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 New York City but with only about one-fourth the turnout.
“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 Warren, since he did not make Calvinistic arguments.
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 America; had they been born in Iraq, they would probably be Muslims. He then responded to that argument by saying that “the presence of diversity does not mean the absence of truth.”
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 Germany celebrated Hitler’s birthday. (Was that a law, by any chance? Christianity was compatible with Imperial Rome or any other government; it is not a political system. This is different from saying that Fascism follows Christian principles.)
Next, Hitchens tried to tie Emperor Hirohito’s Japan to a religion-based country with the emperor as god. He compared the kamikaze pilots to Muslim terrorists. He wanted to know what the virgin birth and the resurrection have to do with morality. (Although there is no inherent link, the Bible makes one. The resurrection, which Jesus prophesied, proves that His claims are true—that He is the Son of God. It also validates His moral teachings as well).
“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. 22:37-40). Does a command nullify the value of what is accomplished? Was Hitchens ever taught, “Don’t touch the stove; it will burn you”? If he obeyed the command, the effect was good—he was safe from being burned. If he loved God because it is commanded, he would also be kept from being burned. Everyone still has the free will to keep the commandment or not. The fact that we are commanded to do something does not negate the value of it. Husbands are taught to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Does the command make compliance void? Few will agree with his conclusion.
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 1:18-20). He added: “I might also say that anyone can make an honest mistake, and of this one I am proud.” (Hopefully, he will remember to hold up his head high in the flames.)
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 North Korea is a faith-based country.
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.