I went to the William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens debate Does God Exist? on Saturday night with some friends from church and had a great time. One thing came across very clear in the opening arguments and continued throughout the debate. Craig came prepared for a debate and Hitchens did not. Hitchens came prepared to maybe talk over some beers at a bar where wisdom is seen as the loudest voice with the quickest witty response. Some will say that it wasn't fair but Hitchens is no dummy. He also had access to Craig's papers, debates, etc. Craig didn't come with any crazy twists. He brought classical proofs for God's existence.
Maybe I assume too much, but I would just imagine that atheists who are writing books and participating in debates would be familiar with these proofs. Hitchens clearly did not even understand the Moral Argument much less answer it. I have seen Hitchens debate before and the same question was proposed then. He didn't understand it then and he still doesn't understand it. Craig wasn't asking how an atheist can be moral without God. That is a different question than can the atheist account for the objective moral truths that we discover (remember Hitchens is not a relativist)? The only thing that I can conclude is that Hitchens just doesn't really care about the answers to these questions.
Trained atheist philosophers would not have had an easy time debating Craig, but Hitchens was especially out of his element because Craig would not follow the red herrings and continued to hold Hitchens' feet to the flames with regard to his opening remarks about the evidences for the existence of God. Hitchens brought no evidence for atheism and instead tried to push the burden of proof onto Craig and then claim that the proofs were not extraordinary enough. The highlight for me was when Craig quoted noted atheist Bertrand Russell against Hitchens' main form of attack. Hitchens wants to say that because religion has done bad things, there is no God. Russell argued that because Christians did good things, it did not prove that there was a God pointing out the non sequitur. I also love Craig's heart in always trying to get to the gospel in a debate, never shying away from his convictions as a Christian. You know that he would rather lose the debate and have Christopher's heart won to God and it showed.
Other great insights to the debate:
Doug Geivett, Melinda Penner (here and here), Mary Jo Sharp and Rich Bordner.
Posts
16 comments:
I WENT TO THE DEBATE AS WELL WITH MUCH ANTICIPATION AND OVERALL WAS VERY DISSAPOINTED WITH HITCHENS> I thought he was one of the forerunners of the "new athiesm" movement and one of the intellectuals of our time but his arguments weren't well contrived or cohesive. Rather than dealing with any of the arguments Craig put forth he reverted to his usual religious stabbing. He opted out of his closing arguments as he seemed dumbfounded by Craig's caliber of philosophical foundation. Craig on the other hand was his usual brilliant self with the same clear, concise ideology. Craig will be going down as the greatest theologians of our time......
I agree, the debate was terribly mismatched. Hitchens doesn't care, he wants to make money and be controversial and in the spotlight.
I would love to see someone debate Hitchens who could take his method and use it against him. Someone witty and clever, and that the audience would think was just as funny as Hitchens. That would be a great debate.
An atheist does not have to prove the existance of a god. The one claiming that a god exists bears the burden of proving that his deity exists.
This is an informal fallacy known as the burden of proof fallacy.
saikyocrusha - I have been thinking about this for a while now and have made a post here.
http://religiouscomics.net/my_images/spaceb.jpg
See how small we are? And you folks think there's a giant ghost out there!
Thanks for the great pics Joe, but you'll have to give me more than a non-sequitor and a strawman to persuade me that everything came from nothing rather than something.
Sorry you don't or rather can't understand.
The burden of proof to prove God exists does belong with the theist.
If the atheist takes the position that it hasn't been properly proven that God exists, you are correct. If an atheist states that there is no God, or God is just the result of a delusional mind, then they are making a statement. At that point, the burdenis on them to prove their statement.
Does the assertion that the statement regarding the question of there being no such thing as a god requiring the burden of proof also hold in effect to all such statements? And so if it does, is it necessary to stop asserting that there is no such thing as other kinds of ghosts, demons, or visible leprechauns? Perhaps then if I were to assert in a statement the reality of having been abducted by invisible aliens and forced to have unbelievable sex with them it is possible that it could be true and I might find some or many ardent followers hoping for some of the same?
By the same token there may very well be an infinity of "things" that are invisible and unprovable. How far do you want to push that package?
Joemailman
And Tim your references to non-sequitor and strawman were totally unfounded. Your assumption that there could possibly be a situation such as "nothing" shows me that your interest in science is the interest of a technician not a scientist. The assumption that scientists could ever consider that there was or ever could be such a situation as nothingness is the same set of values used by Craig to argue an unrefutable circumstance. It is the same set of values that can imagine a perfect vacumm or the "end" of matter or energy. God is then reduced to nothing instead of something if he or it has no substance i.e. physicality, 3-dimentionality, mass etc.etc. Preposterpous and utterly ridiculous! Only a child or one with a childish set of values could place any effort in such a proposition. There are 6.5 billion children on this planet. Is there any wonder how it is that war is norm?
Another blog posts related to the issue of burden of proof is Theism or Atheism.
Joemailman - thanks for clearly posting your position so that others can respond to it.
I assume that you have read some of the articles on PleaseConvinceMe or some other Theistic apologetics website or have talked to a Theist at some depth about the evidences for God. If that is the case then you can no longer say that "there is no evidence for God" but that "the evidence is invalid or unconvincing (for whatever reason)." You are taking a position. Back up that position.
How far do you want to push that package? It’s not about the object in question (real or imaginary) but in the belief of the beholder. If you believe something you should have reasons.
I’m not going to engage someone who believes that there are invisible pink unicorns because frankly I don’t think that there is any value to it. But I would still have reasons why I thought they were wrong. I think that belief/rejection of God has immense value, eternal ramifications and affects the way in which we live and I think that you do as well or you wouldn’t be involved in this discussion.
Joemailman – It is a non-sequitor to say that because our planet is small compared to the known universe that there is no God and it is a strawman that Christians believe in an invisible ghost. I guess we add ad hominem to your repertoire as well. The name calling has got to stop. It only shows the weakness of your case. This is your warning. I want to encourage people to post here and attacking them personally and not the reasons they give is not ok.
As far as “nothing” existing, no I don’t belief that there was nothing in existence before the Big Bang, nor do I believe that everything that exists is material (this includes God, the mind, love, reason, etc.). I have been told by atheists that “nothing started the Big Bang, that it just happened,” so I was using their words, not mine. Scientists like Einstein have claimed that time, space and matter began with the Big Bang and I would hardly call them children.
Tim, I called no-one a name but it is obvious that if one believes as children do in bogeymen in their closets and monsters under their beds that are out to "get" them, then they have childish values by anyone's definition of childishness. Children have invisible friends as psychological crutches for which there are explanations and chronological adults have the same kind of crutches...unfortunately. The foolishness of god is the foolishness of concern by a human being for the welfare of bacterium on the surface of a dustmite's anus in Tibet. A "belief" or predictability of a ghost that is concerned with the welfare of this planet and the organisms on it is comparatively the same.
I do think you should define with referential evidence the concept of believing or belief. Words without references have no meaning in definition. You cannot include such processes as love, hatred, reason, or thinking because they all have very definite physical references which are physical processes manifest in the effects of environment on the nervous systems of animals such as humans. You can easily show that love, mind and what passes for reason is measurable but you cannot do the same for God, ghosts, demons, angels or water fairies.
Joemailman, Your example reveals much. It has been my experience that the atheist cries out, “There is no God, but I really hate Him.” In your case, you are saying, “There is no God, but He is distant and uncaring.”
I do think you should define with referential evidence the concept of believing or belief. Words without references have no meaning in definition. Joe, if you want to discuss epistemology, fine, but you "believe" things as well and therefore, again, you have some burden here. I’m not making up words and not trying to change the meanings of words. Used in different contexts, belief can be used to mean doctrine, something you hold to be true or general spirituality. Instead of me guessing what you’re driving at, why don’t we just talk about your problem with the word “belief”?
Here are some good articles from PleaseConvinceMe on the connection between belief, knowledge and faith.
Is Belief 'THAT' the Same as Belief 'IN'?
Is Reason Really An Enemy of Faith?
The Christian Faith is an Evidential Faith
You cannot include such processes as love, hatred, reason, or thinking because they all have very definite physical references which are physical processes manifest in the effects of environment on the nervous systems of animals such as humans. You can easily show that love, mind and what passes for reason is measurable… It is interesting that you know love, mind and reason indirectly (you use the words reference and effect), yet demand direct physical evidence for God. You said, “God is then reduced to nothing instead of something if he or it has no substance i.e. physicality, 3-dimentionality, mass etc.” Your requirements can’t even prove that love, mind or reason exist.
How can one hate that which does not exist? How can anything not exist in reality and still remain uncaring? You seem to have stumbled upon a contradiction in terms and phrases. Atheists reject the concept of gods, devils and demons just as you reject the concept of ghosts, bogeymen, monsters under your bed and a host (an infinity of ideas) of other imaginary constructs that the human cultural brain is capable of describing. History is loaded with thousands of gods, ghosts and demons all of which you are most probably an atheist regarding.
Your notions about beginnings and endings are strictly human and have parameters which mathematics and physics do not recognize. The very human concepts such as love, hatred, reason, mind are entirely changes able and related directly to the physical structure of the human brain and the physical brains of other animals. Remove physically, chemically or electrically the appropriate neurons and the emotion changes. There is a huge amount of evidence in human experience to prove this has already happened.
I should have used the word referents instead of references. A referent is obviously a physical construct that is represented by a word that human beings use to try and communicate. And BTW just because an emotion has a physical construct that represents it does not diminish it's importance. In fact it increases it's importance because it shows just how we humans can preserve and protect it from forces that are already in our culture and ready to reduce or control it.
In short everything that is real, useful and important has a physical referent and has physical evidence. This excludes an infinite number of imaginary friends and enemies....gods, devils and demons included in that number.
How can one hate that which does not exist? How can anything not exist in reality and still remain uncaring? You seem to have stumbled upon a contradiction in terms and phrases. Indeed I have. That was my point. Atheists are inconsistent in their beliefs. What almost always inevitably spills out in conversation is some kind of emotional betrayal from a God they proclaim to not believe in.
In short everything that is real, useful and important has a physical referent and has physical evidence. Again you are begging the very question that we are trying to get at. A reference, or a references point, is the intentional use of one thing, a point of reference or reference state, to indicate something else. When reference is intended, what the reference points to is called the referent. You are adding “physical” here without justification. I can use the symbol of a heart to represent the referent “love”.
Before we get too far off track here, I DO believe that there is physical evidence for God, but that was not your original claim. Again, you said, “God is then reduced to nothing instead of something if he or it has no substance i.e. physicality, 3-dimentionality, mass etc.” There is plenty of indirect evidence to make a strong circumstantial case for God at www.pleaseconvinceme.com and other apologetics sites.
How about this for physical evidence? Would you agree that intelligence must come from an intelligent being or an intelligent mind? Would you agree that while nature can produce cyclical patterns, true creative design must be produced by a creative mind? Would you agree that all the information, all codes (alphabets, hieroglyphics, music notation, computer code, referents) have come from intelligence? We know that the DNA code found in every living cell is an incredible amount of information that directs, maintains and determines the intricate composition of the living thing that contains that code in all its cells. Wouldn’t it then make sense that all living things are intelligently designed?
Post a Comment