I have been listening to more and more debates between William Lane Craig, probably one of the best living Christian apologists, and a variety of atheists (links to debate audio below). With the exception of Jonathan Shook, even their best efforts are easily destroyed by Craig – most of them rely on polemics and often really poor attacks on the fidelity of scripture, rather than logic and reason.
With that in mind, Ray Comfort's new book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics seems more than a pejorative stab, but rather, an astute observation of the narrow atheist view of reality, their unwillingness to concede science and reason's limitations, and other means of epistemology other than material empiricism. Add one more to my already overburdened Amazon wishlist!
Comfort also answers an interesting question about atheist hecklers at challies.com, and refers to his site Atheist Central.
William Lane Craig v. Atheists Debates
- William Lane Craig debate transcripts
- WILLIAM LANE CRAIG COMPREHENSIVE DEBATE LIST
- WLC v. Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist?
- WLC v. John R. Shook – Does God Exist?
Podcast: Play in new window
The title and cover art are obviously pejorative stabs at people who have the temerity to disagree with believers. In effect, atheists are dumb and stubborn animals who refuse to even consider so-called "reasonable and logical" arguments and standards. Maybe you smug believers could consider that you are seen precisely the same way by the people you love to denigrate.
If you read Comfort’s discussion at challies.com, he basically says that most atheists are committed skeptics and beyond argumentation, so he uses such lightning rod tactics to draw in the uncommitted to hear the discussion. Interesting approach.
He’s answering the atheists (after a mild insult) so that the open minded skeptics who are listening in can weigh the evidence objectively. In some sense, insulting the hard hearted is like Moses challenging Pharaoh. There is a purpose, but it’s not primarily to change him through kindness ;)
“Insulting the hard-hearted.” Well, that about says it all. Why engage with someone who not only prejudges you but also insults you at the same time? A put-down is no way to approach this type of discussion. It’s just as easy to return the put-down, especially on matters of “weighing the evidence objectively,” something people of faith (as they like to call themselves) aren’t particularly known for.
>> LOUIS: Why engage with someone who not only prejudges you but also insults you at the same time?
No one said you were hard hearted. It reminds me of an old saying we had when open air preaching – ‘It’s like throwing a brick into a pack of dogs. Which ever one you hit howls the loudest.’
You are right, this brick will offend some, but it is only targeted at them as attention getters, not as potential converts. The noise they make attracts real seekers. If those howling about the insult were open minded, they would not be so offended as to turn way.
It is analogous to Jesus pissing off the Pharisees, or to his teaching in parables, which He did to confuse the arrogant and fault finding, while more humble, self-examining seekers could not be so easily dissuaded.
There is a place for humble entreaty and patience in sharing the gospel. There is also place for prodding the apathetic and hard hearted, even with insults and threats of God’s judgement upon them.
I’m not making excuses for rude behavior, self-righteousness, or callous rejection of people as ‘beyond God’s reach.’ I’m just saying that such tactics are not out of bounds in preaching the gospel – but they offend the proud, and the religiously minded and outwardly pious.
I love the story of when Jesus is being followed by huge crowds after feeding the 5000, and he decides to thin them out a bit with his “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no part in me” sermon (John 6:52-54). When the disciples complained about it later, he responded “Does that offend you? How about this…What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?”
Ray Comfort? Of the “Behold the Atheists Nightmare” fame? Indeed, how can one even think about arguing against that kind of “evidence?” ROFL!
Yes, the banana video made him famous. Perhaps he has learned from that outing.
But what is important is not him, but the argument he is making – that being offensive or insulting is part of a useful and biblical strategy for reaching people with the gospel.
And the title and photo of the book are priceless, a well done insult, which even you could appreciate ;)
“But what is important is not him, but the argument he is making…
That a banana fits in your hand ergo, there is a god. That banana also fits in his butt. He deserves the ridicule… and then some.
… and he and Kirk Cameron got their butts kicked in a debate by the Rational Response Squad (kids).
He does deserve ridicule and then some for the banana one, but not on the point I am making, nor the artful insult of his book.
As per Kirk and Rick Warren, they have no idea what it takes to really debate. But I challenge you to listen to the Shook/Craig debate, it’s really good, and the Shook is by far the most compelling atheist debater I’ve heard – others, like Flew (now an agnostic) and Hitchens were actually not that good at all.
I’ve yet to find a Sam Harris debate. He’s great on his own, but not sure if he could stand the fire of a real, formal debate.
I’m glad that we’re agreed that flinging insults and brickbats is what’s going on here. This might be relevant.
I’d like to see the WLC vs. Hitchens debate. No video?
“I’ve yet to find a Sam Harris debate…”
Have a taste…
CIN,
I’ve seen that, but that’s not a formal debate – at least, the Jewish guy he is debating on that talk show is lousy. But I like Harris, he is much better than Flew, Hitchens, or Dennett. But you should listen to Shook, he is the best atheist debater I’ve yet heard. He gave Craig a run for his money.