Public debates on the existence of God ... do they do any good?
It is naive and mistaken to suppose that man comes to God based on rational persuasionthough you did not use the word ‘only’, isn’t this statement assuming that they believe it is the only way man comes to God? I am pretty certain that he believes it is God though His Word & Spirit that ultimately draws sinners to Himself.
I think what Craig and other debaters are showing by these debates is that Christianity (I wouln’t use the term ‘worldview’ for you:)) is an intellectual and rational belief. God is rational Himself and has created us to be rational creatures. So it would follow then that there are rational reasons for believing in God.
The existence of God debates are essentially an artifact of modernity and rationalismMaybe so but that does not mean the use of the has evolved or that there is no contemporary use for it. This statement seems to be chaining the present day use of a thing to the original use. Intentions and presuppositions do change. Just because it has its roots there dosent mean it is not useful.
So is there a use for them at all? If not then what use are the books that are produced with the same content as the debates.
Roland, these debates on the existence of God are not simply a product of modernism, although the manner in which they are carried out may be influenced by modernity. The Church has long taught that there is overlap between faith and reason. That is, some things can be known only by faith - the Trinity - some things only by reason - how to build a car engine - and some things by both - the unity of God or the wrongness of murder.
Among things in the overlapping category, it is good but not necessary for the faithful to make progress in reason, faith seeking understanding. For example, any Christian can know from the Scripture that God created the world. A scientist may be able to explain better why God’s creative action is necessary. Any Christian can know that premarital sex is wrong. A social scientist can tell us the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity in a population group. So, faith is fine by itself, but adding reasonable knowledge to faith can make one more confirmed in faith and more useful to those wavering in faith or without faith.
The issue of the existence of God is not a modern one either. It was discussed continually during the medieval period, when it would seem like no discussion was necessary, since pretty much everybody already believed in God. However, there were Muslims and Jews and vaguely known foreign people (none of which the average theologian would ever have much contact with), so the issue was not entirely moot. Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of a First Mover could be proved by reason alone, but that the Christian God could not. However, his apologetics sought to show that objections to the Christian God were not demonstrative, and that nothing in the Christian doctrine of God was ultimately opposed to reason. (By the way, in case people are skeptical about Thomas, Calvin had about the same use for apologetics, even with his strongly Augustinian anthropology.)
In the same way, I think modern discussions of the existence of God, whether spoken or written, serve four purposes:
1) to show that at least some of the alternatives to Christianity are unreasonable
2) to show that there are no conclusive arguments against Christianity
3) to show how Christian faith is compatible with reason, but not contained by it
4) to strengthen believers in the truths they have already embraced
Because faith is more than mental assent, I do not expect debates of this kind to be tools of mass conversion. In some cases, as Roland pointed out, they may actually detract from a correct understanding of faith. However, in that case, I would say the fault rests with the Christian debater, who does not have a biblical and traditional understanding of the purpose of apologetics.
I do think that conversion is more akin to socialization than argument, and that religions are more like cultures than creeds. This puts the burden of conversion more on the long-term practice of the community than on particular persuasive moments. That said, there is no reason why a debate cannot be an avenue of socialization. After all, everything socializes.
Among things in the overlapping category, it is good but not necessary for the faithful to make progress in reason, faith seeking understanding. For example, any Christian can know from the Scripture that God created the world. A scientist may be able to explain better why God’s creative action is necessary. Any Christian can know that premarital sex is wrong. A social scientist can tell us the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity in a population group. So, faith is fine by itself, but adding reasonable knowledge to faith can make one more confirmed in faith and more useful to those wavering in faith or without faith.
The issue of the existence of God is not a modern one either. It was discussed continually during the medieval period, when it would seem like no discussion was necessary, since pretty much everybody already believed in God. However, there were Muslims and Jews and vaguely known foreign people (none of which the average theologian would ever have much contact with), so the issue was not entirely moot. Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of a First Mover could be proved by reason alone, but that the Christian God could not. However, his apologetics sought to show that objections to the Christian God were not demonstrative, and that nothing in the Christian doctrine of God was ultimately opposed to reason. (By the way, in case people are skeptical about Thomas, Calvin had about the same use for apologetics, even with his strongly Augustinian anthropology.)
In the same way, I think modern discussions of the existence of God, whether spoken or written, serve four purposes:
1) to show that at least some of the alternatives to Christianity are unreasonable
2) to show that there are no conclusive arguments against Christianity
3) to show how Christian faith is compatible with reason, but not contained by it
4) to strengthen believers in the truths they have already embraced
Because faith is more than mental assent, I do not expect debates of this kind to be tools of mass conversion. In some cases, as Roland pointed out, they may actually detract from a correct understanding of faith. However, in that case, I would say the fault rests with the Christian debater, who does not have a biblical and traditional understanding of the purpose of apologetics.
I do think that conversion is more akin to socialization than argument, and that religions are more like cultures than creeds. This puts the burden of conversion more on the long-term practice of the community than on particular persuasive moments. That said, there is no reason why a debate cannot be an avenue of socialization. After all, everything socializes.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Nearly every Christian debater in controversy “Is there a God?” knows full well he is not going to win the athiest. However, time and again athiests are shown to be very inconsistent in their arguments. Thus, the poverty of their philosophy is exposed to the listeners. This is very important on college campuses, where athiesm is on the rise, and the voice of Christianity is quite restricted. If the debates are not held, the athiests own all the turf for making their case.
Jeff Brown
Discussion