Sneering Is Not an Argument

Much of atheistic rhetoric these days comes off as a collective sneer at the idea of theism or intelligent design. From my experience, atheists often forgo cogent arguments in favor of mocking, rather than arguing against, the existence and revelation of a God. Such proved to be the case in the debate last night between Christopher Hitchens and Jay Wesley Richards at Stanford University. Hitchens is the author of God Is Not Great, and Richards is co-author of The Privileged Planet and a senior fellow of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

Read the story from the Stanford Daily, or read his book, and you will see that Hitchens is one of those argument-less atheists. He presents no coherent arguments of his own, and in fact addresses very few of Richards's points. In fact, in response to Richards's arguments from cause-and-effect and irreducible complexity, Hitchens simply asks if he believes in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. When Richards answers "yes," he is dismissed out-of-hand.

Melinda over at Stand to Reason makes some very good points about Hitchens's debate:

This is, of course, a dodge of the arguments Richards had offered. He apparently made no attempt to answer them and stay on topic. And what does belief in the virgin birth have to do with the rationality of Richards' evidence for ID? Rational people often have some irrational beliefs. Citing the latter doesn't defeat the former.

Let me say it again: a sneer is not an argument. While it may get you by in the arena of public opinion, it says very little (in fact, less than nothing) of the truth of your claims. This new generation of atheists is going to have to do a little better if they are to engage theists on an intellectual level.