Is Christianity Good for the World?

By David Bahnsen | 10/26/09 | 08:55 PM EDT | 16 Comments

Latest national commentaries

more »


Is Christianity good for the world?

That's the question asked in the DVD, Collision, an important work which releases tomorrow that I heartily commend. The immensely talented and passionate Darren Doane has directed a gripping piece highlighting the debate over God’s existence between Pastor Doug Wilson of Moscow, Idaho and the well-known secular writer, Christopher Hitchens. The video is gripping, the participants are most-compelling, the editing is fantastic, and most importantly, the great divide in the debate over God’s existence is spendidly exposed.

Nearly twenty-five years ago my late father, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, debated the highly acclaimed atheist scholar, Dr. Gordon Stein, at the University of California in Irvine. The debate caused shockwaves then, and continues to stir interest today, probably selling more MP3’s, CD’s, and tapes over the years than all of my father’s work put together. And for good reason: it is a simply stunning apologetic for the Christian faith from an immensely qualified philosophical intellect. And at the risk of sounding like a biased son, I am rather certain it is the best defense of the faith I have ever heard.

Now, over a decade after my father’s passing at the age of 47, “popular atheism” staged a comeback, or maybe a fresh rally altogether. Hitchens’ own book God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, became a New York Times bestseller, and other atheist scholars such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins enjoyed a few minutes of fame themselves, touring the world protesting the idea of a divine creator, writing a few books, and building a bit of a following around college campuses where their secular atheism became a sort of biological and philosophical defense for the rank hedonism already being played out seven nights a week in the campus dormitories. Of the three or four players in this resurgence of atheism, Hitchens is by far the most capable, particularly if one defines capable in terms of rhetorical skills. He is a profoundly talented writer, and he is just smug enough in his oral presentations that he comes off persuasively and impressively. Hitchens has been on a torrid tour schedule over the last few years, usually finding some unsuspecting stooge that he is all too happy to carve up in front of a perplexed audience wherein the worldview of Christianity is hardly presented at all, and whatever version of Christianity’s defense that is presented is capably handled by Hitchens either via his superior intellect, or at least his superior rhetorical wit. Some foes have been more capable than others (Dinesh D’Souza comes to mind), but Hitchens has not been forced to deal with the epistemological assumptions of his worldview. Wilson takes him to task in this series of discussions and debates that Collision captures, choosing to focus on Hitchens’ basis (or lack thereof) for a belief in morality. Bahnsen chose the Christian worldview’s explanation and basis in logic when he debated Stein, but the underlying point (whether it be science, logic, or morality) is this: the atheist is forced to borrow from the Christian worldview when they deny the Christian worldview. The atheist lacks the foundation necessary to make truth claims, whereas the tenets of the Christian worldview account for the laws of logic, and account for standards in ethics.

I can not put into words how pleased I am to see Doug Wilson having taken on this task with Christopher Hitchens. The DVD documentary gives Wilson ample opportunity to concede the whole thesis of Christianity, as so many self-proclaimed apologists often do. “You have your reason; I have my reason; and I think my enlightened reason outperforms your enlightened reason, therefore I am a Christian.” Wilson avoids this perverse attempt at apologetics at all costs, and provides a splendid defense of the faith within us without ever abandoning the operative word: faith. He upholds a cogent defense of the Christian worldview, and poses questions to Hitchens that are never addressed satisfactorily. The emperor has no clothes, and as Wilson says, John Lennon’s dream laid out in the song Imagine has horrfiying implications (both metaphysically and ethically). Hitchens never takes the full bait of Wilson’s reductio ad absurdum, attempting to the very end to justify a basis for morality founded in personal whims and fancies (though the scene at the Washington D.C. pub seems to capture Hitchens admitting to an audience member during Q&A that there is no basis for cosmic justice).

I find Hitchens to be a deeply troubled man, and I have been reading his political writings as long as I can remember. I can not think of a single person on the planet that I agree with as passionately as I do when he is right, and disagree with as passionately as I do when he is wrong. But the story of Christopher Hitchens is a tragedy, no matter how you look at it. He is a haunted soul, who wears his disdain for God on his sleeve. Telling the stories of his fundamentalist past on tape is powerful stuff, and suffice it to say, it serves as a sort of window to where his “anti-theism” comes from. I have rarely taken popular atheism very seriously. The analogy I use is one of anti-Santa Clausism (though the tooth fairy works as well). I do not believe there is a real life Santa Claus (I hope my kids are not reading this), but I spend very little time trying to talk people out of it who do believe in such. The reality is that if one really believed that theism was merely a fantasy life concocted up by primitive pre-modern people who lacked the enlightenment tools of science and reason to know better, it hardly seems like a very rewarding use of one’s time to focus on it day and night. Atheists have never had a belief problem, because if they did, they would never talk about it. They have a faith problem. They have an obedience problem. And Hitchens makes this unbelievably clear throughout Collision. In fact, his disdain for the doctrine of redemption expressed in the King’s College debate is the furthest thing from an epistemological objection; it is purely theological, and it is not at all uncommon. Hitchens does not want to address the demons that haunt him, and he is rather remarkably gifted at masking those things through some stunningly effective conventions. He is an engaging individual, and is quite superficially respectful to those whom he encounters that he disagrees with (particularly if he deems them to be intellectually capable people).

But what Hitchens will not stand for, and what most vigilant atheists will not stand for, is someone- anyone -telling them that they need a redeemer. The message of the cross is a scandalous message, and when Christians attempt to kick the ladder down once they have gotten to the top of the building, it is disheartening to see. Doug Wilson engages this dialogue with Christopher Hitchens with the reliance on faith, juxtaposed with reason and conviction, sorely lacking in Christian apologetics today. I do not believe anyone watching the DVD will have their mind changed in the great subject of God’s existence, and I do not believe anyone has had their mind changed in the last 25 years from listening to the Bahnsen/Stein debate either. But what I do believe is this: to proclaim a defense of theism without a proclamation of the gospel is a tragedy, and when I watch Christopher Hitchens, I have seen enough tragedies for one night, thank you very much. Wilson should be commended for not doubling up on the tragedy, and in fact, faithfully working to extinguish it.

Christopher Hitchens is a talented and special individual. Christendom could use him. But Doug Wilson has accomplished a Bahnsenian feat in not compromising the essence of our faith in his attempts to persuade Hitchens of its value. I could not possibly mean that as a bigger compliment than I do.

Find Collisionand see it. Give it out to other people. Discuss it with your friends. And when you are done, remember that Christianity is a religion of trust and obedience. Atheism is a religion of fear and escape. May Christopher Hitchens find the God who provides a peace that surpasses all understanding. And may Doug Wilson continue on with the task of defending the Christian worldview. As Van Til taught us, “In thy light, shall we see light” (and even he borrowed it straight from King David).

 

Print | Email | Share
 

16 Comments | Related Topics »National

 

Comments

 
Christianity is a "wicked

Christianity is a "wicked cult."

It seems Mr. Hitchens is getting even more aggressive about his anti-religious rhetoric. Does he not care about his credibility?

Submitted by Believer on Mon, 10/26/09 - 09:39 PM » | Print
 
 
C. Hitchens is the Most Credible Person I know

I admire and respect Christopher Hitchens and happen to be a fan of his.  Say what you want but he's not been sued. He's a diligent and knowledgable researcher. Rather than slag the guy, try understanding what he's trying to get across.  He is also the author of the scathing tell all book against the Clintons, No One Left to Lie To, and he also uncovered the real Mother Teresa in his book, "The Missionary Position."  No one sued him regarding that book either, most especially Rome!  Telling!

Look at nearly all, if not all, the wars throughout history, -- all began due to "religion."  Mind you, the philosophical question remains: what was there BEFORE religion?  Until that can be answered unequivocally, the debate will rage on perhaps forever.

Hitchens is entitled to his opinion and I would be more inclined to hear him out than some preacher in robes behind a pulpit collecting money out of fear.

Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Mon, 10/26/09 - 09:57 PM » | Print
 
 
Sherman, you couldn't be more wrong

"Look at nearly all, if not all, the wars throughout history, -- all began due to "religion.""

Sherman tank, I agree with 90% of your comments, but that is a staggeringly ignorant thing to say. Just amazingly at odds with historical reality.

Submitted by Matthew Cunningham on Tue, 10/27/09 - 12:20 AM » | Print
 
 
Wicked cult is his nice terminology

When you speak to him about it face-to-face.  He is one angry man.

Submitted by David L. Bahnsen on Mon, 10/26/09 - 10:48 PM » | Print
 
 
Hitchens is ALIVE

Anger is in the eye of the beholder.  What you may perceive as "anger" I perceive as someone who is not aloof but rather, straight forward.  Hitchens doesn't waste time beating around the bush.  It is perplexing that you, who have never met the man and couldn't hold a candle to his IQ, would label him unjustly as "angry."  Hitchens is ALIVE and vibrant, passionate, which appears to be something I think that you miss.  Since you appear to be of the opposite ilk of Hitchens, perhaps you could practice a bit more "tolerance."

Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Tue, 10/27/09 - 12:01 AM » | Print
 
 
taking money?

Take a guess what Hitchens clips in honorariums for these anti-theist events. Isn't there a tad bit of a false dilemma here? Truth claims have to be examined regardless of and separate from consideration of the person articulating them. Hitchens' case for virulent anti-theism stands or falls on it's own merit. Hitchens is a total embodiment of the two tenets all atheists believe in: 1 - There is no God 2 - I hate Him

Submitted by David L. Bahnsen on Mon, 10/26/09 - 11:30 PM » | Print
 
 
Bahnsen's Immature Argument

Hate him all you want, but Hitchens is right.  He isn't a preacher. And just because he doesn't espouse to your religious belief system, which I likely also do not espouse to, doesn't negate the fact that he is accurate in what he writes.  Furthermore, aren't Christians supposed to turn the other cheek? Aren't Christians supposed to love everyone?  Hitchens is not a Christian he doesn't have to love you or like you, neither do I.  Your attitude is likely what lost the Republicans our Presidency.

Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Mon, 10/26/09 - 11:55 PM » | Print
 
 
Oh boy

Welcome to amateur Christianity Debunker Hour. Sherman Tank, it helps to understand something before you try to debunk it, rather than relying on your cartoonish view of Christianity.

Submitted by Matthew Cunningham on Tue, 10/27/09 - 12:23 AM » | Print
 
 
Cunningham Seriously Mistaken

That is a very surprising response coming from you, Mr. Cunningham.  Emphasis on "very".

You assume, wrongly, that I do not "understand."  I'll let that one ride as this is neither the time nor the place to argue religion and its effects on humanity and literature. Let it suffice to say, I understand far more than you may think, including your religion.

I happen to agree with Mr. Hitchens and welcome his accumen.  It has become too easy for ad hoc article writers to pluck whithering themes out of the sky or resurrect an old hot topic in order to stay on the front page.  Mr. Hitchens has been around a long time and his work ethic has not wavered, nor has his resolve. His research is impeccable.  We could use some of that kind of resolve in the Republican Party.  The GOP should take notice of what the party has been lacking and step up to the plate -- we may not get another chance to make this difference -- for g-d's sake, don't let religion get in the way of that.

Reagan won the Presidency on a diverse platform, in particular "Jews for Reagan" - I still have the placards from that campaign. I know I worked on that campaign.  He'd be rolling in his grave reading some of the comments above regarding this article. 

We Republicans cannot afford another mistake like the last election.

Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Tue, 10/27/09 - 12:52 AM » | Print
 
 
Sherman, ummmm

Be slower on the draw in the future. I have met Christopher several times. I have dined with him. I have closed a bar with him. I am afraid I am not the one who is writing from a vantage pointvof total ignorance here.

Submitted by David L. Bahnsen on Tue, 10/27/09 - 12:34 AM » | Print
 
 
Just the Facts

Fair enough Bahnsen, I've done my share of London pub crawling. Bear in mind my comments were directed at Mr. Cunningham's comments.  "Nothing personal" as Hitchens would say.

Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Tue, 10/27/09 - 11:53 AM » | Print
 
 
Hitchens has every right to

Hitchens has every right to his beliefs as you and I do.  I find you much more of a threat to my freedom than any atheist - and I'm a conservative Christian too.  Tennyson said:  "There breeds more faith in honest doubt, than in all the creeds.”  You, sir, can wallow in your creed and Hitchens his.  Frankly, though, your interpretation of your creed scares the hell out of me!

Submitted by charles jackson on Tue, 10/27/09 - 08:25 AM » | Print
 
 
Dissension: Just what Democrats ordered.

Many people around the world believe that Christianity is a "cult" -- so what?  Big deal.  They also believe the same of other religions.

And there are a million stripes of "conservative" -- not all Christian. Lets not start alienating members of our own party.  We need to stay united as Republicans.

Charlotte P. Gillman said "To swallow and follow, whether old doctrine or new propaganda, is a weakness still dominating the human mind."

Dissension is just what the Democrats ordered.

Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Tue, 10/27/09 - 12:06 PM » | Print
 
 
amen

I couldn't agree more. He has every right to his beliefs. I would like to thank you guys for your comments. I am glad Reagan and Republicanism got involved in this thread too. Not because they have anything to do with anything, but, well, it was pretty funny.

Submitted by David L. Bahnsen on Tue, 10/27/09 - 09:16 AM » | Print
 
 
this delicious irony

my favorite part of these comments is the insinuation that I want to deprive Hitchens the right to his views, whereas he is a beacon of tolerance and lovingkindness. You guys may want to check the tape. "Christianity is a wicked cult, and it is time we put an end to it". HIS WORDS. "Mr. Hitchens has every right to believe whatever he wants, and I have every right to prayerfully hope he turns the other way.". MY WORDS. Delicious irony.

Submitted by David L. Bahnsen on Tue, 10/27/09 - 09:23 AM » | Print
 
 
Sherman The Tank Needs to blog for the N.Y. Times

Sherman, you use lots of big words,  but one that comes to mind for me as I read your comments is Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

I would encourage you to read through your comments from today, for example:

"Preachers...collect money out of fear" 

"Anger is in the eye of the beholder"

"Bahsen doesn't hold a candle to Hitchens IQ"

"Wars...began due to religion"

"Hitchens accurate in what he writes"

"Hitchens research is impeccable"

Maybe the Republican Party has found itself in trouble because GOP politicians defend their positions much like you do Sherman.

 

Submitted by Chris Riggs on Tue, 10/27/09 - 06:54 PM » | Print
 

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.