Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Has anyone been following this debate? If so, I'm curious what your take is.
If I were Hitchens, the last person on earth I'd want to debate over the internet would be Doug Wilson. Pastor Wilson is smart, he's wry, and the way he writes appeals to the younger generation--much in the same way I think Hitchens stuff appeals to those of no-faith. If I were him, I'd be afraid of losing my target audience.
I also wouldn't use Scripture to prove my point. His attempt to explain the Good Samaritan as a nice, moral story that tells us to love each other was lame. Truly an exercise in missing the point. But frankly, even if he was good with Scripture, again, it's Doug Wilson we're talking about here. I disagree with some of his theology, but the guy sure knows his Bible.
Finally, I know of at least one person from the other side who thinks "the question is lame." Maybe he's right. I find myself wondering what question would be better to demonstrate the unerring brilliance and clear-headed rational thinking of the atheist camp. If I find out, I'll let you know.
In the meantime, since the atheist folks put such a premium on rationality, I keep wondering what evidence atheism has to back up its claim. Does it really hold together as a system? But maybe I'm expecting too much by looking for a coherent system. My friend the atheist puts it this way:
No-one... and I mean no-one... (even Chris) is claiming atheism (the non-belief in gods) provides any "rational basis" for anything other than not believing in gods.That clears everything up.
Update: Here are all the links:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.
