God – A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist Point Counterpoint Series (Oxford England)
God A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist Point Counterpoint Series Oxford England
The question of whether or not God exists is profoundly fascinating and important. Now two articulate spokesmen–one a Christian, the other an atheist–duel over God's existence in an illuminating battle of ideas. In God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong bring to the printed page two debates they held before live audiences, preserving all the wit, clarity, and immediacy of their public exchanges. Avoiding overly esoteric arguments, they directly address issues such as religious experience, the Bible, evil, eternity, the origin of the universe, design, and the supposed connection between morality and the existence of God. Employing sharp and humorous arguments, each philosopher strikes quickly to the heart of his opponent's case. For example, Craig claims that we must believe in God in order to explain objective moral values, such as why rape is wrong. Sinnott-Armstrong responds that what makes rape wrong is the harm to victims of rape, so rape is immoral even if there is no God. By assuming a traditional concept of God in their discussion, the authors ensure that they are truly addressing each other's viewpoints and engaging in a disagreement over a unified issue. The book is composed of six chapters that alternate between Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong, so that each separate point can be discussed as it arises. Ideal for courses in the philosophy of religion and introduction to philosophy, this lively and direct dialogue will stimulate students and anyone interested in the existence of God, regardless of whether or not they believe in God.
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars A look into both minds
This is not the first apologetic book I have read. I do not recommend this to people not familiar with apologetic reading. The angle to see into both the Christian's approach to God via logic and an atheist's is where I find this book so useful and unique. The point-counter-point format was invaluable. Each debater wrote a their opening pieces and stated their points and arguments as a formal debate but did so with such detail that would take several hours had they orated this book before an audience. It was more detailed than I would expect to see a live debate but each point was not developed to the point that one can grasp the full complexity of each point. I found it to be a healthy mix of detail but not too much as to go over one's head.
While this is the first book I have read that shares the logical perspective of the counter point (Athiesm) of my own beliefs it was invaluable to see the developed arguments as they were presented. From the perspective of Christians interested in what the Atheistic/Naturalist viewpoints argue I highly recommend this book. I now look forward and can confidently approach Dawkins' and Harris's books.
3 Stars Concise and readable
In the debate over the existence of God between Craig, a Christian, and Sinnott-Armstrong, an atheist, much care is taken to separate this work from similar texts. From the outset it becomes apparent that this work is one of the most readable of its kind. That is, the respective debaters agree upon an attempt to keep the conversation grounded within the realm of understanding for the general population while refusing to shy from the arguments integral to either position. Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong, add to the credibility of the debate by delineating the being in question as one that is "all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, effective, and personal" (essentially the traditional view of the Christian God), therefore avoiding much of the confusion associated with debates over a generic god or ultimate being. While the text was inspired by live debates held between these individuals, it is organized far better than many other texts which are little more than transcripts of live debates; yet still provides each position an opportunity to present an argument, submit a rebuttal, as well as a defense of their original arguments.
One would only need to scan a few of the other works available of this type to recognize the effort dedicated to the reader in this particular work. However, this text, like many, is not free of all shortcomings. Some might have difficulty with the pairing of these two individuals for this purpose as it becomes evermore apparent as one proceeds through the text that Craig is quite accustomed to such situations while Sinnott-Armstrong simply is not. While Craig's arguments appear to be fine tuned and focused, Sinnott-Armstrong seems to be less practiced and, perhaps, familiar with the topic. Of course, as with many debates, both Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong border upon unreasonable, or even fallacious, appeals to authority, emotion, and popularity; however, it is often these tactics which make this work a compelling and, at times, humorous read. Nonetheless, when compared to its textual peers, this work is uncharacteristically entertaining and readable while still addressing the critical and popular topics surrounding this longstanding question.
4 Stars Good Debate, and Awaits More
This is a welcome addition to the ongoing believer/doubter dialogue. The debaters were mutually respectful and free of dogmatic assertions. Each had some stronger and some weaker arguments, but in my opinion no absolute clinchers. Other reviewers, on both sides, were able to acknowledge the better arguments of the opposition, even if few minds may have been changed. Rather, this debate serves as an eye-opener in either direction, showing well the reasonable concerns of both parties.
Dr. Craig is to be commended on two points especially. First, he describes his arguments as just that, not proofs. Second, he explicitly admits that skeptics can be moral persons, avoiding the all-too-frequent canard that unbelievers cannot be moral. Similarly, Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong does not dismiss religion as mere superstition or the like. These attitudes made for a congenial exchange.
Dr. Craig surveys concisely most of the traditional arguments for God–ontological, augmented cosmological (kalam), teleological (design), and moral. Dr. Sinnott-Armstrong has responses to each, but perhaps a bit too brief. He focuses quite a bit on the Problem of Evil. Craig admits the emotional force of this but then goes for a philosophical justification of the existence of Evil. Some of this was new (to me, anyway), but even still I was not convinced.
Although good points were made by both, I think even better potential exists on either side. That said, I suspect that Craig came very close to the best apologetics possibilities, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong has more "headroom" for future development.
This excellent discussion invites further effort and makes me eager to see what is yet to come.
5 Stars Sizzling Debate, But You'll Need Your Thinking Cap!
William Lane Craig is one of my favorite Christian apologists. But he has his hands full in this debate over the existence of God. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong vigorously challenges Craig's five arguments for the existence of God, and he also gives three of his own arguments for atheism.
Craig's strongest moments were his arguments for the causation of the universe and the fine tuning of this said universe so that it could contain life. Craig persuasively argues that the intricate design of the universe is evidence of a Designer. Sinnott-Armstrong argues vigorously against this conclusion, but the logic of Craig's argument seemed stronger. Score two points for Craig! (one for causation, one for fine tuning)
I also think that Craig won the debate over the resurrection of Jesus, as Sinnott-Armstrong's replies showed that he wasn't overly familiar with the resurrection evidences. Others have had stronger arguments against the resurrection, and have still fallen short. Another point for Craig!
However, I think that Sinnott-Armstrong did very well in showing that atheists can have moral values. If this is true, then Craig is wrong to show moral values as a proof for God. Point for Sinnott-Armstrong!
Also, I felt that Sinnott-Armstrong outscored Craig on Craig's 5th argument, that God can be known experientially. While I personally accept Craig's statement, Sinnott-Armstrong effectively showed that these experiences are hard to evaluate, and at any rate, since people from all different belief systems have had experiences of some kind, this may not be sufficient proof for the existence of the traditional God of Christianity. It's close, but I give this point to Sinnott-Armstrong.
Sinnott-Armstrong also does a good job raising questions about why a good and all-powerful God would allow evil in the world. Craig successfully countered by showing that there is no good reason to doubt from a theistic perspective why God would not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing and permitting certain kinds of evil. But nevertheless, these answers did more to strengthen the faithful than to convince others. This point was hotly contested, it could go either way, but you have to give it to Sinnott-Armstrong by a hair because Craig's line of thinking works only if you are already a believer in the traditional God under discussion.
Of all the people that Craig has debated, this was definitely his toughest opponent. Sinnott-Armstrong exposed some flaws in Craig's thinking, and there were numerous times in the debate when Sinnott-Armstrong came across more clearly, and he definitely wins in terms of his use of humor and analogies.
But since three of Craig's arguments seemed to establish sufficient evidence for God's existence (at least in my opinion), I would say that this is probably enough to say that Craig won the debate. But let's be truthful: I work for God, and I just talked with Him a little while ago, so I'm a biased bum! Get this sizzling book and judge for yourself. But put on your thinking cap, because even though the introduction promises that the debaters will avoid technical jargon, the concepts under discussion will test the processor in your head. Recommended for inquiring minds.
3 Stars Debating the Undebatable
Although this is a decent book with articulate and interesting debate, I can't fully recommend it because the entire debate is silly in the first place. No reasonable atheist actually denies the possibility of God(s?), because there is no evidence for it and it is therefore irrational. On the other hand, there is no evidence for religion, so it is irrational to consider it plausible without a shred of evidence despite its technical possibility (think of other arbitrary, implausible, yet possible things like unicorns). It is OK to admit that we have no clue if there is or isn't a god, and to stop concerning yourself with the matter until some actual evidence arises.
Just because there are gaps in science does not mean God is required to fill them, because they are probably not permanent gaps (think things like stars and lightning that modern science has revealed despite centuries of mystical cop outs). And likewise, just because those gaps will probably be filled by science someday, it does not mean there is no God.
If you are on the fence about religion, this book will only confuse you more, though it will get you thinking and may be enjoyable. The issue should not be to prove or disprove God (both impossible as of now), but rather to determine whether the concept of God and/or organized religion is relevant to your life in the first place. Read something like The God Delusion or Letter to a Christian Nation instead. You will find much more enlightenment there.
Related posts:
- Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics
- Atheist Universe – The Thinking Persons Answer to Christian Fundamentalism
- Atheist Universe The Thinking Persons Answer to Christian Fundamentalism
- You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Cant Make Him Think – Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics
- Dawkins Explains Why He Refuses to Debate Creationists
- Reason, Faith and Revolution – Reflections on the God Debate, The Terry Lectures Series
- Reasonable Faith – Christian Truth and Apologetics
- You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Cant Make Him Think – Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics
- There Is a God — How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
- There Is a God – How the Worlds Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Leave a Reply
Here in the States, a growing number of people are no longer affiliated with any religion. Yet, there are some Christian groups who continue to insist on blurring the lines of separation between church and state. For the non-churchgoers and freethinkers worldwide, this site features news, reviews and editorials on just about anything regarding religion. Your opinion is always welcome here, either as a columnist or commenter. Hey, this is not church -- you are allowed to speak your mind and think for yourself!
A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: While comments are welcomed and get the Do Follow option, they are strictly monitored. That means comments must be on topic and add to the discussion. Submissions from multiple names having the same IP, troll comments, keyphrase users and the like will be deleted. Please see our policies page for more information.
 |
 |
Main Feed | Comments Feed |
|
 |
 |