Without A Hitch?

As soon as I read this, then I knew that we would be able to rely on Peter Hitchens:

Many of us have said for years that the extradition treaty between Britain and the USA was heavily biased towards America. I think that’s more or less proven. But now comes news of an American airman, accused of a serious crime against a British woman on British soil, whose case ended up being investigated by US military police and was tried at a US base by a US court-martial. This episode really does make us look like an American colony.

While Duncan Hegan crystallises what some of us had always thought about Christopher Hitchens:

It is something of a commonplace that “religion” is contrary to reason. Science is opposed to faith. A rational, intelligent person cannot actually believe in something that cannot be empirically proven, like “god”. Instead, religion must rely on appeals to unverifiable things like experience and emotion and cannot actually withstand serious critical analysis. Consequently, intelligent people do not believe in religion.

This was a central plank of the “New Atheist” platform and, while that particular movement is no longer fashionable, that idea lingers in wider society — in the same way that a wave, even after disappearing, leaves the sand on the shore a different shape, so the New Atheist movement reshaped the way our society thinks about religion.

This idea is so much a part of the “water” we all swim in that, despite identifying as a Christian, I sort of absorbed some of it by osmosis. When I began tentatively making my way back to the pews, I was very concerned with Apologetics — arguments for the existence of God, the truth of the Gospel etc. I was convinced that Christianity was good for me and good for society, but that wasn’t enough — I had to satisfy my critical faculties that it was real, and that a rational, intelligent person not only should believe, it but could.

I am convinced that this is the biggest problem facing the church in the West — that people cannot intellectually assent to the core claims of Christianity (the existence of God, the incarnation, the resurrection, etc.) and see it as incompatible with their commitment to science and all the improvements to human life that flow from it. Once people are satisfied that that hurdle can be overcome, and that in fact Christianity is the best explanation we have for the universe, our place in it and our experience of it, then it’s a different story.

I felt I owed it to the opposing “side” in the argument to give them a fair hearing, and so I sat down to watch a Christopher Hitchens debate. I am not exaggerating when I say that this was a pivotal moment in my return to the fold — which has subsequently led to my ordination to the priesthood. It being some years ago now my memory of the details of the debate is somewhat hazy, but for those who are interested to look it up themselves, it was Hitchens vs Dr William Lane Craig debating the existence of God in a packed theatre somewhere on an American university campus. It was precisely the sort of intellectual bloodsport which Americans adore and at which Hitchens excelled.

Dr Craig spoke first and laid out, very simply, logically and from first principles, what he called the “Kalam” Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. In brief, this is the argument that the universe must be finite, rather than infinite regression of events, and therefore must have been created by an infinite being. I am probably doing Dr Craig and his argument a grave disservice here, but the point is that the argument was logical, rational and made no appeals to faith or experience. After giving his opening argument, Dr Craig sat down. Mr Hitchens took the podium. He may have lent on it in a manner considered louche, as one who has done this so many times before that it has become a tiresome routine. In any event, posture notwithstanding, he completely ignored everything his opponent had said and made no attempt to engage with Dr Craig’s argument. Instead, he treated the audience to an exhilarating series of rhetorical flourishes and witty bon mots. The most substantial argument he advanced was a (very finely constructed) form of the problem of evil. The rest of his address was witticisms delivered in a posh English accent which, of course, drove the American audience into a frenzy of delight.

Hitchens was, undoubtedly, a great wit and a first-class orator, but his real gift on display here was for asserting the intellectual high ground and then behaving as though he still occupied it, no matter what happened in the debate. A debate is not like football. There is no objective scoreline. In such a context, if you look like you’re winning, people will generally assume that you are, and will believe the story that you tell them about the two sides of the debate — namely, “mine is the side of reason, wit and intelligence and if you are intelligent then you will agree with me”.

If you are someone who wants to feel intelligent, this is a very difficult charm to resist. I realised at that moment that that’s what the whole thing was. In this particular debate, it was pretty clear which side logic and reason was on, and it wasn’t atheism, no matter how much Hitchens asserted that it was. This decoupling of “atheism” from “exercise of the critical faculties” in my mind was a crucial development, and, of all people, it was Christopher Hitchens who caused it. The Spirit moves in mysterious ways.

Three weeks on, and the School of Christopher Hitchens, headed by Oliver Kamm, has still failed to say whether or not it agreed with the call from within the Green Party for a ban on the medically unnecessary circumcision of children. Moreover, Kamm was sound on the scandal of Harry Dunn and Anne Sacoolas, so what does he have to say about Sarah Steele and Jacob Wulfson?