Customer Reviews

God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint (Oxford Paperback))

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In this new book, cleverly titled simply "God?", William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong debate the most important question with surprising clarity and wit.

William Lane Craig is an experienced debator with excellent credentials. Over the years he has debated many famous atheists, and is well known for beating almost every opponent hands down. Craig's style is quick and confident, and, in my opinion, his arguments are generally very forceful and convincing. His great effort in this book, while expected, is very much appreciated. He is not afraid to get right down to the issue and into the trenches- which helps the debate to move along at lightning pace.

The real surprise here, in my mind, is the showing by Sinnott-Armstrong. Despite a lack of debating experience, he seems to me to be the best opponent Craig has faced (in any debate I have read). He is quick, witty, and intelligent- advancing objections to almost all of Craig's arguments (in other debates, atheists often just pick a few points of contention, but Sinnott-Armstrong challenges the whole case.)

Both participants in the debate give strong efforts, and it leads to a fantastic and engaging book on the existence of God. If you are looking for a debate on the existence of God, then look no further. This book is highly recommended.

Like others reviewers have said, the main purpose of this book isn't to definitively "settle" the issue either way (as if that's possible), but merely to highlight some of the more pertinent issues surrounding the claims of Christianity as well as its various criticisms. The end result, as one reviewer already pointed out, reveals that, far from being solely the realm of crackpots and the "weak-minded", Christianity is as a viable intellectual option (which is not to say, of course, without reproach.)

As for the substance of the debate itself, both writers were highly competent and I found each writer at his best in presenting the case for his respective viewpoint (Chapter 1, 4)

Craig makes a strong case for a finite universe, using widely accepted scientific evidence. He also explains many of the flaws inherent in the various infinite views (oscillating universe, many-worlds hypothesis, etc.), which he, I think rightly, dismisses as ad hoc avoidances of the serious implications which a finite universe seems to imply.

By way of example, Craig shows how the oscillating theory of the universe (i.e. a never-ending series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches) is really dead on arrival because scientists can't get over the theoretic hump of how exactly the universe would "restart" after collapsing in on itself, which seems to be an irreversible process. (I should also probably point out that even the very concept of "collapse" itself is controversial; everyone knows the universe is expanding, but nobody knows whether or not it will continue to do so in the future.)

Of course, the cosmological argument only gets you so far as deism, so Craig continues his presentation with arguments from morality, the resurrection of Jesus, and personal experience, each bringing one closer to the traditional description of the Christian God (i.e. omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, caring, etc.) All of these points are also laid out well, although I wouldn't put as much emphasis on personal experience, myself, since it seems to be so subjective (although Craig apparently recognizes this.)

Sinnott-Armstrong's case for atheism is no less forceful. Indeed, I, like many other reviewers, was taken aback by his directness. For being a first-time debater, he was very incisive in his criticisms. Sinnott-Armstrong's main line of argument revolved around the ever-popular "problem of evil" (i.e. how could a loving God allow so much suffering?) His thesis is that evil is not justified unless it is absolutely necessary for some compensating good. He then proceeds to field many possible rebuttals (some of which I think are straw men; he concedes as much when he says that a few might be "outdated", but still includes them.) He concludes the argument by stating that none of these arguments fulfills this condition, especially in regards to natural evils (disease, earthquakes, etc.)

He also makes arguments from unbelief, and a rather obscure argument surrounding the (im)possible interaction between a timeless God and a temporal world, which he dubs "the problem of action," but these are fairly unimportant in relation to the problem of evil and only comprise the last few pages of his presentation.

I won't mention the rebuttals too much, suffice to say that both sides are more adept at laying their own foundations of belief and defending them than in attacking their opponent's. Sinnott-Armstrong, for example, while putting up a fairly good fight against the cosmological argument and personal experience, makes a poor showing in respect to the argument from morality and the resurrection of Jesus. He believes in objective moral values, but when pressed as to why these should be so, only offers "It simply is. Objectively. Don't you agree?" With respect to Jesus, he is content to throw out the "Christ-myth" theory tying the Easter story to those of ancient fertility gods in other cultures, such as Mithras. This theory was popular in the 20's, but died a quick death because the connections were superficial at best, in addition to the fact that nobody could postulate a plausible link between the pagan cultures and the Judaism from which Christianity arose.

Craig's rebuttal of the problem of evil, on the other hand, seems to me to suffer from too much emphasis on the nature of faith. He argues that if all the other arguments which he presented for the existence of God are true (as he obviously believes they are), then we can rest in good faith, knowing that our apparently unnecessary sufferings in life serve an ultimate purpose. This is all true as far it goes, I suppose, but it doesn't hold much water in a debate. He is arguing against the unconvinced, and only those already convinced will accept that argument (as Sinnott-Armstrong is quick to point out).

Wow--this review is a lot longer than I originally anticipated it to be. I guess I should probably wrap it up here. So what's my final verdict? Who won? Well, it's close, but I think I'm going to have to give Craig the nod in this case. Sinnott-Armstrong's argument from evil is very convincing as far as it goes, but it's resting on a shaky foundation. He didn't do a good enough job in my mind of justifying his belief in objective values without God. He explicitly rejects utilitarianism (citing its many objectionable conclusions) but this in mind seems the only viable moral theory for a coherent atheist to hold. He also cites the various non-religious moral theories that philosophers have devised as examples of atheistic virtue, but without offering further reasons for why I should support them, I have to conclude that they all fall short. Craig didn't really push this point too much, instead taking Sinnott-Armstrong's argument pretty much at face value, which I think was a mistake, but maybe it would've taken him too far afield, or he thought that he had shown the error in the previous section.

Overall, though, a very good book and a solid introduction to a very relevant issue.

God? Is based on two public debates that occurred in 1999 and 2000 between William Craig and William Sinnott-Armstrong regarding the existence of God. In my opinion this is an excellent resource for thoughtful atheists and theists alike. Of the debates I have read on this subject God? is the best.

In the first part of the book Craig opens in defense of God (Christian God), Sinnott-Armstrong rebuts then Craig closes. The second part is structured the other way round with Sinnott-Armstrong opening in defense of atheism; Craig rebuts then Sinnott-Armstrong closes. Throughout the discussion the debaters cover all the pertinent arguments (cosmological, design, existence of evil, revelation etc) and are rigorous and respectful in defending their views.

Those familiar to the area of religious philosophy and apologetics undoubtedly know the work of Bill Craig a brilliant and prolific philosopher. In addition to his formidable intellectual abilities Craig is also an outstanding and experienced debater. As a result, in live debates he often overwhelms even the most capable opponent. This format which allowed the participants more time to formulate their arguments was beneficial. Sinnott-Armstrong is not an experienced debater and this approach helped him to clearly articulate his arguments. As a result, Sinnott-Armstrong puts forward one of the strongest argument for atheism that I have heard.

After reading this debate, I would hope that several things would be apparent to a thoughtful and opened-minded person. First, and most importantly, this is an important question that warrants our consideration. Second, a rational proof of God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt is probably not possible (if it was where would free will be?). Finally, the existence of God is a live intellectual option. From my personal standpoint, as someone who was raised an educated with an atheist/agnostic worldview the last point is the most striking. With respect to who won the debate, It has been my experience that initial assessments are normally emotive and determined by the viewer's assumptions.

There are lots of other debate books out there (and a lot free material on Bill Craig's web-site and the Internet Infidels site), however God? is well worth the purchases.

Craig and Sinnott-Armstrong, both college professors and authors, present an engaging high-level debate that should delight readers. Most of the book is a slightly edited version of 2 actual live debates, held several months apart, in 1999 and 2000. In the 1st half of the book, Craig speaks first, S-A rebuts, then Craig is allowed a summary (for the book) clarifying his position. In the 2nd half of the book, roles are reversed - S-A speaks first, Craig rebuts, then S-A is allowed a summary (for the book) solidifying HIS views.

Be ready for courtroom-like drama as sparks fly in an electrified environment of sharply divided opinions. There are accusations of straw men, as hoc arguments, bloated conclusions, drawing false dichotomies, excessive footnotes (questionable appeals to authorities), equivocation, begging the question, misrepresentation, failure to understand, failure the answer the question, etc. There is a certain amount of hair-splitting, similar to when Bill Clinton tried to redefine the word "is." Once the name-calling subsides, however, and the dust settles, several standard arguments remain, passionately appealed by both gentlemen.

Craig presents 5 good reasons to believe that God exists:
1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe.
3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

S-A present 3 arguments that God does not exist:
1. The problem of evil - An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God should not and would not allow to occur the horrible tragedies that have always plagued humanity.
2. The problem of action - God is independent of time. I really didn't think this section was very relevant.
3. The argument from ignorance - no evidence.

Craig handles the argument of the origin of the universe well. His strongest argument concerns the fine-tuning of the universe. "It seems vastly more probable that a life-prohibiting universe rather than a life-permitting universe like ours should exist. The existence of intelligent life depends on a conspiracy of initial conditions, that must be fine tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable." He includes quotes from Hawkings and others who appear to support his view. S-A challenges this argument, but I think not well. I would like to read more about this subject from a third party, and references are provided in the bibliography.

The moral argument from Craig is not convincing to me. Evolutionary and cultural studies suggest that in early human history, groupings of people up to about 50 used peer-pressure effectively to maintain order. As population groupings began to exceed that amount, the system failed and a more rigid hierarchy, including laws, supplemented the older peer-pressure methods for handling "cheaters." In this scenario, Man's strong tendency to be a social animal included the development of a sense of morality, with or without religion. I have no problem with this, and see Craig opposing this with weak mental gymnastics.

In Craig's resurrection argument, he relies a lot on scripture. For those who see the Bible as merely stories written by men; sorry, it just doesn't do the trick. It is easier for me to believe that Paul and others created an expedient dogma of religion ABOUT Jesus, a Jewish teacher who was caught up in an unfortunate political situation the resulted in his crucifixion.

For Craig's last argument, about experiencing God, I would argue that psychological and neurobiological studies indicate that one of the things we are best at is self-delusion.

S-A's strongest argument is about evil/tragedy. For example, S-A would assert that the recent Indonesian tsunami that indiscriminately killed over 150,000 innocent people was totally unnecessary and preventable. God could have and should have prevented this from happening. Page after page, S-A describes horrors and suggests how easy it would have been for an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God to have intervened. He consistently does not intervene, "Therefore," S-A says, "there is no God."

The argument of no evidence is also argued well by S-A. In particular, he is very eloquent in suggesting that God, if he exists and wants contact with us, should be more directive in attempting communication in a recognizable way. However, I have always questioned arguments for religion on the basis of there being no scientifically acceptable evidence, since religion is faith-based anyway. Evidence is not necessary.

Craig fights back in his rebuttal, asserting that during horrible loss of life in China (20 million), El Salvador (civil war, earthquakes, economic collapse), Ethiopia (repression, famine, war, death of millions), that 10's of millions were converted to Christ. In my view he has a hard time with this argument. The "salvation" of the survivors does nothing for the death of millions from the Black Plague, and there was not even an ideological religious benefit for the ancestors of most of the victims of earth's wars, earthquakes, epidemics, or other catastrophes...such as the population decimation of the American Indians by disease brought by Europeans. Page after page, S-A drives this point home, and it's hard for Craig to polish this crabapple to even a dull lustre.

All in all, this is an exemplary book on an always timely subject of great significance in our everyday lives. I congratulate these fine gentlemen on this debate, and note that in the preface, Craig thanks S-A for being such a "charitable and engaging partner," and S-A thanks Craig for "providing such spirited and genial opposition."

Who won the debate? Votes were not taken, but each side had great representation. I found myself siding with the arguments I already had strong opinions about, regardless of good argumentation to the contrary, and suspect that each person's winner will be individualized to his/her pre-debate bias. Perhaps the specific brand of ideology one prefers is determined more by his/her psychological make-up than by logic.

An enthusiastic 5 stars!

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.

God? Is based on two public debates that occurred in 1999 and 2000 between William Craig and William Sinnott-Armstrong regarding the existence of God. I offer the following comments for potential readers.

In my opinion this is an excellent resource for thoughtful atheists and theists alike - this is the best book that I have read on this subject. In the first part of the book Craig argues in defense of theism (Christian God), Sinnott-Armstrong rebuts then Craig closes. The second part is structured the other way round with Sinnott-Armstrong opening in defense of atheism; Craig countering and Sinnott-Armstrong closing. In the process the debaters examine all the leading arguments for and against the existence of God (cosmological, design, existence of evil, revelation, etc.) in a rigorous and respectful manner.

Those familiar with the area of religious philosophy and apologetics likely know the work of Bill Craig. In addition to his formidable intellectual abilities Craig is also an outstanding and experienced debater. As a result, in live debates he often overwhelms even the most capable opponent. This written format which allows participants more time to formulate their arguments is beneficial. Sinnott-Armstrong is not as experienced in live debates as Craig and I feel that this approach helped him to more clearly articulate his arguments. As a consequence, Sinnott-Armstrong puts forward one of the strongest argument for atheism that I have heard.

After reading this debate, I would hope that several things would be apparent to thoughtful and opened-minded readers. First, and most importantly, this is an important question that warrants our consideration. Second, a comprehensive proof of God's existence is probably not possible (if it was where would free will be). With respect to who won the debate - though both participants performed strongly I feel that Craig's arguments were more compelling. It has been my experience, however, that we often see what we believe and, clearly readers with a strong atheistic worldview may see it differently.

A previous reviewer expressed dismay that Craig uses many of the same comments in different debates - this is not unique nor, is it specific to Craig. I remember years ago, I was also disillusioned to hear a speaker make a very similar presentation on two different occasions. At the time, I thought that this lack of spontaneity diminished the value of his remarks. On reflection (and being called upon to speak frequently on similar issues myself), it only makes sense, why would you not use much of the same material when speaking on the same subject - tweaking them gradually over time as required. This technique does not weaken or strengthen an argument it is merely a reality of public speaking.

Overall, God is the best debate book of its type that I have come across. For interested readers there is also ample free material on websites such as Craig's and the Internet Infidels. God?, however, is well worth the purchase.

Some have suggested that Craig has won *this* debate. That's not the way I read it and I think many people would agree.

I see Craig winning the case for a beginning to temporal reality, and having supporting reasons for believing that the "fine tuning" aspects of our universes temporal beginning is the work of an intelligent being. Even Sinnott-Armstrong eventually concedes to these, but that doesn't prove or disprove the existence of the Christian God, an eternal entity that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, since none of this logically requires a Christain God.

Sinnot-Armstrong ends the debate with three reasons for atheism: an argument from ignorance, the problem of action, and the problem of evil. The problem of evil seems to me to be Sinnott-Armstrong's best case against the idea of the Christian God, arguing that natural evils (e.g., flood, famine, disease, etc) aren't or don't seem adequately compensated for by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity:

1. If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

2. There is lots of evil in the world.

3. Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.

4. Therefore, there is no God who is all-powerful and all-good.

In this compensation theory, evil requires a greater good to follow from it and I believe that Sinnott-Armstrong makes a better case than Craig that it does not. However, others may feel differently and the issue is about the meaningfulness of the responses to the individual. This is where the debate ends and why I gave Sinnot-Armstrong a better overall score.

However, the Christian God belief doesn't need a compensation theory for evil and all arguments (that I've seen so far) using the existence of evil to *logically disprove* the existence of God have been specious. As a matter of logic, there is no logical necessity to these types of arguments and refutation of this claim is simple. For instance: God is all-powerful and all-loving, but evil exists. Therefore, God has a good purpose for evil. Another is: God is all-powerful and all-loving, but evil exists. Therefore, God will eventually destroy evil.

If your looking for proof or disproof that a Christian God *exists*, you wouldn't find it here or anywhere else, but what you will find is that a belief in the Christian God doesn't result in an irrational belief. It's the existence question that is a matter of faith on either side of the issue.

An education can come from debates about God: how different views on God can be argued, how opposing sides can misrepresent each others positions. So I highly recommended this book as a relatively jargon free introduction.

[ASIDE: By not extrapolating beyond what the data and arguments indicate, it's interesting to note the support they give for a other kinds of non-materialistic philosophy.]

This is an excellent book. It is well written and a great and fast read (and typesetting and composition are good and the price is OK). The format of the exchange, and the page limits, prevent it from ever becoming boring, and keeps it very focused. Its major limitation (which might be a side effect of precisely the space constraints) is that a lot of the debate refers not to god, but just to the Christian god (and similar monotheistic religions' creations).

The authors are serious, know their subject, and stick to the issue at hand. Regardless of whom you end up agreeing with, neither Sinnott-Armstrong nor Craig use silly, obviously fallacious or demagogic arguments (I mean, you won't find statements such as "you better believe in God or you'll burn in hell, my bible told me, you atheistic sinner" or "christianity is obviously for morons: just look at the middle ages"). Your intelligence won't be insulted; quite the opposite, the authors do a serious effort to really convinve you, a critical, intelligent reader.


In addition, note that the reviews for this book are great, regardless of whether theistic or atheistic reviewers made them. Which suggests that this book has a lot to offer, indepently of where you stand on the issue.


So, for those of us who are not philosophers (i.e., who probably would have a difficult time following titles such as "The impossibility of God") and are interested in the topic, this book is definitely to be recommended. You will learn about the "other side"'s line of argument and will enjoy a great read.

William Lane Craig debates a lot. Most of the time, his opponents don't get to respond to many of his arguments. This book is a welcome exception to that, as robust atheist Walter Sinnott-Armstrong does engage each of Craig's arguments. The debate is fast paced, exciting, and professional, but not out of the league of popular audiences.

The book is divided in six sections. The first section is Craig's, where he defends five arguments for Christian theism, in the second S-A responds, and in the third Craig re-defends his arguments from S-A's criticism. In section four, the tables turn, and S-A offers three arguments for atheism, followed by Craig's refutation of the arguments for atheism, with the closing section S-A's attempted re-defense of those arguments.

The only serious complaint was that, unlike other published debate, there was no commentary from their peers.

If you want my opinion, I would say Craig won, although by a lesser margin than he is used to beating his atheist opponents by.

I won't say who I believe "won" the debate. What I will say is it's a good read, though nothing new is introduced. The scientific arguments get a bit tedious because both authors are forced to rely on what opposing scientists say. So the argument breaks down into: "well HE said this" and "Well, this OTHER scientist said this! Ha!" Their other arguments are not necessarily original (i.e. The Problem Of Evil) but you get the feeling they themselves grasp the non-scientific ideas much more easily, and that's probably why they explain those ideas much more clearly. Only one part of the book really left me scratching my head. When trying to explain why an atheist would think a moral value is universal without a creator, Sinnot-Armstrong tries to sum up his argument like this: "It simply is. Objectively. Don't you agree?" But why does he, from his atheistic standpoint, believe that? I never felt that he adequately explained that point, unfortunately.

A decent summary of some current theist and atheist arguments. Recommended. But don't expect anything groundbreaking. If you feel you have a decent grasp of the pro/con arguments I also recommend: 1. "God And The Burden Of Proof" (Parsons) and 2. "The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader" (ed. Sennett). Plantinga is one of the world's greatest living theist philosophers.