AGAINST ALL OTHERS

Friday, September 18, 2009

"Is God Great?" A debate: Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox (preview)

Leading atheist and acclaimed journalist, Christopher Hitchens, goes head to head with Christian apologist and Oxford Professor, John Lennox in March 2009 at Birmingham, Alabama's Samford University to debate the question "Is God Great?"

Hitchens, who made his opinion clear on this topic in 2007 with his book "God is not Great," maintains not only that God fails to be great, but denies his existence entirely. Professor Lennox, a convinced Christian and scientist, respectfully disagrees. This event features a unique blend of both planned remarks and fast-paced dialogue that tackles these issues in a refreshing and informative light. It is sure to offer insights to all.

John Lennox is Professor in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, University of Oxford. Prof. Lennox has debated atheists ranging from Victor Stenger to Richard Dawkins and is the author of "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?"

Christopher Hitchens is a British-American bestselling author, journalist, and literary critic who has served as a columnist for several prominent publications, some of which include Vanity Fair, The Nation, and The Atlantic. He is one of the world's most influential and outspoken atheists.

You can't prove God doesn't exist

From Iron Chariots Wiki

It is not uncommon to hear statements like, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," from apologists when they are challenged to support the claim that God exists. Such statements are an attempt to shift the burden of proof, a kind of logical fallacy.

Statements like this — which is a special case of the more general claim, "You can't prove a negative" — are based on the premise that belief in God is justified until sufficient evidence is presented to refute such existence. While this response may be considered sound under a world view which accepts the premise, this is simply a form of compartmentalization. If we were to apply that premise to all claims, we'd be unable to develop any useful picture of reality, since every claim would then have to be accepted as true (until it is disproved — a burden which is especially difficult when dealing with supernatural claims).

To put it more bluntly, no sane human being would seriously claim that because we have not disproved the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, they must therefore exist (or must be assumed to exist).

More tellingly, though, apologists typically only apply this premise to questions that address their particular religion — and nothing else. The same Christian, for example, who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an attempt to shift the burden of proof if it was attempted by, say, a Hindu: "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization is a form of special pleading.

A somewhat famous counter-argument was posed by Bertrand Russell when he said the following:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."