The Pinoy Atheist in Multiply

From Austin Cline

Debates about the existence of God fascinate some and bore others; nevertheless, they have occupied a great deal of philosophical, theological, and scientific interest over the centuries. Many of the arguments currently used are very old, while others are based upon recent developments in science and philosophy. Has either side developed an advantage over the other?

Summary
Title: God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist
Author: William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0195165993

Pro:
• Easy to read and understand - not full of technical jargon
• Good presentations of many standard arguments

Con:
• Some key arguments missed, perhaps for space reasons

Description:
• Debate over the existence of God, based upon two face-to-face debates the authors had
• Each side is given equal space and time to make their arguments
• Both sides have the chance to poke holes in what the other has said



Book Review
Apparently not — if that were so, the debates would probably be winding down and there doesn’t seem to be any sign of that. For those who are interested in the topic, though, it would be useful to have a clear idea of the major arguments commonly made — and in a form accessible to non-specialists, something that isn’t always easy considering how technical and esoteric many arguments can be. One new source of this is the book God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist.
Based on oral debates between William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a professor of philosophy at Dartmouth, the text is readable because it tackles complex arguments in a manner consistent with oral discussions.

Many oral debates over difficult topics can become superficial, consisting mostly of sound-bites; that isn’t the case here. The arguments don’t go quite as deep as they can when in purely written form, but they also don’t become superficial — readers are given a good idea of what people on each side think and how they can best present their case.

Although Craig alludes to the existence of dozens of arguments for the existence of God, he bases his position on what he considers the strongest: the existence of miracles (and in particular the resurrection of Jesus Christ), the existence of the universe, the presence of “fine tuning” in the universe which allows life to exist, and the existence of objective moral values.

Sinnott-Armstrong responds not only by disputing each individual argument, but also by noting that none of them actually prove what Craig originally agreed to prove: the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal, effective, and personal god.


Even if Craig’s arguments were sufficient to prove the existence of “something,” it need not be the “God” that is the object of debate. Something else that Sinnott-Armstrong missed (or had to leave out for space purposes — both were limited to roughly the same number of words in their presentations) is that there is no indication that all of Craig’s arguments point to the same thing.

Even if we accept all of Craig’s arguments, the existence of the universe could be due to one cause, fine-tuning due to another, the resurrection of Jesus to another, etc. Granted, it is not a good idea to “multiply entities unnecessarily” — however, it also isn’t a good idea to attribute disparate phenomena to the same cause without good reason. There is no obvious reason, for example, why the origin of the universe and the resurrection of a human being must be explained by the same “thing.” Craig’s argument thus fails because, even if his specific arguments are true, they do not support his conclusion.

Sinnott-Armstrong then offers several arguments to think that God does not exist: the problem of evil, the problem of how such a God could ever act within time, and the lack of good evidence to justify any such belief.

Craig has counters to all of these arguments, but again he seems to miss something crucial: even if he can show that the arguments aren’t perfect, he cannot show that they are completely without foundation. What does this mean? It means that disbelief in his god is reasonable — perhaps not mandated by all logic and reason, but at least reasonable.

That leads to a serious problem: the existence of good reasons to disbelieve in Craig’s god is, by itself, good reason to deny the existence of his god. The existence of the god Craig defends is incompatible with the existence of reasonable doubt or disbelief. Doubt and disbelief are not incompatible with all gods, but they are incompatible with the type of god Craig argues for.

Although there are important arguments notably absent from the book, it is good for people looking to get a sense for the strengths and weaknesses of standard arguments currently used both for and against the existence of God. None of it is beyond the understanding of the interested layman but all of it is relevant for anyone who wants to follow or participate in online debates.