I attended a debate this weekend between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig on the topic, “Does God Exist?” The venue was a Christian Apologetics University and, of course, the audience was overwhelmingly Christian. We were packed like sardines into a hot and stuffy gymnasium with huge words painted on the wall, “Above All, Give Glory to God.” I was happy (and tried not to worry) to see that many of the few atheists in attendance wore t-shirts identifying themselves as such. Because of the topic, I was initially hesitant to attend. All a nonbeliever can really do in a debate such as this is break down the arguments of the theist, since arguments that God does not exist are in short supply, just as arguments that leprechauns do not exist are in short supply. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, and as Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
I suppose I anticipated too much in expecting that it would be a given that the theist in a debate such as this would accept the burden of proof. However, Craig laid out his own particular rules for the debate in his opening statement, indicating that he expected and required Hitchens to, not only refute Craig’s arguments to Craig’s satisfaction, but to make arguments to “prove that Atheism is true.” Despite the fact that Hitchens pointed out that to “prove that Atheism is true” is a misstatement altogether, Craig used the phrase nearly every time he spoke and seemed to believe that the simple fact that there exist arguments for a Creator makes the theistic position the stronger of the two. At one point, Craig said to Hitchens, “You seem to think that Atheism is merely a-theism, ‘without theism,’” as opposed to being a specific worldview. Yes, Mr. Craig. That’s exactly what it is.
I was hoping to hear something new at the debate, an argument I had not heard before, but this was not the case. I guess I should not have been surprised, but as someone who has studied the major theistic arguments and their refutations, such as the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, it is a curious thing to me that people still find them credible. It is even more curious to me that people not only repeat these arguments as if they are rock solid evidence for a Creator, but they then make the enormous leap from Creator to a deity which is personal, omniscient, benevolent and, of course,______ (fill in the blank with your personal religious preference).
The opponents’ debating styles were very different, and I cannot say that in this setting Hitchens had the more effective style. Craig was very focused and direct. He picked out the major arguments he wanted to make and drove them into the audience, frequently repeating the same points for emphasis. Hitchens came to his points in a more roundabout way and one almost felt that he was merely giving a monologue at certain points. To one who knows the arguments and knows Hitchens’ writing and other work, it was very enjoyable to listen to and made perfect sense. However, for the students who are studying Apologetics and expecting to hear arguments in a very particular format, and for those who may have been hearing these arguments for the first time, I can imagine that Hitchens did not come off as clear and specific as Craig did. Hitchens also yielded his closing arguments, as I have seen him do before. I can think of a hundred reasons why he might do so, but to hear the little gasps from the Christians in the audience, you would think he would have just lain down on the floor in defeat.
My suspicions were confirmed after the debate in conversations I overheard in the foyer and in the coffee shop down the street. Many Christians commented that the clear “winner” was Craig. Yet a debate is hardly a boxing match. Who “wins” and “loses” in these situations is entirely subjective. I have my doubts that anyone ever walks into a debate such as this with one opinion and leaves with another. Perhaps Hitchens expects too much from his audience, assuming they are coming in with a certain level of knowledge, or perhaps his intent is not to get through to the Christians at all. Perhaps he is speaking to those who are on the fence or who are atheists already. Perhaps these are the only people any of us on this side of the debate are ever really speaking to, and vice versa for the Christians. Regardless, I admire the willingness and tireless patience of Hitchens and others who are giving nonbelievers a voice and speaking out for the cause of rationality. Whether these debates change minds or not, I have to appreciate those on both sides who actually take the time to think about these issues. It is important that we have these conversations, and I hope we never cease to.
