Useless Information

I had the privilege of attending a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens at Biola University.  I was able to sit in the main auditorium, but just barely.  I was in the very last row at the back of the room.  It was great to experience the vibe in the room and measure audience reactions for myself.

I’ve watched a couple of other Hitchens debates online (1, 2) and it’s always frustrated me that he doesn’t typically stick to the debate topic.  Let me revise that statement.   Christopher Hitchens doesn’t typically even address the debate topic.  Instead he uses the debate format as an opportunity to air his grievances with the God of the Bible.  He’s always entertaining but still the substance of his remarks can be boiled down to “Does not (and if he does, I wouldn’t like him).”  What makes those debates a little more frustrating is that his theistic opponents are quite often drawn in to his snipes and don’t point out that he isn’t addressing their evidences.

William Lane Craig on the other hand is a scripted debater.  He stays on topic and quite often says exactly what he wrote down to say before the debate even began.  Sometimes a debater’s insistence on sticking to the debate topic can be a little frustrating because they use it as a shield against relevant ideas that contradict their worldview.  But I was thankful that Craig didn’t allow Hitchens to veer off course.

In all of Hitchens’ debates he likes to ask his opponent to name one moral action that a theist can perform that an atheist can’t.  He claims that only once has anyone suggested anything that an atheist can’t do (that being uttering the dying words “Father forgive them for they know not what they do).  I was surprised that Craig took the bait and attempted to answer the question.  No one doubts that an atheist can act morally.   The appropriate response to Hitchens challenge is to ask HOW does the atheist think any of his actions can be called “moral” at all? On what basis are those actions better than picking one’s nose.

To this Hitchens responds that he feels a solidarity with all of human kind to keep the species alive and his morality ultimately serves that purpose.  But this isn’t morality, it’s speciesism.  Perhaps homo-sapiens aren’t deserving of special protection.  As many environmentalist have concluded, perhaps it would be better to feel solidarity with the rest of the planet and regard humans as a threat. If this is morality, it’s no better than preferring one’s own ethnic group or alumni association.

On the way out, a friend of mine heard some one remark that there was no clear winner to the debate.  I doubt anyone’s mind was changed as a result of the debate.  But I would hardly say there was no winner.  Craig offered 5 evidences of the existence of God and Hitchens only scratched at the two weaker ones and didn’t even attempt to deal with the three stronger ones.  In turn Hitchens offered no evidence for his own belief, he merely informed us that he hasn’t seen anything that would convince him otherwise.  Well great, so now what?

I’m actually sympathetic to atheistic debaters on this point though.  It’s impossible to prove a negative.  I can’t prove there is no tooth fairy.  It’s a problem inherent in the debate question.  A better question that would make for a more satisfying debate would be something along the lines of “Is the God of the Bible good?”  Hitchens and others would at least engage the topic and there would still be opportunity for their opponent to highlight the short comings of the atheistic worldview.

Here is an audio review of the debate by Greg Koukl.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.