My initial reaction to the debate is that I wish it could have stayed a little more focused on a particular religion rather than swinging wildly out of control. It's not really fair to lump all religions together, or even all strains of the same religion together...but that's often the course that Hitchens down which Hitchens seemed to push things.
By far, I think Hitchens' most compelling argument was the question of what was God doing for the thousands upon thousands of years of man's prehistory. It's a variant on the "problem of evil" question that atheists often seem to dwell on, only slightly more complicated. In the age of Christ, we can excuse God's inaction because we understand the concept of free will...and we can take consolation in the revelation of salvation. Our cave-dwelling, prehistoric ancestors may not have had such consolation.
It then occurred to me that the Bible directly addresses this issue. Even if you don't take all of Genesis as literal history, the Bible acknowledges that God only rarely reveals himself from the time of Cain until the time of Abraham. This makes sense from a biblical stand point because it is like God saying: "Okay, so you think you don't need my help? Let's see how you fair without me for a few generations...not so well, huh?" It seems like a reasonable pedagogical device to me.
But, of course, the fact of the matter is that God never completely abandons His creation. Think about all the minor examples of providence that happens in your daily life without God explicitly and directly revealing himself. God's hand was probably no less in the daily lives of our prehistoric ancestors than it is today. Of course, an atheist sees providence as coincidence, so I don't know that you can necessarily win an argument with this kind of retort...but I'm more interested in reaffirming faith than persuading a hostile audience at the moment.
I'll rattle some more reactions in the continued post...click through...
Continue reading "Quick Reactions to D vs. H Debate" »
Recent Comments