ATLANTA FREETHOUGHT NEWS
SELECTED ARCHIVED ARTICLES

Why We Should Debate Christians
Every Chance We Get and Why I Think Atkins Won 
by Ed Buckner

I vigorously disagree with the two main conclusions AFS President Kimberly Lyle-Wilson came to in her article in the May Atlanta Freethought News: I think Peter W. Atkins won his debate against William Lane Craig on 3 April 1998, and I believe we freethinkers gain far more than we lose by debating the Christians at every reasonable opportunity.

Ms. Lyle-Wilson is correct in implying that we atheists should insist that the Christians go up against our best debaters and that ours should be as well prepared as possible. And she is right to suggest that we must pay attention to debating tactics, showmanship, slippery syllogisms, and biased locales. She was also right that winning debates is not the same as being on the correct or most logical side. But she proposes a seductive syllogism herself, with a conclusion that we should reject: 

1. When Christians debate, they often use tricky arguments and appeal to emotions. 
2. Audiences are usually swayed by tricky arguments and appeals to emotion. 
3. Therefore, atheists should not debate Christians.

Her premises (1 and 2) seem fairly sound, but her conclusion does not follow. A better conclusion would be, "Therefore, atheists should not debate Christians unless the atheists are prepared to hear tricky arguments and appeals to emotion—and to counter them." A good debater—and there are many such among freethinkers and secular humanists now, and many others who should have their potential developed—can turn trickiness and emotionalism back on the debater who uses them, and not "just sputter."

We must not lose sight of our current position as we seek to educate everyone we can: we are in a tiny minority, despised by many and respected by few of those who disagree with us. We have something to lose by looking foolish in formal debates, but we have far more to lose by throwing up our hands and declaring that debating Christians is impossible. The answer is to do everything we can to get the playing field as level and as fair as we can, and then give it our best shots. When we are rhetorically or emotionally bested, we must learn from that and get better. The alternatives are to communicate only with Christians one-on-one (inefficient at best) or, worse, to just talk among ourselves and hope the profound misunderstandings all around us will magically disappear. But we pride ourselves on not believing in magic. Education is the key to dispelling ignorance, and the best possible educational avenue to reach many Christians and fence-sitters is polite, civil, thoughtful debate. We must not fear to enter the arena where the exchange of ideas occurs just because there are slick or unscrupulous purveyors of unsound ideas in that marketplace. The effects of well done debate extend far beyond the day the debate happens—a good debater can plant seeds even in the minds of some who believe they have made up their minds for all eternity.

My first response to the recent debate, during Peter W. Atkins's opening remarks, was of slight disappointment. But the more I thought about the debate, as it went on and in the days that followed, the more I realized that Atkins had won, even though he did not approach the debate in anything like the way I would have. As Lyle-Wilson said, debates aren't about being right but about convincing your audience—and I think that Atkins probably convinced a majority of those who were at all open to argument that his position was the better one, and I think he planted useful seeds even in the minds of many who think he lost. I could not have proceeded as Atkins did, as I have no claim to be a scientist, much less a world renowned and respected one. I agree with many critics that Atkins apparently underestimated the venality and trickiness of his opponent and of the organizers—and may have somewhat overestimated the intelligence of his audience (those who watched live and those who'll watch videotapes or read transcripts). And it is beyond dispute that the deck was stacked in favor of theism, though at least in the besotted William F. Buckley's case I rather think Atkins managed to turn that into an advantage, exploiting the two-against-one arrangement very patiently, wittily, and skillfully.

But I disagree sharply with the conclusion that Craig won. I’ve met Atkins, two or three times now, and found him personally charming and gracious—and that acquaintance, along with my strongly held atheistic beliefs, may have biased me in all this. I also think Lyle-Wilson sells Keith Parsons and Eddie Tabash far short (she predicts they will "fare better than Dr. Atkins" but that each of those debates will nevertheless be "just a dog-and-pony show for Christians, at atheists’ expense"). I’m confident each will do well (in different ways) against Craig in upcoming debates, and that people, even devout Christians, will be better educated as a result. Many others, including Tim Madigan, Dan Barker, and Farrell Till would also do well against Craig.

Many who saw the 3 April debate and with whom I talked afterwards think Atkins won. We certainly do not agree with Lyle-Wilson that the debate was a "dismal failure" for atheism. Others are more knowledgeable than I of high school and college debate scoring (I did debate at both levels but was only mediocre as a debater in those distant days). And perhaps scoring the Atkins-Craig affair using formal scoring rules would favor Craig. But most of the audience knows of no such rules and would not care if they did. Many members of the audience were, of course, beyond immediate persuasion almost no matter what anyone on either side said. To the modestly open-minded, however, emotion, logic, showmanship, philosophy, appealing accent, appearance, and thought-provoking lines all matter, all enter into the conclusions that survive the event.

I take issue with some, and agree with others, of the minor points raised early on by some critics (not just by Lyle-Wilson). For example, Lyle-Wilson's argument that the Christians in this debate tried to avoid academic settings as too "liberal" won’t wash. The sites that the Christians arranged to get live satellite feeds of the debate included: Boston College, George Mason University, Georgia Tech, Huntington College, Kent State University, Lehigh University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ohio State University, University of Maryland, University of Massachusetts, University of Minnesota, the University of Texas—and, of course, some huge churches and other obviously conservative sites (like Dallas Baptist University). The organizers chose the most prestigious site they could get for the actual debate, not the most religious or conservative one. The "chapel" setting (at the Carter Center) for the debate sounds biased, but in fact there were no religious symbols or motifs suggested in the room at all—or none that I noticed (and I’m prone to notice such things).

I agree with Jeff Lowder (of Internet Infidels) that we atheists should put our money where our mouths are (I for one will make a modest contribution if someone like the Council for Secular Humanism or the Freedom From Religion Foundation organizes a Support Our Debaters fund [motto: "SOD ’em!"]). Contributions are already underway by some: Eddie Tabash (a Beverly Hills attorney) has, for example, donated hundreds of hours, not only to his own preparation but to that of Flew, Atkins (offered, anyway), and Parsons (and he has even offered to do the same for me, in a possible lower level debate against a Georgia Tech professor tentatively scheduled for University of Alabama-Birmingham). But we must not kid ourselves: we atheists cannot compete financially with much better organized, better established, better capitalized groups that have persuaded their members of the need to tithe. We’d better be smarter to make up for being poorer. Atkins entered a contest sponsored by a group that calls itself, very hopefully, the Faith and Science Lecture Forum. They plainly want to persuade all that faith and science are compatible, are two sides of the same godly coin—and Atkins split the coin into two, sending one half spinning off labeled as discredited superstition and the other associated with powerful increases in knowledge.

Craig said, more or less, in his opening, that here are the terms of our fight, and here is how we determine who is right, us rational theists or you immoral atheists. And Atkins in effect replied, quietly but convincingly, that Craig’s opening was nonsense and that the fight is between faith—faith that has spent 5,000 years claiming to give us knowledge and understanding but has provided none at all, or at least none that can be determined on this side of the grave—and science—science that has been operating for a mere 300 years but, especially in the last 100 years, has expanded our understanding so wonderfully well that there is no longer any reason to doubt that science will in due course explain all. I'm no scientist and I do not know that science will eventually be able to explain everything—but I do know Atkins got his version across, and easily managed to leave the impression that scientists are calm and confident, above being concerned with flimsy Christian apologetic arguments, disdainful of long discredited twaddle. Craig did not wake up to this refocusing of the terms of the debate until nearly the end, when he suddenly stated that he, too, was awfully proud of science’s accomplishments. I think (others may argue that I merely hope) that he chimed in too late.

Peter Atkins turned the debate into the Faith versus Science Lecture Forum, and Americans in general trust science—and therefore Atkins won.

Originally published in the July 1998 issue of the Atlanta Freethought News.