Thinkberry
Rational GoodnessArchive for Philosophy
Christopher Hitchens v.s. William Lane Craig @ Biola
On Saturday, April 4, I went to the debate at Biola University to see the folks mentioned above. The topic, of course, was “Does God Exist?”.
I never would have thought some 10,000 people would gather to see a debate, as nobody’s around when I want to discuss those topics. This was the Super Bowl of debates, it seems. They sold so many tickets, most of us had to watch it off a live feed in nearby buildings. People started lining up to get in the gym 5 hours early. That was rather disappointing, as I had a few questions to ask in the Q&A portion, but they only ended up taking questions from Biola students. Their questions kinda sucked, especially one to Mr. Hitchens on if he thought that the Bible was correct in forbidding sex with animals.
Though I sided with Hitchens, Craig was probably the second best Christian apologist I’ve seen debate (Dinesh D’Souza is the first). He was certainly spoken like a philosopher. He was incredibly structured, and provided the bulk of his argument in advance on the handout we were given:
1) Cosmological Argument (first cause)
2) Teleological Argument (from design)
3) Moral Argument (no objective morals without God)
4) Evidence for Jesus’s resurrection
5) Argument from Personal Experience
Hitchens, on the other hand, was spoken more like a writer. I mean even though he was less structured, and probably harder to follow if I hadn’t been so familar with his style, he was certainly funnier. I remember a couple gems of his off the top of my head:
“Would you prefer a Wahabi baby or an atheist baby?” – Hitchens putting Craig on the spot.
“Of course you have free will; the boss insists upon it!” – Hitchens on the Christian perspective
I’m not about to go through all the arguments in the post. I’ll probably hit up a couple of points that I think Hitchens missed or didn’t have time for pretty soon though.
However, I do have to say, yet again, that Craig really missed the foundation of Hitchens’ position which can be summed up as “There’s no evidence for God, and I’m glad”. Here’s where Craig really fucked up. He said something like,
“You’re talking about atheism like it’s some sort of a-theism.” Duh. That’s what it is. Atheism isn’t necessarily the position that “God does not exist”. It’s the lack of belief in a God. Some atheists think we hit this point too hard, but it’s crucial to our position. It’s necessary to view the argument properly that theists are making the claim, and thus have the burden of proof or evidence.
On a much happier note, I got to meet Mr. Hitchens, have my book signed, and even took a shitty cell phone picture with him. I thought about what to say to him all throughout the debate, and it came to me when a student asked him what the meaning of life could be without God. Hitchens said something like how, for him, it is to be free and help others be free as well. It was perfect. I shook his hand, and thanked him for “helping me be free too”. Here’s us!

- Dylan
Law of Rational Susceptibility
I hear time and time again bible thumpers saying things to atheists such as “I have faith in the bible, and you have faith in reason. It’s the same thing.” One cannot have faith in reason, by definition. However, even if we give the bible believer the benefit of the doubt, and acknowledge their assertion as true, it doesn’t help their argument at all. Biblical faith is dependent on reason in that one must make rational judgements to read and understand the text. Most importantly, it requires “this, therefore that” calculations, a core component of rational thought, linking one thing to the next. Reason must precede biblical understanding. Therefore, we can conclude the following given x = biblical faith.
If. . .
1) x is dependent upon reason,
2) reason can be independent of x, and
3) reason abrogates x, then
4) x must be void
Then we’re back to where we were. The preceding points demonstrate that biblical faith demands the ability to make rational calculations. If that ability is invalid, then so is the belief in the bible. However, this doesn’t demonstrate that reason does vitiate biblical faith; it just demands that it be susceptible to rational arguement.
Huzzah! Back to the ring!
