Thread: Video - Hitchens and Wilson at WTS

This may have already been posted, but if not here you go. May Hitchens come to know Christ!

WTS Media Player

watching now - very good, thus far - I captured some quick thoughts here
-----Added 11/27/2008 at 10:23:01 EST-----
Anybody have the link to the Christianity Today articles that speak to the circumstances of the debates written by Wilson's son?
-----Added 11/27/2008 at 11:18:56 EST-----
Found it

That poor guy. He is proof why it takes a miracle work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man to incline him toward the God that he hates with a virulent passion. Mr. Hitchens hates God. He got so angry several times in the debate and would go into a monologue of blasphemy against God. He did all of this in a calm, voice actor quality British accent.

Somehow, Hitchens was allowed to derail the whole thing with bunny trails, inanity, and the like.

My thoughts, exactly...

Originally Posted by Craig

Somehow, Hitchens was allowed to derail the whole thing with bunny trails, inanity, and the like.

FWIW, my thoughts on the debate:

1. Oliphant could have moderated a bit better. More structure was needed so that arguments could be followed.

2. Wilson should have gotten around alot sooner to driving home the point of Hitchens' presuppositions on logic / reason...it finally came near the end (a sort of Bahnsen v Stein moment) when Hitchens tried to deny any presupps by saying that logic was a man-made construct.

3. I got the sense that Wilson was trying to keep his future friendship with Hitchens intact and did not want to be too harsh...if that was the case, I don't fault him. Perhaps that and a combination of Wilson being a stronger writer than debater.

4. Hitchens is by far and away the most thoughtful atheist of these times. He has clearly wrestled with these issues and it shows.

Originally Posted by sotzo

4. Hitchens is by far and away the most thoughtful atheist of these times. He has clearly wrestled with these issues and it shows.

I have to admit that out of all the "New Atheists" I like Hitchens the best. I just get the most out of the debates with him because I think he best encompasses the heart of the Atheist cause: not good arguments against theism (well, he does have arguements that do need to be responded to) but rather just a plain ol' hatred for the very idea of God. He doesn't hide this. And thus, with Hitchens you get to the very heart of the issue. I just wish more Christians debaters would nail him on it.

Originally Posted by sotzo

FWIW, my thoughts on the debate:

1. Oliphant could have moderated a bit better. More structure was needed so that arguments could be followed.

Definitely

2. Wilson should have gotten around alot sooner to driving home the point of Hitchens' presuppositions on logic / reason...it finally came near the end (a sort of Bahnsen v Stein moment) when Hitchens tried to deny any presupps by saying that logic was a man-made construct.

I do think Wilson tip toed around things a bit too much...the most compelling stuff he said was during his intro and closing thoughts...in between, it was hard to tell what his points were if you're not familiar with certain points of presuppositionalism.

3. I got the sense that Wilson was trying to keep his future friendship with Hitchens intact and did not want to be too harsh...if that was the case, I don't fault him. Perhaps that and a combination of Wilson being a stronger writer than debater.

I hadn't thought of that...maybe he wants to keep a "friendship" going...I don't know. I do know that Hitchens has a lot of hatred for God and Christians...I think I prefer a believer telling Hitchens: "You're opposed to the most High God. My goal is not to humiliate you, your opposition to God does that...can we still be friends?"

4. Hitchens is by far and away the most thoughtful atheist of these times. He has clearly wrestled with these issues and it shows.

I don't know about this...the new atheists are all so awful. Hitchens may be the worst. Take away his British accent, and what do you have? An atheist version of Dave Hunt.

Anybody here understand Wilson's stance on F.V?

From his page:
Douglas Wilson (theologian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Edit: Some can be found here. Haven't read the blogs yet:

http://www.dougwils.com/?Action=Sear...federal+vision

Originally Posted by caddy

Anybody here understand Wilson's stance on F.V?

From his page:
Douglas Wilson (theologian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Complex topic, but yes, it has been thoroughly discussed here and elsewhere.

Hitches on Wilson - He's the "real deal".

BTW, if Dinesh d'Souza has debated Hitchens (one video is here Intercollegiate Studies Institute - Flash Video Player) and d'Souza is superb, using metaphysical terms to describe the importance of presuppositions...exceptional.

Douglas Wilson is one of my favorite authors, too bad he's FV, he seems to be less far out within their circles though

It is debates like these that remind me how thankful I am to be at Westminster.

While Wilson did a good job in establishing the hopelessness and meaninglessness which atheism would provide, contrary to our current experience, I was displeased with his defense of his belief in the resurrection. He appealed to historical testimony and other such things rather than the direct authority of Scripture. He later appealed to Scripture as an axiomatic authority, however, which was good.

Originally Posted by sotzo

BTW, if Dinesh d'Souza has debated Hitchens (one video is here Intercollegiate Studies Institute - Flash Video Player) and d'Souza is superb, using metaphysical terms to describe the importance of presuppositions...exceptional.

I saw that one a few weeks ago. It is very good.

Originally Posted by sotzo

BTW, if Dinesh d'Souza has debated Hitchens (one video is here Intercollegiate Studies Institute - Flash Video Player) and d'Souza is superb, using metaphysical terms to describe the importance of presuppositions...exceptional.

Wait, does he argue presuppositionally? I just saw on Wikipedia that d'Souza is a Roman Catholic.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by sotzo

BTW, if Dinesh d'Souza has debated Hitchens (one video is here Intercollegiate Studies Institute - Flash Video Player) and d'Souza is superb, using metaphysical terms to describe the importance of presuppositions...exceptional.

Wait, does he argue presuppositionally? I just saw on Wikipedia that d'Souza is a Roman Catholic.

He is Roman Catholic, but check out the link I sent to see what I mean. I don't think being Roman Catholic would necessarily be at odds with presuppositionalism...unless I'm missing something.

Originally Posted by sotzo

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by sotzo

BTW, if Dinesh d'Souza has debated Hitchens (one video is here Intercollegiate Studies Institute - Flash Video Player) and d'Souza is superb, using metaphysical terms to describe the importance of presuppositions...exceptional.

Wait, does he argue presuppositionally? I just saw on Wikipedia that d'Souza is a Roman Catholic.

He is Roman Catholic, but check out the link I sent to see what I mean. I don't think being Roman Catholic would necessarily be at odds with presuppositionalism...unless I'm missing something.

I actually just finished watching the debate. He is pretty much an evidentialist, but he was fun to listen to (along with Hitchens). At the beginning, he said he was just going to use science and reason and not the Bible, which of course exposed his Thomistic basis.

He used some presup-esque arguments -- e.g. the argument from morality, from science/uniformity of nature -- but he did so with an autonomous reasoning approach which would never actually prove Christianity. And of course, Hitchens combated these with red herrings. For instance, when confronted with the argument from morality, he diverged into an argument that Christianity did not have to be believed in order to be moral, a massive straw man argument.

Also, yeah, Roman Catholicism does not have a theology which comports well with presuppositionalism, since they deny Total Depravity.

I just watched both videos; both are well done and articulated.

Christopher Hitchens makes some interesting points, ultimately misguided, but worth repudiating nonetheless.

Dinesh d'Souza is a brilliant orator and rhetorician; he is definitely a better debater than Douglas Wilson.

I think it is obvious that Hitchens lacks in the realm of history...

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Hitches on Wilson - He's the "real deal".

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens on debating religion and the elections

In the context, Hitchens's calling Wilson the "real deal" is only in the sense that Wilson believes what he's arguing for. He doesn't really say much about his prowess with that statement.

Here's a debate between Hitchens and Alister McGrath

FORA.tv - Christopher Hitchens Debates Alister McGrath