Baptist school invites Christopher Hitchens to debate

[cnorman18]

Here are a couple of local stories from here in the Dallas area that some might find of interest. A Baptist church and school in the Dallas suburb of Plano recently invited (and paid) Christopher Hitchens to share his views and debate a Baptist professor. The event was heavily promoted ahead of time, as will be seen, and widely reported locally.

Famed atheist Hitchens to debate at Christian school in Plano

12:00 AM CST on Wednesday, November 17, 2010

By SAM HODGES / The Dallas Morning News

samhodgesdallasnews.com

If you're a Christian school bent on bringing in an atheist to test students' faith, why not shoot for the stars?

That was the thinking at Prestonwood Christian Academy, which landed Christopher Hitchens, a celebrity skeptic and author of the bestseller God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Hitchens will debate William Dembski, a research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, on Thursday morning at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano.

Though the public is invited, the main audience will be high school and middle school students from Prestonwood Christian Academy and other Christian schools, with one school coming from Arkansas.

"A lot of people may have the concept that a private Christian school is just a bubble, isolating kids from the world. We're just the opposite," said Dan Panetti, whose title at Prestonwood Christian is worldview director.

Students from Christian schools eventually go off to college or the working world, where tests to faith are inevitable. Therefore, Panetti said, it's important to give them early exposure to atheists' critiques.

Panetti said the Plano school put out "a pretty good chunk of change" " he wouldn't be more specific " to get an atheist of Hitchens' caliber.

"It's worth the investment," he said. "He's witty. He's very articulate. We wanted to make sure we didn't put somebody up there who our students would say is just a straw figure."

The British-born, Oxford-educated Hitchens is a prolific journalist and author who has gone around the country debating believers, including his brother, Peter Hitchens. Hitchens continues to take on Christians even though he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer last summer.

"I'm praying personally for him every day as he deals with esophageal cancer and hoping that his brother's faith will one day become his own faith as well," said the Rev. Jim Denison, theologian-in-residence for the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

Denison was on a panel of Christians who debated Hitchens in Dallas a year and a half ago.

"On stage he is acerbic, sarcastic, and can be extremely confrontational," Denison said. "Off stage, he could not be more gracious. He was kind, encouraging, winsome, extremely funny, and a delight to be with."

Dembski has doctorates in both math and philosophy, and is a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory of creation. He's been doing his homework, reading Hitchens' books on atheism and watching videos of Hitchens debating.

"He's quick on his feet, passionate, and has a great feel for the audience," Dembski said.

Prestonwood Christian had a similar event last year, pitting Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza against Dan Barker, a pastor turned atheist.

Panetti expects more than 2,000 students will come to the Hitchens-Dembski debate, with others participating through a live webcast.

Good conduct is required.

"Just because a person disagrees with us doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable to him," Panetti said. "We want to show him the love of Christ while he's here."

And heres the report of the debate itself:

Despite cancer, celebrated atheist Christopher Hitchens remains firm in his non-belief

11:12 PM CST on Thursday, November 18, 2010

By TOM BENNING / The Dallas Morning News

tbenningdallasnews.com

World-renowned author and atheist Christopher Hitchens challenged the existence of God with all his usual tools and arguments: philosophy, science, history and yes, even Scripture.

But his most passionate rejection of religion, and specifically Christian salvation, came from the more personal perspective of a man who was diagnosed with esophageal cancer this summer.

"To me, the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way is an offer of something not worth having," he said during a debate Thursday at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano.

Hitchens, 61, has repeatedly scoffed at the notion that his closeness to death would somehow impact his long-held beliefs, and he only mentioned his illness in passing during a nearly two-hour exchange with William Dembski, a research professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth.

Even though a heightened sense of mortality loomed large, Hitchens remained firm in his convictions against religion, especially when describing what "conversation" he wants to have while he is still alive.

"I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don't know ... enough yet," he said. "That I haven't understood enough. That I can't know enough."

Prestonwood officials organized the event, which was open to the public, to challenge the faith of students at Prestonwood Christian Academy and other Christian schools and to prepare them for the differing viewpoints they will inevitably face some day.

The British-born, Oxford-educated Hitchens took on the task with relish as he sparred amicably with his opponent. He made a point of addressing the students directly, telling them they don't need to accept an "absolute authority."

"Don't think of that as a gift," said Hitchens, who showed no ill effects from cancer treatment, other than a bald head. "Think of it as a poison chalice. Push it aside, however tempting it is."

Dembski, a leading proponent of the intelligent design theory of creation, was equally aggressive in defending God and attacking Hitchens' beliefs. He set about "deconstructing" evolution and listed scientific evidence that he said pointed to a designer behind the universe.

"Getting from design and biology to theism is not a big stretch," he said.

Dembski also tackled head-on Hitchens' oft-repeated assertion that Christianity has caused countless episodes of destruction and death.

Dembski readily acknowledged that religion can be a problem. But he said Hitchens and others fail to acknowledge all the good it has accomplished. "We are sick, yes, but I'd say not incurably so," he said. "If fact, the cure is there."

The point of this thread is not to continue the debate, but to note that the event was sponsored by Prestonwood Christian School of Plano, which paid Christopher Hitchens for his appearance and all his expenses, and took place at the Prestonwood Baptist Church. I think its worth observing that that church and school are NOT taking the route often criticized here, that of avoiding confrontation with opposing ideas and keeping their members and students sheltered from them, limiting them to preaching to the choir. It also wasnt some lightweight local that the school invited to challenge its students views, but a world-class author who is considered a leading voice for atheism. I find that remarkable and commendable.

Questions for debate:

Is there any basis on which to criticize Prestonwood Christian School for sponsoring and promoting this event?

Is this something that more communities of faith should do?

Please note that the questions for debate do NOT include continuation of the debate itself. There are plenty of other threads for that, and this is not one of them.

[Kuan]

Okay, who wants to break it to WinePusher?

Can't bring myself to do it, since I'm married to a Catholic.

I vote you cause I dont know what your talking about.

[SteveC]

So what percentage of fundamentalist Christians do you believe would answer "yes" to at least 13 of those 15 questions?

I think I answered yes to only 4, but still consider myself a fundamentalist.

Only yes or no answers, any other answer will be considered "yes". I'm big and mean, so I make the rules.

My impression is that you are not a fundamentalist, but you makes the rules for your own life, so if you want me to consider you a fundamentalist, I will.

If I get enough "no" answers, I will reconsider my position on fundamentalists. I won't change my position on the school/debate. My biases towards fundamentalist fundamentalists will not change, those perceptions have been well earned, to the point where fundamentalists have to prove that they are not nasty, like you folks may end up doing. Do I have to come up with another category of fundamentalists? Perhaps I'll go with a comparison to the forces within an atom - strong and weak. or perhaps tough guy/wimpy. Ah, we can leave that to another survey.

[Icarus Fallen]

Here you go, Mormonboy.

WinePusher, a self-proclaimed Catholic, might consider himself a "Christian fundamentalist"; but I doubt that many adherents to Mardsen's definition ("militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism") would agree.

[Kuan]

Here you go, Mormonboy.

WinePusher, a self-proclaimed Catholic, might consider himself a "Christian fundamentalist"; but I doubt that many adherents to Mardsen's definition ("militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism") would agree.

Well, I had the wrong idea of what a fundamentalist was.

[WinePusher]

My impression is that you are not a fundamentalist, but you makes the rules for your own life, so if you want me to consider you a fundamentalist, I will.

In my book, a fundamentalist is a christian who believes the following: "One who believes in Biblical inerrancy, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, the belief that Jesus Christ died to redeem humankind(substitutionary atonement), the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ will return again."

I believe the fundamental principles of Christianity, so I think I would qualify. But unfortunately the term "fundamentalist" has been used in a negative way to label Christians who deny evolution, are close minded, are intolerant towards other religions and persecute gays. I would call them radical rather then fundamentalist.

My biases towards fundamentalist fundamentalists will not change, those perceptions have been well earned, to the point where fundamentalists have to prove that they are not nasty, like you folks may end up doing. Do I have to come up with another category of fundamentalists?

I'll agree with you that there is an unappealing group of Christians that call themselves Christian Fundamentalist whom I look down upon as well, there position would be characterized by the following:

1) If you don't believe exactly as I do, you're going to hell. This would include Catholics and Mormons simply because their theology differs slightly then Protestanism.
2) A literal interpretation of the Bible to mean that the earth is young and evolution is a lie.
3) A belief that Gays are hated by God and so on.

If you have more to add to the list please do. But I think its a misnomer to call those people fundamentalist, the word "radical" or "intolerant" is better suited.

WinePusher, a self-proclaimed Catholic, might consider himself a "Christian fundamentalist"; but I doubt that many adherents to Mardsen's definition ("militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism") would agree.

[Icarus Fallen]

Hey, WinePusher,

If I redefined "Catholicism" as "the routine emptying of one's bowels every morning", I suppose I could call myself a "practicing Catholic".

Whatever floats your sinking boat, Bro.

[Question Everything]

Is there any possibility of video or audio of this event being accessible by the Internet?

Not that I've seen, but I haven't searched extensively.

I searched, found it, and here it is:

http://www.pcawebcast.com/2010debate/

I just watched it. Wow. Powerful stuff there. A very surreal ending with Christopher Hitchens encouraging the audience to reject the "poisoned chalice" of religion, and them all applauding. This sure was not my Christian school experience!

It looks to me that what is happening is that the school is so sure of their beliefs that they are confident enough to do very bold things, and they may be overconfident by a wide margin. Time will tell if this turns out to be the Christian equivalent to the launching of the Titanic.

[Slopeshoulder]

My impression is that you are not a fundamentalist, but you makes the rules for your own life, so if you want me to consider you a fundamentalist, I will.

In my book, a fundamentalist is a christian who believes the following: "One who believes in Biblical inerrancy, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, the belief that Jesus Christ died to redeem humankind(substitutionary atonement), the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ will return again."

I believe the fundamental principles of Christianity, so I think I would qualify. But unfortunately the term "fundamentalist" has been used in a negative way to label Christians who deny evolution, are close minded, are intolerant towards other religions and persecute gays. I would call them radical rather then fundamentalist.

My biases towards fundamentalist fundamentalists will not change, those perceptions have been well earned, to the point where fundamentalists have to prove that they are not nasty, like you folks may end up doing. Do I have to come up with another category of fundamentalists?

I'll agree with you that there is an unappealing group of Christians that call themselves Christian Fundamentalist whom I look down upon as well, there position would be characterized by the following:

1) If you don't believe exactly as I do, you're going to hell. This would include Catholics and Mormons simply because their theology differs slightly then Protestanism.
2) A literal interpretation of the Bible to mean that the earth is young and evolution is a lie.
3) A belief that Gays are hated by God and so on.

If you have more to add to the list please do. But I think its a misnomer to call those people fundamentalist, the word "radical" or "intolerant" is better suited.

WinePusher, a self-proclaimed Catholic, might consider himself a "Christian fundamentalist"; but I doubt that many adherents to Mardsen's definition ("militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism") would agree.

WP, this is a thoughtful post. My only contribution is that with the exception of biblical inerrancy, the other alleged beliefs that comprise fundamentalism are pretty much mainstream. Sure, urban, educated liberals might veer from them or reinterpret and reappropriate them while still affirming the doctrines, but among the avergarge christian, this is what they believe. So it doesn't seem so fundamentalist to me. I'm sure my own mother (a pew catholic) believes them and more.

Personally, I don't even have a problem with bibliocentrism; after all,while it is not my own tradition, certainly one can be a modern liberal thinker who still references the bible as one's foundational and normative text. Indeed, this is what mainstream Protestants did for a few centuries, and extremely well, with many giant thinkers in their midst. Remember, their goal wasn't to dismantle Christianity, but rather to let it continue to speak.

So I tend to think of fundamentalists as those who fit your more "unpleasant" desription. And I would summarize them/it like this:
- Militantly anti-modern, but from a pre-modern rather than post-modern perspective. Most of their views on science and politics come from this. As does the anti-rational tendency and the magical thinking.
- a closed and rather totalizing system; a life apart, extreme sectarian anti-secularism. A sense of being besieged, at war. While otherwise living as moderns.
- plain sense, close to literal, magical, unmediated readings of scripture
- extreme self certainty and superiority; imperialism, expansionism, otherizing
- clinging to their views as necessary at all costs, even to the point of indulging in what outsiders (enemies) see as going agasint what modern reason and religion have in common regarding love, fairness, forgiveness, etc; instead we see parents in hell, gays hated
- an unwillingness or inability to discern subtlety; an ideological mindset
- a tendency to either/or thinking and absolutism, and the psychological, verbal, political, and literal violence this creates.
- a near obsession with historicity over symbolism, especially manifest in those who read the book of Revelation as if it's a trailer for a future drama.
- a lementable tendency to think their god is awesome, mighty, and loving, while simultaneously speaking and acting as if God is small, cruel, and as messed up as they are.
- an addictive personality, where God is the addiction of choice, often the final addiction.

Even innerrancy could possibly be accepted by a mainstream moderate or liberal if it is reinterpreted and reappropriated to mean that scripture is right thematically and at the core insofar as we flawed and finite people can grasp its real meaning.

So I suggest that the latter profile is more apt. As such it is cultural, sociological, and ethical more than it is theological. I may disagree with, but have no visceral negative response to high end thoughtful post-modern orthodoxy, whether neo (barth) or radical (Millbank). That stuff merits respect and cannot be summarily dismissed or labelled a social pathology. It's the francis schaeffers, fallwell's, haggards, lamb's and street preachers of the world that I think are the dangerous wackos. Not NT Wright.

I hope this distinction is helpful to all parties to this discussion.

[Zzyzx]

.

It looks to me that what is happening is that the school is so sure of their beliefs that they are confident enough to do very bold things

We see much the same thing in these debates when many Biblicists / Fundamentalists / Literalists become members with what appears to be great confidence in their beliefs -- confidence enough to make the bold move of attempting to defend those beliefs in public debate with strong opponents.

they may be overconfident by a wide margin

That appears to be demonstrated repeatedly here when Biblicist arguments and claims are effectively challenged and poorly defended. The original confidence (at least in the ability to defend beliefs against effective opposition, if not the beliefs themselves) can be seen to become far less certain or bold.

I often sympathize with well-meaning people who enter these debates full of religious fervor but short on anything substantive to present in defense of their favored stories and claims, particularly when they discover that the bible cannot be used as an authoritative source. It appears to me as though most Apologists have never encountered strong opposition views and arguments, and have never attempted to present or defend religious views "on a level playing field" where their religious views are not given favorable position or treatment.

The "arguments" that must seem so compelling in church or in religion-friendly environments simply fall apart when challenged. A simple example is Pascal's Wager, which may be quite convincing to believer audiences, but which can easily be shown to be fallacious "reasoning" by pointing out that it is based on faulty assumptions (that one true god" has been identified among the thousands proposed, and that the "god" requires recognition or worship as a condition of obtaining rewards in an "afterlife").

Time will tell if this turns out to be the Christian equivalent to the launching of the Titanic.

Rather than visualizing one large ship wrecking (perhaps analogous to Biblicism / Fundamentalism / Literalism). I visualize a lot of smaller shipwrecks as individual literalist belief systems encounter large icebergs of solid opposition.

Also very evident is that many individuals change course to avoid the icebergs, by either modifying their thinking (or claims made) OR changing course to leave iceberg territory (i.e., leave these debates). Notice how few Fundamentalists continue to post in this sub-forum for more than a few days or weeks.

[JoeyKnothead]

Hey, WinePusher,

If I redefined "Catholicism" as "the routine emptying of one's bowels every morning", I suppose I could call myself a "practicing Catholic".

Whatever floats your sinking boat, Bro.

Now there wasn't no need in all that.

The man gave as honest an answer as he possibly could, and shouldn't be mocked for doing so.