Christian philosopher, atheist pundit clash at Biola over the existence of God.
On March 21, William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens were part of a larger, CT-sponsored panel discussion on "Does the God of Christianity Exist, and What Difference Does It Make?" After listing multiple argument's for God's existence that he said Hitchens failed to address, in his closing statement Craig, author of Reasonable Faith and a CT cover story on arguments for God's existence, warned Hitchens, author of God Is not Great, to come better prepared to deal with the arguments at their scheduled debate at Biola University on April 4, on the question, "Does God Exist?"
That Biola debate was indeed held this past weekend, drawing thousands of spectators (confirming a CT report on the popularity of such events). The Evangelical Philosophical Society provides a helpful roundup of the coverage.
Who won? Read the summary transcript and coverage and decide for yourself. Biola prof Doug Geivett had this to say in his snap analysis:
[T]his debate exposed a difference in preparation on the part of these two debaters. This is far more significant than it might seem at first. William Lane Craig has debated this topic dozens of times, without wavering from the same basic pattern of argument. He presents the same arguments in the same form, and presses his opponents in the same way for arguments in defense of their own worldviews. He's consistent. He's predictable. One might think that this is a liability, that it's too risky to face a new opponent who has so much opportunity to review Craig's specific strategy. But tonight's debate proves otherwise. Hitchens can have no excuse for dropping arguments when he knows - or should know - exactly what to expect. Suppose one replies that William Craig is a more experienced debater and a trained philosopher, while Christopher Hitchens is a journalist working outside the Academy. That simply won't do as a defense of Hitchens. First, Hitchens is no stranger to debate. Second, he is clearly a skillful polemicist. Third - and most important - Hitchens published a book, god Is Not Great, in which he makes bold claims against religion in general and Christianity in particular. With his book, he threw down the challenge. To his credit, he rose to meet a skillful challenger. But did he rise to the occasion? Did he acquit himself well? At one point he acknowledged that some of his objections to the designer argument were "layman's" objections. His book, I believe, is also the work of a layman. It appears to have been written for popular consumption and without concern for accountability to Christians whose lives are dedicated to the defense of the Gospel.
UPDATE: CT plans to post podcasts of the five author panel discussions starting later this week.
share thisPosted by Stan Guthrie on April 6, 2009 3:25PM
Comments
Here is what I have to say briefly regarding the debate that took place between William Craig and Christopher Hitchens, at Biola University on April 4, 2009.
In my opinion, William Craig nailed it down and made his case so persuasively, eloquently, with utmost precision. Why did I say this? Here are some reasons I have:
Craig gave reasons for his position on the existence of God. I do not have to list his reasons here but the point is that whether one agrees with him or not, Craig came up with arguments as opposed to assertions and rhetoric. One cannot help but face the arguments Craig put forth with respect to the existence of God. For someone who does not believe in God’s existence, even if all of Craig’s arguments turned out to be unconvincing, Craig provided evidence to counter his opponent’s objections. By doing so, I believe he made his case.
On the other hand, Hitchens came up with assertions and rhetoric that only worked against him with respect to the position he claimed to be supporting. If God doesn’t exist, according to Hitchens, what were the arguments he provided for that? As a philosopher myself, I was not able to identify the arguments he gave for his position other than the assertions and rhetoric he built throughout the debate. Moreover, he was not even clear on the precise definition of his own position which exposed him to be instructed on the stage by Craig on the basic notions like what a worldview is, inter alia. If Hitchens thinks he has a case for atheism, it shouldn’t be based on rhetorical strategy that might attract an uncritical audience already biased to jump into the bandwagon of atheists who make assertions to make their case against the existence of God. So, the best thing to do for atheists like Hitchens is to take time and come up with evidence to support their arguments against the existence of God. As far as I can tell, Hitchens came up with neither evidence nor arguments to make his case. So, it is incumbent on him to work as hard as he can to develop arguments to engage his opponent like Craig, who in my view, had done his assignment so very well, that is to say, excellent preparation to engage his opponent.
Finally, if the best critic of Christianity, like Hitchens, doesn’t have arguments but so many complaints against God, that won’t really show that God doesn’t exist. But it only shows a desperate move on the part of a person who doesn’t just want God to exist. Maybe this is a curable problem if Hitchens-type atheists want to apply Craig’s fifth suggestion in his debate, which is direct experience of God. If anyone is willing to know God, he or she can experience the reality of God. But this is not based on the strength, or lack thereof, of arguments, but it is a personal decision. For those who accept God’s existence on the basis of arguments, God’s reality becomes more evident. But in case, in the absence of the knowledge of arguments for God’s existence, if a person seeks God he/she can still find God. After all, God is not conditioned by our arguments yet arguments play their important role in helping us know why belief in God is rational.
Have a nice day,
Mihretu Guta
Posted by: Mihretu P. Guta at April 14, 2009
Hitchens crushed this guy again. Reason will eventually win out. Unless religion kills us all first. Why doesn't god simply heal an amputee? Regenerate the limb with no medical intervention. God must not like amputees.
Posted by: tongue at May 11, 2009
Hitchens did respond to Craig's "reasons" why God exists, but Craig simply would not accept his responses. Because Craig does not agree, he simple negates Hitchens response and claims victory. Given his audience, everyone cheers and therefor he "wins".
Nothing new was stated here. It is easy to combine his first two (Cosmo & Thel) into regurgitated Intelligent Design. Much has been written on this and in my view (courts agree) ID is not science. Hitchen's response was the standard :If there must be a creator, then someone must have created the creator. Craig's argument - If we can't comprehend the odds of getting to this point without a creator, then "certainly" their must have been a creator. Poor logic. It's like saying "We can't comprehend a God decribed by the bible - "God works in myserious ways" then God "certainly" cannot exist.
As for morality, Hitchens used his "Name one thing a theist does in the name of God that an atheist couldn't do without using God". Hitchens went on to point out biblical references to things attributed to God's will that would not be very morale by today's standards. My personal take on this is why didn't Jesus speak out against slavery while he was here? You would be hard to find anyone who would try to defend the morality of slavery today. If Jesus had simple stated "Slavery is bad. Stop its practice", just think how far that would have gone.
As for the resurrection, Hitchens brought up that religious rumors created daily find their way into mainstream - his reference to Mother Theresa for example. Craig's "Why would the disciples give up their lives if they hadn't witnessed the resurrection" is by far not the only possibility. Terrorists blow themselves up for far less proof in their God. Craig's "historic" proof was never established.
As for the experience of God, that comes down to faith. I can watch a movie and a scene may cause me to get goosebumps. Was it divine intervention? Or was it strictly an emotional response to something that touched me? In the real world, how well received is anyone who claims to be on direct speaking terms with their God?
Posted by: BDV234 at June 28, 2009
No matter how many times apologists attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the atheist, it still doesn't make sense. No matter how many times Craig restates the tired cosomological argument, he can't bridge the Humean gap, and he can't avoid his infinite regress.
Craig may have 'won' the debate in that he was (undoubtedly) tight, eloquent, confident, and structured, but his basic theses remain as flawed and tired as always.
Posted by: Zzz at August 11, 2009
Hitchens really gave a poor performance. Some of Craig's points were easily refutable and he never bothered. I think he was drunk, he did mention a bar, as far as I remember. He certainly looked that way and that would also explain his slow reactions and detachment.
Posted by: tain at January 9, 2010
Hitchens really gave a poor performance. Some of Craig's points were easily refutable and he never bothered. I think he was drunk, he did mention a bar, as far as I remember. He certainly looked that way and that would also explain his slow reactions and detachment.
Posted by: tain at January 9, 2010
Post a comment