Reasonable Faith is the website centred around the apologetics work of William Lane Craig. I’ve subscribed to their regular email newsletter. You should too. If you had, you’d know that on the evening of Saturday the 4th of April (that’s Sunday afternoon, the 5th of April here in New Zealand), William Lane Craig will be debating Christopher Hitchens on the existence of God.

This is a break with tradition for Dr Craig, who in the past has only engaged in formal debates with people with a PhD. I guess Hitchens is sort of a folk hero for some internet atheists and due to his cult following (not unlike the following of Richard Dawkins – in fact the fan clubs may be one and the same), Craig has made an exception (but I could be wrong).

Click on the image above to link to the blog which has been set up specifically for the debate, which will double as a live webcast, so you can listen from home.

If this debate at all reflects the perceptions that seem to thrive online as well as my own observations, Craig will deliver his standard arguments, Hitchens will say little directly about them but will make use of plenty of humour, sarcasm and general ridicule of religion. I’m almost wondering what Craig will have to say in the later stages of the debate. But I could be surprised. Maybe Hitchens has done some preparation for this debate. We’ll find out tomorrow.

For all those interested, here’s a debate that took place on September 9 2008 between Frank Turek of crossexamined.org and Christopher Hitchens, who has been getting the occasional mention here lately. The subject of the debate – what else: Does God Exist?

Enjoy.

Recall that not all that long ago, I posted my review of a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath. One of the points I made is as follows: Hitchens says that religion dissolves our duty to uphold the truth. Now as I said at the time, as a Christian the duty to uphold the truth makes perfect sense to me, and of course it’s a duty I take seriously. I raised the question, additionally, of why the truth about religion ought to matter to someone who is not a Christian but is an atheist. I noted the straw man attack on religious people as people who don’t care about truth, and then I said:

The second issue is perhaps the more interesting one, and it is one that, unfortunately, McGrath never picks up in his reply. What obligation, according to Hitchens, do we really have to “live and witness in truth?” What is the basis of this obligation? For example, if there were a peaceful religion that was false yet gave its members great happiness and hope until the day they die, is there anything wrong in believing in it, and is there any actual moral duty to persuade people to give it up? Hitchens certainly offers no clear reason for thinking that truth at all costs is a greater good than peace and happiness for the greatest number of people on earth

That seemed like a pretty clear point, right? Well, apparently not. here’s what a nameless “reluctant atheist” had to say:

[T]he debate is utterly superfluous, because whether or not religion is a “poison” or not, it has no bearing on any kind of claim religion has to truth: the debate is a red herring.

This is because – contrary to the claims (pdf) of Glenn Peoples – the truth does matter. Time and again, Peoples claims that it doesn’t matter what individuals believe in. But Dawkins is right to point out in the God Delusion that it insults us – indeed, degrades us – as human beings to believe in things merely for the purposes of comfort. We can do better than that.

Oh dear. it’s almost as though the author of those comments had set out to make the opposite point, given how obviously untrue his comments here are. Notice how many times he quotes me making this outlandish claim: Exactly zero times.

At the risk of boosting this person’s exposure, I’ve brought this up here, and I’ve also contacted the author of that blog and requested a retraction so that nobody can say I’m making these comments in secret. Let’s set the clock ticking and see how much this fellow cares about truth after all. This is day one, and counting.

After many promises, I’ve finally gotten around to finshing my summary and review of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath.

It’s currently only in pdf Format, and you can find it here.

Comments are welcome.

… OK, I didn’t technically forget, but I did let it slide.

My summary and review of the Hitchens/McGrath Debate will be done some time this week.

William Lane Craig was recently in New Zealand for a conference on Molinism at the Victoria University in Wellington. While he was here he had a number of public speaking engagements, including this one, a debate with Bill Cook of the New Zealand Atheists, Rationalists and Humanists, at the University of Auckland. The topic of the debate was: “Is God a Delusion?”

Unfortunately I was not able to attend. From what I have heard, most of those in attendance, regardless of their view of the existence of God held a more or less shared view of who won the debate. But you can decide for yourself.

Late in 2007, Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath met for a public debate on the topic of Religion: The Poison or the Cure, where the merits – or lack thereof, of religion (and Christianity in particular), were thrown back and forth. I’ve written up my summary of the debate, and I’m in the process of writing a review, and I’ll post it when it’s done.

Unlike some comments out there on the debate, it really will be a review. The Hitchens/Dawkins fanclub over at Dawkins’ site, of course, make the truly important observations on the debate here (and on the subsequent pages in that forum). Apparently “Alistair McGrath is a nonce.” Crucially, “There’s something very comical about the way that this McGrath person moves about as he talks.” But what strikes me as genuinely revealing about just how familiar the fanbois are with the person they are talking about was this gem in the very first comment: “That guy just strikes me as a very small person that makes a living out of Dawkins’ fame. How come he can’t seem to manage writing a book that isn’t about somebody else’s work?”

Wow. Just wow. McGrath has written two books in which he criticises Dawkins. Two. Put that next to the fact that McGrath has authored at least 18 academic books (the list there does not appear to include the Dawkins Delusion) and edited three larger volumes, written a couple of textbooks, and authored literally dozens of peer reviewed articles, including a few in science. Yep, that’s McGrath all right, riding the coat-tails of Richard Dawkins.

Jaqueline Salmon reviewed the debate in the Washington Post here.  She concludes, “Nobody got knocked down, nobody was knocked out, no arm was held up in triumph, the eternal question remains unresolved.” I can’t say I share her conclusion. It’s my humble opinion that in flamboyant presentation Hitchens won, and on content, Hitchens left in a body bag – but I’ll also be suggesting that McGrath could (should) have done better on the offensive.

Stay tuned, I’ll announce when the review is online.