Dr. William Lane Craig is probably the best debater for evangelical Christianity today. Rarely do Craig’s opponents address his arguments, much less provide coherent refutations. Dr. Peter Millican at least attempts to refute Craig’s arguments directly. This makes for a very spirited exchange.
For those of you who may not have time to watch the entire debate, the blogger Wintery Knight has summed up the exchange nicely here. He also provides links to the audio.
Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin wrote a book in 2006 (Many Worlds in One) in which he refers to a theorem he developed with Alan Guth and Arvind Borde. Although not a believer in God but the mulitverse, Vilenkin says that their theorem proves that even if other universes exist there was an absolute beginning of them all. In other words, one cannot posit a multiverse, as atheists often do, to avoid an absolute beginning.
Vilenkin put it this way: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).”
In a recent debate, Dr. William Lane Craig points this out forcefully and exposes his opponents attempt to take Vilenkin out of context. He also states that Vilenkin’s theorem shows there was an absolute beginning regardless of the initial physical states of the universe.
The bottom line is this: Since there was an absolute beginning to space, time and matter, it’s reasonable to conclude that the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. This cause must also be personal in order to choose to create, intelligent to create such a fine-tuned universe, and powerful to create out of nothing. A spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, intelligent, powerful Being is exactly what theists call “God.”
This is an excellent conversational debate between two Oxford professors, Dr. John Lennox and Dr. Richard Dawkins. Hope you enjoy it!
Does God Exist? Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens
I am greatly saddened that Christopher Hitchens is gone. There is no one with whom I disagreed more who I admired so much.
I emailed Christopher several times since his diagnosis with cancer, my last correspondence with him occurring the day after Thanksgiving. I expressed my prayers and concern for him. He responded immediately and graciously, and even said he would “love to renew our debates.” That gave me hope he was recovering. Now all hope is gone.
Although he was an opponent of my Christian worldview, I never felt that he was an opponent of me personally. I met him for the first time backstage in September 2008 at Virginia Commonwealth University before the first of our two debates. It was my first debate with anyone (save my wife, who routinely annihilates me), and I had studied mightily to go up against such a brilliant intellect. Upon meeting him I said, “Christopher, I know we are on different sides of the God issue, but I appreciate you and your work. In fact, I’m kind of a fan.” He paused, shot me a mischievous look, and declared, “The night is young!”
That night we had a spirited but rambling exchange. Hitchens could read technical manuals and keep an audience spell bound, so our audience was entertained. But as even one of the atheist organizers of the event admitted, he rarely directly engaged my arguments for God during the debate. He did little better in his book, dismissing over two millennia of rigorous philosophical argumentation for theism from Aristotle to Aquinas to Craig in less than nine pages.
In our second debate I asked him how, as an atheist, he explained the origin of the universe out of nothing—that all space, time and matter had a beginning out of non-being, which would imply that its cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Indeed, since nature itself was created, the evidence points to an uncaused First Cause that transcends nature. After a long joke that went nowhere (but did entertain), Hitchens finally rested on the fact that he was not a physicist. Of course, that wouldn’t mean he could just ignore the evidence from physics. But he did and many in the audience applauded. Even my Dad, who was present that night, was impressed with Christopher’s ability to woo an audience while avoiding the question!
Hitchens was also a man of courage. Backstage at our second debate in March 2009, I asked him if he ever got death threats for his outspoken opposition to Islam. “Islamofacism” he called it.
“Of course,” he said.
“Have you gotten security?”
“There’s no use for that,” he informed. “Those who want to kill you won’t warn you anyway.”
Later in the Q&A portion of the debate, a Muslim student urged Hitchens to consider the Qur’an. Without hesitation, Hitchens blasted, “If you want to know what I think about the Qu’ran, you can read my book. I have a whole chapter on it. And when you read it you will see the Qu’ran for the garbage that it is!” The edited-for-TV debate left that question and response out of the video, but Christopher was unafraid of any future retaliation from “the religion of peace.”
Hitchens tended to lump all religions together, showing nearly equal scorn for the Bible. “Religion poisons everything” was his subtitle, which is a witty way of saying that religion is evil. But how can there be evil unless there is an objective, unchanging standard of Good? When pressed to explain the existence of an unchanging standard of Good without God, Hitchens cited the changing biological process of evolution. But a changing biological process cannot explain the existence an objective, unchanging moral law. Hence, by complaining that “religion poisons everything,” Hitchens was borrowing from God in order to argue against Him. (The truth is religion doesn’t poison everything—everything poisons religion.)
But none of that mattered to the causal observer. Even those who knew that Christopher’s arguments were often emotional and foundationless found him appealing. Dr. Edward Feser, who dismantles the arguments of the New Atheists in his book The Last Superstition, put it well in his blog last Friday. He wrote, “Of the four horsemen of the New Atheism, Hitchens was the only one I found likable, and the only one possessed of a modicum of wisdom about the human condition, or at least as much wisdom about the human condition as one can have while remaining essentially a man of the Left. While there was rather too obviously something of the champagne socialist about him, I do not doubt that he had real concern for real human beings — rather than merely for grotesque abstractions like ‘the working class’ or ‘humanity’ — and that he showed real moral and even physical courage in defense of what he sincerely took to be the best interests of real human beings. But love for one’s fellow man, however genuine, is only the second greatest commandment.”
I don’t see how anyone who knew Christopher Hitchens could think that a man with such admirable qualities and talents was nothing more than a collection of chemicals– the product of unintelligent processes. Christopher’s intellect, wit, courage, passion, and immense personal charm are evidence to me of a Divine Being– a Divine Being who loves human freedom so much that He would even allow the gifts He bestows to be used against Him.
For those who think that Christopher would be upset that his death furthered the idea of God, please keep in mind that I think his life furthered the idea. If he were still here, he would debate that, but he wouldn’t be upset that a debating opponent thought he was evidence of God. Christopher Hitchens was too big a champion of free thought to begrudge a man his argument. I am blessed to have known him.
During the National Conference on Apologetics at the end of October, I had the chance to sit down with Dr. William Lane Craig before an audience of about 1,700 and ask him about his recent trip to the UK, including his proposed debate with atheist Richard Dawkins which, after much controversy, never materialized. However, as he describes in this video, Dr. Craig did engage in four debates and gave several presentations during his UK tour.
Dr. Craig is a Christian philosopher and apologist, and certainly the most accomplished and effective Christian debater in our time. Check out his website here to see thorough answers to many questions about the Christian Faith.
When we don’t study the historical and literary context of a passage, we often draw the wrong conclusions. Such is the case with some atheists who complain about the apparent immorality of God’s commands in the Old Testament. Dr. William Lane Craig answers several questions about this (and his debate with atheist Sam Harris) on his website (ReasonableFaith.org). His succinct response is worth repeating here:
Question:
I recently watched your debate with Sam Harris, and had a few questions for you.
First, If morals are determined by God’s edict, then it seems to suggest that they are non negotiable. I say this because a being who is defined as all good would not give us a faulty moral stance and expect us to follow it. So, how do we improve our morals if it is an obvious improvement to not follow the bible? I make claim to the old testament where frivolous crimes carry the punishment of death by stoning. Wouldn’t it be more moral to not stone homosexuals to death, and instead allow them to contribute to society?
Second, In the question and answer section, you make the claim that the bible is a good moral foundation because you can think of no alternative from an atheistic perspective. Is that not a fallacy of an appeal to ignorance?
Lastly, tying the two together, Would you not agree that it is morally reprehensible to refuse to adopt a more moral world view? It seems that the biblical Christian moral foundation can be improved by ignoring bible passages (such as stoning to death for homosexuality), and atheists are just as capable of obtaining such a moral foundation (which incidentally is an improvement on the bible).
William
United States
Dr. Craig responds: I think there are some fundamental misunderstandings lying behind your questions, William, which vitiate their force. Nevertheless, I believe that questions of this sort perplex many. So let’s take them in order.
1. On a Divine Command theory of ethics such as I defended in the debate, God’s commands to us are non-negotiable in the sense that we have a moral obligation to obey God’s commands. To disobey His commands is to fail to discharge our moral duties.
It does not follow from this that moral improvement is impossible. For God’s commands can be contingent upon the realities of the human condition relative to the times and places of the recipients of those commands. Real people in the circumstances in which they exist may not be capable of receiving or carrying out God’s moral ideal for them and so are given commands which may be much less than ideal but nonetheless suited for the reality of their situation.
This is not just a hypothetical possibility. This is what the Bible teaches about God’s commands. One of the clearest examples of this is Jesus’ teaching concerning the Mosaic law on divorce. “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been that way ” (Matt. 19.8) Here Jesus says that the law of Moses did not represent God’s ideal for marriage established at creation but was historically conditioned due to the moral callousness of the persons to whom it was given.
One of the positive features of Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster?, to which I referred in the debate, is his emphasis that Old Testament laws were historically conditioned to a particular people at a particular time and a particular place and were never intended to be timeless ethical principles that would govern all peoples at all times under all circumstances. God gave ancient Israel laws that were suited to their historical circumstances, even if they didn’t express His moral ideal.
Moreover, another important factor you overlook, William, is the distinction between moral law and civil law. Ancient Israel under Moses was a theocracy: God was the head of the government. We don’t live in a theocracy, so many acts which are deeply immoral (like adultery) are not illegal. No such distinction existed in ancient Israel. So adultery was a capital crime. (You’re mistaken, by the way, in thinking that homosexuality as such was a capital crime; what was criminal was sexual activity outside of marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual.) In our sexually promiscuous society such an assessment of adultery’s immorality seems just inconceivable. But I take that to be a measure of how far short we fall of God’s moral ideal for marriage and how seriously He takes chastity and marital fidelity. Even though adultery is not illegal in a non-theocratic society, it remains a sin that that is deeply immoral in God’s sight. Since we live in a non-theocratic society, we should not try to make everything that is immoral also illegal.
2. I’m confident that I made no such claim as you ascribe to me. In the first place, the claim seems to blur the distinction I was underlining all night of the difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology. The question of the foundation of moral values and duties is a question of moral ontology. So the Bible is just irrelevant to that question. The Bible would become relevant only if we were asking the epistemological question as to the content of our moral duties. On that question I do think that the Bible is a useful guide, so long as one uses it correctly (for example, not taking commands issued under a theocratic state out of their historical context and interpreting them as timeless ethical principles). Second, I most certainly do not adopt the Bible as a guide to moral behavior just because I can think of no alternative from an atheistic perspective. I have given evidence for thinking that Jesus of Nazareth is God’s Son and the personal revelation of God, so that one ought to believe what he taught, including his ethical teachings. Finally, third, I can think of lots of atheistic alternatives (like Sam Harris’s view); I just don’t think they’re tenable.
3. I’d agree that if a person is informed about the moral adequacy of competing views and chooses a less moral view over the view he knows to be superior, then that person has acted immorally. But the proper comparison here will not be between Christianity and atheism. For as I argued in the debate, the atheistic alternative is incapable of furnishing a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. That’s why, in response to Sam Harris’ remark, “if there is a less moral framework than the one Dr. Craig is proposing, I haven’t heard of it,” I exclaimed, “The less moral framework is atheism! Atheism has no grounds for objective moral values or duties.” Until you answer the Value Problem, the “is/ought” problem, and the “is implies can” problem, William, you have no grounds for thinking atheism to be capable of securing such a foundation. Now that puts you in a difficult moral situation. For in the absence of answers to those objections, you are by your own lights rejecting a more moral worldview and therefore acting in a morally reprehensible way.
So if there is a comparison to be drawn here, it will be between competing forms of theism. Is Christianity, for example, a moral improvement over Mosaic Judaism? Yes; I have already affirmed that the moral system in ancient Israel was inferior to the revelation of God’s more perfect moral will by Jesus.
I think that atheists and theists can agree on at least one thing– this site, assembled by atheists, is a valuable resource for those interested in atheist vs. theist debates. Over 400 debates are listed there! Many of them can be viewed or heard on line.
For those who are serious about investigating atheism vs. theism further, I have one word of caution: don’t rely on debates to give you the whole truth. Most debates provide only 20 minutes for each debater to make his/her case, and rhetorical skills can sometimes obscure the truth. If you are seriously looking for truth, watch the debates and then read the books of the debaters. You’ll learn a lot more.
Thanks to Christopher for a second opportunity to debate. The question of this debate is “What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism?” Recorded at the College of New Jersey! (Also available to view on line here. If you’d like to order a DVD of this debate, click here).
Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens: What Best Explains Reality? from Andrew Ketchum on Vimeo.
The debate is over two hours, so get comfortable. If it gets hung up on our site, you can also view it here: http://www.vimeo.com/1904911. Please return here to post your comments. It will be on You Tube soon as well (but there you can only view it 10 minute segments). Thanks!
Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist? from Andrew on Vimeo.