher Hitchens was included in a group of atheists titled, the four horsemen, ironically after the characters in Revelation 6.  They were also associated with what was termed, new atheism, still around today.  Hitchens had written a book, God Is Not Great, mainly a contradiction of a misstatement of an expression in Islam, God is great, which is actually, Allahu Akbar, "Allah is Greater."  With his book title, Hitchens was more poking the eye of the religion of Islam than Christianity.

To boost the sales of his book, Hitchens toured the United States to debate all comers, especially in the Bible belt.  In a short period of time, he debated every one of the most well known evangelical apologists of theism, including William Lane Craig and John Lennox.  Someone of less prominence in debate, Douglas Wilson, also took on Hitchens in a series of debates from which a documentary film was made, Collision.  To promote the film, Hitchens and Wilson appeared on a television talk show hosted by Joy Behar.  The two made a nine and a half minute appearance on her show for a brief mini-debate, moderated by her.

The short interchange between Wilson and Hitchens offers a nice sample of arguments in particular coming from Hitchens, the professing atheist.  Someone will not get much different or even more from him if he had spoken two hours on the subject.  Even by his own assessment, Hitchens, one of the four horsemen, is not giving proof that God does not exist.  Wilson represents Hitchens's arguments in this snippet in the sense that they're only persuasive to someone already an atheist.  They're already atheists and he says things they want to hear.  I want to take us comment by comment through the interview by Behar for the purpose of evaluation.

Behar introduces the two men, explains why she wanted this interview, New York City subway ads confronting belief in God, informs of the Collision documentary, hopes they won't just rehash their debate, to which Hitchens says they won't, and then she starts by asking Wilson for a nutshell case for God.  Hitchens does rehash the debate, because what he says is the same as he always does.

To begin, Wilson does not give a case for God.  He says that one of the things he would want to do is ask what you're starting point is, who has the burden of proof.  He asserts that since the existence of God is self-evident, that burden is upon the atheist, the one denying.  Between the two points of view, both sides will assume their person has won.  Maybe Wilson preplanned his opening no matter what she might ask, because he doesn't answer her question.  I wish he had instead given a nutshell case for God like she asked.  I think it is true that the burden of proof is on the atheist, but that isn't how you win the debate.  You take the burden of proof upon yourself, even if you are a presuppositionalist, which Wilson is confessing.  God is self-evident in this world, but Wilson could take the role of a travel guide, explaining self-evidence.

Then Hitchens enters to call Wilson circular reasoning, and that atheists have no burden to prove God's existence until there is extraordinary evidence of this extraordinary claim of the supernatural.  He says he doesn't want to shirk a burden before he goes ahead and shirks it completely.  This may be what Wilson anticipates, that Hitchens isn't attempting to prove God doesn't exist.  Wilson believes neither are neutral and both operate based upon presuppositions, just that the burden of proof is on naturalism, not supernaturalism.  Wilson's anti-theism then voices scattered, cherry-picked mockery of the biblical record.

Mockery works as a means of persuasion.  Naturalist apostates, who don't want God as their boss, mock to make their point (2 Peter 3:3).  It's not evidence.  It's a kind of emotional coercion, taking advantage of people, who either don't want to be stupid or just want the ridicule to stop.  In order, Hitchens references the biblical teaching of "eternal punishment," "snakes talk," "virgins bear children," "and dead men walk."  He says there's never been evidence or a convincing philosophical argument, the latter of which can't be true, since Hitchens was sent packing by the cosmological argument of William Lane Craig in their debate (watch it here).

None of Hitchens's references relate to the truth.  Hitchens says everything comes about by accident and he says this is more beautiful than supernaturalism.  Why?  It defies science, because it violates second law of thermodynamics among other scientific laws.  Once someone can receive Genesis 1:1, everything is downhill for all the points to which Hitchens refers.  Someone can reject eternal punishment, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It's harder to believe all of this order came about by accident and there is proof that isn't true in DNA, irreducible complexity, and the fossil record.

Behar sides with Hitchens by asking Wilson if he really does believe in the talking snake and all the animals on the ark.  I don't think Wilson believes people are animals, but his answer is, we're animals and we can talk.  That really stumps Behar, which is why Wilson used it, but it's not true.  Wilson borrowed from her view to illustrate absurdity.  I don't think it was good, even as seen how Hitchens retorts with the recent acquiescence of Presbyterians to this view and the Big Bang, which also contradicts what Wilson says next about splitting the difference between faith and unbelief, muddling both.  Wilson should accept that supernaturalism means animals could talk, like Balaam's ass, another example.

Joy Behar asks Hitchens about Jesus, and he says Jesus was not the Son of God, not virgin born, did not raise from the dead, and even if He did, it would match other mythological figures.  It is tough to answer these claims in less than nine minutes, but it is worth it to be able to do that.  It's worth it to develop a few sentences that can answer the skeptic, like Hitchens came armed to shake up the Christian.  I believe the best route of attack is to go on the offensive against the impossibility of everything being an accident, and dovetailing that with the plan of God recorded in scripture.

When Behar asks Hitchens about Einstein's belief in God, he deflects by saying that Einstein did not believe in a biblical type of God, but a pantheistic or deistic one, not one that we be involved in the details of one's life.  Einstein is a bit of a red herring, not worth going down that road, but deism doesn't mean that God wasn't in charge of the details of someone's life contrary to Hitchens.  Someone could make that come back, but God isn't of the deist or pantheist view.  He just isn't, so it's not worth taking that tact even though some ground might be gained there.

Then Behar asks Wilson about the sky god, who might be interested personally in her television show.  Wilson takes a good path of quoting Jesus and explaining how that someone could believe in God's omniscience or omnipresence without it being self-absorbed.  

Hitchens ridicules Moses and the ten commandments, saying they're more ridiculous than a talking snake, and that the teachings were around before then.  Wilson does well with this in explaining the ten commandments compared at least to the secular laws of other people.  He adds the argument of the necessity of police departments and armies to enforce them.  Hitchens just ignores those to say that the laws go on to treat women like animals and to justify genocide.  These are difficult to argue in a short period of time, but they aren't representing what the Bible says.  One would need to start by denying that what Hitchens says is true, and give just as succinct version of the truth as Hitchens does error.

I'm not writing to say that it's very important to win these short debates with atheists.  I am saying that it's a good exercise to be prepared for what they have coming and give the best answer possible in the shortest period of time.  That's what occurred with me for over thirty years going door-to-door in the San Francisco Bay Area.  To win the debate, you've got to go on the offensive.  Wilson didn't do that.  Hitchens did.  However, what Hitchens reports is not true and given enough time, easy to swat away.  It isn't easy in just a few minutes, so it would have been better to have kept him occupied with enough strong argument that Hitchens couldn't have answered it in the time he had.  Instead, the reverse came true.

Are there grounds for going on the offense?  Yes.  Look at the spiritual armor of Ephesians 6.  All the pieces are offensive.  They are not meant for retreat, but for battle.  The Word of God is used as a sword.   Jesus was not a mythological figure and you should develop a statement from the Bible that is persuasive that He lived, He lives, and He's coming back some day.  The shots that Hitchens takes are not proof for atheism, but an emotional appeal very much like what a school yard bully would use.  You can't bring a knife to a gun fight.  You've got to take an aggressive approach and keep him so busy with your points from scripture, that he doesn't have time to bring his emotional coercion.

It isn't very likely that someone like Hitchens would ever engage you other than in a public debate, where he thinks he might be able to embarrass you and make Christianity look bad.  He probably wouldn't even talk if you met him door to door or in some other forum.  The goal, despite the unbelief, is to preach the gospel, not win a debate.  However, the points that Hitchens brings with his arguments are not close to enough to detract from or undermine the truth of scripture.