As many of you aware, this past Thursday evening (May 1), I coordinated a large debate event in Newport Beach, CA with Christopher Hitchens, Dennis Prager, and Dinesh D'Souza. The one-on-one-on-one debate was to tackle the issue of God's non-existence, vs. the Jewish God's existence, vs. the Christian God's existence. Over 1,200 people packed the auditorium of Temple Bat Yahm in Newport Beach (also home to my own church, Redeemer PCA). Over 500 people were unable to get tickets. I have no doubt that 4,000 tickets would have been easy to do (this sold out before I had to chance to start trying - a good problem to have). As I told Christopher Hitchens in the car on the way back to his hotel, I think a lot more Jews and Christians like going to debates than they do going to synagogue and church.
Anyways, whether or not you have heard the debate (and extensive YouTube, MP3, DVD mediums will be available as soon as possible), I wanted to offer up my following review of the evening. Your feedback is solicited.
Hitchens opened up the debate by positing his pretty basic atheist manifesto: Religion provides no basis for morality, religion is primitive and unsophisticated, and if God does exist, He is a terrible, terrible being. Though I will comment later on some very strong moments in the night for Hitchens, the opening statement was not one of them. It was mostly re-hashed enlightenment rationalism, with a tinge of anger and sarcasm (his basic schtick). But Thursday night, I thought the opening lacked the profundity I was hoping he would kick us off with. The elements of the talk that stuck throughout the night were his challenge to the audience (with the incentive of a prize), to find one thing in theistic history or morality that an atheist could not or does not also do or believe, and secondly, the claim that "one who believes [all this nonsense about a God], is one who will believe anything."
Prager chose to use his opening argument to rebut Hitchens' opening argument. As a former competitive debater, my preference would have been for Prager to await rebuttal to do so, and use his opening argument to make a positive argument, but he was rhetorically effective nonetheless. He challenged Hitchens' claim that theists believe stupid things by pointing out that atheists are more prone to believe idiocy and nonsense than those of faith are. His underlying contention (of this segment, and of the whole night), is that "theists lack conclusive proof of God's existence, and atheists lack conclusive proof of God's non-existence, so therefore we are left with just common sense and probability." To Prager, the common sense position is that this kind of beauty and order must have an intelligent designer, and the probability is overwhelmingly in that direction as well. He powerfully closed (in what was the highlight of the night for him), by emphatically declaring that "it is the atheist who will believe anything."
Dinesh pointed out in his opening statement that "belief" fundamentally infers something non-empirical. "Belief" is not limited to the realm of "proof"; faith and reason can and do co-exist. Dinesh rightly and persuasively argued that all indications are that "this universe is one giant conspiracy to create, well, us." He rebuffed Hitchens mocking of a God that waited 95,000 years to make human beings, with a mockery of the notion that Darwinian primates waited 95,000 years themselves to start inventing the wheel, and drawing on cave walls, etc. In other words, he turned it on Hitchens, which scored debate points, and carried ideological weight.
With opening statements complete, we proceeded to the first scheduled round of cross-examinations, now known as "free for all." In fairness to moderator Jody Hassett-Sanchez, this was a difficult segment to control (essentially six segments of cross-ex based on the unique triad of participants). However, time constraints were not followed, and the direct dialogue we wanted became a bit scattered. On one hand, though, it also opened up the reins a bit to a more parliamentary free-for-all.
Mysteriously, Prager seemed completely unable to address Hitchens' direct question about the "secular roots of anti-semitism." I believe there was a genuine technical problem with Prager hearing Hitchens' question at first, but beyond that he was evasive, and I have absolutely no idea why. This is the kind of question that I think would be instinctive for Prager, as it really is part of the field of expertise that Prager has mastered. It seems to me Prager could have easily addressed this question by delineating between "Christian anti-semitism", wherein men of faith simply disagree with Judaism, or worse, have persecuted Jews over their faith, and "nationalistic anti-semitism", the kind Hitler possessed a membership card for, which was decidedly secular, and history knows it. Prager missed a softball here, in my opinion.
Hitchens wasted his cross-ex of Dinesh, and Dinesh played into a "gotcha" question unnecessarily, during the next segment. Rather than address the subject of the night's debate, which was the existence of God, Hitchens chose to go after Dinesh for "representing Christian theism, when really he is, in fact, a Roman Catholic." I suppose Hitchens could possibly have netted out a claim here that "the pope might be mad at Dinesh", but it is hard to see how this thread carried any metaphysical weight. But what was more distressing to me than the red herring Hitchens threw out, was that Dinesh legitimately seemed thrown off by it (defensive, etc.). I believe a very simple, "I subscribe to the same ancient, historic, and orthodox creeds of the church that the Christian religion has claimed for two thousand years" would have been plenty sufficient. There is no contradiction here, and Dinesh is very capable of being a Catholic evangelical voice in the present apologetical wars (God knows he is better at it than most Protestant apologists). I doubt Hitchens will be able to use this against Dinesh again.
Prager got Hitchens to say in his cross-ex that he "does not ever doubt his atheism." To Prager, because those of us of faith admit to having periods of self-doubt and incertitude, it is Hitchens and the atheists that suffer from the burden of obnoxious dogmatism. In one of the lowest points of the night for Hitchens, he went on a bizarre two or three minute tantrum where he refused to admit that he was saying what he had just said. I am not sure what distinction he was making, but the clock was ticking away, and this was a bizarre exchange, to say the least.
I personally am convinced that Dinesh misspoke in this next segment more than denying a core truth of the Christian faith, but in response to Prager's prodding about the salvation of Jews, Dinesh did say at one point that, "Abraham was saved by something other than anything to do with Jesus." Naturally, this is counter to the Christian position that it was the forward-looking faith of Abraham, accomplished by the atoning work of Christ on the cross, that saved him. I do not believe Dinesh needs to approach these debates with an air of theological precision and exegetical argumentation. These are epistemological discussions, and I defend Dinesh in not using them as a seminary class forum. However, if a question is presented, I certainly do not advocate lie-telling towards the objective of debate diplomacy. I do not believe he did such here, but rather misspoke as to the real nature of Abraham's pre-advent relationship with God. More on this later ...
In Dinesh's cross-ex of Hitchens, he addressed Hitchens' hysterical claim that "we do not even know that Jesus ever existed." The mainstream position in secular theism is to discount the divinity of Jesus, not his historicity. Hitchens took the bait in Dinesh's question, and actually admitted he is not even sure that Socrates ever existed. Wow - Hitchens is one good empiricist! Sadly, the atheists in the crowd must have been dumbfounded to hear this concessions. I confess, I was a bit taken aback.
In the next round of rebuttals, Hitchens claimed that the order of the universe does not point to the existence of God, as science has now proven the universe is headed towards self-destruction and "nothingness". Therefore, per Hitchens, if we believe this universe is proof of a designer, it is proof of an incompetent one. Lacking the empirical proof needed to conclude that the universe is headed to self-destruction, I wasn't particularly moved. But neither was I fully moved by Dinesh's next rebuttal, in which he attempted to address the challenge posed by Hitchens in the opening statement. Dinesh's answer that the singular virtue in human history that Christians have a monopoly on was the abolitionist movement to rid the world of slavery. I will share my answer to Hitchens' challenge when I conclude this review, but I thought this was a provocative answer, but not a fully persuasive one.
In the next round of cross-ex and rebuttal, Hitchens pushed home the point of overt immorality and evil that has come from the church over the years. It is clear that he has a particular disdain for Rome. My own take is that Hitchens is right to point out the church's moral culpability in the rise of national socialism and fascism in the 20th century, and he is right to point out the church's evil silence in the face of Nazi horror. I can not believe he seriously claims that the church was the instigator of these great 20th century sins, but I agree with Hitchens that the church was morally culpable. It is one of the huge reasons I argue for a muscular foreign policy being advocated from men of faith in the face of the contemporary Islamic jihadist threat. Hitchens' argument carries ethical relevance, but certainly not metaphysical weight.
Prager mocked the notion that because Hitchens does not like the way God made the world, that it would mean there is no God. "If I were God I would have made celery fattening, and cheesecake healthy." Prager's repeated theme was that in a world of meaning, there has to be a "meaning-giver." Obviously, Hitchens was not convinced (nor was he convinced by Prager's insistence that the secular age has meant the diminishment of culture, architecture, and art, though the audience surely appreciated Prager's cultural apologetic).
Dinesh's next round was very strong, and he blasted the almost comic claim from Richard Dawkins that, "while atheists may have done some horrible things in the 20th century, they at least didn't do them in the name of atheism." To Dinesh, this is proof that "the biologist ought not leave the lab."
I am not sure what to say of the next round, in which Dinesh refused to say that a Jew had to turn to Jesus to be saved. No doubt, my Christian friends would be mortified if I defended Dinesh here, and I do not. On the other hand, I challenge believers who were in the audience to understand the context of the evening. I believe Dinesh shares the Christian belief system, that conscience has to be informed by Scripture (at one point, he appealed to our conscience as a superior ethical guide to the Pope). I believe he also holds to orthodox views on salvation, atonement, and redemption. My wish is that he had been more clear, and avoided the appearance of a diluted Christian testimony on these points. However, this was not a theological debate - it was a philosophical one - and to enter the debate as some Christians may have wished he had would have rendered him useless. I am hopeful future debates will lend themselves to more clarity in his view, but I spoke with him a great deal about these matters on Friday, and my verdict is one of benefit of the doubt.
Hitchens concluded his evening rather strongly. He asserted that, at best case, Prager and Hitchens have affirmed Deism. He discounted the notion that any proof of the existence of God had been given. I waited anxiously all night for Prager and/or D'Souza to say that the impossibility of the contrary proves the existence of God, and I did not hear it (at least not in the direct manner I had hoped). Hitchens concluded by saying that natural selection was merely "descriptive", and not "something to be recommended." He re-asserted that human goodness is innate.
I believe all the participants in the debate had high points, and low points. Prager was not as interested in the rigid format of the debate, but his abundant talk radio interview skills gave him a true edge in rhetorical and audience connectedness. From a cogency standpoint, though, I thought Prager was mildly disappointing. I have alluded already to the concerns I had with Dinesh, but I do believe he won the debate. He was scholarly, clear, and effective. If Dinesh chooses to surround himself with a greater theological and philosophical acumen, he will continue to grow as a first-rate apologist. He presently does better in the arenas of sociological and historical argument for the faith than he does the epistemological, but I believe that is evolving (no pun intended). As for Hitchens, I have to be fair when I say that he can not exactly win a debate, when to do so would mean "proving a negative." He is a gifted writer, a historical genius, and a moderately talented philosopher. I already know that his atheism is deeply rooted in ethical and personal objections (his strong dislike of God, primarily), and not genuine metaphysical obstacles. I will pray for him. You should too. His is a problem of worldview. Any attempt to argue him into conversion is futile. Period.
Hitchens said something fascinating in the Q&A section in response to a question about the basis for morality. He affirmed the golden rule, and was mostly quite evasive in Prager's and the audience's attempts to pin down how moral atheism is congruent with natural selection. Hitchens actually claimed that some of the higher primates also show the innate morality that he claimed human beings have. Darwinian thought is a funny thing, and I am always impressed when I see people come close to consistently applying it. Hitchens, of course, would never dare carry Darwinian natural selection to its full logical conclusion (for he would not be welcomed in the fraternity of mankind if he did), but he does make a startling admission in trying to equate the moral intuition of animals with human beings. And this brings me to my concluding thought - the question Hitchens posited early in the debate about the Judeo-Christian worldview's "unique" contribution to human thought, morality, and virtue.
Historically, Dinesh has a compelling claim in his answer regarding slavery and abolition. But allow me to be a bit more "fundamental" in mine. I believe the answer to this pseudo "gotcha" question is: "the dignity of the human being". Human dignity does not exist outside of a distinctly Judeo-Christian theist viewpoint, and Hitchens essentially concedes as much. Now, unless popular atheists want to claim that "higher primates" do, in fact, warrant the same consideration that human beings to in the various totem poles of biological existence, they essentially are stuck on this one. Human dignity, coming from the Lord and giver of life, can not exist in a world that [inexplicably] came from a cellular explosion. Human dignity does not exist if animal primates possess the same moral compass that we do. It is only the Judeo-Christian doctrine that we, and we alone, are "created in the image of God," that accounts for human dignity. I believe this with every ounce of breath in my body. And when Dawkins admits to Ben Stein that maybe human life came from extra terrestrial beings (martians, as us non-scientists call them), I have to say that I don't think the atheist community is too far behind me here. The doctrine of human dignity can be abandoned altogether by the secularists, or they can borrow from the Christian belief of imago dei.
Either way, we will certainly win the debate.
READ MORE - Big Newport Beach Debate Review
