header image
Recent Comments
Blogs I Read
Archives
The Baptist Top 1000
« Red Hot Naked Sexy Church Stuff
Brian Williams Is an Idiot »
[ # ] CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS/ALISTER MCGRATH Debate
October 19th, 2007 under ChristianWalk

I just watched the debate between Christipher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and Alister McGrath here.

My first impression was that it would be much more fun to have Hitchens over for a beer than McGrath. He’s pretty funny. However, most of his points were easily addressed by McGrath. Hitchens would kick butt if he was to debate most of the Christians I know. Especially Kirk Cameron’s buddy talking about the atheist’s nightmare—the banana! To which my genius son said, “Behold, the Christian’s nightmare–the pineapple!”

McGrath’s form of Christianity, particularly his view of the atonement, would not be embraced by most Baptists I know, but he still did a good job. His sincerity and honesty exposed Hitchens for what he is–an arrogant jerk. It’s really a shame because Hitchens is attacking an inauthentic Christianity. The problem is that so many Christians hold fast to the views that he so easily destroys.

My hope is that those who have their faith shaken by him will find an authentic faith that calls us to love our enemies and care for the earth.

Read the Comments

[ # 36419 ] Comment from becky [October 19, 2007, 10:21 pm]

Do you really think McGrath adequately addressed Hitchens’ points? I was really unimpressed.

[ # 36420 ] Comment from D.R. Randle [October 19, 2007, 11:09 pm]

McGrath is quite a scholar, but I wish that either Greg Bahnsen or his mentor Cornelius Van Til were alive. Hitchens would have been annihilated by either of them. I would like to see Hitchens v. Alvin Plantinga, Frank Beckwith (well, before his unfortunate move back to Rome), David Clark, or even John Frame.

As for The Way of the Master guys, I don’t consider them to be real apologists. In fact, I think those guys set back apologetics every time they speak. But generally evidentialists (with the exception of possibly William Lane Craig) don’t do well in formal debates with atheists. The presuppositionalism of Bahnsen and Van Til is, to me, the best way to address intellectual atheism (even when mixed with the emotionally-driven version).

Thanks for pointing this out and I hope all is well in the Big Easy. Brandi and I are still hoping to get back down there before the end of the year.

[ # 36421 ] Comment from howie [October 20, 2007, 3:41 pm]

Becky,
Hitchens actually made too many points for McGrath to address. Those he did address were pretty good.

All the Old Testament stuff is really impossible to deal with, but when you get to Jesus, it’s not really that hard. Obviously, the problem is that 1. you really can’t prove God exists, and 2. Christians and other religious folks have done some horrible things in the name of their God.

I do think there are a lot of things conservative christians espouse that are pretty horrible. My anabaptist tradition (except for the crazies) is pretty harmless. I think McGrath did a good job of addressing issues without being too philosophical. Sorry DR all that stuff for me, is a waste of time.

The story of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection either speaks or it doesn’t. It is kind of interesting how many Calvinists are in to apologetics!

Write a comment

Flickr
www.flickr.com
howieluvzus' photos More of howieluvzus' photos

Recent Posts
Categories
Save This Page