The Real Story Behind Dr. Craig's Debate with Christopher Hitchens

I got the opportunity to ask Dr. Craig about his widely known debate with Christopher Hitchens on the existence of God. It was interesting to hear a little background about the famous discussion.

--Thanks to our sponsors!!!--

[pintswithaquinas]

Did you watch the Craig v. Hitchens debate? What were your thoughts?

[deadvikingtrolls]

I'm a Christian who came to respect Christopher for his charm, even as provocative as he could be. It made me sad just now to learn that he's died.

[vaskaventi]

1:38 hearing WLC using the term “bamboozled” in his vocabulary is something I didn’t know I needed

[metalfan]

God certainly used this debate in my life. It was the first time I heard a Christian give reasons for his faith. It was my introduction in apologetics and, by that, a stronger faith. Because I was really doubting my faith when I saw that debate. Craig did an amazing job!

[anepicflyingbrick_]

On every video that is about atheism vs theism the comment section is full of theists saying the theist won and the atheists saying the atheist won. Idk what it is but for some reason confirmation bias is brought to the max for topics like this.

[Velakowitz]

I remember I was huge on the new atheism wave back in those days. It just seemed to control the narrative at the time and the culture of libertarianism was trending politically towards too. (This evolved into the modern Leftist wokeism today.) It was huge on Facebook, 4Chan, Reddit, everywhere. As an atheist at the time, I saw it with an opened mind and I clearly had a bias towards Dr. Craig, and although at the time I felt in my heart (not logically) that Hitchens still provided better rhetoric, Dr. Craig planted some seeds in my mind about Christianity that I was going to have to be intellectually honest about as I connected the arguments with a historical, ethical, and political context of what the maximal good in society and man is. Atheism as the "a prior" worldview has produced no good fruits I would come to find out.


Fast forwarded to now, I can see that most if not all popular-level atheist thinkers and influencers just rely on post-enlightenment philosophical paradigms that have been shaky at best. The new atheists starting with Russell have not provided any new arguments against the existence of God since the enlightenment, and even those rationalist thinkers just regurgitated the same talking points that were popularized during the late middle ages. I re-watched the debate and the debate really is just sort of frustrating to watch from a philosophical perspective, even more so with a classical theist worldview because Hitchens doesn't understand any of it nor retorts any of the core argumentative axioms that Dr. Craig presented.


Now to add some feedback for Dr. Craig, I respect Dr. Craig immensely, but until modern apologetics takes a classical theist approach and gets out of the enlightenment paradigm of philosophical "a priori" reductionism (analytical/continental philosophy), it will always cede way too much ground to atheists before it even takes off, accepting their definition of nature and probabilistically arguing for God within an internally materialistic cosmos. Might I add, Aristotelian Metaphysics remains a minority viewpoint among most Christians today. Until Thomism becomes a Dominant force within Philosophy, Swinburne's inductive account will be "superior" to Aquinas' supposed metaphysical demonstrations.

[willsal]

Pretty memorable debate for me. I was literally just starting to study about these topics coming from an apatheist background. First watched clips of Hitchens and thought " Wow, this guy knows his stuff"
Then a few days later, watched some xlips of WLC and thought "I've never heard a Christian talk this way before". Watched the debate, then went even further down the rabbit hole.. Good times.

[ItsJustAdrean]

As a Christian, I have to say I did like Hitchens, as a person, not a debater. I found someone with so many of the same concerns I had, willing to stand for his beliefs, but hard to convince for sheer effect of will. Before Christ, I was much the same.

[Mordredh]

As an atheist, I feel WLC was the better debater (eventhough I think he's wrong). His arguments were better formulated, and pointed out that Hitchens didn't quite address them at all. However, WLC also completely missed the points Hitchens made. In the Q&A part he posed questions that H clearly stated during his talk.
Even so, I feel WLC's arguments are still very unconvincing to non-believers, and only strengthen the faith if you already have it.

[matthewbateman]

I watched the debate. I am a Catholic, and I really enjoyed the debate. I appreciate Hitchens's swagger and charisma, and he can sure turn a phrase.
Honestly, I did find the debate challenging. It is true, that in the sense of an academic debate, Craig won, clearly -- he always stays on topic, he never gets distracted, and Hitchens did almost nothing to address Craig's points . And yes, Hitchens was basically always only a rhetorician. In a lot of ways, this debate (and Craig's debate with Sam Harris) felt like two very intelligent respectable people, just talking past each other, rather than actually debating one another.
All the same, they say arguments don't make converts -- that no one was ever philosophically/logically 'argumented' into belief in Christ. It's always ultimately issues of the heart and soul that really make the difference.
I feel that Hitchens played his part well in that sense, though as an atheist. I do not think his points were purely path-etic (that is, merely emotional pleas). But, I do think the unrefined, perhaps cynical points Hitchens made had a pithiness behind them, in the lingering sense, that Craig's clearly correct academic points did not.
Honestly, I used to find it hard to understand why someone would be an atheist. And, me personally, I am trying to be the best Christian I can be, and live out my sainthood every day. But, it was debates like this (and the Sam Harris debate) that made it clear to me why people might be atheists, even if I obviously disagree.
Hopefully that will give me some common ground at least, if I find myself witnessing to/dialoging with an atheist.

[HammerFitness]

NOBODY who interviews Craig ever talks about his loss to Shelly Kagan. We really need him to speak about this publicly

[andresarpi]

Put the section where he imitated Dawking! WLC had me laughing out loud

[cupoftea]

Even as an atheist I have to say that Hitchens lost that debate. Hitchens had a lot to say about the harm religion does, but not so much about the existence of God, which is a different question. While I don't find WLC's arguments convincing at least he presented them well structured and Hitchens didn't counter them properly.

[reecewood]

Even most atheist philosophers agree that WLC trounced hitch in that debate

[charleslohr]

This was the debate that intellectually set the foundation for me to become a Christian

[jonson]

So many atheists in this comment section are so butthurt about hearing Hitchens having lost the debate.
I forgot the content of it, but I do remember recently watching a video by CosmicSkeptic, who pointed out that Hitchens weapons werent arguments, they were rhetoric and sophistry.

[mazza]

Hitch won on rhetoric.
Craig won by substance.

It was a an amazing blockbuster type of debate it was great.

[TheNamesCarlos]

It was an entertaining debate. I am not a fan of people who skip the basics of science like energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Find evidence of how energy came to be before ascribing that there was nothing at the beginning of the universe. As far as I can tell the “nothing” at the beginning of the universe is a no evidence myth.

Maybe energy was created, but without being able to genuinely answer that energy has a beginning, the premise of only god could have created it and created it out of nothing is super premature.

[struergymnasium]

Interesting how people can have so different perspectives on the outcome of that debate.

[mattedwards]

Craig did the best job I’ve seen in a debate with Hitchens, and I was frustrated that Hitchens didn’t directly answer some of his challenges, but Craig’s argument was extremely flawed, although it sounded great. He foolishly ends his organized argument, which he repeats, with the idea that he has felt God through experience, which is laughable after saying belief in a God is the more rational worldview. He also uses teleological arguments that are widely disputed and convenient for a God believers.