The Atheism Challenge

I watched the ABC News-sponsored debate about God's existence that was streamed this morning.  The debate was generated by the Blasphemy Challenge on You Tube inspired by Brian Fleming's film (which I reviewed on the blog last year).  Watching clips of some of those challenges illustrated a fundamental mistake that is replayed over and over and over when many atheists debate the existence of God:  They don't take the trouble to first really understand the theist view and represent it correctly.  Many of the atheists' challenges in the ABC debate are simplistic misrepresentations or questions that have been answered, perhaps not to atheist satisfaction, but they've been answered.  Yet the same questions are posed as if they're slam dunk winners because there is no answer.  That doesn't mean atheism isn't true or that theism is true; it means many times these debates are just unimpressive and tedious on their face because at least one side doesn't show up having done their homework.  It would at least be relevant to rebut the arguments offered in favor of theism how the appearance of design is actually the result of random, blind mechanisms.  It would be relevant how to prescriptive incumbency of morailty can arise from material sources.  Those weren't offered.

First, the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is not completely understood theologically, but at the very least it isn't (and no one has claimed) that it's uttering the words "I deny the Holy Spirit" as is repeated in the challenges.  In the debate Kelly,the atheist, thought she scored points by pointing out the absurd idea that someone could go to Hell by saying "I deny the Holy Spirit" yet Hitler could go to Heaven if he were a Christian.  (She erroneously claimed Hitler was a Catholic, which shows she doesn't have the most fundamental conception of what Christians claim is being a Christian.  Membership in a church [especially as a child] no more makes one a Christian than saying "I blaspheme the Holy Spirit" sends someone to Hell.)  Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is, at minimum, rejecting the Spirit that creates trust in Jesus Christ, the source of salvation.  It's quite logical that rejection of the Holy Spirit would be an obstacle to salvation in Christian terms.

The biggest mistake many atheists make is living up to their prejudices that theists are stupid and irrational.  That leads them not to bother to understand what they are debating.  They believe dismissal is enough.  Kirk Cameron related a conversation he had with Brian Sapient, the other atheist, before the debate.  Kirk ended the conversation by telling Brian, "I'll be praying for you."  Brian told him, "I'll be thinking for you."  That's actually not the mirror response to Kirk's.  Brian, as an atheist can't pray, won't pray.  He presumes that Kirk, as a Christian, can't or won't think, or at least do it well because theism is irrational.  About the only decent debates I've ever heard between atheists and Christians are those that engaged philosophers against the likes of J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig because at least their debate opponents were canny enough to realize that Moreland and Craig have some rational arguments since they're not idiots.

Ray used an argument from design to "prove" theism.  The atheists responded by asking him, if creation is scientific, to take them to the "universe factory."  They were making the claim that science must be empirical or first hand experience, or it doesn't qualify.  The problem with that claim is that there are many theories in science, origins most notably, that make claims about the past, things we can't witness first hand.  Much of science is reasoning to the best explanation from the evidence.  That's why design is a fair "proof."  We witness evidence of design and our experience tells us that designed things have a designer.

Kelly and Brian responded to this with what they thought was the unanswerable question:  Who then created God?  Now, you may not accept the answer, but it isn't rhetorical.  It's been answered in an intelligible way. (For the answer, see William Lane Craig's work on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.)  The answer may not be empirical, but as I've already mentioned much of science isn't empirical and rationality is not science.

Kelly claimed that the existence of God would negate science.  Science is the adding of knowledge, and belief in God would simply halt that attempt.  Kelly's statement indicates a great deal of faith in science and an ignorance about the history of science.  The history of science is not an smooth compilation of increase information; it's actually one of radical change, replacing theories completely, and starting over with new ideas where the evidence leads.  And it's not the ancient past.  Darwinism is a recently arrival on the science of science, not even 150 years old.  Einstein's theory of relativity was a revolution in science and that's about a century old.  Science isn't a clean, progressive field of knowledge.

And if science is all there is, then how does she justify the rationality she is devoted to?  Science doesn't prove rationality, it is guided by it.  Rationality isn't the product of biological organisms.  In fact, if we are simply natural mechanisms then we can only behave along predetermined courses and rationality has nothing to do with our conclusions and scientific theories.  If rationality is science, then take me to the "rationality factory."

Likewise, she and Brian asserted that atheists can be good, too.  That's an unremarkable claim and avoids the theist's challenge of how atheism grounds morality.  What makes morality prescriptive in nature, rather than simply descriptive?  Where does the ought come from, rather than only the is?  She claimed that it's the accumulation of generations of experience.  That's descriptive, not prescriptive.

Kelly claimed that atheism is a lack of belief in God.  True.  But she and many other atheists use this to put the entire burden of proof on theists as if they are the only ones with a positive claim to prove.  Atheism may be a lack of belief in God, but it is still a belief - a belief God doesn't exist.  It's a conviction that something is the case in the world.  It's not a withholding of belief.  Atheist hold a burden of proof just as much as theists.

They both also made an unusual claim that we're all born atheists and have to be taught theism.  They didn't offer any evidence for this claim.  If that were true, I'm not sure how belief in God would have gotten started in our purely naturalistic world.  And why, then, is atheism so rare? Why isn't atheism more common if it's every human's initial state?  They can't consistently appeal to generations of superstition, because they already appeal to those same generations that have given us the cumulative wisdom that we call morality.  Those ancient people couldn't be completely naive since they already borrowed from them.  Now our ieas of God may need to be filled out with more detail that our initial concept, but that's not the same thing as being natural atheists.

It was amusing that Kelly claimed that Ray's arguments for theism were loaded with appeals to emotion.  He actually expressed his arguments from design and morality quite straightforwardly.  Yet Brian and she repeated used loaded language to marginalize theism.  Most commonly they labeled it "magic" and substituted "flying spaghetti monster" for God.  That's fine, it's a debate trick to gain the advantage.  It's just ironic they accused Ray of doing what they actually did.

Brian argued that naturalism is the best explanation because of Okham's Razor, the principle that (as he incompletely offered it) the simplest explanation is the preferred one.  Okham's Razor says that the simplest explanation that adequately deals with the evidence is the preferred one.  What Ray tried to argue was that naturalism and atheism doesn't account for all of the evidence of design and morality.  Theism may not be as simple as atheism, but it deals better with all of the evidence.

If you want to know what mistakes I thought Ray made, I guess there was only a few minor ones  He did appeal to the Bible when he used the Ten Commandments in his argument from morality.  That didn't negate what he said about morality, it just seemed to violate what he said he'd do.  He easily could have done what he intended to accomplish with general appeals to universally accepted morals, clear cases.  I also wouldn't have claimed ahead of time that he would "prove" God exists.  His explanation of how we recognize design, what counts as information, could have been more detailed to help those who are used to thinking in evolutionary terms see his point.  But these are small weakness; there weren't any intrnal contradictions or problems with his arguments.  He presented very persuasive arguments that the atheists didn't even rebut, much less refute.  It was just a bit of hype I would have avoided.

Kelly and Brian repeatedly claimed that Christians are motivated by threats and guilt.  That was another misunderstanding of the role of morality in Christianity.  And most fundamentally it sets up a false dichotomy between religion and rationality, religion and science.  That was their biggest mistake in the debate.

Comments

[tony montano]

Ya I think those youtube atheists are nuts. I would NEVER NEVER take the “blasphemy challenge”. Though I think atheism is mostly true, I also think it’s ridiculously depressing. And I’d much rather keep my options open.

[tony montano]

by the way you can see the debate at http://abcnews.go.com/

But geez it's so bad it's almost unwatchable.

Except when atheist "Kelli" comes on.

- And i'm not talking about her philosophical assets.

[Justin]

I was disappointed that,from the clips I saw on the ABC website, Ray and Kirk did not call Brian and Kelly on two things.

1. Brian and Kelly claimed that the universe is eternal. This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

2. Kelly claimed that Jesus did not exist. Not even as a historical person, let alone the question of his divinity.

[David]

These two atheists clearly are not informed about what they believe. Their prime motive for creating the "Blasphemy Challenge" is a rebellious and naive motive. I really wish they would put prime apologists of Christianity up against Dawkins, Bell, and the like so there can be intense discussion rather than "surface scratching" of everything we have heard many times than I would like to (not to discredit Comfort and Cameron in any way).

I believe the best outcome from this debate are the watchers who will research both parties and possibly land their feet in the Living Waters / WOTM territory. I doubt Comfort and Cameron did this debate to retard the efforts of atheists in their attempts to refute Christianity, but they probably did it to promote what they do, which will actually lead to saved souls. www.wayofthemasterradio.com just put up a video clip of Todd Friel talking to the man from the debate about abortion and shows how his arguments are actually insults.

[The Sci Phi Show]

I always chuckle when I hear atheists invoke Occam's Razor. I wonder what William of Occam would make of such a use of his principle.

And why is it that when atheists talk about religion they seem to loose 40 IQ points ?

[Alis]

Absolutely excellent blog. I, as a Christian, just cringed when I watched the 'debate'. ABC has really been on an Anti-Christian kick here lately and unfortunately Kirk and Ray fed right into it.

[Joel Bain]

I wonder, is there any original thought in the atheist camp? Most of the challenges I hear from the atheist crowd are statements against Christianity rather than the direct question of whether God exists. There is little to no positive evidence presented for the atheistic case in the many debates I read/hear.

[Tod Samuelson]

When atheists begin invoking an infinite number of universes, quantum foams that pop universes into existence, and speculative universe generating mechanisms to explain the origin of our universe, I'd have to say that's enough to make William of Occam roll in his grave. Wherever did the appeal to "mind" become a burdened complexity?

The old school naturalism used to say: "we can explain everything with one world, while you theists take two."
Now they say, "oh this Christian God is just so dang complex, come on over and join the infinite-universe club"

[doug TenNapel]

These guys did a good enough job. The atheists were so bad they didn't give them much of a fight. "Who made God?" has got to be the most self-evidently stupid answer to "Who made the universe?" imaginable.

I really like Comfort's speaking style...it's good for TV.

[David]

Don't forget to watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight on Fox News at 8PM or 11PM EST. Kirk Cameron will be appearing to talk about his debate.

[michael Dials]

I would very much like to see a debate with the best the atheists have to offer and Hank Hanegraaff and Lee Strobel on a prime time channel. Lee Strobel is also a former atheist.

[Jack]

I have not seen this debate, but appreciate the comments. BTW, Dawkins is no heavyweight atheist, at least as far as his published arguments. Having just written a critique of 'The God Delusion' for a course, I was very disappointed with the poor quality of his case. Seems that all of the best minds are on the THEISTIC side these days...

[Angie T]

Jack,
you should post a link to your book report here! I would like to read it.

[AC]

I think the debate went great. Way of the Master acheived its purpose by presenting a clear proclamation of the gospel call for repentance and faith in the Savior. Praise the Lord! Millions of people who have possibly never heard the biblical gospel heard it last night! May He use this for His glory and to bring many to salvation.

[doug TenNapel]

AC, does God encourage deciet when presenting the Gospel? Because that debate was "the ends justify the means". Comfort and Cameron clearly misrepresented the debate...they were preaching. I like preaching, I even like preaching during a debate, I just wished they told ABC this was going to be a Way of the Master Gospel Hour instead of a debate that would give evidence to God without invoking the Bible. And I do think people will accept Christ because of the compelling emotional statements made by Comfort and Cameron which by far out-weighed the emotional statements made by the atheists.

What bums me out is that this might keep ABC from having other real debates.

By the way, I think just about every Christian here could probably have argued atheism's case better than these two atheists, though I doubt if we'd come up with any better cleavage.

[Josh]

Does anyone know what the actual claim before the debate was regarding the use of the Bible? Was it that they wouldn't use the Bible to prove God's existence or that they wouldn't use the Bible period?

They did use the ten commandments during the debate, but that was to prick a person's conscience (and the argument was that the conscience shows God's existence). It seems to me that this is slightly different than using the Bible in itself to show God's existence. But I am not sure what claims were made before the debate.

[Rich Wells]

From everything I read, Ray said that he would argue for the existence of God scientifically and not use the Bible. Never did I hear that a Bible wasn't allowed to be used at all during the debate. And I believe Ray lived up to the agreement and they atheists were just hoping that the Bible would never be used at all.

I believe it went well but, like others, here, I'm amazed by the simplisitic arguments that the atheists used and how well they were received. We really are a nation of idiots who will buy into anything without thinking.

Through it all, we need to keep in mind that Ray and Kirk, as always, view this as an opportunity to present the Gospel to the widest possible audience using the Word of God. It wasn't necessarily to prove the existence of God (regardless of how the event was billed by the atheists and ABC). They were given a platform and they used it wonderfully to reach millions! Praise God! And thank you Ray and Kirk for your devotion, service and faithfulness to the preaching of the Gospel!

[Denis]

From a Way of the Master "news blast":

"Comfort -- who claims he can prove the existence of God, scientifically, without mentioning faith or the Bible -- stated, "The network originally offered me only four minutes to present my case. After speaking with Kirk and conferring with the atheists, they settled on 13 minutes. I'm ecstatic. I can prove the existence of God in that amount of time.""

Does this mean Ray would *only* argue God's existence without the Bible? I think this is where the disagreement comes in - I'm guessing the atheists thought so but the WoM guys didn't.

Really the first of the 3 proofs offered by Ray did not rely on Scripture, it was his second (and third maybe?) that did. So he did actually offer a proof of God's existence "scientifically, without mentioning faith or the Bible", he simply went on to provide additional proofs which invoked Scripture.

The atheists on the debate did say their position was somewhat over simplified/misrepresented in billing of the show (i.e., that they weren't there to prove God didn't exist) so perhaps the same thing happened with Ray's position.

[AC]

Hey TenNapel,

ABC simply misunderstood and or misrepresented his claim. Ray never said he would not use the Bible at all... he just said that he can prove Gods existence without using the Bible and he did just that--> Creation proves a Creator. Period. That is 100% purely scientific undeniable tangible proof for the existence of God.

He then went on to provide two more evidences for God's existence (conscience and conversion) and I thank God that they consisted of a full presentantion of the Gospel with a clear call for repentance and faith in Jesus Christ!

Reminds me of Mars Hill... some mocked and hurled insults, some will surely further investigate, and some by God's grace were probably convicted and believed!

[Frank Walton]

I can't say I was really happy with Cameron and Comfort's performance. I believe they lost. But thanks for your assessment!

[Merry]

Actually it turns out that the only way that Brian Sapient agreed to debate was if Ray Comfort gave him his exact speech ahead of time. So Brian was "acting" like Ray's arguments were out of laft field because he had everything in black and white.

Ray had told him that his first point would not use the Bible. Which it didn't. The additional evidences did use the Bible as a further explanation but not as proof.

All of this was fine by Brian until the actual debate came around...this info comes from Kirk Cameron on their radio show.

[documatic]

You know what I really got out of this was that the atheists are lost period. I don't think it matters what facts Kirk or Ray could have brought up. As it says in Romans Men prefered not to retain the knowledge of God. If anything I saw was the guile and hatred that those not of God have for him and his people.

[Bob]

Good example of some two story thinking by the black pastor in this video.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=952695&cl=2654567&src=news

[AC]

What do you mean by two story thinking? (Sorry I cant watch the video at this moment)

[Bob]

That is a phrase coined by the late Francis Schaeffer.

Refer to the November/December 2002 edition of the Solid Ground newsletter available on str.org.

[Bill]

I'd have to say the atheists won the debate, but not by anything they did. It was more like Cameron and Comfort lost it. If you announce that you will "absolutely prove the existance of God scientifically" and then bring out a Coca Cola can and ask "did this soda can just make itself?", you shoot yourself in the foot.

I understand the arguement of a Designer, don't get me wrong. But Comfort didn't bring up any science at all. He could've used Michael Behe's theory of irreducible complexity, or Strobel's work on cellular activity compared to information systems. (or anything from the Privelege Planet DVD)

I too would love to have seen William Lane Craig or Lee Strobel take on some atheist heavy weights. Brian Sapient and Kelly try to look intelligent, but just come off oafish.

[Merle]

Well said, Bill. My thoughts exactly.

[Chad]

I have great respect for Kirk and Ray and they give a great Gospel presentation. Unfortunately, they billed this as a debate that would prove the existence of God (and more specifically the God of the Bible) from General Revelation and not from Special Revelation.

Unfortunately, they have little background in that and new little of the scientific arguments on both sides as well as the classic philosphical argument. I cringed when there first argument used the 10 Commandments and an exhortation to repent. Not that that is bad, but it was exactly what they said they were not going to do and they therefore lost the debate.

The limitations of the debate meant they lost before they started, the most you can argue for from general revelation is that there is a Creator and some of his aspects are eternality, etc. You have to bring in Scripture to show that the God of the Bible is the only one who fits the bill.

There are great ID arguments like the irreducible complexity of cellular machinery like bacterial flagellae. How does something evolve when it is non functional until in its final form and is made up of hundreds of specific parts.

Ray and Kirk were totally stumped when the atheists asserted that scientists all believe the Universe was eternal.
The truth nearly all cosmologists believe that the universe began 14 billion years ago at the Big Bang. This theory was refused for a long time by atheist scientists because it fit the biblical account too well, until they had to because it was the only theory that fit the data. Both sides used a lot of strawman arguments, the worst were the photoshopped pics of sheep-dogs etc. from Kirk. The atheists used a poor argument for why there are no transitional forms because all individuals of a species are slowly evolving (this is more of a New Age argument than a biological one) and easily refuted by all the species that are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago

If they wanted a scientific debate (which apparently they did, and not a religous or philosophical one) they should have asked the christian cosmologists and biologists at www.reasons.org they do a good job of showing how the Bible and science agree, of course from an Old Earth perspective which is a problem for some Christians, but for me the only way General Revelation and Special Revelation agree is in the Old Earth view.

[Frank Walton Sucks]

The only post about Frank Walton you will ever need to read.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/hamurookis_irrational_precepts/10036

[FrankStinks]

Best we can tell Frank is an insane man not just because of his religion, but due to actual issues. Here is a post that describes the deceit of Frank Walton http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_
response_squad_radio_show/hamurookis_irrational
_precepts/10036">
Also the only legitimate site we know of that exposes Frank, in a sometimes satirical manner is this site all about Frank Walton and his atheism sucks friends. http://atheismsucks-sucks.blogspot.com">