Critiquing: What Advice Would You Give for Debating an Atheist?

February 22, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Debate Approach — Argument Types — Obligations — Moral Arguments — Strategies

---

Introduction

The content of the podcast “What Advice Would You Give for Debating an Atheist?” hosted by Amy Hall and Greg Koukl offers a detailed perspective on how to engage in discussions with atheists. The main focus is on using three standard arguments: the cosmological argument, the design argument, and the moral argument. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of these arguments and the strategies recommended, identify logical inconsistencies, highlight logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and assess the obligation to substantiate claims.

---

Argument Analysis

Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is based on the premise that the universe had a beginning and thus must have a cause, which is argued to be God. Koukl specifically mentions the Kalam cosmological argument, stating:

“And that is a cosmological argument, which is an argument for God’s existence based on the existence of the cosmos, okay? And one version of most popular depends, not just on that, the cosmos exists, but that it had a beginning. And that’s called the Kalam cosmological argument.”

One issue with this argument is the assumption that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and therefore, the universe must have a cause. This assumption might not hold when applied to the universe as a whole. Additionally, positing God as the cause introduces further questions about the nature and origin of God, which the argument does not address.

Design Argument

The design argument, or teleological argument, suggests that the complexity and apparent design in the universe imply a designer. Koukl explains:

“I also offer a design argument, also called a teleological argument, because I think the things that look design, which Richard Dawkins actually acknowledges in the first line of his book, The Blind Watchmaker, the biological realm is a complex realm in which it appears that things have been defined, designed for a purpose.”

The main logical inconsistency here is the leap from complexity and appearance of design to the conclusion of an intelligent designer. The appearance of design can be explained through natural processes such as evolution by natural selection. The argument does not sufficiently rule out these alternative explanations.

Moral Argument

The moral argument asserts that objective morality exists and can only be grounded in God. Koukl states:

“If there is no God, there is no absolute or objective standard outside of us… The duty of the atheist given that argument is to show how you can have objective morality with moral obligations with no God.”

This argument assumes that objective morality cannot exist without God, which is a contentious point. Many ethicists argue that objective moral values can be grounded in secular philosophies or intrinsic human values. The claim that atheism necessarily leads to moral relativism is an oversimplification and ignores the complex philosophical debates on the nature of morality.

---

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Assumption of Exclusivity: The content often assumes that the theistic explanation is the only plausible one. For example, Koukl contrasts the theistic explanation of the universe’s origin with the atheistic explanation, suggesting the latter is “worse than magic.” This creates a false dichotomy, ignoring other possible explanations.
2. Straw Man Fallacy: Koukl misrepresents atheistic positions, such as in the statement: “People go to hell because they’re guilty of crimes against God.” This oversimplification does not accurately reflect the diversity of atheistic views on morality and justice.

---

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias: The content selectively presents evidence that supports theistic beliefs while dismissing or ignoring counterarguments. For instance, Koukl’s use of Dawkins’ acknowledgment of apparent design in biology is used to support the design argument without considering Dawkins’ detailed refutation of the same.
2. Appeal to Intuition: The arguments often rely on what seems intuitively true rather than what is supported by empirical evidence. For example: “Well, certainly the second is a lot more intuitively sound and consistent with virtually everything we know about reality.”

---

Unsubstantiated Claims

Several claims are made without sufficient evidence. For example:

“There is no grounding for this. Michael Ruse makes it really clear, morality is an illusion, the atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse.”

Such claims require substantial evidence and rigorous philosophical support, which is not provided in the content. The obligation to substantiate all claims is crucial for a logical and coherent argument.

---

Testing Alleged Promises

To test the alleged promises or claims about God’s existence and actions, one could propose:

• Empirical Studies: Conducting studies to see if specific prayers lead to statistically significant outcomes.
• Philosophical Analysis: Engaging in rigorous philosophical debates and analyses to test the coherence and consistency of theistic arguments.

The content does not offer methods to empirically or philosophically test the promises or claims it makes.

---

Mapping Degree of Belief to Evidence

It is essential to map one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. This means that stronger claims require stronger evidence. The content often presents strong claims with insufficient evidence, leading to logical inconsistencies and weak argumentation.

---

Conclusion

The content from “What Advice Would You Give for Debating an Atheist?” presents a theistic perspective on engaging with atheists using three primary arguments. However, it contains several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. For a more robust and convincing argument, it is crucial to address these issues, provide substantial evidence for all claims, and engage in a fair representation of opposing views.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments and critiques in the comments section.