Atheism Debate : William Lane Craig vs. James Robert Brown

This post will serve as a very succinct comment on the debate between William Lane Craig and James Robert Brown entitled, "Does God Exist?" (audio file here).

I say succinct for at least two reasons:

1) I have not found a transcript and transcribing lengthy statements is simply an impossibility for me right now given my time constraints. Yet, I listened to the debate and wanted to comment for the simple reason that:

2) It seemed important to note that James Robert Brown merely regurgitated various tired and worn out arguments (more like assertions actually) and debate tactics.

The position that he is defending that is to say, the sect of atheism which he is representing is that which holds that, as he stated during the debate, "there isn't a God" (although he admits to lacking the ability to actually prove this assertion).

He appeals to what I term the argument from geographical happenstance which asserts that, for example, if you are born in North America you are most likely to be a Christian (and likely one of those fundy-thumper-evang-YECers) due to the accident of you having been born in to a majority Christian culture. Thus, or so the assertion goes, if you had been born in India you would be a Hindu, in Iran a Muslim, in Scandinavia an atheist, etc.
Regardless of the stats behind such assertions there are two issues:

1) Apparently, atheist born in North America should be Christians. The response will likely be that many were raised as such (whatever that means) but have evolved beyond such childish things. Thus, Christians who were raised as such have likewise evolved to see the truth of their position.

2) Yet, the argument from geographical happenstance fails due to the fact that it is a logical fallacy. I referenced Scandinavians raised as atheist: does the fact that they were raised as such have anything to do with whether atheism is true-let us say the "there isn't a God" sect? No. This argument is an ad hominem or genetic fallacy which attempt to discredit the argument (theism) by attacking the source (upbringing). This is also not to mention that this is argument is generic and simplistic.

William Lane Craig

James Robert Brown responds to the scientific evidence of the universe's fine-tuning by appealing to the multiverse of the gaps. Since I have outlined this concept and responded to it in my post In the Beginning_ Cosmology, Part II - Book, Chapter and Multi-Verse no more need be stated here except to point out that running off into the atheist supernatural realm of the omnipotence of the unobserved multiverse is no response.

In referencing the problem of evil and or suffering James Robert Brown numerously makes reference to, you guessed it, children.
Why? I certainly do not know but would imagine that it if for the same reasons that atheists have done the so for over a century and that reason is the same as the reason that Senators and Congressmen (or is the appropriate PC term non gender specific Congresspersonages) make such appeals: it is emotive.
Once you have the audience experiencing feelings, which are real, tangible experiences, it is more difficult for them to accept rational responses, which are ethereal concepts the grasping of which is made all the more difficult by the fact that they are too preoccupied experiencing emotions and perhaps dealing with memories of evil and suffering to follow the counter argument.
In this regard he subjectively, and I think mistakenly, defines loving or absolutely loving as necessitating a desire to prevent all, any and every suffering (assuming that one was, such as God, omnipotent). The problem of evil is a supremely difficult one. Yet, it is not logically or theologically difficult but emotionally difficult. The problem of evil is dead. It dies by noting that God could have one reason, maybe even one single one, maybe a reason that we could not think of, for allowing evil. In this light it is important to note that all of us know that suffering often plays a very important and beneficial role in our lives. And I do not here mean Sam Harris' view that rape played a beneficial evolutionary role nor that on atheism evil is for the benefit of the evildoer who enjoys the evil acts and, unless caught, simply and happily gets away with it.

James Brown

James Robert Brown appeals to what I term the moral argument for embarrassment (previously discussed with regards to Michel Shermer). I mean this quite literally as he stated, "if you read the Bible closely you'll be deeply embarrassed, or at least you should be deeply embarrassed." Of course, he peppered fallacious statements with equally inept arguments from ridicule as he launched into the expected misrepresentations, misunderstandings of the Bible's contents. When, in the midst of a debate about God's existence, the atheist brings up the Bible it should be pointed out to them that it is irrelevant since the Christian could simply grant that the Bible is utterly fallacious and the most that would do is discredit one particular theology. The exception to this would be if particular biblical doctrines are discussed or, as William Lane Craig did, when appeal is made to Jesus' resurrection. Yet, James Robert Brown did not interact with the texts regarding the resurrection but relied on arguments for embarrassment, from ridicule and from outrage in order to spike his own moral assertions.

James Robert Brown also did quite a job of describing his particular and peculiar worldview:

"On my view, of course, there is no purpose to life, there is no meaning to life-except the meaning you give it yourself.
And here I don't think that, you know, you can just do anything and say, 'I wanna be the greatest mass murderer who's ever existed,' it's not something like that.
You can choose something good and worthwhile and be a decent person and live a very good life and you can contribute to making this world a decent world and give up hopes about the next, which simply does not exist."

Of course, it is falsely dichotomous to set a this world only view versus a this world and a world to come view since the latter does not necessarily infringe upon nor take away from the former.

Ok, WLC was probably debating this James (Robert) Brown

What is of interest here are James Robert Brown's assertions:
"On my view," recall that he represents the "there isn't a God" view life means what you want it to mean. This is one of atheism's consoling delusions: the delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.
Thus, I can give my life whatever meaning I choose. Yet, he will not allow you to choose as you wish.
As it turns out, "I don't think," is actually his pseudo-ontological premise.
Note that as per the greatest mass murderer life meaning goal he states, "it's not something like that." But what is not like that? What is the "it's"? Apparently, it is his authoritarian atheistic dogmatic assertions about morality. He states that "You can choose something good_ you can contribute_" indeed I can, but I do not have to and may not want to in which case his only response would either be outrage, ridicule, embarrassment and or hoping that he is the fittest.

During Q&A time the following question was asked of James Robert Brown,

"_why should I go for these [moral] goods? What if I'm evil or what if I, what if I like the bad guys; shouldn't I then follow the evil set?"

He responded by stating "No, of course not" and then attempted to equate morality with mathematical certainty and concluded,

"you can't just make up facts, including moral facts; your under obligation, moral obligation without God, you don't need God for this, you have a moral obligation to not murder, not rob people_"

Pray tell: what moral facts, what obligation? Again, the answer is: his authoritarian atheistic dogmatic assertions which he further expresses thusly,

"All I ask you to do it believe there's no God but still murder is wrong. There are moral facts, as well as physical facts, as well as mathematical facts, that's all I'm asking."

"It's just a basic fact, a basic moral fact, that murder is wrong."

"_a world without God given purposes, but it will be a world with your own purposes and if you're a decent person one of your purposes will be to make this world and the people in it a lot better off, don't dream about the next, this is our only chance-don't screw it up!"

James Robert Brown described himself as a "moral realist" by which he appears to mean that he can think about morality, come to conclusions about morality, claim that his conclusions are tantamount to mathematical certainly and thus, turn his conclusions in to dogma: he makes epistemic statements about morality but has no ultimate or transcendent ontological basis. This is so clear that he has to presuppose the obvious retorts and one which he did get from the audience: what if I do not want to be what you tell me I am obligate to be?

Overall, it is an interesting debate to listen to if you have time to kill and just want to listen to a litany of fallacious assertions.