Does God Exist?
April 9th, 2009Recently, about 3,000 students and guests had the opportunity to see Christopher Hitchens debate Dr. William Lane Craig on the topic “Does God Exist?” at BIOLA University. Dr. Craig is often involved in such debates and is a formidable logical thinker and Hitchens is the atheist author that claims not only is faith a faulty endeavor, it is terribly harmful.
It was observed that Craig spoke compellingly from his usual 5 basic arguments:
1. The Cosmological Argument; Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. God is the best explanation for that cause.
2. The Teleological Argument; The fine-tuning of the universe is so improbable that law or chance aren’t adequate explanations. God is the best explanation.
3. The Moral Argument; If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Rape isn’t just culturally unacceptable, it’s actually wrong.
4. The Resurrection of Jesus; The vast majority of historians generally agree that the tomb was empty. Separately, the vast majority of historians generally agree that Jesus appeared to people post-mortem. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
5. The Immediate Experience of God; Belief that God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded in argument.
Hitchens said that the burden was on Craig to prove God with some certainty and positioned himself as more of an agnostic and since he doesn’t “know” for sure, his stance of non-faith is safest. Hitchens sites the problem of evil and suffering as evidence that there must not be a God, otherwise, he would prevent or eliminate it. For anyone that has seen Hitchens, it is agreed that he does this with humor and plenty of sarcasm directed at God and at people that might be foolish enough to believe.
It seems that Dr. Craig, by the rules of debate, surely made the better case, but the audience was probably impacted more by Hitchens. If there was any atheist in the audience, they were unlikely to be won over. However, if there were any that had doubts or questions among the “christians” in the room. they were given permission to not believe by Hitchens approach. He understand popular culture much better and he uses wit and presence to make an impression as opposed to proving anything at all beyond the fact that many of us have some unanswered questions about life and the universe.
As a pastor, I see the “church” in the same seat as Dr. Craig. Being right is not the point. Leaders of western Christian movements consistently fail to see that faith intersects the questions people are asking in their hearts, instead we focus on the arguments… which Jesus rarely did.
Ex. You may show someone in a consumer magazine why one product is theoretically the best choice, but the buyer stills wants the “sporty” model, right? As a spiritual leader, I try to explore why someone wants the sporty model…i.e. adventure, not sure about my worth so I’ll compensate with the sporty model, etc. What many “professional” christians don’t like to talk about is the fact that God wants to deliver on those desires as well. He is the answer to those “soul” longings or desires.
Hitchens understands “why” they want the sporty model and he speaks to that.
He brings up the objections of evil and suffering because deep down people want to know that someone cares. We, (guys like me) try to convince people of the “correctness” of God when they really just want to know that they someone cares or that they are loved.
If you can keep that in doubt, you can dissuade someone from faith & hope. You might win them to duty or obligation but not faith.
My thoughts - listen to people and think about the questions there are wrestling with in their hearts. If you carefully read Jesus’ dialogue with people, you’ll see that he speaks to those questions. I find that most people want to believe or they want to not believe and they are all just searching for a little encouragement either way.
