Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig
by Doug TenNapelI had the opportunity to see Christopher Hitchens debate Dr. William Lane Craig on the topic “Does God Exist?” at BIOLA University. The gymnasium was packed with 3,000 people, most of whom were Christians but some non-believers made a showing. Without the home court advantage, you might think Hitchens would be the Lion cast into Daniel’s Den. Surely the reciprocal of the secular university would happen; he’d get pies thrown at him, and he would be regularly booed, shouted down and mocked. Hardly.
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens is a kind of celebrity, even among Christians because he is an interesting character. If anything, he was warmly embraced by a crowd who generally disagreed with him even as he hurled the worst insults at God, which we consider the holiest, highest being imaginable. This is the demonstration of class and restraint I’ve noticed from a conservative Christian culture that has a much better record of tolerance than the liberal non-Christian culture.
While most of us are familiar with Christopher Hitchens, many people may not know of his opponent Dr. William Lane Craig. I simply call him, “The smartest living Christian.” Like Hitchens, Dr. Craig makes a good living at debate. Dr. Craig is a brilliant logician and eloquent advocate of the faith. He is an “evidentialist” in that he argues for the existence of God based on evidence not presupposition (which is another popular form used in debate).
I assumed Dr. Craig would win the argument and would show superior technical skills, but I didn’t know if he could beat Hitchens’ presence. In modernity, having the right arguments isn’t enough. More than ever, we are accustomed to disengaging our rational center to embrace an artful presentation. Every Republican should be woefully aware of this by now given the last election. Substance alone doesn’t cut it, so Dr. Craig’s greater challenge was to bring a presence to the room that might win over the heart, because I think he’s got a lock on the mind.
The event was moderated by radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who managed a quick introduction of Hitch’ and Craig but barely managed to exit the stage. He tripped on his way down, attempted a mid-air correction, contorting like a drunken baby deer having a seizure in a potato-sack. Just as his feet hit the ground he tripped again, never quite giving the audience the satisfaction of completely eating it, but Hugh is famous for having a huge dissatisfied audience. After 15 minutes of flailing on the stage he managed the near impossible task of finding his seat with his life in tact. (I’m kidding, of course. I consider Hugh a valued friend and someone I deeply respect and admire.)
The debate began with Dr. Craig’s opening arguments. He made a challenge to leave our bias at the door. Impossible, I know, but he claimed that the debate would be fought on philosophical arguments. He would rule out bad arguments, offer the historicity and logic of his good arguments, then challenge Hitchens to make a positive argument for his own atheism. This demonstrates Craig’s adherence to formal debate tactics. He doesn’t take his positions based on emotion or preference, he uses argument and reason and follows the evidence.
Dr. Craig’s evidence is presented in 5 different lines of argument:
1. The Cosmological Argument; Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. God is the best explanation for that cause.
2. The Teleological Argument; The fine-tuning of the universe is so improbable that law or chance aren’t adequate explanations. God is the best explanation.
3. The Moral Argument; If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Rape isn’t just culturally unacceptable, it’s actually wrong.
4. The Resurrection of Jesus; The vast majority of historians generally agree that the tomb was empty. Separately, the vast majority of historians generally agree that Jesus appeared to people post-mortem. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
5. The Immediate Experience of God; Belief that God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded in argument.
Christopher Hitchens opened with an argument that Dr. Craig had the obligation to prove God exists with some amount of certainty. The burden isn’t on the atheist in the debate to show God doesn’t exist. His position is simply that of a skeptic. Given the idea that God either does exist or does not exist, Hitch thinks doubt is the better position. He alluded that it is also the more humble position.
Hitch doesn’t claim knowledge that there is no God. He claims ignorance, though he avoids calling himself an agnostic. Because he doesn’t know and Dr. Craig claims to know that God exists, the disadvantage goes to the one who says, “I know.” He says that given the stakes are so extra-ordinary (ie judgment, Heaven and hell, dying for one’s faith, killing in the name of God) the evidence provided by Dr. Craig wasn’t extra-ordinary enough to prove a God exists.
The most common argument made by Hitchens was that the world contained so much cruelty and brutality for most living creatures across most of existence that a good God didn’t seem likely, and that if He did exist that He had a lot of bloodshed to answer for. He gave examples of the pre-Christ and even pre-Jewish people who died without ever knowing the one true God. That their lives were lost in ignorance and that only recently does God come on the scene to save some. Hitch returned to this line of reasoning so many times that I’d say it was his core reason for disbelieving God.
Hitch went back to how our belief that God should personally be so concerned with us that we should have the benefit of being born post-Christ to enjoy salvation was a form of solipsism. “It’s all about us.” he said, “Everything else was wasted, but at least we’re here.”
Throughout the rest of the debate, be it the rebuttal, the conclusion, the question/answer, Hitchens returns to this classic problem of suffering, and mocks believers for finding selfish meaning in the midst of evil; “You’re a worm but take heart, it’s all made for you.”
The debate was over two hours of complex arguments and rabbit trails, but it was Dr. Craig who refused to go off track from the argument at hand. Hitchens got a lot of laughs, even with his blunt jokes against God and Christians. Dr. Craig managed a good laugh by stating that the 10 steps necessary in the universe to produce evolution consummates a miracle. Hitchens’ smile of disbelief looking over his glasses at the audience was gold.
William Lane Craig
Hugh Hewitt concluded the event with a final question: “Why do people come out over the question of God’s existence?” Hitchens believed it was because theocratic threats around the world are getting more coverage and is on our minds. Dr. Craig said that it was because the fruit of Godless modernity is being rejected and people are looking for answers.
But in my opinion, though Dr. Craig won the argument (he was the only one who even presented a formal argument), Hitchens won the debate. It’s not the argument of the debaters, it’s the condition of the audience that wins the day. While few of Dr. Craig’s arguments are dispersed through culture, even religious culture, I’ve been raised on most of Hitchens’ arguments. Dr. Craig’s arguments are true and well-reasoned by difficult to comprehend on a first hearing. Hitchens’ arguments are what we’ll find spoken against God on prime time television, at the water-cooler, I’ve even heard some of them on Animal Planet. Culture generally makes Hitchens’ argument by default. And it’s easier to claim the skeptic’s nothing than affirm the something of God…even when I think the most robust argument is self evident to all of us…we’re here.
I think if there were atheists in the audience on the brink of salvation that Dr. Craig’s well-argued positions would find little purchase. Opposite that, the room of Christians would likely have a large segment of doubters, and the cultural arguments against God presented by Hitchens would likely change more minds in my opinion.
So are debates judged by the merit of the arguments or the embrace of the audience? In this all important subject, I think the effect on the audience is the preferred measurement. But the evening left little doubt to most of us that Hitchens did not make a case for atheism at all. He barely even acknowledged his own atheism which was oddly refreshing. It reminds me of G. K. Chesterton who said, “Somehow one can never manage to be an atheist.”
What’s more important is that the debate took place at all. The modern idea that discussions about God (especially for God) should be removed from the public square, education or even casual conversation is the worst position of all. It is good for these atheists and Christians to make a case for what is perhaps the most important question any of us will consider.
Does God exist?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
399 Comments
Excellently articulated. Thanks for taking the time to post this. I always find myself angered by much of what Hithcens says, yet simultaneously thankful that he doggedly persists. He is nothing if not willing to engage, and for that he is deserving of respect. I remember a great episode of uncommon knowledge in which he debates William F Buckley. What an immensely likable and intelligent duo.
http://thedailyswitch.wordpress.com/
Excellently articulated. Thanks for taking the time to post this. I always find myself angered by much of what Hithcens says, yet simultaneously thankful that he doggedly persists. He is nothing if not willing to engage, and for that he is deserving of respect. I remember a great episode of 'uncommon knowledge' in which he debates William F Buckley. What an immensely likable and intelligent duo.
http://thedailyswitch.wordpress.com/
To the living – that's us, mostly – what's the functional difference between "culturally unacceptable" and "wrong?"
That a crime like rape is so stomach-churningly reprehensible as to be inconceivable to any but the most screwed up mind doesn't seem like a concept that should be either strengthened or weakened by a deity agreeing that it's screwed up. The act is screwed up on its own merits and should be treated as such. Ditto murder, adultery, theft, etcetera.
Even though it wasn't an emphasis in your piece, it's nice to see someone else knows the difference between an evidentialist and a presuppositionalist
(I'm a presuppositionalist, for the record, but think Craig is still generally quite useful for Christian apologetics).
I would have to disagree with #4 from Dr. Craig's arguments. Occam's Razor says that if we saw Him alive, he didn't die. Sans an autopsy by a qualified ME, I'd have to either resort to faith or agree with Occam. However, if God exists, He exists beyond the realm of Hitchen's queaziness with His actions or lack thereof. He passeth understanding. Oddly, LSD "cured" me of my agnosticism many years ago. Dr. Craig's 5th argument is the one that convinced me.
One obvious difference between "culturally unacceptable" and "wrong" is the Nazis killing Jews. That was culturally acceptable (for the Nazis), but still morally wrong.
I'm sure Craig's argument included the fact that most scholars also believe Jesus was killed on the cross. For most secular historians, the givens are: "1) Jesus was killed. 2) The tomb was empty. 3) People CLAIMED to have seen Him walking around after His death." Thus, they focus on the third point and try to discredit the claim, usually by pointing to Occam, in the form of "It's more likely that people lied than that they actually saw Jesus alive after His death." There are arguments against those historians too, but as I said in another comment I'm a presuppositionalist partly because of the limits of evidentialism in answer the critics above. I still think Craig's arguments work as SUPPORTING arguments, but in order to get to the philosophical meat of the issue, you have to deal with the presuppositions involved.
Interesting. I wonder how the Nazis felt about what they were doing in a moral sense?
Your Occam's Razor argument doesn't quite work because the apostles believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Surely a man who had hung on a cross for several hours then stabbed with a spear and finally laid in a cold tomb for 36 hours or more would not be in mistaken for a resurrected Lord. He would be in need of serious medical attention and not be conversing with anyone on that Easter Sunday.
Craig is indeed formidable. Hitchens has the pulse of the culture and the soundbyte. He understands the stupidity of those who worship pop culture, he disdains them, and he knows what to say and how to manipulate them. Pithy Funny Zingers have more value now that ideas. I would love to have been at that debate. Dinesh Dsouza has done very well debating Hitchens too. There is a rising militant secularism occurring that denies freedom. I believe religious freedom is the foundation of all freedoms.
Occam's Razor is to make as few assumptions as possible to explain something. Basically, once you find the answer, stop looking. Witnesses (Roman soldiers who were very familiar with what dead people looked like, people who removed the body from the cross, people who wrapped and anointed –embalmed– his body in preparation for burial) saw Jesus die or that he was dead.
I held my father's hand as he died last year. I knew it at that moment and I'm not a qualified medical expert. I didn't need an autopsy to tell me dad was dead.
Wether or not someone believes me 2000 years from now does not change taht fact.
Occam's Razor is to make as few assumptions as possible to explain something. Basically, once you find the answer, stop looking. Witnesses (Roman soldiers who were very familiar with what dead people looked like, people who removed the body from the cross, people who wrapped and anointed –embalmed– his body in preparation for burial) saw Jesus die or that he was dead.
I held my father's hand as he died last year. I knew it at that moment and I'm not a qualified medical expert. I didn't need an autopsy to tell me dad was dead.
Wether or not someone believes me 2000 years from now does not change that fact.
I've heard Hitchens argue that the cruelty and evil in the world is evident of the nonexistence of God. However, what he never addresses is the fact that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and others all led Godless regimes and still managed to pile up pretty impressive body count. I believe that the natural tendency of humans is towards evil and we don't need religious fervor as an excuse to kill people, just watch the "Go God Go" episodes of South Park.
It is also part of our nature to deny God. If there is no God, we are accountable only to ourselves. And we can rationalize enough to allow ourselves to do some pretty horrible things.
Good Exposition on the Debate Here… http://douggeivett.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/willi...
Very good post to inform those of us who were not there or have not yet listened. Thank you.
I agree with your assessment of the spirit of the age: the zeitgeist of debate. The lasting impression of the presentation is far more important than the rationality of the arguments. This betrays the fact that ours is not a rational age. It is ironic that, so often, atheists accuse Christians (or theists) of being irrational. But the best atheist debater of the day relies more on rhetoric and impression–and dodges the rational arguments–in order to communicate his position.
Atheism's greatest strength is its first impression.
My firm conviction is that Christianity is the last, best hope for Reason.
I appreciate Dr. Craig more than I can say, but I do believe the presuppositional approach is more appropriate for the day we're living in.
Anyway,
Dr. Alvin Plantinga's work is helpful.
So is Cornelius Van Til's.
So is Ravi Zacharias'.
So is Ronald Nash's.
J.P. Moreland
Tim Keller
CS Lewis
On and on…
I understand that the Nazis thought they were improving mankind, and especially their own population and culture, by eliminating inferior races / people. Mentally and physically disabled people, or "useless bread gobblers," were disposed of quickly. Other races and groups as well were deemed a danger to their vision of a better society. Jews were murdered for this reason as well as being a target to focus their hate and resentment (past injustices, failures, etc.) on. So morally, they thought they were doing something alright. They didn't advertise – but they did keep meticulous records. You don't keep records of deeds you believe are wrong.
the rape issue is interesting. If you pay close attention you will find the Left really does not have a fundamental problem with the act; indeed they show tolerance towards it if it is sodomy, and their stunning silence on the practice of it in Islamic societies is especially revealing. It is only when it is considered a 'power' issue, namely white males do they protest. So relative morality is indeed codified here
do not forget either, the Roman centurion Longines and 'the spear of destiny'- when he put Christ out of His misery the blood and water that poured from the wound restored his sight and he became a Christian convert, and a messianic one as well… there is empirical evidence of this throughout history, not to mention every dictator in history has tried to acquire said item.
I would have loved to have been at that debate. Thanks for sharing. I find it interesting that you seemed to disparage modernity's propsensity of "disengaging our rational center to embrace an artful presentation," but then went on to do just that yourself.
Yes, Hitch has the popular media experience. He knows how to work a pop crowd. His brand of eloquent sarcasm hits big with the mean spirited, and jaded culture of today.
Craig, on the other hand, does not have the media experience. His world is largely an academic one. His arguments are powerful. His reasoning impeccable. But I believe he lacks the feel of the popular culture.
It is unfortunate, but it really is all about the sell these days. As JP Moreland once said, "Our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-informed character with the search for a flat stomach, substance and depth with image and personality."
Christopher Hitchins is a brilliant and eloquent mind and is always interesting. He reflects the Euro-atheist movement which is rooted in Protestant morays; they accept the rules even if not the evidence of the rule makers… unfortunately, like most atheists he is ugly and intolerant about the issue and is the only issue where he is arbitrary and inflexible.
Dr Craig on the other hand, uses cool logic to advance his agenda and once again, like most educated Christians is comfortable in his faith and does not find debate threatening. Good, provocative post- bet the real event was a gas…
I do believe God exists. But that doesn't mean I think the Bible is the word of God.
Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that the Bible is basically all hearsay. I mean, think about it. If someone told you they saw God or spoke to God, it's not gospel or revealation. It's just one guy's word that it happened. And mental hospitals are full of people that claim to play gin rummy with God.
From a theological standpoint I have a hard time with organized religion because it's all based upon hearsay. It's been twisted and changed and bent to fit the agenda of the day. I question anyone that says they know what God's plan is.
But no matter how hard an aetheist tries to convince me there is no God, they can't adequately answer how we all got here. The only logical explanation is God, and I keep winding up there.
Doug, my conclusion was that Hitchens was not the winner (even though he had the best jokes). I expected a man of his intellect to participate using debate format–which he didn't do. He was somewhat rambling and disjointed. The way Craig argues is interesting–certainly different from what I grew up with in Assemblies of God circles–refreshingly brainy! Hitchens' objections/doubts aren't anything I haven't thought of on my own–especially after our Mr. Brandon (our son) was diagnosed as a person with severe autism at the age of 2. (He's in the middle now–between severe and high-functioning.) After some agonizing months, I finally decided that a God who could be explained fully by any mind on Earth was not a God worthy of my allegiance and worship. Hitchens' and my questions don't disprove the existence of God.
Wow, that is a debate I would have loved to see between two very intelligent people.
In the age of Maher, it is good to know that intellectual rigorous debate exists.
This is an excellent point. An aetheist is free to do whatever he feels like doing because there is no threat of eternal damnation. There is no moral center driven by God, so what's the point in behaving while here on earth if at the end of your life there's just nothing.
I think the key takeaway here is that in certain forums, one can discuss distinctions and disagreements without being disagreeable.
Liberals should take note of this tone, vs the kind that one sees on their own back yard.
On the point made earlier; belief in God is in no way tied to the practice of organized relgion, but it can be.. Ditto the relationship between moral code and religious rules of the road.
Good point. But it is interesting to note that as Allied forced advanced, the SS was quick to try and destroy the evidence and run like cowards. Even these bastards had a moral sense but accepted the cultural standard when it prevailed.
> It's just one guy's word that it happened.
That's exactly why Luke (the guy who wrote a gospel and Acts) was so careful. So he researched carefully, working with whatever tools a historian had at his disposal: chasing down rumors, interviewing witnesses, putting together a timeline.
Paine (as well as Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism) was an atheist; it's just one guy's word that it didn't happen.
But this is what liberals of the foaming-at-the-mouth variety thrive on. Bill Maher is their poster boy. Just watch an episode when he has someone that is there to debate\\discuss an issue. The "panel" is loaded with people that drink Maher's bath water, the audience is so intellectually stunted and screeches everytime Maher belches out an insult, and the whole atmosphere is one of combat, not discussion.
I wrote a play by play of the debate and posted it on my blog. It describes every point made during the debate on either side, but not the Q&A period.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/the...
More summaries and comments from peope who attended are linked here:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/aud...
Point taken, but it's still just hearsay. Luke never actually witnessed the resurection or anything else he chronicled. So it's not revealation, it's the word of a guy who knows a guy who might have seen something according to his cousin twice removed.
I don't begrudge anyone their faith, I just take the Bible with a grain of salt.
And yes, Paine was an aetheist (and a complete failure in everything he did), but he does raise a valid point. Even if your best friend came to you and said he saw God or God spoke to him, would you believe him?
Well, this is an entertainment piece, not a debate. I didn't think it would be good form to debate on the debate when it's more appropriate to do that here in the comments section.
Hitchens is probably my favorite atheist. Most of that is due to the fact that he has such a strong sense of morality and shows such powerful indignation that the God of the Bible could be in favor of the things written there.
Ironically, it is this moral outrage that undermines his final point. If humans are nothing but mere animals then there is no moral outrage to be had. When a male lion takes over a pride, he may kill all the cubs that are not his own. If that is a morally wrong act, then we would have a duty to stop our fellow mammals from executing this horrible sin.
If we are merely animals, then there is no right or wrong and there is no sin. We cannot condemn a man for killing his wife's lover any more than we can blame a cat for torturing it's prey. They are both actions driven by the impulses of biological evolution. The fact that we see the actions of animals as amoral but the actions of humans as moral shows that we expect ourselves to rise above out biology. Without a God, there is nothing to rise toward.
But even more than that, trying to rise above out biology would be to counteract our evolutionary nature. If evolution produced our system of morality (which Hitchens has claimed) then it would be the greatest sin of all to act counter to our biological impulses because our impulses are geared toward survival. And yet the greatest sins are when we do exactly the opposite and act on our biological impulses while disregarding common morality.
The thought is incomplete, but I find it curious
I have a Bachelor Degree in Electronics. Thinking scientifically, I see design and planning when I look at the world. For example, I inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. A tree inhales carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. There is planning and deisign.
Could that have happened by chance? Highly unlikely. Just put some flour, milk, eggs, etc. on the table and see how long is required to come back and find a cake there.
Only God could have done it.
Agreed, but there are fanatics that take this to the extreme on both sides of the discussion.
Know how you can tell when someone is a fanatic?
A fanatics' belief system is usually based on a shaky foundation. When someone begins to chip away at that shaky foundation with logic, reason, and fact a normal person will accept that perhaps they should rethink what they believe. The fanatic will defend their position with all the ferocity and venom they can muster even as the shaky foundation of their belief system crumbles around them.
They would rather die or kill than be proven wrong.
What? The left is strongly against such things. Who do you think is constantly pushing to get the Saudis to shape up? The idealistic left. It's just not pragmatic for us because we need their alliance.
What a silly comment you make.
LSD can also make people believe they can fly. Doesn't make it so. LSD creates a euphoric effect on people, but it's not real.
Indeed, American Christians have no problem with murder of innocent people of a different color. Like Nazis before them, they allow their morals to be dictated to them by those in power, namely religious and political authorities.
American Christians have no problem with murder of innocent people of a different color. Like Nazis before them, they allow their morals to be dictated to them by those in power, namely religious and political authorities.
Excellent review and essay. I admire Hitchens as a free-speech hero and believe his work in taking on the Left during the early days of the Iraq war made a national difference. But I think this atheist project has not been flattering to him. I keep seeing flashes — for longer durations each time — of a real, sour ordinariness. And I keep hearing in my mind that line by Orwell… "most atheists I know don't so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike him."
What a load of crap. A) "Sodomy" isn't rape, it is a concept invented by religion. B) The only silence you hear on rape is in your own mind.
I'm gonna get ripped for this, but…
It seems like Hitchins' argument against the existence of God is the classic road block to the playground Ranking game, "Yeah, so?"
To presuppose that each believer's 'evidence' for God isn't highly subjective is wrong. We are all individuals and God speaks to us in ways that each of us, as God's children, would understand. Does that mean that you would understand the things that I point to in my life to confirm God's existence for me? Maybe, but probably not. Scientists, believers and non-believers, can look at the same evidence and see the opposite things. For one, it confirms his belief. For the other, it confirms his disbelief. Is it a miracle, or just a highly improbable scientifically explained phenomenon?
God expects us to come to Him on His terms, not ours. The way we do that is through study, experimentation (try out what you learn), two decidedly scientific concepts, and prayer, one decidedly un-scientific concept. In the end, it is our choice to see the Star of Bethlehem, or just a comet (or whatever the latest theory is).
A truly interesting and thoughtful remark. Thanks.
Of course it is in our nature to deny something when no evidence exists supporting it. It's called logic and reason.
This is exactly the conclusion I keep coming to.
Thanks for the analogy, I'll be using that the next time someone pulls the aetheist routine on me.
Of course every religion/group thinks they have the market cornered on Truth, and are willing to die for it, i.e., suicide bombers who sincerely believe they are going to get their virgins when they blow up a school bus full of kids, etc. This is the argument my son, who was raised as a Christian is now using on me. He has decided he no longer believes in God. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that I have all the answers and I do wonder and always have? What happened to the souls of those who died before Jesus came on the scene: The Egyptians who believed in Ra, the Jews born before Christ? The pagans, the Aztecs and Mayans? I would love for someone to give me an answer on that. Seriously. I've never heard that addressed. I asked my pastor, and he went back only to Abraham's time. Some in my church would consider it heresy that I even ask the question. I must say this, even though I be branded a moron. It does all come down to faith, regardless of intelligent argument. I'm always reminded of how I know Jesus exists and is risen, when I sing "He Lives" on Easter Sunday. When we sing the chorus of : "He lives within my heart", I know it's true. I feel the presence of Jesus and I know that I am on the right side. That puts me right on par with the Muslim and the non-believers, and the fact that I believe with all my heart IN Jesus, and they believe with all their heart in what they may genuinely feel. Could there be one God and many ways to get to him – Jesus being ours? I would love to hear someone's thoughts on this.
Great summary, Doug. I find it interesting that Hitchens rants on and on about violence being committed in the name of religion, while never acknowledging that violence occurs completely outside of religion as well. If there had never been any crimes committed by atheists or done outside of religious motivation, his arguments might hold a wee drop of water. But for every crime against humanity committed in God's name, there are more crimes committed that have nothing to do with one's religion. As a prior poster noted, there have been innumerable crimes against humanity committed by people who were as free of religion as Hitchens himself. Those who lack faith, therefore, can never claim any higher moral ground because of the tainting of their own history.
And what, precisely, do atheists like Hitchens contribute to the greater good of society in comparison to the worldwide spread of religious charity? If atheists contributed at least one iota of charitable good to society while religion ignored non-believers completely, Hitchens might have a higher platform on which to stand. But the only societal "benefit" that Hitchens is inclined to offer seems to be criticism and denigration of one's right to believe. All that the virulent atheist movement contributes is a refusal to extend liberty to those who believe something different than atheists do. Their definition of liberty barely extends beyond the tips of their noses, and it seems this debate unveiled at least a little of that shallowness. Kudos to Dr. Craig for not giving in to the kind of sensationalism that is Hitchens' bread and butter.
The age old debate about the word of God or the word of man… it does present problems for not only empiricists but the faithful as well. We have learned that there are no atheists in the foxhole; at crunch time you either accept Him or reject Him. Either way you believe. Suffice to say as far as organized religion goes
God has said one "cannot know the unknowable"… ultimately we are good with that.
Write your comment here…
If you're proposing that there may be more than one way to God then perhaps you could entertain the idea that there's more than one way to God besides just blind faith. Perhaps there are rational ways to him, scientific ways, historical ways and logical ways.
I don't disparage those who find the one true God through personal experience and personal faith, but this is the least convincing line of argument to me.
The Biblical problem with Jesus being one of many ways is that it opposes what Jesus said of himself. He claimed to be the only way, so you'll have to reject the Bible's claim about Christ and if you're going to throw that document out, you're left largely with inventing a Christ you prefer or one that is more culturally acceptable.
I suggest that Mr TenNaple invest in a good dictionary. Mr Hitchens may have alluded but did not elude that it is also the more humble position. Intact is one word not two.
I choose to accept Him….
But:
"God has said one "cannot know the unknowable"… "
How do we know God actually said this? Separating faith from fact has been my dilema. I believe in God, but I also believe in the ability of man to abuse people's faith in Him. So when anyone says things like "God has said one "cannot know the unknowable"… " . I understand the thought behind it but I question the motive.
In the end, I am good with it….
"There is a rising militant secularism occurring that denies freedom. I believe religious freedom is the foundation of all freedoms."
I can't tell if that's sarcasm. Especially the idea of secular anything denying freedom. That really sounds like sarcasm, because it's a ridiculous idea. Now religion denying freedom, there's a ton of that to find.
I think the right wing really needs to entertain some critical thought about questioning religion instead of seeing all skepticism on religion to be some kind of threat to morals and family or whatever, like atheists are going to enslave humanity and make everyone not believe in god or whatever. It only makes the right look like more of a joke, when they're supposed to be "the rational ones." It's the same crap you hear from the left about guns being evil and we need to get rid of guns.
TSJ,
here's where I think atheists get a pass. If an atheist commits evil, he isn't claiming an objective moral good exists (at least a consistent atheist wouldn't) so evil in the name of atheism doesn't count against atheism. If we make a positive claim that a true good God exists then it puts a greater burden on us to make sense of the evil our God allows.
What is a greater argument is why the atheist should feel any sadness in violence created in the name of religion OR atheism. He has to make a Naturalistic case for why I feel sadness over a rape in China.
"However, what he never addresses is the fact that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and others all led Godless regimes"
That's been debunked a long time ago, these regimes were not at all godless, especially Stalin and Hitler, they were both indeed very religious.
I relate to your response in that you cited that our relationship with a personal God is just that. Personal. Also, the issue of free choice explains so much about the evil in this world. We need contrast and obvious differences in the life around us to be able to make a valid choice for ourselves. I can not make the choice for you, you must reach your own stage of choice, given your circumstances, and experiences, and understanding.
Thanks steven. Too bad my last name isn't in the dictionary so you could get it right.
I'll let the editors know about those spelling errors…but I'm not the best English student to say the least.
"He gave examples of the pre-Christ and even pre-Jewish people who died without ever knowing the one true God. That their lives were lost in ignorance and that only recently does God come on the scene to save some."
That sounds like a pretty good point actually. Just what was god up to way back then? I mean before Adam and Eve, because we now know there were people before then.
intersting take. Wrong.
If it is true that Jesus is the only way to heaven, is it possible that all of the other religions throughout time are only apostasies from one true religion? Is it possible that even ancient peoples knew who Jesus Christ was and what his mission was?
Murder? of whom? the Nazis are, remember on the Left… American Christians (different from others?) believe in freedom, freedom of the soul to pursue their individual destinies.
And will fight to defend them, not 'murder' you fool…
Yes, I know! John 14: 6 – "I am the way the truth, the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me". So what do I tell my son, whose intellectual reasoning is telling him it doesn't all make sense and doesn't have the faith to overcome that?
nothing silly about it; just facts. No one on the Left is pushing the House of Saud to do anything at all; ridiculous assertion- they just don't want saudi oil or cars or anything that interferes with there nonsensical agenda. The Left has been absolutely silent about the horrible treatment of women by communist and Islamic societies, wise up….
Please elaborate on your theory. I find it very interesting.
[...] Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig – by Doug TenNapel [...]
got us there… ultimately this is all about one thing- faith. And that really is the key, don't you think? If we knew absolutely then you wouldn't have to believe, there would be no human mystery. We would not try to achieve the unachievable, so to speak…
Is that so…care to explain how?
Stalin and Hitler both wanted to establish societies where the state is the religion. This came from the French Revolution where the goal was to push the church to the margins of society and allow the state to provide for the people's needs. We can all see how well that works out. So feel free to debunk my argument but I've got a feeling I won't be hearing from you again.
Logic and reason can only take you so far. Even most scientists agree that logic and reason don't provide answers to everything. But I'm guessing you cite them as an excuse not to question anything and to avoid any actual thought.
Right, I forgot how the liberal Nazis supported civil rights, gay marriage, and healthcare for the disabled.
I don't agree with Hitchens, but I do find him very interesting. I saw a clip recently of Bill Maher's show where, at least, HItchens excoriated the rapper, Mos Def, (I guess that's his name) who was unsure whether the Taliban was evil or not. It was an enjoyable exchange.
I agree aptheosis. I will go further and say that anyone who believes they need a book or religion or God to tell them right from wrong needs some serious introspection. Most of us know right from wrong before we can read or have any concept of God. For instance the child who would torture an insect or animal for his own pleasure. He knows it's wrong that is why he does it away from athority figures. Other children wittnessing this would be repulsed. Plus the Bible in its current union of Old Testament and New Testament is contradictory and confusing. Old Testament=Thou shalt or Die. New Testament=God loves you and Jesus died for your sins. So as long as you repent, your okay.
The Nazis were not a leftist ideology. Let me guess: you think that because they had "socialist" in the name of their party? If this is the level of logical processing you are capable of, I can see why you'd make the outrageous remark that people on the left have no qualms with rape. Nearly all of Hitler's policies and beliefs were extremist right views, not the other way around. Educate yourself, please. We have enough ignorance in the world.
The Nazis were not a leftist ideology. Let me guess: you think that because they had "socialist" in the name of their party? If this is the level of logical processing you are capable of, I can see why you'd make the outrageous remark that people on the left have no qualms with rape. Nearly all of Hitler's policies and beliefs were extremist right views, not the other way around. Educate yourself, please. We have enough ignorance in the world.
Pushing the House of Saud? You must be kidding. Who on the right is "pushing the House of Saud?" Maybe the Christian Cowboy, George W. Bush? Nope, he merely held hands with them and allowed them to bail him out when his business "skills" failed him? Your argument is ridiculous and your reasoning is nonexistent. No one, on the right or left, approves or rape in any society. Stop being an idiot and insisting otherwise.
You cant be allowed to actually pretend that those 5 arguments are actually good.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause – then what is God's cause? God gets a pass I guess. And it is also not a given that the universe has a beginning. The universe as we know it has a beginning (the big bang), but many scientists believe this was just like a bubble popping at the top of a glass of champagne. One of many. The universe may be eternal. Its a terrible argument, always has been.
3) But where does God get his morals? If God picks the best morals that he wants, then these morals exist outside of God. If the morals are coming straight from God, then its just a situation of 'might makes right'. Just because he's the universal bully, he gets to make his own rules. And thats scary considering how much blood is on his hands. I dont care if God thinks homosexuality is immoral. Its not. I think a tsunami killing hundreds of thousands of people is immoral, if you have the power to stop it. But regardless – morality IS subjective. Get over it. Its scary. But if you only act morally because you are scared of God or because you want to get to heaven, thats not true morality. Thats fear and reward-seeking.
4) This is just not true.
5) How about the non-existence experience of God. None of you, I am sure, have ever experienced God by any of the five senses. Have you touched God, smelled him, tasted him, heard him or felt him? No matter what kind of figurative language you try to use, you havent.
They are both good at what they do. But Craig has got nothing new than the same old junk
Allow me to explain. The concept of treating someone well is a condition neccessary to exist in society. The "eternal damnation" an aetheist would suffer is being known as a complete A-hole to your peers, neighbors, family. Being an outcast or parriah is a very real tangible outcome. So we are not accountable only to ourselves, unless we are totally antisocial. Devoutly religious leaders throughout history have also managed a pretty impressive body count. God does not tell us that purposefully stepping on an anthill is wrong, but some of us KNOW it is.
If they were so religious, how come they routinely killed religious people and destroyed churches?
Most scientist do agree that they do not have the answers for everything…..yet. But they hardly throw up their hands and say "well, I can't explain it. So it must be God."
you are dead wrong. Period. We gave our reasoning and you, being the idiot, ignored it. The Left is perfectly content with rape because they have no moral bearing; it simply is a political affair. Stalin and others used rape as a tool and you friends stayed silent. No one is pushing the Saudis to do anything; including the previous administration. You and your ilk are so blinded by your humanistic hatred you cannot indulge in a debate without resoting to invective, sad and pathetic..
That would have been a nice event to attend. Hugh was talking with one of his radio interns and apparently the 20 something intern went out for pizza with Hitchens and over a beer continued the discussion. Personally looking at the order of the universe I believe it takes more "faith" to be an atheist than to be a believer. It takes Man to muck it up
I don't believe Hitchens is afraid to show up anywhere – look what he did to Maher and his audience of trained monkeys. And you are right; right -wing audiences are a lot more civil and hospitable to people of opposing viewpoints than their left counterparts.
you obviously know nothing; if you cannot accept the fact that NATIONAL SOCIALISM is leftist ideology go back to the 3rd grade that you failed. You are so wrong as to defy credibility, but you won't be the first communsit sympathizer we have encountered who makes hideously wrong assertions. Hitler right wing- what a moron…
I don't understand why God has to answer for man's cruelty and bloodshed. How does Hitchens come to that conclusion? If there is a God, we are morally responsible for inhumanity to our fellow man. If there's not a God, how does he conclude that cruelty and bloodshed are immoral? On what grounds? Where does he get this "justice" framework of thinking in the first place? I say, he gets it from the imago Dei resident in himself, deny it though he will.
That's probably the best I've ever heard it put to me.
Well said…..
Katrinka,
yes, it's possible. The truth is narrow if you think about it, so an exclusivist view of any truth is more likely than a pluralist version. There is a coffee cup on my table. It is only one location. There are an infinite number of incorrect answers as to where my coffee cup is and only one correct answer. Truths are narrow and exclusive while lies are far more numerous.
If we're uncomfortable with making all other religions apostate by preserving the narrow claims of Christ, then we'll have to throw Christianity on the same heap. That is, is it possible that all of the exclusivist Christians for the last 2,000 years are lies compared to the one true religion of pluralism?
I think you've got it wrong. It's his faith that tells him it doesn't make sense and his intellectual reasoning that can't overcome the strength of a solid cultural dogma. It's the atheist that says we can't argue with one's faith, but they forget that it also applies to the faith that is atheism. You'll need to get around his faith with something besides intellectual reasoning. Love and kindness works on some level.
And if you raised him as a Christian he'll likely come back anyways. All youth (myself included) have to test the strength of their own world view by putting it to the ultimate test.
There's also prayer. God convicts his hear far more than your arguments.
if you can't argue the points change the subject. Those topics are pushed by The Left so they can marginalize everyone by collecting all of life's losers (you know who they are very well) and shifting power from those who are healthy and normal and achievers for their own personal power; they throw the losers overboard when it suits their fancy. The life of denial you people live is amazing; holding your breath until you turn blue will not make it better… we are generally an agreeable sort but doctrinaire facists (facism is also on the left) hacks us off no end…
So, let me get this straight: Craig was clearly the more rational and logical, but Hitchens won the debate because of his ability to hold the crowd. This is like saying, "The Anaheim Ducks won the game 4-1, but Chicago stole the show with their bruising checks and physical prowess."
I don't know about you, but I'd take the reasonable over the showy any day. Hitchens is notorious for not making a case for atheism, but for acting like a jackass.
ah the cake analogy. aka 'the god of gaps'. what a joke, if this sort of reasoning appeals to you there is no point in arguing you need to read ANY modern philosophy or logic based book.
things happened to create our world, looking at the chance after the fact is worthless. after all we could exist as completely different beings right now if only for a few minor changes in the evolution process. these differences you would still argue for 'perfection'. seems you have all sides covered, how convenient for you.
fact is most of our planet is uninhabitable, people are born every day with defects, and many animals you have never even seen exist only to show that evolutionary process has (and is) happened. if you don't get this it is because your science classes and philosophy classes failed you–if you took them at all, NOT that god exists.
Thank you for that epic exercise in missing the point. Of course they don't, I was responding to antifascist's response. I made an observation that most people use the terms logic and reason to dismiss arguments rather than engage them.
you, unlike some who have invaded this post to spew mindless venom are a pleasure to exchange thoughts with. They say no one should discuss politics or religion; we say that is what defines us as humans, not what we thought of '30 Rock'…
I would add that left-wing nutbag poster boy Sean Penn loves to pretend that he's a champion of gay rights…..and then hangs out in Iran with the mulahs that hang gay people for being gay.
But you're beating your head against the wall trying to get anyone on the left to condemn Penn or anything any left wing extremist does.
[...] the whole thing here at Big Hollywood. You do not have to [...]
Good post Hank. Of course now you know I agree with you. LOL Given the falible nature of man it is hard to imagine that the Bible is accurate. The ideas that it conveys is the important part. And yes anyone today who says God spoke to him and told him to write a new Bible chapter would be ridiculed or put in the looney bin. As for how we got here. Is it more whacky to believe that we arrived here through evolution, admitting that we don't have all the peices to the puzzle. Or that we were created from dust by an omnipotent being who we can't adequately answer how He got here.
"1. Then what is God's cause?"
You didn't read the question carefully, "Whatever begins to exist." God didn't begin to exist. The universe did. If the universe didn't have a beginning then it has an eternal past. If it has an eternal past then an eternity would have to happen before we got to this moment…meaning we'd never get here.
When you say "many scientists" you're not talking about the vast majority. A handful believe the universe didn't have a beginning, and it's usually to avoid what the conclusion implies…God.
"3. But where does God get his morals?"
He doesn't pick morals he wants, so your premise fails. You didn't demonstrate that values are subjective because you claim it just IS. You can call God the universal bully, but that doesn't address that morals must come from a moral Giver. You saying that homosexuality is acceptable or even that killer tsunamis are immoral defy your own position that there are not transcendent moral truths. You're saying they're moral to you, so you actually lose your ability to project them onto another moral agent. Even if that moral agent is God, me or Dick Cheney.
Paine wasn't an atheist, he spoke out against religion sure, but most believe he, like thomas jefferson (and perhaps james madison) was a deist. being a deist as they were, living in a heavily crazy theist world many can come away with the belief that they were atheists. they were about as close to what an atheist was in those times.
you guys should really read 'Age of Reason' :
"The opinions I have advanced . . . are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me God."
dcase put it best I think
I distrust anything that man has had a hand in, especially when it's something as powerful as religion.
BUT
There has to be some faith that God knows what he's doing. Evolution or creation. I don't have that answer, but everytime I try to work this out in my own mind, I always come back to how did it all start??? Just a couple random rocks colliding in space? Where did the rocks come from? And on and on….
I always wind up back to God.
Right back at ya brother (or sister).
Those few that come here to spew that venom are not interested in debate or discussion or the idea that they may learn or teach something. They come here looking for a fight.
Best to just ignore them and let their drivel whither on the vine.
Thank you. I do try to use love and kindness. Also prayer. I also raised him to question authority, to use his own brain, and not blindly follow the crowd, so I also appreciate and admire him for thinking and pushing the envelope on "just living and believing a certain way, because that's what your parents did". I'm very proud of him, and my daughter. They're good human beings. That said, I refer to your comment about finding God through personal faith and personal experience as being the least convincing line of argument to you. I can see that, because I know what I know and I know what I feel, and I know there is a difference in my life and it is profound and supernatural. I can also see the point of view of people who say "she's a nut", or a schizo, or hearing voices in her head and needs to be picked up by the men in white coats. Ah well, as the Bible says, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. As someone else pointed out – if we knew all the answers to these things – there would be no need for faith. Best to you as we all try to find our way.
You must be logged in to post a comment.