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

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.

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.

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.