Thursday, November 27, 2008

Hitchens - Wilson Debate - the video

Link to video here
I am watching it now - excellent, thus far.

Edited to add - thanks to Brian for the link to the audio in the comments.

Behind the scenes articles here.


Earlier, Hitchens warns against solipism, yet uses a solipistic argument to rebut the destruction of the Amalekites. Transliterated - Wilson - "According to your worldview, the universe doesn't care, so it doesn't matter." Hitchens - "Not if I am an Amalekite."

I think that Wilson allows Hitchens to pull him off onto rabbit trails.

Then Hitchens argues that if most religions are false, it is likely all are.

Liked the David Hume discussion.

Hitchens uses humor to deflect Wilson's rebuttals.

I really like the section on the resurrection as the foundational miracle from which the veracity of all other miracles is measured.

Like the mention of healthy skepticism - Christian skepticism being the healthiest type, of course!
1 Thess 5:21 :)

I am glad Wilson called him on some of the strawmen he introduced.

Ah! The partial preterism argument!

Now to the Golden Rule - which Christians qualify with the Shema.

And now the POE...which Christians, particularly Calvinists, can answer consistently with Romans 8:28 (among others).

Using tryanny to describe God is anthropomorphism.

Hitchens uses the same technique he says despises in Christianity - using pathos (emotions) to rebut logos (reason).

This debate highlights why there is no neutral ground in apologetics.

I think that Wilson should clearly articulate his position:

1. Any worldview or religion introduced into their debate other than the Reformed Christian worldview is a red-herring.

2. The Reformed Christian position on the Bible is that it is a consistent collection of timeless truth tested over the course of centuries and must be considered over the breadth of its teachings and any attempted decontextualization is deceptive and disengenuous.

1 comment: