How to Lay Out the Debate for God?

[ClemtheCatholic]

Hi,

When we argue for the existence of God, we often argue for the Christian God or Christian theism. We might give arguments from the beginning of the universe, from moral values, and from the Resurrection of Jesus.

Then, at the same time, we may well say to the atheist (the opposition) that he mustn’t talk about such topics as Biblical inerrancy, the morality of God in the Bible, and the like, since that would be going off topic. But is that fair? If we are going to argue for Christian theism, then doesn’t the atheist have the right to attack it by saying the Bible is contradictory, or Yahweh is evil? After all, if the Bible is indeed contradictory, or the Christian God actually evil, then Christian theism makes no sense.

So really, I am wondering what topics should be discussed in the theism-atheist debate. And I am wondering if Christians are often unreasonable in what they say is on topic. Is it just a case of whether or not the atheist is actually making an argument against God? For example, would you say debating is the social effects of religion is indeed off topic, but debating the inerrancy of the Bible could in theory be on topic as long as the atheist was clearly using it as an argument for atheism?

Finally, is there a difference between Christian theism and Christianity as a religion? Can and should the two be debated and defended separately?

If you are familiar with philosopher William Lane Craig, see what he says in his debate with Christopher Hitchens:

So in tonight’s debate I’m going to defend two basic contentions: First, that there’s no good argument that atheism is true and secondly that there are good arguments that theism is true. Now, notice carefully the circumscribed limits of those contentions. We’re not here tonight to debate the social impact of religion, or Old Testament ethics, or biblical inerrancy, all interesting and important topics, no doubt, but not the subject of tonight’s debate which is the existence of God. Consider then my first contention that there’s no good argument that atheism is true. Atheists have tried for centuries to disprove the existence of God but no one’s ever been able to come up with a successful argument. So, rather than attack straw men at this point I’ll just wait to hear Mr. Hitchens present his arguments against God’s existence and then I’ll respond to them in my next speech. In the meantime let’s turn to my second main contention that there are good arguments that theism is true.

But Craig goes on to use an argument for God from the resurrection of Jesus! So Craig is not defending just theism, but in fact Christian theism and Christianity. And yet he won’t take into consideration biblical inerrancy or Old Testament ethics. Has he got it wrong? How should we lay out the debate?

Sorry this is so long. I hope you find it as interesting a discussion as I do!

God Bless,
Clem

 

[ccmnxc]

Briefly, one does not need biblical inerrancy to be Christian (at least, regarding the contention that absolutely nothing in the Bible, whether it be theological, scientific, or historical, is correct). More fundamentally, it is not necessary for the historical core of the Gospels to come to light and be used in argumentation. Finally, if it is a debate with set parameters, it is only fair to stay in such parameters.

 

[polytropos]

He isn’t using biblical inerrancy to argue that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s resurrection are true (nor does he need to). He is using the Gospel (and other) accounts historically to argue that Jesus’s resurrection was probable, which is a much weaker claim than that the Bible is inerrant.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is a department of philosophy called natural theology. Natural theology is a purely reasoned approach to God (such as you might get from an Aristotle or a Plato) and does not rely on revelation, the existence of miracles, and other such.

William Paley was one of the champions of natural theology, and though his works are considered outdated by many, they really are not. *Natural Theology *and *Moral and Political Philosophy * are classic efforts by Paley to show that even if anyone tries to strip Christianity of it sources in revelation, it still makes eminent sense.

Thomas Jefferson made much the same argument when he discounted the miracles of Jesus but then went on to declare that the teachings of Jesus were the most sublime in the history of the world.

Antony Flew, a world famous atheist philosopher for 50 years held out against the existence of God until near the end of his life he started reading the accumulated literature of scientists who were making discoveries indicative of, or pointing (if not proving) the existence of an intelligent and creative Deity. Before he died he was taking a great interest in the resurrection of Jesus and was corresponding with a bishop.

So yes, I think the approach to God can take many different roads, two of which are philosophy and science. Once the doors of natural theology are opened, it isn’t long before the obstacles to revelation are brushed aside. Then it becomes a matters of which world religion offers the best revelations, and for that you can do no better than to read Pascal’s Pensees.

 

[zippy2006]

How should we lay out the debate?

By defining what we mean by “God.” If you do this well, most of the questions in your post will be taken care of.

If you are familiar with philosopher William Lane Craig, see what he says in his debate with Christopher Hitchens:

So in tonight’s debate I’m going to defend two basic contentions: First, that there’s no good argument that atheism is true and secondly that there are good arguments that theism is true. Now, notice carefully the circumscribed limits of those contentions. We’re not here tonight to debate the social impact of religion, or Old Testament ethics, or biblical inerrancy, all interesting and important topics, no doubt, but not the subject of tonight’s debate which is the existence of God. Consider then my first contention that there’s no good argument that atheism is true. Atheists have tried for centuries to disprove the existence of God but no one’s ever been able to come up with a successful argument. So, rather than attack straw men at this point I’ll just wait to hear Mr. Hitchens present his arguments against God’s existence and then I’ll respond to them in my next speech. In the meantime let’s turn to my second main contention that there are good arguments that theism is true.

But Craig goes on to use an argument for God from the resurrection of Jesus! So Craig is not defending just theism, but in fact Christian theism and Christianity. And yet he won’t take into consideration biblical inerrancy or Old Testament ethics. Has he got it wrong? How should we lay out the debate?

Good questions.

1. 
   *]Social impact of religion.
   *]Old Testament Ethics.
   *]Biblical Inerrancy.
   
   1, 2, and 3 do not directly impact the question of God’s existence, therefore they are not primary debate topics. You could easily have a debate on any of these topics which has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God. I think Craig was right to bracket such topics, especially given Hitchens’ tactics.
   
   Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, this is a perfectly good argument:
   
   1. 
      *]If Jesus was resurrected, then God exists.
      *]Jesus was resurrected.
      *]Therefore God exists.
      
      Perhaps the argument also implies that Christianity is true. So what? That doesn’t mean it isn’t a good argument for God’s existence. Presumably Craig thinks it is one of the stronger arguments for God’s existence. As noted above, he does not rely on inerrancy to support 2.
      
      Does it mean that Craig has proved the existence of the Christian God rather than just God? This is debatable and may or may not be true depending on the details of the argument. The argument could be as simple as a verified miracle that proves the existence of God without any particularly Christian implications. In any case, I take it that Hitchens and most people would take the argument to be valid (1&2 imply 3).

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Thanks guys! This helps.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Charlemagne III made a good point, further not being rooted in Faith, may well lead to the thinking you are a product of your own environment, this negates accountability and responsibility and in essence creates victims. Bigger issue than some would like to admit.