Hitchens Debates Craig On The Existence of God … Three Clips

“Moral behavior doesn’t need God. We need to act moral for social cohesion. Morality evolved for our survival and that’s why people act morally. It is degrading to humans, and servile, to require God for morality.”

Christopher Hitchens
Debate w/ Wm. Lane Craig
Biola University
1.) Hitchens insists that moral behavior doesn’t need God and yet turns around and implies that he can know it is good to have social cohesion. That is a moral judgment that has no grounding except in Hitchen’s say so.

2.) Hitchens then says that people act morally in order to survive but who says that survival is a moral good? How would we know that survival is a moral good without an objective standard for what is good? Are we to take Hitchen’s word alone that survival is a moral good? On this basis Stalin’s ongoing survival was a moral good that needed to be defended.

3.) Hitchens says it is degrading to humans and servile to require God but one must ask from where is Hitchens drawing his standard to suggest that it is a bad morality that degrades humans and makes them servile?

Hitchens, at every turn must presuppose himself as god in order to talk about his own version of morality. We must conclude that Hitchens was a theist who took himself as god.

“After all, Dr. Craig, to win this argument, has to believe and prove to a certainty. He is not just saying there might be a God because he has to say there must be one, otherwise we couldn’t be here and there couldn’t be morality. It’s not a contingency for him. I have to say that I appear as a skeptic who believes that doubt is the great engine (the great fuel of all inquiry, all discovery, and all innovation), and that I doubt these things.”

Christopher Hitchens
Debate w/ Wm. Lane Craig 

Hitchens believed that doubt is the great engine and that he doubts all that Craig, as a Christian, is certain of. Hitchens thus is praising doubt over certainty and Hitchens is damn certain that doubt is certain.

“You cannot get from deism to theism except by a series of extraordinarily generous—to yourself—assumptions.”

Christopher Hitchens
Debate w/ Wm. Lane Craig

Hitchens is exactly correct here. This is the failure of all evidentialist apologetics. Another failure is that evidentialism can only bring one to probability. It can only argue that the greatest percentage and preponderance of evidence supports the assertion that “God exists.” However, evidentialism faces the problem that it can not know if something has 90% certainty of something being true unless it first knows with 100% certainty that something like God exists is true. How can anyone know that something is 90% likely of being certain unless they first know where the 100% marker of certainty is? Evidentialism fails because it argues for a high degree of certainty of matters being true even though it has no idea of what constitutes 100% certainty. Only be presupposing 100% certainty as given in God’s revealed word can we begin to talk about other degrees of certainty when it comes to evidence but after we have 100% why do we need 90%?

The Word Is Getting Out

My Time in Purgatory

For your reading or listening pleasure.

The above is from a new Theological Webzine, “American Mantle.”

Also, while featuring not one of my more flattering photos, “The American Free Press” printed an interview between James Edwards (He of “The Political Cesspool” fame) and myself in their publication.

Click to access Issue_21_22_AFP_2025_FP.pdf

Doug Wilson & Joe Boot In A Conversation Seek To Condemn The Anti-Egalitarian Right

Doug Wilson – “What is happening with a lot on what I call on the ‘Dank Right’ these days is – which is an over-reaction to the egalitarianism and the globalization / homogenization of all ethnicity on the one hand, people have reacted the other way but what they’re doing is talking about ethnicity all the time like this is the only thing. But the Bible is much more wise than that. Jesus says you can’t be His disciple unless you hate Father, Mother, Wife, Brother, Sister. You’ve got to hate them. Now Matthew says ‘love more than me,’ so that tells you what’s going on there.”

Joe Boot – “There’s also the incident where Jesus is teaching and He’s barely had time to eat and – I love it, I think it’s there in Luke or is it Mark 4, somewhere in there, where they think Jesus has lost His mind and they’re final solution is ‘tell His Mom.’ finally His Mom and Brothers show up and they (the crowd) says ‘Your Mother and Brothers are calling you,’ and He says ‘my Mother, my Sister, my Brother are those who do the will of God.’ That whole idea of the only totalizing concept that the Bible recognizes is that relativizes all other loves is the Kingdom of God.”

Doug Wilson – “And you see , for example, hate Father, Mother, but if you surrender and die – basically if you mortify your earthly loves that way the resurrected, such that a man can love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it or Jesus who said ‘Who is my Mother,’ is very solicitous for her from the cross … so it is not like we hate earthly loves. I am very grateful for my earthly loves but the Bible is very clear that only God’s requirements are total and if your beloved tries to entice you to idolatry in the OT, you have not pity. You have to say absolutely not.”

Joe Boot interviews Doug Wilson
Reformcon
“Ordo Amoris & the Gospel’s Answer to Ethnic Animosity.”

Bret responds,

1.) First, let us note that making an idol of your family, tribe, clan, nation or race is possible. Familioltry is a thing. However, can we honestly look at the current incarnation of the West and conclude that famililoltry is a problem? I mean, sure, I am confident that there may be some people out there among the pagan right who are making idols of their family, but let’s be honest and admit that we do not have a widespread problem in the Church today of people making an idol out of their family. On the other hand, to those like Doug Wilson and Joe Boot who seem to be brain dead that there is a very real agenda to snuff out the white man (replacement theory) there is instead the problem of not dealing effectively with the problem of egalitarianism. Like the Israel leadership of old Doug and Joe want to treat the problem of egalitarianism too lightly. The West is clearly in a house that is burning down around us in the flames of egalitarianism and the Boomer-cons want to go on a diatribe about the dangers of familoltry?  Do these chaps know what time it is? Do they realize that total percentage of white people to non-white people has dropped precipitously in the past 50 years? Do they realize that globalism and the migration habits of the third world into Western countries is not an accident? Do they understand that by the definition of “genocide” as stated by the UN that white people are currently being genocided? These two Boomers complaining about the presence of familoltry in our current climate is like someone pointing out that a teenager has a zit all the while missing the fact that his leg has been shorn off.

2.) Doug, as a proponent of the effeminate soft left, argues that we on the “Dank Right” have overreacted. Well, that does tend to happen when genocide for white people is on the menu “effeminate Doug.” Sure, some people have probably over-reacted but, again, I would strenuously contend that people like Wilson and Boot (and White and Sandlin and Durbin etc.) are massively under-reacting. They are sleeping while Rome burns. One only has to know somewhat of the history of Rhodesia and South Africa to see where all this is headed across the West. Yet, here we find Joe and Doug screaming … “All is well; Don’t over-react.” Honestly, this lack of urgency by Joe and Doug looks all the world like C. S. Lewis’ Green Witch, in the novel “The Silver Chair” doing all they can to put the awakening Prince back to sleep so he won’t fight against his danger. Who died and left you King, Doug, to decide when complaining about wickedness becomes too much complaining?

3.) Doug then complains that people are talking too much about globalization, and homogenization. This is like complaining that a prisoner on the torture rack is complaining too much about the pain of the torture. Of course we are complaining a great deal Doug. After all, torture doesn’t feel good.

Also, on this score who says when complaining about being vanquished becomes too much complaining? Let’s keep in mind that the egalitarian New World Order is in the saddle and holds the whip hand. Wouldn’t you expect the ones who are being whipped to be complaining a great deal? If we want to throw off the New World Order we have to spend time complaining about the fact that is Satanic and against God’s social order.

4.) I’m sure that the Bible is much wiser than all of us … including you Doug. That’s kind of a Captain Obvious statement.

5.) Keep in mind Doug that when Jesus says that we have to hate our family in comparison to loving the Lord Jesus Christ that kind of language doesn’t work unless there was (is) the expectation that we would indeed love our family. Jesus takes the idea that would be most central in people’s minds (the naturalness of loving one’s family) and says “Love for the Lord Christ must be even above that.” So, Jesus, takes the most central love in creation and puts it in its place; second to love for the Lord Christ. We might say, in light of this teaching, that Jesus is saying Love God first and then love your family. No one on my side of the fence disagrees with this Doug. Nobody on my side of the fence is arguing that we must love our family above God. What we are arguing is that we must love our family above loving the Stranger and the Alien. This is the 5th commandment. This is I Timothy 5:8.

6.) Turning to Boot’s brilliance, we once again offer that we quite agree that love for God relativizes all other loves. However, that does not mean that love for God eliminates the Ordo Amoris. There will be times when love for those who are not family who do the will of God will trump love for family who does not do the will of God. Nobody denies that on my side of the fence. We are merely arguing that normatively we have a responsibility to our Mothers before other women not our Mothers… just as Jesus demonstrated on the Cross.

7.) When you compare the first paragraph from Doug with the last paragraph from Doug it is clear this chap is involved in classic “Double-speak.” He, as he so often does, wants it both ways. He is, once again, fence straddling. Clearly, when any of my family is trying to entice me to idolatry I am going to tell them to “hit the road.” Really, this looks a great deal like a straw-man argument on Wilson’s part.

Now, look, Doug Wilson complains about how much his opponents are talking about race but I could fill a small library with how much this man keeps returning to the race issue in order to gate-keep against the non-egalitarians. In point of fact, I would say that he and his groupies are the ones who can’t shut up about the subject in their attempt to foist a kinder and gentler egalitarianism on us.

Christianity As An Adjective

Dr. Thomas Shirrmacher, in the April, 1992 Chalcedon Report, called attention to the fact that the word religion came into use with the Renaissance, and that previously, the word used for differing faiths was law; the Christian Law, the Islamic Law, the Buddhist Law, and so on. A faith was either polytheistic or catholic; that is either limited in scope or universal. The term catholic properly belongs to the faith and only to a church if it insists that God’s Law—not the church—is universal in its jurisdiction. But since the Enlightenment, or about 1660, Christian catholicity has waned, especially since the French Revolution. Christianity has been replaced, or Christendom has been replaced by the concept of the West, that is Humanistic Statism.

R. J. Rushdoony
Lecture — Religious Earthquake I

All religions are law systems and all law systems are the servants of some religion. This explains why theocracy is an inescapable concept. All governments must enact laws and when they do enact laws they do so on the basis of religion since law is a statement of morality and morality a reflection of religion. This, obviously, means that all governments are the reflection of some religion. No form of government is religion free. All forms of government are as equally intensely religious. This is true when the government says it eschews all religion, or, to the contrary when it insists, that it accepts all religion. When any government says that it is religious free it only means that it is basing all its legislative and governmental work on its own authority, which tells us that it is based on the religion of humanism where man dictates the morality upon which all legislation is based.  Religion has not gone away. When any government insists that it accepts all religion, once again we have a testimony of humanism since in the accepting of all religion it is the government which will determine which religion will be the religion that dictates the morality upon which legislation will be based.

The above is true for any institution in any jurisdiction wherein laws are made for the institution. Because, families, for example, have laws that govern the family, families are downstream of some religion, since the laws for the family are based on a morality and the morality in turn is based on some religion and God concept. Because this is so families will be “Christian families,” or “Humanist families” or “Jewish families,” or “Muslim families,” etc. However no family will ever be a non-religiously defined family. The same is true for law courts, for educational institutions, for workplaces, for political parties, etc. Religion is an inescapable concept and never goes away, though often it is insisted that this or that is “irreligious.”

All this explains, in part, why R2K is so disastrous. R2K insists that these different realms (family, arts, juridical, education, politics, government etc.) all should be, by definition, areligious. R2K, bone-headedly, insists that the adjective “Christian” should never define these different realms. Indeed, R2K goes so far as to say that it is sinful before God to insist that the adjective “Christian” should be supplied as a descriptor for any of these areas. In doing so, R2K turns over all these areas to non-Christian religions. This is so because once R2K has successfully convinced Christians that they should not pursue “Christian Education,” “Christian Politics,” “Christian Jurisprudence,” “Christian Art,” then all that is left as an adjective to define these jurisdictional disciplines is some non-Christian religion. This explains, in part, why R2K is idolatry and an abandoning of the Christian faith.

Doug Wilson On R. L. Dabney … No Disclaimers Allowed

Doug Wilson is one of those guys who will say anything that comes into his mind that sounds good at the moment. Here is a recent example. Now, I want to say at the outset that I don’t disagree with Dabney here – especially given the condition of the Black race in the South at the time – but I’m pretty sure that Doug would be insisting upon all kinds of disclaimers her regarding Dabney. The issuing of those disclaimers would prove that Doug often says things that are convenient for the moment.

“I think R. L. Dabney was a godly Christian man — a little irascible at places but nothing I think I need to put a disclaimer on.”

Doug Wilson

“[W]as it nothing, that this (Black) race, morally inferior, should be brought into close relations to a nobler race (White), so that the propensity to imitation should be stimulated by constant and intimate observation, by domestic affection, by the powerful sentiment of allegiance and dependence?”

R. L. Dabney
In A Defence of Virginia & The South – p. 282

LOL… I’m pretty sure Doug would be ruined if he didn’t put a disclaimer on that. Let the disclaimers be forthcoming.