An Intellectually Dishonest Rejection For the Existence of God

My last post explained a few blunders I saw Christopher Hitchens make in a debate that he had with Frank Turek. There is one other problem that I saw that Hitchens made that I feel must be pointed out.

Much of Hitchens argument against God is routed in his moral rejection of the Christian God. He believes that the Christian God is morally corrupt. Hitchens vilifies the Christian God because so many people are sent to hell, and in his words ‘If hell were to be real it should be banished.’ He finds hell such a horrible place that no good a moral God could allow it to exist.

I agree with Hitchens that such a place does seem horrible, but that is just the point. Hell is for those who have sinned and therefore are worthy only of what hell provides. It is by no work of our own that we can avoid hell. This is where the Christian God is in fact so great and good. For though many religions believe in a hell like place, it is only in Christianity that such a place is avoided not because of any work that a human may do, but because of the work that the God himself does for them. True as it may be that hell sis a horrible place we must remember the Christian message is emphatically clear that God does not desire that anyone should perish (2 Peter 3:9). Surely it doesn’t then make sense to reject the Christian God because he is immoral, for sending people to hell, when he clearly desires it otherwise.

But that is only part of the problem. When in the debate Frank Turek makes the point that Jesus redemption also covers those before Jesus came, Hitchens simply says ‘isn’t that convenient’.

So in the end Hitchens is rejecting God if he does not provide a way out of hell for everyone, but then he also rejects God if he does provide a way out of hell for everyone. Does that really make sense? Hitchens rejects God as being unfair but when he sees that God, at least the Christian one he is arguing against, is actually being fair he rejects him because he seems too perfect.

That is in the end is simply a prime example of intellectual dishonesty. Hitchens is saying that he doesn’t believe in God because A is true but he also rejects God because A is not true.