Arguing the Affirmative: William Lane Craig 

Arguing the Negative: Christopher Hitchens

Summary of Opening Statements:

The debate on April 4th, 2009 at Biola University began with Dr. William Craig pointing to five affirming perspectives/tendencies for the existence of God. These arguments can be best summarized by labeling them: Cosmological, Teleological for Design, Moral, Historical/Resurrection, and immediate experience of God. 

1. In his cosmological argument, Craig refers philosophically to the idea that an infinite past being concluded does not make sense. He, therefore, claims that matter cannot be eternal. He next affirms the often-cited summary of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) with regard to the beginning of the existence of everything and posits its lack of scientific reasoning around the big bang i.e. “out of nothing, nothing comes”. In this sub-argument, he claims that the cause of space and time must be beyond it to be real. He then claims that an unintelligent or abstract entity could not create this universe, and thus he concludes that God must be a personal/sentient existence. 

2. He then begins his teleological argument, referring to the mathematically expressed constants and assumed ratios of physics equations. He claims if these were altered ever by an extremely small proportion, they would not have not permitted a life-sustaining universe. This would have three potential causes he claims: physical necessity, chance, or design. Physical necessity is out of the question because constants are not determined by what they control i.e., the physical universe. Chance cannot be because as mentioned in the teleological argument the values are in such a narrow field that allowed for life that it is not thinkable to say they all aligned unintelligibly, ambiguously, and wantonly in such a consistently tiny range. The multiverse theory is not plausible and there is no evidence for it. Lacking a case for the previous two options, we are left to believe design is the reason and this is what makes God a person (albeit not in the human sense) i.e. intelligent and existent. 

3. The moral argument can be summed up by saying: There are things that are objectively wrong, without God there is no foundation on which this objectivity can be based, therefore God must exist since there exists things objectively wrong and He is that foundation. 

4. The historical/resurrection argument relies first upon history, it has been verified that Jesus existed on earth when it is said He did, the miracles and teaching performed would be confirmed by the resurrection of Christ, something thitherto unheard of and not seen since. 

5. Lastly, and admittedly not an outward proof of God’s existence, Craig claims that every person can know in their hearts that God exists and experience in a concrete though not communicable way something of the nature and existence of God, confirmed in an illative way all things predicated of Him. Moreover, that since this is the proper outcome of all arguments concerning God, it is important to move in this direction after considering arguments for God’s existence and not remaining only satisfied with the fact God probably exists.

Christopher Hitchens begins by pointing out that having evidence for one’s beliefs is progress for the theist. Hitherto now, he claims, the theist would have known much science. He then moves on to discuss William Paley’s watchmaker argument and claims that it is opposed to the idea of evolution and that it is a poor argument because it cannot be falsified. He claims this to be retrospective evidentialist and that given time, anything can be made to support theism. A consistent claim he holds through the course of this debate is that to come up with the conclusion that there exists a God who ought to be followed and can be appealed to as an authority on any given matter, must have clear, unambiguous, and “equally great” evidence to make it univocally true. He accuses Christianity of “solipsism” being self-centered, that it claims everything is about us. He claims that there is something backward about claiming that Atheists and science prove God’s nonexistence. Rather they claim there is “no plausible or convincing reason, certainly no evidential one, to believe that there is such an entity and that all observable phenomena, including the cosmological one, … are explicable without the hypothesis [that God exists]”[1]. He claims that it is preposterous and “having our cake and eating it also” to say that reality is ordered precisely and miraculously and that it may be suspended whenever a miracle is “required”. He claims Craig must prove to a “certainty” there is a God. He claims that faith would be the first and consistent way of explaining away the depth of things rather than actually seeking material and reasonable answers first. He claims that the apparent disorder, the collision of Andromeda with our galaxy, and other realities are what make our environment headed for the destruction of life’s permission.

Review by Carter Carruthers: 

I think, largely, there is confusion about the nature of the question, which it seems to me is important to clarify in order to know what is achievable with respect to the question and also to the perspectives. Insofar as theism is impossible to demonstrate to be true by science and language alone, atheism (the belief there can be no God) cannot be falsified by science and language alone. Insofar as the “no God exists” cannot be proved true by any means, theism can’t be proved false by any means. Thus, in some ways, the nature of the problem is the main problem. To claim science refutes the existence of God since it makes sense of the world without God (itself a non sequitur), leads to the conclusion that there is no reason to believe in God is non sequitur. Namely, atheism only exists because there are some who do not find arguments for theism convincing. There can be many layers to every person’s beliefs on this issue, which finds itself at the fore of so many problems in the world. I think both sides of this issue recognize these things. One of the key issues that prevents productivity in these debates is the perspective formed by so much information on either side that we struggle very much to see the other side’s view whether we are theists or atheists. This reality should not be confused as presupposition at the outset but rather apparently affirmed intuitions and otherwise deductions from all that we observe, people we find most convincing, etc. The nature of the question is such that a stubborn skeptic will never believe. Rather, much of this question requires the right kind of open-mindedness, trial-and-error, and a more than general grasp of the terms and arguments theists have made for God’s existence. Hitchens repeatedly posits that the import of the question is what causes him to restrict his epistemology (what he thinks can be known) on the question. Although it is understandable, this move depletes objectivity. Here is where we see the view arise that since life can make sense without God, Ockham’s razor may be applied, requiring there to be evidence (subjectively) as grand as the conclusion. However, what if this perfection of evidence does not and will not exist for us in this time as it might have in the presence of Christ? One might wonder what is at risk on the atheist side of the issue as well, ad contra to Mr. Hitchens. 

The debate generally has had a profound effect on atheist/theist understanding in recent years. Even though there is more to be said on the issue than each spoke, it has provided a great baseline for dialogue between the two perspectives in the years since. Of course, there were imperfections in both of their approaches to the question as well as their delivery. However, given the context, it did not seem too inappropriate. I get the sense in this debate and in others like it that we find a little bit of talking past each other, a little of each making the task difficult on the other, and a few accusations that are not perfectly the case. Both sides of the issue in some fashion do some mythological interpretations of this, being more explanatory than descriptive. Personally, I would not have found the Moral argument convincing, it does not follow that God has to exist because there would be no other explanation for objective morality. In some ways, the arguments against God that Hitchens expressed were standard but seemed more from the idea that suffering is intrinsically and explicitly contra to God being good, and the theist perspective has never felt this to contradict the goodness of God. Hitchens also accused God of giving us freedom we did not choose, but this is like saying “How dare you force me to be able to choose without consulting me first!” where the objection to free choice is preceded by insisting upon the free choice it objects to. Otherwise, it seems there were great arguments and dialogue on each side.

In conclusion, if someone could prove God’s existence (or lack thereof), they would have done/did so already. This is meant in two ways. The first is that the nature of God would make Him impossible to be proven univocally and He (believing He does in fact exist) did not find it fit to write “I do exist beyond the material” unambiguously and “eternally” in the location of the stars. On the other hand, and second, He seems to have sent His Son to work miracles, perpetuated a Church down through the ages protecting, interpreting, and constantly reaffirming the teaching of Christ to the present day. The issue here is a matter of what seems sufficient and this question was dealt with by Jesus Himself (cf. Luke 16:19-31, Matthew 12:38-42). Simply because we don’t approve of how God sent His Revelation and operates with regard to his creation; does not mean He does not exist. Jesus proved God’s existence by coming to earth, taking on human flesh, and yet remaining outside of time and space (a miracle none would truly have expected even amongst religions). If you are expecting to be as sure of God’s existence as you are that you have a heart, you perhaps can, but not by empirical and instrumental study. Rather this would be done by following philosophical arguments, understanding the nature of their best accomplishment (in regard to the question), being severely open-minded while not gullible, and allowing the apparently personal God to make Himself known in ways unexpected but no less real and perpetual. Science, and anything else, requires a certain (however small) epistemological jump. This happens with both the interpretation and application of data i.e. judgment. When a conclusion is made it is expected that, ideally following from true premises and valid logic, we can come to know other truths. However, even this, as reasonable as it is, requires consistency of the universe in all ways, at all times, and everywhere. Maybe one cannot prove God exists to another through language if they are stubborn, maybe not even if they are open minded, however, one can know God exists with or without arguments, it seems to me.

FN:

1. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, “Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD],” YouTube video, Posted by Biola University on 4 April 2009. at http://www.youtube.com, 42:21-42:35.