Why Dinesh and I Are Debating, "Does the Christian God Exist?"
My readers already know that this Tuesday Dinesh D'Souza and I will be debating. The official announcement with details can be found here. I am a bit silent on this Blog because of my preparations, but on Tuesday at 8 PM EST I have my opening statement scheduled to be published here at DC. So even though many of you cannot be there you can read it just after I speak it. Just so you know, here's why we're debating this particular topic:
When I was first approached about this debate I was asked to debate one of two topics. The first choice was, Does God Exist? (which is "more philosophical and theological, less cultural and historical." My second choice was, 2) Is Christianity Good for the Human Race?, which is "historical, cultural, some theology, less philosophical." Both of these suggestions were made by Dinesh. Okay?
At this point I sent the following email to Kenneth J. Howell and others who were putting the debate together:
When I was first approached about this debate I was asked to debate one of two topics. The first choice was, Does God Exist? (which is "more philosophical and theological, less cultural and historical." My second choice was, 2) Is Christianity Good for the Human Race?, which is "historical, cultural, some theology, less philosophical." Both of these suggestions were made by Dinesh. Okay?
At this point I sent the following email to Kenneth J. Howell and others who were putting the debate together:
Hi and thanks so much for the invite!And that's the rest of the story.
As to the topic of the debate, I'm not one of those atheists who think religion poisons everything. Whether Christianity is good for the human race or not, my answer will be both yes and no, since I think of it as a cultural phenomena that has both influenced and in turn has been influenced by its culture. It won't be much of a debate if that's the debate topic, but I can do that. In any case for me the real issue is whether it's true.
You may frame the debate instead on the topic of whether or not God exists if you'd like to, but "God" in our Christian culture is a name for a specific kind of deity, the Christian God. If the debate were held in a Muslim country then Allah would be on the docket, you see. No one ever believes in a nebulous God out there unless he's a deist or perhaps a pantheist. I'm supposing Dinesh is neither, nor is he content to merely argue such a deity exists. I might be quite willing to grant that a philosopher's god, a nebulous god, a deistic kind of god exists as a possibility. But this meager admission grants Dinesh no distance toward believing in his specific kind of Christian God unless he thinks he can fly a plane to the moon (hint he can't). ;-) And so it won't be much of a debate if the topic is whether or not some nebulous god exists, since I am an agnostic atheist, and even a protest atheist. Ever hear of that before? Think of theologian John Roth who argues that when it comes to the problem of evil he offers a "Protest Theology."
If you want to get at the heart of things then revise the debate topic to whether or not the Christian God exists and we'll be fine, since no matter how you phrase the topic this is the God I'll take aim at. When it comes to this specific deity I can affirm with complete and utter confidence that such a God does not exist.
Cheers,
John W. Loftus
13 comments:
A very good letter. I've seen dozens of debates where one of the speakers has to clarify what the debate is about. I've seen a couple atheists who have to waste valuable seconds of their speech time to make sure the audience understands what the atheist and theist will mean when they say "god" - that you're of course speaking of the Judeo/Christian god.
So I'm glad you had the title changed to something more specific.
It's funny... if both these topics were suggested by Dinesh, I can't help but already wonder, before the debate has even begun, if he's already trying to dishonestly tip the scales.
After all, the actual point of the debate is pretty important! So if Dinesh is deliberately trying to make what the debate is about vague, then I wonder if doing so is to give him wiggle room in terms of what he'll say.
I could be totally wrong. Maybe Dinesh is just so used to talking about his specific god, that it doesn't cross his mind that he needs to be more specific. Maybe he assumes you're the same way, since he knows you shared the same religion in the past.
But for a professional debater like Dinesh, I'd expect better of him; to have a more concrete, specific debate topic.
We'll see.
Very good move to limit the debate topic to a specific god-claim (of course, you already know and stated very nicely the reason this is necessary). That leaves less wiggle room for your opponent (and audience) to move the goal posts rhetorically (your opponent) and mentally (your audience).
Then why even debate such subjects as intelligent design and the Big Bang theory? I am surprised that Dinesh agreed to limit the debate to the Christian God, because his best arguments pertain to a deistic god. At least there are some logical arguments for that type of god, but for the Christian God, I see no logic and no scientifically valid evidence.
John,
As you know, the Roman Catholic Christian God, which Dinesh believes in, is different from the evangelical protestant Christian God, which you usually argue against. Have you tailored your arguments to account for this or do you not think it will matter much?
I think it is worth nothing that while you refer to "the" Christian God, but in fact within the Christian traditions and history there are many different theologies and conceptions of God. Marcus Borg or John Shelby Spong or John Cobb or John Hick all fall within the Christian tradition and have radically different conceptions of God from that of Dinesh. (In fact, as Marcus Borg likes to say, "tell me the God you don't believe in, and I probably don't believe in that God either.) The problem with debates like these is that there are many sides to the question and they are often built on the presupposition that there are only two.
"Think of theologian John Roth who argues that when it comes to the problem of evil he offers a "Protest Theology.""
John Roth, like so many, failed to understand the logical resolution to the alleged "problem of evil" so there are logical reasons for his error.
The REAL problem of evil is not in explaining it...
It is in how it is a danger to those created in God's Image who can choose, create and exercise true LOVE for their Creator Who saves them.
Shoot... with all these difference even among Loftus and DSouza, I'm begining to think Loftus WILL have to open up by clarifying which god he's referring to.
I worry then, that at the start, both speakers will make clear that they are talking about two different gods, and thus making the whole thing mute. Unless, John, you can provide arguments that debunk his version of god.
Have you response ready for Dinesh's Stalin nonsense. He loves it.
Good luck!
Good luck John!
Yes good framing. Letting the Christian off the hook by not asking for a clear definition of "God" gives them freedom to weasel around.
Perhaps this is a tip - but I'm no debater. (And posting this tip on a blog which I'm sure Dinesh is reading right now, for debate prep may be a bad movie, but...)
See if you can ask for at LEAST two clear definitions that Dinesh would use of god. Like the all knowing/all loving bit. Hone in on how those two definitions are mutually exclusive, and if that's the case, than no matter what other definitions he has, the first two mutually exclusive definitions have already been debunked, so there's no where he can go.
Yeah, he can say, "Okay, well god is also..." but that still leaves unanswered those first two disproved definitions. If those two are wrong, than that discredits all the rest of his definitions.
John,
Are you getting anything back from the sponsors regarding the weather? I'm about 70 miles west of Champaign and I heard it's supposed to be worse that way and there's a heavy snow coming through again Tuesday. I plan on being there, but I was just wondering.
Also what's the gate cost or the charge to get in?
Thanks.
I think it was most certainly a *MUST* on your part to insist upon defining this debate as pertaining specifically to the CHRISTIAN god. That was good foresight on your part. As you said the nebulous "god" concept is where the Dinesh D'Souza's of the world like to debate, because it's low hanging fruit. Not that they've proven a case in those debates, but because there are just enough metaphysical uncertainties that the bulk of the classic nebulous god arguments are variations on "god of the gaps". While our defenses to those typically work out to be "yes, but ... some impersonal, non-conscious cosmos works as well in that argument", they can play in that wishy-washy realm to wow the audience.
Bringing it toward a specific god SHOULD put him in a far less comfortable place. I'm not remembering any past debates of this specificity (I've already forgotten if I've seen any), so it will be amusing to see how he addresses this.
Post a Comment