|
The Lennox Hitchens debate (DVD)Battle of the big brainsTHE LENNOX HITCHENS DEBATE (DVD) This is a DVD of the Edinburgh International Festival Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Prof. John Lennox in 2008. Christopher Hitchens is usually good value in a debate. In person, the man is remarkably consistent with the picture which emerges as you read his books, particularly God is not great, the best-selling anti-god diatribe from 2007. This is someone who ordinarily relishes the argument, and is far from reluctant to allow the data to get in the way of a little strategic point-scoring. The debate between him and John Lennox, everybody’s favourite Irish uncle, is a fascinating encounter. Make no mistake, the significance of the exchange is underscored by the presence of Richard Dawkins, the man who considers himself to be the arch-nemesis of faith-heads the world over. Perversely, Hitchens (opening the debate) does not appear on best form. He fiddles aimlessly with his glasses and various small bits of paper scattered before him. Perhaps the importance of the issue at stake has unnerved him — but Prof. Lennox appears much more at ease, more in control of his material, more organised. Blurring distinctionsIt seems to me that Hitchen’s motion is somewhat contrived. He wants the ‘new Europe’ to be free of the corrupting taint of religion. However, in order to fashion a proposal of some substance, he is careful to blur the kinds of distinctions which would — according to any remotely objective analysis — distinguish between the brutal traditions of Islam and the revelation of love through the Person of Christ. We end up with ‘religion’ as the culprit for all social ills, and Hitchens has recourse to the casual butchery of Scripture in support of his argument. It is perhaps in realising this that Prof. Lennox demonstrates such confidence in his subject and, in stark contrast to Hitchens’s somewhat meandering, but entertaining, syllogisms, his arguments are cogent and always reference the relevant authorities. The outcomes of public debate are often just a tad arbitrary. In this case, the neutrals are won over by Lennox’s argument and Hitchens’s anti-god motion is defeated. It is doubtful that those who initially expressed support for an atheistic perspective will have changed their minds — the self-serving nature of unbelief is always evident in the almost uncritical praise that is reserved by the atheist faithful for their high priests. What is far more interesting is, however, the style of the interchange. Francis Schaeffer argued consistently that, once Western secularism has abandoned any kind of over-arching meta-narrative that gives a context for the data, all one is left with are the bits, the fragments of information, the details. Intellectuals on this basis become satiated with the particulars, but are never able to make any kind of consistent sense of them. This was self-evident from the debate: Hitchens’s notes took the form of a handful of post-its which he randomly reshuffled throughout the debate, according to the way the argument appeared to be going. Lennox, on the other hand, had an A4 pad on which his material was carefully organised. He had structure which informed his arguments, but all that Hitchens was left with was rhetoric — and while at times it was sparky and entertaining, that is all it was. Words. Indeed, these manifestations of behaviour within the debate itself are merely a reflection of the kind of approach adopted in Christopher Hitchens’s books. Without that consistent, overarching worldview which is only derivable from the Bible, all modern atheists are left with is a sniping disagreement over the particulars, a focus on debatable ‘bits’, which leaves us profoundly dissatisfied. There is a final lesson which I feel is of value, as Christopher Hitchens is probably one of the best atheist debaters in the world currently. Incisive rhetoric and wide-ranging study aside, he really ought to steer clear of his embarrassing attempts to defame Scripture by quoting from it. The wresting of texts without reflecting their context appears as it really is, an unprincipled attempt to win arguments at all costs — I am sure that Hitchens would not treat any other work of literature in this way. Lennox easily refuted this kind of crass misrepresentation by referencing immediate contexts which demonstrated that Hitchens’s agenda lacked the integrity that his indignant-sounding protestations might imply. The lesson for us, therefore, was this: know your Bible! Kevin Moss© Evangelicals Now - January 2010 |