« Estate Tax Update | Main | Religion Still Isn't Dead »
April 6, 2009
Hitchens vs. Craig: Round Two
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.
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 | April 14, 2009 2:26 AM
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 | May 11, 2009 12:25 PM
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 | June 28, 2009 3:20 PM
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 | August 11, 2009 2:09 PM
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 | January 9, 2010 4:57 AM
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 | January 9, 2010 4:59 AM
please read this web site
www.god-does-exist.com
Posted By: Christian smith | March 10, 2010 12:00 PM
Christopher Hitchens was massacred by William Lane Craig in this debate. It's clear that Hitchens believes by FAITH that God doesn't exists and i say this because he didn't present any arguments for his so "established truth" that God doesn't exists. In the end he just decided to attack christian religion.
Posted By: Márcio | May 19, 2010 1:27 AM
Christopher Hitchens was massacred by William Lane Craig in this debate. It's clear that Hitchens believes by FAITH that God doesn't exists and i say this because he didn't present any arguments for his so "established truth" that God doesn't exists. In the end he just decided to attack christian religion.
Posted By: Márcio | May 19, 2010 1:29 AM
I have not heard the debate yet. however, i can bet once Hitchens saw that he was defeated, he ran to the evil and suffering excuse not to believe in God. It amazes me how that is the FIRST, argument of the atheist. OK, lets say imagine that God did not exist, what do you do with evil and suffering, is it OK, now that God doesn't exist, and evolution is the reason? the fact is evil and suffering exist. God also exist. What my atheist friend can you say about evil with out God? if a culture has adopted certain rules and standards for their society, who are you to say they are wrong? in other countries children are treated very bad and by most part by their own government, how can u say they are wrong, is it because you are American and free that you think other countries should adopt your moral evolutionary standards? you shouldn't even care ( i know you do and you should, I'm not saying you are incapable of caring)but that is evolution and their society, you cannot say they are wrong. My friend, please don't use the moral argument it is not consistent with evolution.
I ask you to think deeply inside your self, (no one knows what you are thinking but you, so pride is not an issue) but you know God exist, well you know it more than you would like to admit, but I think we could stop this bickering if atheist would just admit what the issue really is... that is that they don't like God, you hate HIM. I guarantee, you feel he let you down or you expect Him to speak to you.. if atheist really believed that Christians were simple minded and unreasonable, the atheist would have a better understanding of God than Christians, i say this because logically and reasonably if God is God, by the very term "God", meaning more than, better than and free from any superior authority. He does not need to create a world any different than He did, we may not like it or agree but who are we? every time I hear the atheistic moral argument i hear if there is a GOD he would have or should have, you cant say what he could have and should have and he maintain His Authority as God by making the world to our standards. A God would do just as he pleases, and he did. Yes there is suffering, BUT Jesus who is God came to this world and suffered more than any man on this earth will suffer and he did it my choice by his own creation. the fact is you cant make Him not exist by simply trying to reason with unreasonable logic...I can say at least the agnostic is consistent, he admits that he does not know..
After all you saying we don't know what caused anything to exist, and we don't know how something can come from nothing, But we Do know God does not exist ..... is that reasonable?
Posted By: josh | October 20, 2011 10:10 PM