UK Telegraph on Richard Dawkins’ cowardly refusal to debate William Lane Craig

Will Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig?

(Image stolen from Glenn Peoples)

Cowardly Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig on this latest UK tour. (H/T Mary)

Excerpt:

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”.

But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

An emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, Prof Dawkins last year supported a plan to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests.

Prof Craig is a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, in California, and the author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles on Christianity.

He has debated with leading thinkers including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.

Prof Craig is due to visit Britain in October this year. Four invitations to take part in public debates were sent to Prof Dawkins from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and Premier Radio.

Prof Dawkins declined them all.

[...]Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”

Prof Craig, however, remains willing to debate with Prof Dawkins. “I am keeping the opportunity open for him to change his mind and debate with me in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford” in October, he said.

Read it all. And please forward this to EVERYONE you know.

Dawkins mentions that he “already debated Craig” in that lame, worthless Mexico event where all the speakers got 2 minutes for their speeches, and one minute rebuttals. That was not a formal academic debate, that was a spectacle. I want a formal debate so Craig can put this blowhard in his place like he did with Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett. I want this nonsense about atheism being a  rational, moral worldview to end NOW. And by now, I mean yesterday.

Why won’t Dawkins debate Craig?

Let’s re-cap Dawkins’ reasons in point form: (with my comments in parentheses)

• Dawkins claims that he is willing to debate high-ranking clergymen (but Craig is a scholar, not a clergyman)
• Dawkins claims that Craig is a creationist (but Craig supports his kalam cosmological argument with the Big Bang)
• Dawkins claims that Craig’s only claim to fame is that he is a professional debater (but see Craig’s CV and publications below, which is far more prestigious than Dawkins)
• Dawkins claims that he’s too busy (busy cowering in fear hugging his Darwin doll for comfort)

Let’s review William Lane Craig’s qualifications:

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.

Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity… In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.

Craig’s CV is here.

Craig’s list of publications is here.

Here are some of Craig’s most recent publications:

From 2007:

• Ed. with Quentin Smith. Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2007, 302 pp.
• “Theistic Critiques of Atheism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
• “The Metaphysics of Special Relativity: Three Views.” In Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pp. 11-49. Ed. Wm. L. Craig and Quentin Smith. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2007.
• “Creation and Divine Action.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, pp. 318-28. Ed. Chad Meister and Paul Copan. London: Routledge, 2007.

From 2008:

• God and Ethics: A Contemporary Debate. With Paul Kurtz. Ed. Nathan King and Robert Garcia. With responses by Louise Antony, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, John Hare, Donald Hubin, Stephen Layman, Mark Murphy, and Richard Swinburne. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
• “Time, Eternity, and Eschatology.” In The Oxford Handbook on Eschatology, pp. 596-613. Ed. J. Walls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

From 2009:

• Ed. with J. P. Moreland. Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: Blackwell.
• “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” With James Sinclair. In Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Ed. Wm. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland. Oxford: Blackwell.
• “In Defense of Theistic Arguments.” In The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue. Ed. Robert Stewart. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Forthcoming:

• “The Cosmological Argument.” In Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Ed. Paul Copan and Chad Meister. Cambridge: Blackwell.
• “Cosmological Argument”; “Middle Knowledge.” In The Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology. Ed. G. Fergusson et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• “Divine Eternity.” In Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Ed. Thomas Flint and Michael Rea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richard Dawkins is eminently qualified to debate uninformed clergymen, but he has too much at stake (in terms of book royalties) to disappoint his loyal horde of foam-flecked fundies by debating a professional scholar who has debated hundreds of times, against the top non-Christian scholars, in hundreds of universities, including Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford.

The Craig-Hitchens debate

This debate was moderated by HUGH HEWITT, host of the nationally-syndicated Hugh Hewitt Show.

This is just an example of what these debates typically look like. No one gets hurt, so what is Dawkins afraid of?

Who is linking to this post?

• This post was linked by Sense of Events. Thanks Don!
• This post was linked by Uncommon Descent. Thanks Denyse!
• This post was linked by Right Wing News. Thanks John!
• This post was linked by Verum Serum. Thanks John!

Related posts

• Peter Atkins claiming that nothing exists, (the physical universe is actually nothing)
• Stephen Meyer debate against Michael Shermer on Lee Strobel’s TV show
• Cowardly Richard Dawkins explains why he won’t debate William Lane Craig
• How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?
• Richard Dawkins cites fraudulent research
• Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
• Answering Richard Dawkins’ question: “Who made God?”
• Analyzing Christopher Hitchens’ case against God

Filed under: News, Agnosticism, Atheism, Bill Craig, Challenge, Challenge to Debate, Challenged, Christopher Hitchens, Cowardice, Daniel Dennett, Debate, Debates, Fundamentalism, Ignorance, Laziness, Peter Atkins, Public Debate, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, William Lane Craig

Review, audio and video from the Christopher Hitchens vs William Dembski debate

The video is here.

The audio is here. (133 megabytes!)

Details:

• Opening statements – 15 minutes
• First rebuttal – 10 minutes
• Second rebuttal – 5 minutes
• Q&A – 30 minutes

Summary of Hitchens’ opening speech, snarkified and with spin removed

Contentions:

1. God has to make the universe the way I would, but he didn’t.
2. I don’t like some things that people who claim to be religious do.

Arguments from science:

The fact that our current universe is running out of usable energy (entropy) means that there is no God, because God, if he existed, would agree with me that the universe should go on forever.

The fact that the universe is a very big place means that there is no God, because God, if he existed, would agree with me that the universe should be very small.

The fact that the universe is a very old place means that there is no God, because God, if he existed, would agree with me that the universe should be very young.

The fact that the universe contains exploding stars means that there is no God, because God, if he existed, would agree with me that the universe should not contain exploding stars.

The fact that the universe is expanding means that there is no God, because God, if he existed, would agree with me that the universe should not be expanding.

The fact that the Earth is a small rock means that there is no God, because God, if he existed, would agree with me that the Earth should not be a small rock.

Arguments from history:

Although I don’t believe that there is any objective standard of right and wrong, I personally feel that Islamic terrorism is yucky yuck yuck. It’s just my opinion though, since there is no objective standard of morality on atheism, but only arbitrary personal preferences and arbitrary customs that vary by time and place. Since these Muslim terrorists claim to be acting on behalf of God, and I don’t like what they do, therefore God doesn’t exist.

Although I don’t believe that there is any objective standard of right and wrong, I personally feel that Israeli military expansion is yucky yuck yuck. It’s just my opinion though, since there is no objective standard of morality on atheism, but only arbitrary personal preferences and arbitrary customs that vary by time and place. Since these Israeli military expansionists claim to be acting on behalf of God, and I don’t like what they do, therefore God doesn’t exist.

Arguments from the human condition:

Although I said a minute ago that we should be cautious about the good experimental science that supports theism by showing that the universe came into being from nothing, fine-tuned for complex life, based on multiple lines of experimental evidence, I actually think that Darwinian evolution is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on ZERO lines of experimental evidence for macro-evolution (the evolution of new body plans and organ types). But since Darwinism is definitely true – as true as man-made global warming! – then God couldn’t exist. Why? Because God would not use a gradual process to create life, because I wouldn’t use a gradual process to create life. Also, we are similar to chimpanzees which proves that molecules to man evolution is true. Certainly there is no peer-reviewed evidence that human and chimpanzee DNA are actually very different. (Note that the link goes to Nature, the #1 peer-reviewed science journal).

When you were in your mother’s womb, you grew some hair and then it fell off, proving there is no God, because God, if he existed, would agree with me that babies should not grow hair in their mother’s womb, only to have it fall off.

Humans have appendices that have no purpose that is apparent to me, based on my vast experience with biology gleaned from writing snarky columns. Since I don’t see a purpose to your appendix – certainly there is no peer-reviewed evidence that the appendix has any useful biological purpose – therefore God does not exist.

When you were a child, you grew some teeth and then they fell off, proving there is no God, because God, if he existed, would agree with me that children should not grow teeth, only to have them fall off.

There are a lot of species that go extinct in the history of life and this proves that there is no God, because God, if he existed, would not have wanted lots of species to go extinct.

The smart theistic evolutionist Francis Collins believes in Darwinian evolution and he’s smart. I can’t give you any reasons why he believes in Darwinian evolution right now, but you should definitely believe in evolution because of his authority and his skill at avoiding debates on evolution with his critics in the intelligent design movement.

You need to be more humble like me, you ignorant fools. If you simply read more cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology, like we clever journalists have, then you would be a smart atheist like me! And humble, too, you ignorant, illiterate fundamentalists!

Summary of Dembski’s opening speech

Contentions:

1. Evolution is false, Hitchens’ proofs from his book don’t work.
2. Hitchens makes historical claims that are falsified by the evidence.
3. The progress of science falsifies atheism
4. Theism explains the big question of life better than atheism

Darwinian evolution vs. the evidence:

Junk DNA is not junk because the latest peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows that the so-called Junk-DNA actually has important functions in the cell. (Note that the link goes to Nature, the #1 peer-reviewed science journal).

The fossil record does not show a gradual pattern of emerging body plans because the latest evidence on the Cambrian explosion shows that new body plans emerged fully-formed without gradual developmental pathways.

The inverted retina is not a bad design, the counter-intuitive design actually is superior when the latest published research is considered.

Hitchens’ argument about the evolution of the eye rely on mathematical simulations, not on experimental evidence.

Hitchens is committed to Darwinism whether there is any evidence or not, because he pre-supposes materialism, so some form of evolution MUST be true, regardless of how lousy the observable evidence is for it.

Historical arguments:

Hitchens dismisses Israel’s time in Egypt and at Mount Sinai, but the evidence is written up in books like those of James K. Hoffmeier, published by Oxford University Press.

• Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
• Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Hitchens dismisses the historical records about Jesus, but these are again made clear in publications of top academic presses. (E.g. – N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, etc.)

The progress of science falsifies atheism:

Atheism requires that chemical evolution be true. Darwin thought that cells were simple because he needed them to be simple for this theory, and he didn’t know anything about what cells were really like. But the progress of science has shown that the complexity of cells is enormous.

You can actually use rigorous methods developed by Bill in his book “The Design Inference”, published by Cambridge University Press, and apply them to effects in nature, like archaeological artifacts, radio signals from space, and… cells and molecular machines.

When you apply the mathematical methods for inferring design to biology in books like “Signature in the Cell” or “The Design of Life”, components of living systems are found to be designed for a purpose.

The big questions are answered better by theism than atheism:

Other arguments: the cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from rationality/reason, the argument from mathematical foundations of reality, the argument from the the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, etc.

Filed under: News, Apologetics, Atheism, Audio, Christianity, Christopher Hitchens, Debate, Does a Good God Exist, God, Prestonwood, Summary, Theism, Video, William Dembski

Upcoming debate between William Dembski and Christopher Hitchens

Upcoming debate between William Dembski and Christopher Hitchens. (H/T Apologetics 315)

Details:

William Dembski will be debating Christopher Hitchens at the Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, TX, Nov. 18th, on the question of God’s goodness.

“Does a Good God Exist?”

Debate between Dr. William Dembski and Christopher Hitchens

Two intellectual heavy weights will square off toe-to-toe on the existence and goodness of God.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Dr. Dembski is a research professor, has an article on the debate.

Dembski and Hitchens will debate the existence of a good God during a conference for the Biblical Worldview Institute at Prestonwood Christian Academy in Plano, Texas. The debate will be hosted in the worship center at Prestonwood Baptist Church from 8:40 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. It will also be webcast on http://www.pcawebcast.com.

Dembski, a champion of the Intelligent Design movement, is also a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and an author of numerous books, including The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems and The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. He was also featured in the 2008 documentary on Intelligent Design, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Hitchens has authored, along with other controversial books, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and he edited The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer. Alongside Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett and Richard Dawkins, Hitchens has been called one of “The Four Horsemen” of the atheism. A former atheist, Hitchens’ brother, Peter, renounced his disbelief and recently wrote the 2010 publication, The Rage against God: How Atheism Led me to Faith.

Prestonwood Christian Academy is a ministry of Prestonwood Baptist Church, the location of one of Southwestern Seminary’s seven extension centers. The College at Southwestern is also a sponsor for the debate. For more information on the conference or to register, visit www.prestonwoodchristian.org.

I am a big fan of William Dembski. He will crush Hitchens, just like Craig did at Biola in 2009.

Dallas/Fort-Worth apologetics conference TODAY

Here’s a quick reminder about the upcoming conference in Dallas, TX.

When:

• November 5th and 6th, 2010
• Friday: 7:00 PM to 9:30 PM
• Saturday: 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM

Where:

• Denton Bible Church

Speakers and topics:

• Tag-team of all speakers on apologetics
• Dr. Paul Nelson, “The Power and Promise of Intelligent Design in Biology”
• Dr. Craig Hazen, “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?”
• Sean McDowell, “Equipping Young People with a Biblical Worldview”
• Dr. J.P. Moreland, “The War of Worldviews”
• Dr. Mike Licona, “Can We Really Trust the Gospels”
• Dr. William Lane Craig, “The Case for the Existence of God”

The main page is here.

The thing I like about this conference is that all of the speakers have participated in lectures and debates. Paul Nelson has debated on intelligent design, JP Moreland has debated on the existence of God, Craig debates regularly on the existence of God, Licona has debated Ehrman and others on the resurrection, and Sean McDowell kicked butt in his debate on morality and atheism. Craig Hazen hasn’t debated to my knowledge, but he does tons of lecturing, and people tend to really like his lectures. I once gave an entire set of lectures to my friends Andrew and Jen and they liked Craig Hazen the best.

So the point is that these guys are all really really good speakers! This conference should be a very lively affair.

Filed under: Events, Christopher Hitchens, Conference, Dallas, Debate, DFW, Fort Worth, Forum, Intelligent Design, On Guard, Texas, William Dembski, William Lane Craig

Richard Dawkins’ atheist charity sues former Dawkins disciple for fraud

The center-left UK Independent explains how one person who cannot ground morality rationally defrauded an organization of people who cannot ground morality rationally. (H/T Lex Communis)

Excerpt:

Josh Timonen was one of a small coterie of young protégés around Richard Dawkins, sharing his boss’s zealous atheism. But now he and the evolutionary theorist have fallen out spectacularly. Professor Dawkins’s charity has accused Mr Timonen of embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The two atheists had become close in recent years, with Dawkins, the best-selling author and Emeritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University, even dedicating his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, to him. But Mr Timonen and the Dawkins foundation are now preparing for a legal wrangle.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, has filed four lawsuits in a Californian court alleging that Mr Timonen, who ran its online operation in America, stole $375,000 (£239,000) over three years. It is claiming $950,000 in damages, while Mr Dawkins is suing him for $14,000 owed to him personally. Mr Timonen strongly denies the allegations.

[...]In documents filed at the court, the foundation says it spotted the alleged embezzlement this year when books were found detailing $500 meals, trips to Malibu Beach Inn and $314,000 in salaries paid to Mr Timonen and his girlfriend.

Beside his work for Professor Dawkins, Mr Timonen has been employed by fellow atheist Christopher Hitchens and the British Humanist Foundation, according to his website.

I actually wrote an entire series of posts on how atheists cannot rationally ground objective moral standards, free will, moral accountability, moral obligations and moral significance. If it turns out that Timonen is guilty, it would be interesting to hear what he thinks about the question “Why should I be moral?” from his atheist perspective.

Filed under: News, Atheism, Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, Foundations, Hitchens, Moral, Moral Obligation, Morality, New Atheism, Ontological Foundations, Ontology, Prescriptive Morality, Rationality, Reason, Richard Dawkins, Self-sacrifice

How good are the atheistic arguments of Christopher Hitchens?

I thought that I would go over an opening statement from a previous debate featuring Christopher Hitchens to find out what atheists are like in debates. I used his opening speech from his debate with Frank Turek. The audio from that debate is here, at Brian Auten’s Apologetics 315 site.

Now the important thing to remember about a generic debate on whether GOD EXISTS is that there should be no mention of any particular God, such as the Christian God, and no mention of the history of any particular religion. All arguments that assume specific theological or moral doctrines or specific religious history are irrelevant to a debate on generic theism.

The question being debated is: does a God who created and designed the universe, who has all the traditional properties of God, such as omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence, etc. exist? That is the question being debated in a “Does God Exist?” debate.

Frank Turek’s case for theism:

Frank Turek made 4 relevant arguments for theism, each of which alone would support his conclusion, that God exists:

• the origin of time, space, matter and energy out of nothing
• the fine-tuning of the physical constants to support the minimum requirements for life of any kind
• the origin of the biological information in the first self-replicating organism
• objective, prescriptive moral rules need to be grounded by the designer of the universe

And he also listed 4 features of the universe that are more consistent with theism than atheism (= materialism).

• non-material minds that allow rationality that would be impossible on materialism/determinism
• the mathematical structure of the universe and its intelligibility to the scientific method
• free will, which is required for moral responsibility and moral choices, requires a non-material mind/soul
• our first person experience of consciousness is best explained by a non-material mind/soul

Hitchens’ case against theism

To counter, Hitchens has to argue against God using arguments in one of two forms:

1. The concept of God is logically self-contradictory
2. An objective feature of the world is inconsistent with the attributes of God

The claim that God does not exist is a claim to know something about God, namely, that he does not exist. This claim requires the speaker to bear a burden of proof. In a debate on “Does God Exist?”, Hitchens must deny that God exists. Let me be clear: Hitchens must defeat the arguments for the claim that God exists, and then defend the claim that God does not exist, and support that claim using arguments and evidence.

Hitchens makes 2 basic claims:

• There are no good reasons to believe that theism is true
• There are good reasons to believe atheism is true

So far so good. But what are his good reasons for atheism?

1. I personally don’t like Christianity, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: I personally don’t like Catholicism getting rid of limbo
   - Premise: I personally don’t like Hell
   - Premise: I personally don’t like some episodes in church history
   - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
2. The plurality of religions means that no religious claims can be correct, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: There are lots of religions
   - Premise: The religions all disagree in their truth claims about the external world
   - Conclusion: No religion’s claims can be correct, therefore God doesn’t exist
3. I believe in one less God than you, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: You disbelieve in every God I do, except one
   - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
4. Religious people are stupid and evil, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: Religious people are ignorant
   - Premise: Religious people are fearful
   - Premise: Religious people are servile
   - Premise: Religious people are masochistic
   - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
5. Evolution explains how life progressed from single cell to today’s bio-diversity, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: Modern theists like Turek believe in Paley’s argument, and argued it in this debate
   - Premise: Paley’s argument was refuted by evolution
   - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
6. God wouldn’t have made the universe this way, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: If God exists, then he would have made the universe my way
   - Premise: The heat death of the universe wasn’t done my way
   - Premise: The extinction of species wasn’t done my way
   - Premise: The size of the universe wasn’t done my way
   - Premise: The amount of open space wasn’t done my way
   - Premise: The large number of stars wasn’t done my way
   - Premise: The age of the universe wasn’t done my way
   - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
7. Religion makes people do things that I don’t like, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: Some religions do suicide bombing
   - Premise: Some religions do child abuse
   - Premise: Some religions do genital mutilation
   - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
8. If you speak a sentence, I can repeat the same words as you said, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: Anything that you say is good, I can say is good too
   - Premise: Anything that you say is bad, I can say is bad too
   - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
9. Atheists are morally superior to religious people, therefore God doesn’t exist
   - Premise: I act in a way that is consistent with my personal, arbitrary moral preferences
   - Premise: You don’t act in a way that is consistent with my personal, arbitrary moral preferences
   - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
10. If I believe in God, I would have to submit to an authority
    - Premise: If I believe in God, then I can’t do whatever I want
    - Premise: But I want to do whatever I want
    - Conclusion: God doesn’t exist
11. I don’t like certain Christian doctrines, therefore arguments for God from science fail and therefore God doesn’t exist
    - Premise: I don’t like the atonement
    - Premise: I don’t like the virgin birth
    - Premise: I don’t like the incarnation
    - Premise: I don’t like original sin
    - Premise: I don’t like the resurrection
    - Conclusion: Arguments that are built on recent discoveries from the progress of science like the big bang, fine-tuning, origin of life, etc. are incorrect, and therefore God doesn’t exist

General comments about Hitchens’ case:

• The form of all of these arguments is logically invalid. The conclusions do not follow from the premises using the laws of logic, such as modus ponens and modus tollens.
• Hitchens cannot complain about morality because he has no foundation for objective moral facts. What he is really expressing is that he personally does not like such-and-such a state of affairs, based on his own arbitrary personal preferences, and the arbitrary social customs that evolved in the place and time that he finds himself in. On atheism, “morality” is just describing what people do – either individually or as groups living in different times and places. There is no objective right and wrong, and no objective way we ought to be. All statements are subjective. They describe what the speaker personally likes and dislikes. Just like taste in foods or taste in dress – which varies by individually, and is influenced by time and place ARBITRARILY.

Specific comments about each argument:

• Argument 1 tries to disprove God by arguing from Hitchens’ personal preferences about specific Christian doctrines. Christian doctrines are irrelevant to a debate about generic theism. And there is no reason why God should be bound by the personal, subjective preferences of one man. In fact, the concept of God entails that his unchanging nature is the standard of good and evil. So, this argument doesn’t disprove God, it’s just a statement of personal, subjective preference.
• Argument 2: Just because there are different truth claims made by different groups, doesn’t mean no one is correct. Mormons believe that matter existed eternally, and Jews believe it was created out of nothing. The big bang theory shows that the Mormons are wrong and the Jews are right.
• Argument 3: First of all, the debate is a about a generic Creator and Designer, not any particular religious conception of God. So the argument is irrelevant. Moreover, Christians reject Zeus, for example, because Zeus is supposed to exist in time and space, and therefore could not be the cause of the beginning of time and space.
• Argument 4: This is just the ad hominem fallacy. Hitchens is attacking the character of the theist, but that doesn’t show theism is false.
• Argument 5: This argument can be granted for the sake of argument, even though it’s debatable. The point is that it is irrelevant, since it doesn’t refute any of Turek’s actual scientific arguments like the big bang, the fine-tuning of the physical constants, the origin of information in the simplest living cell.
• Argument 6: Again, there is no reason to think that God should be bound by Hitchens’ personal opinion of how God should operate.
• Argument 7: This is the ad hominem fallacy again. The good behavior of religious believers is not a premise in any of Turek’s FOUR arguments for theism. Therefore, Hitchens’ point is irrelevant to the debate.
• Argument 8: The fact that the atheist can parrot moral claims is not the issue. Being able to speak English words is not what grounds objective, prescriptive morality. The issue is the ontology of moral rules, the requirement of free will in order to have moral responsibility and moral choices, ultimate significance of moral actions, and the rationality of self-sacrificial moral actions.
• Argument 9: This is just the ad hominem fallacy again.
• Argument 10: This is not argument so much as it reveals that the real reason Hitchens is an atheist is emotional. One might even say infantile.
• Argument 11: Again, these specific Christian doctrines are irrelevant to a debate about generic theism. And Hitchen’s subjective, personal preferences about Christian doctrine certainly do not undermine the objective scientific support for the premises in Turek’s 3 scientific arguments.

So, in short, Hitchens lost the debate, and Frank Turek won. That’s because Frank Turek talked about the external world, and Christopher Hitchens thought he was on the couch in psychiatrist’s office.

Christopher Hitchens = Worst. Debater. Ever.

The only reason why unsophisticated lay atheists think Christopher Hitchens is so great is because atheism is not something they adopted on rational grounds, but on emotional grounds – as a kind of tantrum against morality. Lay atheists want to pursue pleasure without moral constraints. And they think that Hitchens’ insulting style is the best way to bully and intimidate people into not calling their hedonism to account. They want to silence Christians so they can do as they please without feeling bad. And bullying is their preferred method of operation.

UPDATE: Commenter Jim writes:

C-SPAN2′s BookTV will broadcast a debate “Does Atheism Poison Everything?” with Christopher Hitchens and David Berlinski this weekend.

To learn more, see here and here.

You may also be interested in my previous post that assessed the arguments of atheist Richard Dawkins.

Filed under: Polemics, Apologetics, Arguments, Atheism, Christianity, Christopher Hitchens, Debate, Evidence, God, Proof, Theism