My son and I are watching this debate between the famous atheist and a renowned apologist:
As you can imagine, I now think that Craig has the upper hand, but–as I admitted to my son when he asked about it–if I had watched this same debate when I was in college, I would’ve thought Hitchens destroyed his opponent.
The interesting thing is that both now and back then, I can appreciate the merits of the particular points. What has changed is my opinion on which points are stronger in the balance.
For example, considered by itself, it is nutty that God would be upset with humanity, and would only take us back after we had murdered His Son. Thinking about this point (from Hitchens) makes you reject Christianity as an absurd myth–no rational, loving God is at work here!
However, if you focus on Craig’s arguments about the fine-tuning of the universe and the early Christian martyrs, then you seriously entertain the hypothesis that Jesus was exactly Who He claimed. And if that’s true, then you’re going to interpret the crucifixion as a further evidence of God’s generosity and sacrifice–not as evidence of His warped morality.
Two last comments to show that (I hope) I’m being fair while watching this: Craig is much more methodical in his debating style, but I think he botched his discussion of the multiverse in his opening statement. My son and I replayed it, and we still couldn’t even understand how Craig thought he was defanging the argument that the fine-tuning of the universe exists because we are in one of an infinite number of possible universes, and of course it must support life if we’re looking around measuring the charge on an electron and the speed of light.