Arguing with an Atheist

I couldn't resist reading a story with this headline:

"Tony Blair, Christopher Hitchens debate religion".

I didn't actually care so much to read what the former British Prime Minister, turned faith bridge builder, has to say on religion; he is now a Roman Catholic, and I tend to distrust those who were once Anglican that retreat from the Reformation to become RCs.

I was much more intrigued with the idea of debating religion... and debating it with a renown atheist such as the columnist and author Christopher Hitchens. In his opening remarks at these Munk Debates in Toronto, Hitchens came out swinging.

"Is it good for the world to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs, to appeal to our fear and to our guilt — is it good for the world?"

"To terrify children with the image of hell... to consider women an inferior creation. Is that good for the world?"

My answer: absolutely not! But then the question I would have posed back to Hitchens, "Why do you start from a position that this is 'my' deity? Is it good for the world that intelligent people stoop to setting up straw men and women when engaged in an intellectual argument?"

The God that I turn to is not one that takes sides in wars and human affairs... much as I sometimes wish that God would do that, and actually follow through on the words of the psalmist to smite down all my enemies, trample the wicked, and exalt those of us who aren't "them". That would be just peachy! But, as I've noted some time back on this blog, when I read the words of the psalmist, I think of "them"; "they" read the words of the psalmist and they think of me. God hears the words of both of us, and continues to view the "mes" and the "thems" as the "we" and the "us". The God I believe in stands with both of groups and all groups. My end of this bargain is to believe that God is with us... even with an ailing Christopher Hitchens, who has cancer.

Hitchens also contends that religion has done more harm than good, pointing to centuries of warfare between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, and genocide in Rwanda where the church has remained silent, and sometimes has harbored those who have done the killing. I would add to that growing list of "religions gone wrong" the attacks on LGBT Africans at the encouragement of the churches in Uganda and others, and the benign neglect of that situation from the hierarchy of the Anglican Communion. Geez, with all the parade of terrible illustrations that Hitchens was able to provide, is it any wonder that the columnist was declared the winner over Tony Blair?!

I think what the problem is is that it is debating "religion". In my EfM group last night, we had an interesting discussion as the Year Four people were getting a taste of Karl Barth's theology. We talked about how our "religion" came to follow the path of St. Paul, who took the message and spread it far and wide, but made the message "about" Jesus, rather than "of" Jesus. I think this is a critical misstep. From the way I read the gospels, Jesus was not "about" Jesus; Jesus was "of" God and reminding the people who would listen to him that they were people "of God". For Jesus, following the formulas was not as important as living into the 'love God, love thy neighbor' commandments. For Jesus, the formulas were meaningful if they led to "Love God, love thy neighbor." It's what came after Jesus that led to more "religion" and less "Christianity."

So, I would agree that religion is a problem. But I don't translate "religion" as "faith in Christ" (or faith in whatever deity you worship). Faith in a deity that loves Hitchens, even in his unbelief, and how one who has such faith views the world and its messiness, I think, would have proved to be a much tougher challenge for the "avowed atheist". It usually is. Because that is an uncomfortable place for the typical atheist to go. It isn't so black and white and wrapped up in a box. Mystery, and things that are beyond our human understanding, make those with the absolute answers go berserk!

Next time they have one of these debates, I think they ought to look for a more formidable and credible opponent for Mr. Hitchens. Mad Priest, perhaps?