Well the debate on Saturday was great. I know that I'm biased, but it truly did seem to me like Craig came out the clear winner. There are a few reasons I say this:
1. Craig brought out five arguments for the existence of God. Not one of them was actually refuted by Hitchens. Rather, Hitchens seemed to just try and point out the difficulties and contradictions of religion.
2. Hitchen's kept trying to point out the accidental nature of the universe. Of course making a structured argument about the lack of structure is pretty difficult to do.
3. Craig actually got Hitchens to concede that Atheism couldn't really be defended, and that Theism couldn't really be argued against.
I think where Hitchens was most effective was in appealing to emotions. For example, Hitchens pointed out numerous things related to the problem of evil. He alluded to people being tortured for years on end and other horrible atrocities. Do you Christians really believe that this is all part of God's Divine plan? This of course does not deal with any of the evidences for God's existence, but does cause skepticism. This I think, may have been his goal.
All in all, it was a good time. Hitchens is funny and creative, and I for one enjoy listening to him. I look forward to doing it again in the future.
2 comments:
I agree with you on HItchens. I have always enjoyed seeing him on news and talk shows. I disagree with him on many things, but not all things. And I enjoy listening to really smart and thoughtful people, wherever they may fall on the political spectrum. I just saw him on Bill Maher's show, and he made some very strong points while on a panel with Mos Def and Salmon Rushdie. The subject was nuclear weapons, and Mos Def kept saying the U.S. needs to give up our nuclear weapons if we expect other countries to do the same. (I know I always plan my life after checking with rappers, don't you?) Hitchens quietly but strongly made the point that the only people that actually intend on using these weapons, if they get them, are the radical Islamists who want to kill all of us. Salmon Rushdie was making the same point, while also pointing out that the mushroom cloud is now on the flag of these groups. Of course, Mos Def was talking so much and so loudly that even Bill Maher was speechless during much of the discussion. Who ever thought that would happen?
My take on the debate includes the following:
1) Nothing new was said. I was expecting some argument to exalt or crush my understanding and nothing did. At first I found this a little disappointing, but after all it was reassuring. The debate wasn't so much in knowing what to say, it was knowing how to share what has already been said.
2) Craig's hands shook during the debate. I have no idea why they shook, but I'd like to think of this as a debater's shortcoming - while his faith and God-given vocation saw him through to a very effective presentation. There's hope for imperfection (if you're shown where to look - hint: his name starts with a "J" and ends in "e", "s", "u", "s").
3) The victory was clear. Although in the beginning of the debate I had no idea who would seem to have the most logical argument, in the end the logical victory went to Craig. Before the debate began, the victory was already won in Christ.
Whatever your perspective on Hitchens, pray for the man if you call Jesus Christ your Lord. Hitchens did not deny the existence of God, he could only say that he had no proof to promote the existence of God.
"At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures...."
Post a Comment