Most Christians will by now have noticed a growing militancy amongst atheists against religion, and Christianity in particular. See for example recent books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and now Christopher Hitchens.
One of the interesting things about Dawkins is his unusual definition of faith:
Faith means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence. (The Selfish Gene, 1976)
This is a definition of faith which many atheists will believe, repeat and argue from. Their assumption is that faith has no basis and, accordingly, Christians are completely irrational, unable to reasonably present the Christian faith to the world.
Therefore, it is interesting to see how atheists, when interacting with Christians, are sometimes so confident in this assumption that they themselves see no need to put together any reasonable, substantial argument. Why bother if the person you are arguing against is fundamentally irrational?
I have been following Doug Wilson‘s online debate with Christopher Hitchens hosted at Christianity Today. You can read about it at these posts: one, two, three, four, five and six. Hitchens is a very gifted polemical writer. However, as you will see as you read, it is clear that he simply does not understand the question which he is being asked: on what rational basis can a darwinist atheist chose one morality over another? (Hitchens , like other atheists, asserts that Christianity is immoral and therefore to be rejected.) He does not provide an answer.
It seems clear to me that most atheists are not able to argue their case. They simply assert it as self-evident, but are unable to see the logical inconsistency of the choices they make. To see this, read the Hitchens/Wilson debate. If you have to read only one, read part 6.
Doggie's Breakfast 
Stephen-
I read your post the first time, then went back again. The third reading with reading the links caused an epiphany. Your title “Irrational Rationalists” sums up both the thesis and the conclusion perfectly.
Gordon in America
Stephen-
I read your post the first time, then went back again. The third reading with reading the links caused an epiphany. Your title “Irrational Rationalists” sums up both the thesis and the conclusion perfectly.
Gordon in America
Stephen,
Indeed, brother. Hitchens is “stealing the clothes” of theism by assuming morality, rationalism, etc., and then trying to use them against theism. That’s not too rational; but the “rationalists” have been getting away with it for too long. But as a good Van Tillian, Wilson’s not letting him get away with that; but Hitchens has taken until part 6 to even understand the question, let alone formulate a reply (and when he does, he concedes the argument – yes, his morality is from evolution; but no, he can’t provide an explanation of why that means anyone should therefore take it seriously).
Shame about Wilson’s “grab him by his baptism” theology…
David
But then you make Christianity into something epistemic i.e. the person with the best argument wins and the saved person is the person who believes the right things…
Doesn’t that lead to problems?
But then you make Christianity into something epistemic i.e. the person with the best argument wins and the saved person is the person who believes the right things…
Doesn’t that lead to problems?
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for your comment. Glad to be of help!
David,
I understand where you are coming from! Like you, I would not call Hitchens a Christian by virtue of his baptism, since clearly he has renounced any faith he may have had. However, I would not consider “grabbing him by his baptism” a bad idea. It is one route in to explaining the gospel by drawing attention to what it means, as far as I can see.
Jon,
If that is all it was – a joust to see who had the best argument – then that indeed would be a problem. Clearly people are not saved by mere logical argument. Conversion is a work of the Spirit. But when someone presents a challenge then we must make a defence. Paul persuaded men (2 Cor 5:11) in his proclamation of the gospel. Sounds like reasoning to me.
(Your question was a bit brief for me to understand. Did I answer it?)
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for your comment. Glad to be of help!
David,
I understand where you are coming from! Like you, I would not call Hitchens a Christian by virtue of his baptism, since clearly he has renounced any faith he may have had. However, I would not consider “grabbing him by his baptism” a bad idea. It is one route in to explaining the gospel by drawing attention to what it means, as far as I can see.
Jon,
If that is all it was – a joust to see who had the best argument – then that indeed would be a problem. Clearly people are not saved by mere logical argument. Conversion is a work of the Spirit. But when someone presents a challenge then we must make a defence. Paul persuaded men (2 Cor 5:11) in his proclamation of the gospel. Sounds like reasoning to me.
(Your question was a bit brief for me to understand. Did I answer it?)
You’re right. All this polemic is interesting. Perhaps it’s to do with desparation?
McGrath’s “Twilight of Atheism” picks up on this. The great assumption that “religeon” was a passing phase in humanity’s development has turned out to be a busted flush. Religeon in general seems to be more prominant and powerful than it ever was. Of course, this isn’t always a good thing. But it just won’t go away.
And as others have pointed out, it appears that those who put their faith in the absence of God (or gods), now have to contend with charge that they themselves are making religeous claims. They have no apriori authority. They don’t stand outside or above the fray. They are as much part of it as any of us.
You’re right. All this polemic is interesting. Perhaps it’s to do with desparation?
McGrath’s “Twilight of Atheism” picks up on this. The great assumption that “religeon” was a passing phase in humanity’s development has turned out to be a busted flush. Religeon in general seems to be more prominant and powerful than it ever was. Of course, this isn’t always a good thing. But it just won’t go away.
And as others have pointed out, it appears that those who put their faith in the absence of God (or gods), now have to contend with charge that they themselves are making religeous claims. They have no apriori authority. They don’t stand outside or above the fray. They are as much part of it as any of us.