D’Souza and Christian Apologetics (?)

Denish D’Souza v Christopher Hitchens hosted by Kings College, Manhattan

http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000187_cicero_102207.flv

(a response to the debate by Kirk Vanacore)

Hitchens is a prominent, if not the most prominent, face of atheism. And it seems that D’Souza is attempting to be Hitchens’ antithetical persona: the face of Christian apologetics. His latest book, “What’s So Great About Christianity,” is a converse argument to Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything” and recently he opposed Hitchens in a public debate (linked above) on the benefits of Christianity. During the debate, Hitchens articulately presented a distorted view of Christianity and God and, unfortunately, D’Souza matched his inadequacy by skewing the history of Christianity and failing to acknowledge its devastating shortfalls. Moreover, his approach to Hitchens was an insufflate representation of our faith.

D’Souza argued that Christianity has been and remains a force for good in the world, crediting it with the concept of human dignity and the creation of liberal democracy. While Jesus did speak of man’s dignity and the early church was known for valuing and caring for unwanted children, the values behind liberal democracy are not intrinsic to Christianity. The Bible speaks of equality among in the church, but it did not advocate for political self-determination. As Hitchens points out, the Medieval Church upheld serfdom. D’Souza’s emphasis on the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trails betrays his bias as he fails to mention atrocities with higher causalities such as the Crusades or the Thirty Years War. The Thirty Years War was fought by post-Reformation religious factions who placed political ambitions under a banner of religion and subsequently killed an estimated thirty percent the Holy Roman Empire’s (Germany) population. Furthermore, he downplays the executions of the Spanish Inquisition in a utilitarian manor – as if the 2,000 murders were understandable, if not acceptable, carnage. (Not to mention the number tortured and forced into conversion.) He even suggests that the ends of the Inquisition – the spread of Christianity – justified the means.

Despite the sins of Christendom, Christianity contributed positively to the world. Christians have clothed the homeless, visited prisoners, fed the hungry. In addition, many advancements in science, art, literature and philosophy were made by Christians and funded by the church. The problem with D’Souza’s argument is that the greatness of Christianity hinges upon its truth. If Christianity is not true, than it is nothing but a fantastic story – a work of fiction through which we can derive, at most, inspiration – and it’s authors would simply be a hodgepodge of Hesiods and Homers to whom we would own only literary credit. The product of these stories would simply be a mixed bag of goods and evils. Furthermore, all of the good, and the bad, would be no more meaningful than any other religion, philosophy or way of life – including Hitchens’ secularism. Because of his failure to substantiate the truth Christianity, D’Souza fails at apologetics.

D’Souza opens the debate by saying that he would “try to answer [Hitchens’] attack by using the same tools of reason and skepticism and science and evidence that is the banner under which the atheist march.” While the Bible does instruct us to defend our faith, it presents a very different approach than answering anthem with logic and reason. Peter explains that we should “always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15, NIV), but he prefaces this statement by explaining that we must “live in harmony,” “love as brothers,” “be companionate and humble” and not “repay evil for evil” (3:8-9). We are to incite questions about our hope and holiness and answer “with gentleness and respect” (3:15). Peter does not instruct us attack the non-believers philosophy, but to live with provocative hope. Hitchens describes the religious as people living in fear of God’s disapproval. And while this is distortion of the truth, the fact that Hitchens’ critique of Christianity resonates among the masses reveals that we have work to do. I would suggest that the appropriate answer to Hitchens will not be found in debates, but in the peculiar lives, lived with unworldly hope.