Hitchens v. Lennox

October 13, 2024

Last night, Patty and I watched a debate featuring the late Journalist, Christopher Hitchens and Professor John Lennox. Both men being apparently highly intellectual. Both are authors of many books and veterans of many debates. One man was representing the atheist viewpoint and the other the theistic one. The title of the debate was “Is God Great?”

We are Born-Again Bible-Believing Christians and, as such, you can assume which opinion we favor. Just the same we listened openly and intently to both participants. The audience was not shy about showing who they favored, evenly divided as their reaction to certain “applause lines” indicated.

Christopher made a much better presentation than other atheists we have heard in these settings. Yet, there were what I would call typical talking points that I have read repeatedly in many Medium essays. (and I don’t know who is copying who) Still and all, what gets me irritated is that atheists, such as Mr. Hitchens, use poorly disguised insults rather than well thought out opinions. The typical intellectual atheists seem to fall back on their utter disdain, especially reserved for Christian theists.

Belittling others is no intelligent argument but only a tactic to upset the other debater used to “throw them off their game.”

Lennox ignored the insults and remained steadily on course. He once or twice did tease Hitchens, but in a friendly, palling around way.

Patty noted that Hitchins had a history of being and was prideful of the fact of being an Agent Provocateur — especially in his stint in politics. In simpler terms he was a mischievous troublemaker. (By the by, I haven’t any idea of where his thinking ended up when he passed away in 2011… We hope it had become more theistic.)

Hitchens often relied on gaslighting and very often using the “word salad” type, dumping a whole pile of opinions into the debate bowl — such a humongous pile they cannot be sorted out and each answered within the debate’s time constraints. (Such tactics are more well known as a cheap trick than an honest intellectual endeavor.)

So, there’s that.

Hitchens’ arrogance was also apparent and disturbing to me (I had thought he was a better person than that). Ironically, he was making the argument that Christians are universally, intellectually ignorant, narrow-minded, dishonest, naive, and arrogant beyond the pale. (Pot and kettle?) Still, my impression of him was how intelligently and systematically he presented his wiley arguments, which reminds me of something… hmmm… oh yeah, the story of the serpent’s techniques in the Garden…

Sorry. Truth can be upsetting.

From the website psychologytoday.com

• Gaslighting is a way of confusing people so they question their view of reality.
• Some gaslighting techniques include using “word salad” and repeating debunked arguments.
• Gaslighting often takes place in the context of unequal power relationships.

I was very disappointed in how Hitchens brought my high expectations down for learning some intellectual insights. The only revelation I received was the arrogance of Man which prevents them from developing an honest assessment of themselves, the existence of God, and their need to get right with Him through the Gospel of Jesus.

Making generalizations about any group of people is counterproductive. Nonetheless, I would interject here that throughout the atheistic religion there is a line that runs straight to the pride of man which I simply call “false pride,” I’ve seen and known many people who take pride in their work ethics, their families, and so on, but that false pride is ego centered and arrogantly gives one a sense of superiority over other “lesser folk.”

This is how God has responded to their enigmatic viewpoint: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” — 1 Corinthians 1:21, New International Version.

Hitchens kept on going down the path of accusations: fantasy, no evidence, personal moral choice (oddly), superiority of Science and its ability to solve everything within and by the continuum of Scientific discovery.

Now, I believe in Science as does Mr. Lennox (for example, I take insulin several times a day) — believing Science, not as sparking Creation of the Universe and us in it, but believing that God created the Universe and us in it in intelligible, coherent, comprehensible, discoverable, and understandable ways. The supremely intelligent God of the Bible is the one who created everything and that is why we can figure out their interactive functions and dynamics. God, who is beyond sensible, created a more than sensible World.

On the other hand , Science’s Big Bang has the Universe and us in it randomly and spontaneously suddenly appearing out of nothing in explosive chaos — somehow becoming well-ordered.

I don’t see any evidence of explosions building anything, but the evidence is that they destroy everything. Don’t you agree?

The most aggravating view Mr. Hitchens trotted out was that God, as he perceives the Bible record, is a horribly mean, masochistic-sadistic tyrant. A lot of the same ideas are offered in many Medium’s published essays.

My view in response to that whole misperception is that Man and all Humanity has used their free will to choose conquest, slaughter, imperialism, and theft, etc, etc, etc. In fact, God allows that maniacacle nonsense to go on only until a certain point. Then, like in Sodom and Gomorrah, He “brings the hammer down.” Is that being mean and sadistic? No. What it is is God bringing justice for the benefit of the rest of us. That’s my view, anyway.

One last point that Patty brought to my attention was that when she watched Hitchens on other panel discussions from years ago, he came across back then as mean-spirited and disrespectful, too.

My experience reading peoples’ viewpoints on Medium is threefold:

• Often they want to be called something else rather than “atheists” — which seems to me to be a shallow attempt to be somehow unique and independent thinkers — neither religious or conformists.
• Often they are poor listeners and do not respond directly to theistic views of God, Jesus, and the Bible.
• They misconstrue what the Bible quite plainly says, and arrogantly with upturned noses making those misconceptions the very basis for their most critical arguments.

Still and all, this verse directly and concisely puts the whole purpose of the Bible’s record into the proper context: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

Therefore, it remains a free will choice, a choice each person’s decision to make for themselves.