Comments

You wrote, "...restricting the debate to things scientific unfortunately plays into the current prejudice that the only "facts" that are real or valid are based in science. But there are many fields of inquiry that are not open to the scientific method (history being one of them).Thus, the terms of the debate will only take us so far."

Restricting the debate to "things scientific" means much more than a 'limited' debate. It means that from the very beginning the Christian side has already lost. As soon as the Christian side agreed to play only by the rules of "science" it surrendered to what is really Cartesian dualism and the Enlightenment's standards of rationality. They speak a different language and have different definitions of the word Truth and Rationality. Their way of viewing the world is built around a total system. The best these Christians can do is to try and reveal, by asking good questions, that the atheist's "scientific positions" are smuggling in conceptions of Reason and Truth which they are not having to justify! Why do we accept their definition of Truth before the game even starts??

I won't argue with Comfort and Cameron's good intentions, but their entire approach to evangelism based on "proving God's existence" is a distraction to the real work of making disciples. For one, it won't work--Comfort might be able to our argue a couple of kids who set up the blasphemy challenge, but someone like Hitchens would blow him out of the water. Secondly, if we focus on making disengenous arguments that prove God exists, to what end? As James says, "even the Demons believe God exists".

Better I say that we follow the example and teaching of Christ to reach out with compassion and compell people into a life of faith through faith, hope, and love-- not confrontational kinds of arguments. These argumentative tactics are more likely to further alienate the world that needs to hear some Good news about Christ.

It's worthwhile to contend for the faith and to do so with respect, speaking the truth in love.

Of course we must keep in mind it isn't our job to convince or convict. Ours is to merely share the Gospel. The Holy Spirit will do the rest.

I trust the Cameron understands that. But even if he doesn't, it isn't a worthless venture to boldly and intellectually defend the faith.

But ultimately the issue is the hardness of a man's heart, not the softness of his gray matter.

More often than not, Jesus asked questions of his hecklers and skeptics. A rather different approach, no? Admittedly, it is an approach that is better suited to personal contact than TV broadcasting, but still...

To those that say Christianity shouldn't be debated: you are right. Your belief system is indefensibly. It's completely wrong. The only way in can be sustained as a belief is through indoctrination and coercion.

I simply stew in wonder at how awesome it is to see what was prophesied 2000 years ago materialize right in front of my eyes.
(Amos 8:11) Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.
The bible is plumb full of TRUTH, each and every word. The ground-work is being laid, and Lord Jesus, it reminds me, just how wonderful you are.
Seek earnestly.......and you too can find.
Tom S

I am surprised at your optimism. I was skeptical at the outset, and now after watching it am just plain discouraged. ABC has at least made it a fair fight, but only by choosing people - on both sides - who really, in all honesty, have no clue what they're talking about. None of these people have seriously studied science or philosophy and it shows. I suppose ABC made a decision to get lay people to debate so the average joe would understand. But the outcome of that is that now people are trying to make decisions on simply bad and poorly informed arguments. Why not select scholars that are good at communicating to laity like Bill Craig vs. Michael Martin? The last debate I read in Time between Sam Harris and Rick Warren was more excusable because of their celebrity, but unfortunately the results were not much better in terms of content. I despair of the MSM's ability to serve as a vehicle to provide accurate information (i.e. Jesus' Tomb). I remember my surprise when I discovered the treasures found in well-written scholarship. I felt cheated. I thought I was an informed person because I was reading the papers and magazines. I still don't know why there is such a disconnect.

Kudos to you CT! Your debates, such as the one with Hitchens, usually are pretty good!

Nonetheless, I appreciate the religion coverage and trust that no matter how bad the debate, God in His sovereignty can still use it for good.

Wow! Peter & John were unschooled and they proclaimed the Gospel to a hostile crowd. Should they have been replaced by someone more educated?

Peter and John on Mars Hill? Give me the educated Apostle Paul for that one...

Fair enough. But national TV isn't exactly Mars Hill.

The big difference is that Peter and John did not use bad and poorly informed arguments in their proclamation that Jesus is the Christ. Peter and John were uneducated until they received an education from Jesus Christ. Christ himself taught them how the OT proclaimed himself as messiah (Luke 22). And they proclaimed it well to those who already accepted the OT - With the added evidence of miraculous signs. This debate advertises itself as at least somewhat of an academic debate employing knowledge of logic and science. I simply think that the debate would be more informative if persons proclaiming that logic and science supported their view were actually acquainted with the topics at hand. National TV could do better.

Stan, I'm rather surprised (judging from your other writing on this site) that you would ask someone who inquired about Christianity "if he would become a Christian if we answered all his questions." Is this really the way to treat someone who wants to talk about faith matters, with a quid pro quo? Why couldn't you just agree to have a nice and meaningful conversation without attaching strings or setting end-goals? And frankly is it really a refusal of the will if he didn't "become a Christian" after your talk? He is on a faith journey that you don't completely understand, and it's not your role to expect certain results, but to show the love of God and discuss his questions. Your last paragraph sounds less like CT Magazine and more like old-time fundamentalism.

The problem with debates is that contestants nearly always succumb to the temptation of trying to score points, which turns the discussion into mere posturing. Because of this, winning or losing in a debate is generally unrelated to the truth of the matter. In our society, debates are just another form of entertainment, nothing more.

The only way in can be sustained as a belief is through indoctrination and coercion.

This is wildly inaccurate. I was "indoctrinated" early and often in life and it didn't take. It was only when I surrendered my heart to Christ and was reborn in the Spirit that the Truth became known.

I think the problem is that when I say I believe in God I definitely mean something distinct from when a Christian says he believes in God. For one thing, my God does not procreate with humans. There's a whole conflation of the meaning of the word "believer" that's troublesome and plays into the atheists' hands. It's quite possible to be monotheist without being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or anything else; believe in God needs to be abstracted from creeds that are specific to any one group. But, of course, that's impossible, which brings us back around the barn. Basically I think this whole enterprise is stupid and won't end in any positive results of any kind.

-Yakov.

I find it laughably funny that people believe in the nonsense of the bible and christianity. I won't argue what constitutes nonsense, but to think that the views and goals of a christian are the ultimate ends for every human makes me sad. As for me, my life is geared towards solving my own problems as well as making the world a better place, coming to know myself on the deepest of terms as well as my limits and dying a death with dignity and the knowledge that this is it.

I'm satisfied. I don't need this "salvation" bull-shit.