Before watching the debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig based on the existence of God the ideas I had on the topic were merely supported through the knowledge my parents and religious experience classes have provided. I was brought up attending church and religious classes on Wednesdays and Sundays; although my parents are passionate about religion they always allowed for me to form my own assumption on the subject matter. Personally as a young adult I found the attendance of mass to improve my behavior and also outlook on life. However, as I grew older naturally my day-to-day schedule became more occupied, reducing the amount of religious practice. Due to the inconsistency in my religious practice I was allowed to investigate if I truly believed in all I was hearing. I began to be very skeptical of its credibility. Most often in discussion I’d ask my parents sensitive question which would only make them angry or aviod the topic completely. While watching the discussion I was able to see that perhaps being questionable of Gods existence is not necessarily bad thing. I’m not necessarily saying I do not believe in the existence of a greater being but I can now allow myself to put more thought into the matter after listening to the argument proposed by Craig. After watching the debate and analyzing the tactics utilized I found that by breaking down main points into categories and providing valid examples for each proved to be a successful persuasion technique. I believe Hitchens argument and use of the academic principles such as : astronomy and astrophysics was interesting but do not believe it helped his argument. I also found clever how Craig completely flipped the concept of morality that Hitchens mentioned. Craig talks on about free will and the catholic view of morality, he states that the Catholics may say "of course you have free will the boss insists upon it…degrades the freedom". I think he is correct in this statement, it’s not necessarily a freedom if someone demands it of you…Another interesting note to mention is how each of these speakers introduces their arguments from the start. Hitchens begins by stating how Craig disdains religion and how there is no way to prove atheism is true but there are many arguments to prove theism is true. By stating that Craig disdains religion, he is openly making a stab at his opponents claims without any regard for his argument because at that point Craig has not yet spoken. This tactic is not the most intelligent approach. He also makes claims that atheism cannot be proven, but as Craig later states atheism should not need to be proven because it is not a belief but rather an opinion against another belief. When Craig makes his opening statements he begins by addressing the discrepancies of religion within all types of religions, he doesn’t only make a direct attack against his opponent or the opponents specific religion. Hitchens mentions many times that he is open-minded about the matter but does not show that through his responses and questions. However, Craig clearly addresses his open-mindedness through the remarks he makes and you can almost visually see him weighing the information being provided to him by Hitchens. All in all another great documentary that has allowed for me to further my suspicions regarding Gods existence.
Student 2 paper
Before I write a sort of "review" on the debate, I’d like to point out one peculiar thing I noticed. Because of my own beliefs, I had a much harder time keeping my composure during the thiestic arguments than the athiestic.
As far as the debate goes, both men spoke exceptionally well for their respective belief, but their methods varied and, I believe, caused one to be more successful than the other.
The manner in which Craig presents his arguments is set in a way where each individual word must be refuted, but he makes the deathly mistake of assumptions and implications, and then points to "evidence" which can not be scientifically analyzed and confirmed, despite all the reassuring he did. In a sense, Craig used a bait-and-switch argumentive method, supporting one loose claim with another of similarly questionable nature. I find this extremely ineffective in making an argument and causing persuasion, as I think only someone without sound reasoning would acceptsuch statements as fact at face value.
Hitchens, on the other hand, I believe was very successful in his argument and appealing in his persuasion towards athiesm. Because he was second to present his argument, he was given the upper hand, in that Craig had made his statements loosely worded and with too much assumption. What made Hitchens so successful was his ability to systematically and logically present cases and hard evidence to refute the points Craig had made, then go the extra mile by providing the reasoning as to WHY people believe what had been stated by his counterpart.
As much as I enjoyed Hitchens arguments to Craig, I was not particularly swayed any more in my beliefs and opinions than I had been before this debate. I believe this stems from growing up in a place as diverse as New York, being exposed to anything and everything to develop my own set of beliefs and opinions, loosely based off what I was taught by my parents at a young age. There are many religions, but only one truth, and no one knows that truth, so the best thing anyone can ever do is come to their own conclusion, and not try and shove it down anothers throat.
"Example of comment" – i can see where your coming from with one speaker was stronger then the other, both speakers had different arguments, but at the end of the day i felt that they handled the debate well. they spoke well, and also seemed to be confident in their argument as well