Building a Defense (part 4)

Introduction

We come now to the last of the three books we have set out to answer: God is Not Great: Why religion poisons everything.

In spite of the provocative title and must provocative prose, Hitchens is easily the most amiable of the three (or four) popular atheists of the early 2000s.

In a debate I attended between Hitchens and John Lennox, he was far more skilled at playing to the crowd with self-deprecating humor throughout his presentation.

He is also the most conservative of the three and so many of us would find much political agreement with Him.

He goes way farther in his critique of Islam than they other authors we have considered which means he has the courage to be consistent (and that did take courage).

He is the sort of atheist I find most dangerous to the faith of young people. Not the raging angry atheist, but the amiable scoffer who is willing to laugh at himself and you.

We need to be careful that we do not present a characature of atheism that is disproven upon the first meeting of a fellow like Hitchens.

The Nature of Faith

Faith by another name.

“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”

“If one must have faith in order to believe something, or believe in something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth or value is considerably diminished. The harder work of inquiry, proof, and demonstration is infinitely more rewarding, and has confronted us with findings more “miraculous” and “transcendent” than any theology.”

“He doesn’t have faith, he has confidence…con fides…with faith”

Not only did he have faith because he believed things that couldn’t be proven, he had faith because of his fierce loyalty to the truth of those things.

We need to define faith well (Heb. 11:1).

We need to build faith well (Rom. 10:17).

“Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.”

Having better tools to see creation with greater clarity does nothing to diminish, but rather increases faith in the rational mind.

Scripture invites scrutiny (1 Jn. 4:1).

We do not believe in miracles because we are credulous people (though some do).

We believe in them because “we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”

But in fact, Hitchens says that even if the resurrection were true, it would mean nothing:

“For now, and on a review even of the claims made by the faithful, one can say that resurrection would not prove the truth of the dead man’s doctrine, nor his paternity, nor the probability of still another return in fleshly or recognizable form.”

If an atheist admits this, then the game is up. “You have no evidence and even if you had the greatest evidence of all, I would reject it.”

Religion and People

Hitchens claims that essentially, all the wickedness in the world comes from religion.

He finds no shortage of examples of religious wickedness throughout the annals of history.

He finds no shortage of examples of wicked people who claim Christ as their Lord.

The problem for Hitchens comes when we find the same wickedness and worse where God is not.

God’s word has the answer that is actually consistent with the evidence (Rom. 3:23).

What about atheist atrocities?

He tries some real heads I win, tails you lose logic here, ““A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible”

“Communist absolutists did not so much negate religion, in societies that they well understood were saturated with faith and superstition, as seek to replace it”

But that is the point. You MUST replace it. You cannot live in the void (Rom. 6:17-22).

Moral atheists?

“But however little one thinks of the Jewish tradition, it is surely insulting to the people of Moses to imagine that they had come this far under the impression that murder, adultery, theft, and perjury were permissible.”

There seem to be an awful lot of people walking around right now who need a refresher on just those particular laws.

A great many are actually making a case for theft, the case for adultery has long been assumed, and perjury is roundly accepted as concrete evidence. But sure, go on about how these are universally accepted moral foundations.

The point however isn’t that atheism demands that you commit atrocities, the question is, what would you say to the atheist who does commit them (and there are plenty).

Religion and scientific progress

Hitchens cites Muslims who stand in the way of children receiving polio vaccines when polio has been wiped out in much of the western world (I notice he went abroad again to find his example).

He might today look to anti vaccine proponents and among them he would find a great many emotional and foolish arguments.

But who got DDT banned. And whose policies keep the most impoverished in the dirt today?

Again, I have a standard that helps me distinguish, what is yours?

Human Sacrifice

Christianity is founded on human sacrifice.

Hitchens points to the element of human sacrifice in most of the religions of the world.

And he is not wrong on either account.

He is only wrong in the implications of it all.

Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac.

Hitchens points to this to trace the roots of the human sacrifice of Christ back to the Jewish faith (rightly so).

But he gets it wrong on several counts.

First, he thinks Abraham was offering a guilt offering instead of an offer of obedience.

Secondly, he thinks that this was a test of love rather than a test of faith.

The need for sacrifice.

Men of every age have understood their guilt and frequently been willing that others die so that they might live (or even live more comfortably).

They have understood that the death of one or of many, can be for the benefit of others.

So some offer ceremonial sacrifices for the tribe.

Others go to war and slaughter competing tribes so they may themselves prosper.

Still others starve massive portions of their populations for the “good of the whole”

And every day, thousands of women sacrifice the life in their wombs for the sake of their own lives.

Jesus died, so that we might die.

“But I cannot absolve you of your responsibilities. It would be immoral of me to offer, and immoral of you to accept”

“Once again we have a father demonstrating love by subjecting a son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress god. He is god, and he is trying to impress humans”

This so that he could be just and the justifier which is the very conundrum Hitchens is struggling with.

Jesus Christ established a new way of being human. But the only way to get out of the old human race and into the new one is by means of death and resurrection. This is why there is no injustice in the gospel. I do not simply walk away from my sins. Sinners are guilty, and all sinners must die. What the cross does is provide us with a way of dying with resurrection as a promised consequence. Jesus did not die so that we might live. He died so that we might die; He lives so that we might live. This is our hope, and this is our glory. And God in His kindness has authorized His people to extend this offer—full of grace—to people like Christopher Hitchens.

Conclusion

Just as I think that Hitchens is the most dangerous, he also comes closest to stumbling into the very premise of the Gospel.

Which is the very antidote to all of this. It isn’t having all the statistical data handy for use in a battle of data. It isn’t knowing a list of all the logical fallacies that exist.

It is knowing and living the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You won’t have answers for every question that comes your way, but you can have THE answer for every doubt.