Dinesh D'Souza on life after death

Dinesh appeared on IssuesEtc radio promoting his book on life after death. I’ll summarise his arguments and italicize my responses.

The commentator (Todd Wilken) asks Dinesh why he wants to make the case for life after death without appeal to Biblical truth or revelation. Dinesh responds that, as atheists do not accept the authority of the Bible, he intends to use their own weapons of reason and scepticism (and evidence and science) against them instead. This is the best way to empower believers and challenge atheists. This is an effective way to reach the seekers and fence sitters. Christians are intimidated by modern biology because atheists have been using evolution as a battering ram against Christianity. Believers’ sons and daughters, having been to college, come back and ask questions which their parents, who can cite only scripture, cannot necessarily engage.

Reason and scepticism are not weapons. They are valuable attributes of open and inquiring minds. Yes, they empower those who practise them, enabling them to distinguish between plausible assertions and silly ones. The more reason and scepticism the better. And if reason and scepticism lead to a credible case for life after death, supported by verifiable evidence, then so be it. No honest seeker of truth need be intimidated by modern biology. Rather, I hope they would be fascinated by it, whether they learned it from their college-educated children or not. Arguments based on authority alone need not be taken seriously. That remains true whether the authority is ancient scripture or more recent proselytizing from the likes of Dinesh.

The atheist has no evidence for his belief that there is no afterlife. Richard Dawkins’ statements show ‘craziness’. A Christian believes in life after death because of biblical revelation. The atheist laughs at this because the Christian has no evidence. He has interviewed no dead people and has not been to the ‘other side of the curtain’. There is some validity to that. But the atheist would declare his confidence that there is no life after death, which is why Richard Dawkins is willing to go to his death with the tape recorder on. However, the atheist does not know either. He has not interviewed any dead people and has not been to the other side of the curtain. What information does the atheist have that the religious believer doesn’t have? It turns out that he has none at all. So the atheist position, like the believer’s position, is a guess in the dark. Both are taking a faith-based position, but whereas the theist is honest enough to admit that his stance is based only on faith, the atheist deludes himself into thinking his position is based on reason.

Firstly you have misrepresented Richard Dawkins. He has said clearly that the purpose of the tape recorder will be to prevent rumours of a deathbed conversion to theism. This has nothing to do with life after death. There may be an automatic connection between theism and life after death in your mind, but there is none in Dawkins's (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong). Dawkins is a clear, logical thinker. You, sir, appear to be neither.

Rather than asserting that there is no afterlife, the atheist has no reason to believe in an afterlife. Furthermore, neither does the Christian. Dinesh is right insofar as the Christian’s belief in an afterlife is based on faith. But the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Suppose you are called as a witness at the trial of a man you have never seen. Imagine that the prosecuting counsel challenges you to produce evidence that this man is innocent of a crime. Never having seen the man, and knowing nothing of his actions or whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime, you protest that you can provide no evidence at all. “Aha!” shouts the prosecutor. “As no evidence against the prosecution’s claim can be offered, we are entitled to assume him guilty if we so wish.” No court worth its salt would tolerate such nonsense, and neither will we tolerate it from you, Dinesh.

The belief in life after death is near-universal, in every culture. The west is the only civilization in which life after death is denied. The atheists cite Freud’s wish-fulfilment theory. We all want to survive death so we make up a wonderful life that never ends. This explains belief in heaven, but it does not explain belief in hell so it is a bad theory. No-one would come up with the idea of hell through wish fulfilment.

Freud was right. The wish for life after death is universally popular. Those who sought to wield power over others in this life concocted the vile fiction of hell to frighten people – especially children – into doing as they were told. This has led to untold fear and misery among those convinced that their friends and loved ones have been roasting away for years, but I am getting off the point. Your wish-fulfilment argument is spectacularly weak, Dinesh.

Near-death experiences first came out in the 1970s and were anecdotal and hard to take seriously. We, however, haven’t had a near death experience, and there are thirty years of data showing great similarity and uniformity. Everybody goes through a tunnel, sees a bright light, encounters a celestial being etc. Atheists dismiss this as a dream similar to that caused by hallucinogenic drugs, but if a hundred people took LSD they would have a hundred different dreams, not similar ones. Other atheists say this is the brain breaking down, but the problem is that a dying brain does not recover the ability to perceive clearly. Near death experiences are among the most vivid experiences people have ever had. The atheist explanation is dubious, and on balance near death experiences do suggest that consciousness might outlive death. If the atheist is correct, near death experiences that point to an afterlife should be very rare or completely impossible. Even if only one of them is valid it is showing that some form on consciousness does survive death, although it doesn’t say for how long. Near death experiences constitute valuable empirical evidence because those experiencing them have gone right to the edge.

Read the first sentence of the last paragraph again. 1970s? There are no documented near-death experiences before then? So all the ‘data’ are recent and probably hugely cross-contaminated. As for uniformity, if you randomly select pebbles from a beach and keep only the grey, rounded ones between 3cm and 4cm long, you will, amazingly, end up with a very uniform set of pebbles. The same will happen if you collect stories from people who recall near-death experiences and select them according to a strict set of criteria (light, tunnel, undefined being etc.). As for the vividness of the experience, it is only the memory that is vivid, and the memory may be completely false. It is well known that brains temporarily starved of oxygen undergo weird experiences, often with intensified sensory perception. Dinesh, you simply assert without evidence that near-death experiences point to an afterlife. Moreover, what has all this to do with atheism or theism? Even if you proved that consciousness survives death – which of course you have not proved at all – that does not prove the existence of a deity. You are multiplying assumptions based on nothing. Occam’s Razor, please.

The physical laws that govern the universe have recently been rewritten by science, and Christians should find this very thrilling. Physics 200 years ago would have had nothing to say about life after death because heaven is outside of space and time, and we will have incorruptible material bodies. 200 years ago the atheists would have said the universe extends infinitely so we cannot get outside it, and matter breaks down so resurrected incorruptible bodies are impossible. But now scientists talk routinely about multiple universes and multiple dimensions where different laws apply. Scientists speak of dark matter and dark energy which is unlike any matter or energy that we know about and is completely undetectable by any scientific instrument. The dark matter adds up to 95% of the universe. So we should say to the atheist, “Sorry, pal, the matter you know about is only 5%!”

Physics today, like that of 200 years ago, has nothing to say about life after death. You seem to be saying, “Hey, we know more than we did 200 years ago, so things that we still know nothing about are therefore more likely!” That is a non-sequitur. There is no connection between multiple dimensions and immaterial bodies that survive death. Your reference to dark matter doesn’t help either. You’re saying that we’re ignorant about most of the universe. That’s true, but it means you’re ignorant too. You can’t fence off an ‘unknown’ part of the universe and then start making a set of specific claims about it, viz. supernatural deity, heaven, afterlife, immaterial eternal bodies etc. Grow up, man. You’re like child in the playground shouting, “Can’t tag me; I’m on den, ner nerny ner ner!”

The modern atheist denies consciousness – they say that the entire repertoire of our mental life; all the immaterial things that we experience directly are nothing more than the firing of neurones in our brain. But if thoughts and consciousness were just firing neurones we should be able to scan the brain’s neurones and say what someone is thinking. This cannot be done; in fact a brain scan cannot reveal whether someone is conscious or not. The only way a neuroscientist can tell whether or not you are conscious is to ask you. The mind cannot be reduced to the brain because the mind is in the non-physical, immaterial realm whereas the brain is just the physical operation of atoms and molecules.

Dinesh, I am holding in my hand a deck of 52 cards. You are welcome to examine them. You can note the sequence of the cards; the orientation of the deck and the height from the floor. You can measure the air currents in the room, the frictional characteristics of the floor tiles, etc. All that information should enable you to predict exactly where each card will land; which way up, etc. What do you mean, the problem is too complicated? Don’t be silly. You have all the available data. All you have to do is analyze it. After all, decks of cards aren’t part of the non-physical, immaterial realm, are they? They’re just atoms and molecules, surely. OK, sarcasm mode off. The brain contains some 100 billion neurones, interconnected by a net of amazing complexity. The world’s population is currently a mere 6 or 7 billion. Noting the current position and actions of every citizen of the world is about 15 times less complex than noting the state of every neurone in a single brain. Do you see that the problem is simply one of complexity, to coin a phrase?

There is a point that the atheist brain has not conceived of. The atheist says that the mind and brain are exactly the same thing, but here is an example. Think of your mind as software and your brain as hardware. The software requires the hardware in order to run. But it does not follow that the hardware is the cause of the software, or that the two are identical. The brain could be a transmitter or receiver for the mind. You require a CD player to play music but the sound waves are not caused by the CD player. The body may die but the immaterial part of us may live on, even though here on Earth the two go together.

A child’s brain, let alone an atheist brain, could easily conceive of this amateur science fiction without really trying. But what reason do we have to suppose additional, unseen entities? Every human death has involved the brain ceasing to function. Thinking of the mind as a piece of software is a neat analogy but there is no evidence whatsoever that the software can exist without the hardware of the brain. The mind may live on, or it may disappear up the ring around Uranus. The evidence in favour of both contingencies – and infinite others – is equal, and zero.

The book Life After Death is a stunning confirmation of religious faith. Schopenhauer makes a claim about life after death that has never been refuted. Like the transition from the caterpillar to the butterfly, life after death is a factual question.

Yes, the question of life after death is a factual one. So is the question of life before birth. Your recollection of that is…?

We are like detectives who have come upon a crime scene with no witnesses. Each clue by itself does not make the case but all the arguments collectively constitute an overwhelming case. That is very good news for believers and for anyone truly open to the evidence.

Overwhelming case? Then why is life after death not an established fact taught in school science classes? Dinesh, there is no case at all. A few anecdotes, probably either fabricated or imagined, do not constitute a case. Don’t take my word for it. Take me to a law court and prove your overwhelming case.

Wilken: we have the testimony of Christ who experienced death for each and every one of us. Because death cannot hold him he returned victorious after three days, incorruptible and unable to be touched by death again. Because of his sacrifice for us, we too will be like him.

Todd, I hope that ‘us’ and ‘we’ refer only to a specific group of people whose permission you have already sought to be included in your statement. Don’t you dare include me in your obscene claims of vicarious redemption, through the scapegoat of a filthy human sacrifice, for crimes allegedly committed thousands of years before I was born. Keep your fantasy stories to yourself and other consenting adults. You may recognise Christopher Hitchens’ words in this paragraph. I cannot put it any better than he has.

Accommodationism is patronising, misleading and hypocritical

Michael Shermer seems a tad confused. At least, that's the impression some of his recent writings give me. He's confusing ideas with people. On the one hand, he presents science as a set of facts and explanations whose acceptance is essential to a true understanding of ourselves and the world we live in. On the other hand, he sees religious people as belonging to a 'type' whom we must not antagonise if we are successfully to spread the word.

Let's try reversing this asymmetry. What if scientists were to claim that their science is an indelible part of their make-up which must not be questioned lest they take offence and leave the room? Would theists start to accommodate science as a means of spreading their beliefs to a more sympathetic audience? How insufferably patronising that would be. If I felt I was being humoured by someone who thought my scientific world view was wrong but pretended to go along with it so that I'd go on listening, I'd be the first to head for the door.

Whether or not people believe in the fact of evolution depends on whether or not they are prepared to consider the evidence, which is available to anyone. Exactly the same applies to whether or not people believe in sky gods. People deserve courtesy and respect during discourse. Their crackpot beliefs deserve neither.

Christopher Hitchens has pointed out that belief in the supernatural is now optional, private and irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, theists can believe whatever the hell they like as long as their beliefs adversely affect no-one but them. If it makes them feel better to imagine that they will survive death and be reunited with loved ones, let them believe that, provided their belief does not cause them to act in a way detrimental to others. But the moment they start to assert their beliefs, they must expect to have those assertions questioned. The onus is upon the assertor to substantiate his assertion or to stop making it. There is no reason whatever that we should tiptoe respectfully around ludicrous assertions based on no evidence at all.

Craven accommodationism, disguised as it may be behind the mask of well-intentioned liberalism, simply postpones the day when professed belief in god will attract the same well-deserved ridicule as professed belief that one is Napoleon.

Labelling children with the religion of their parents

Power to the new ad campaign, aimed at raising consciousness. Raising consciousness means making people aware of something they don't know they are doing, and should perhaps stop doing. It has long been unquestioned, automatic practice to label children at birth with the religion of their parents. Richard Dawkins has pointed out that this is just as inappropriate as labelling the children of sportspeople with their sport (e.g. a cricketing child, or a figure-skating child) or politican's children with their party (e.g. a Liberal Democrat child). In the last example it is clearly silly to attribute a complex socio-political ideology to a newborn infant. But why is it any more sensible, or desirable, to attribute a specific set of beliefs about the universe to someone not yet able to understand language?

This consciousness-raising will drag a whole host of issues into the public spotlight and facilitate a great deal of very valuable discourse. Assumptions that have remained unquestioned and unchallenged for far too long will be subjected to rational inquiry. Even theists like Jeremy Vine, Joanna Bogle and Ruth Gledhill, who miss the point entirely, raise related issues onto the stage of public awareness. For instance, it is obvious to any rational thinker that the principal reason for the survival throughout centuries of unsupported sky-god myths is that they are taught to children at an age when they are highly credulous. Although this point is not raised directly by the 'Don't label me' campaign, it is a closely related point and one that will surely arise many, many times. The assertions of different religions are incompatible with one another, and most religious adherents follow the same religion as their parents. Therefore, childhood labelling and childhood indoctrination ensure that the divisiveness of religious tribalism will persist down the generations. Moreover, the teachings of the world's major faiths cannot all be correct, so at least most of them must be wrong. This simple fact alone places an enormous responsibility on parents. Ought they to teach 'absolute truth' to their children, when they themselves cannot be sure that what they are teaching is absolutely true? And if they are sure, where does their faith fit in? It seems that faith develops later in life, following the inculcation of fixed ideas which are learned as undeniably true. Only later, when the growing child confronts doubt, does it learn to use the crutch of faith to shore up the rubbish it learned at its parents' knees.

My solution? Continued, rigorous questioning of the right to label children at birth, coupled with thorough education in comparative religion, whatever the denomination of the parents. Add plenty of encouragement to think rationally, and to question teachings that are based on assertion alone.

Here's to the future.

The Atheist Blogroll

CarbonBlog has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Michael's R-useless outpourings

Michael Ruse has written this appalling piece of tripe on the Guardian 'Comment is Free' site. I think my response is a bit too wordy for the site so here it is on my blog.

‘Is there an atheist schism?’ asks Michael Ruse. I think the question as posed is meaningless. Is there an a-Zeusist schism? Have the non-followers of Quetzalcoatl split into multiple factions? Has there been a schism among those who doubt that vitamin supplements are good for you?

Michael Ruse opens by reminding us that he is a professional philosopher. I am a professional teacher but I don’t expect to begin each one of my lessons by stating same. I hope my daily work makes it obvious. But I can see why that’s not the case for Michael, having read his pitiable offering.

I absolutely and utterly believe that there is no god. That is the same as saying that I believe there is no god. It is the same as saying that I do not believe there is a god. However, were any credible evidence for god’s existence to come to light, I would be only too happy to change my stance.

Religion’s big problem is not that it is ‘evil and corrupting’, although much of the time it is both of those things. The major issue is that religion is all about spreading ideas that are patently false, and protecting those ideas by means of threats ranging from being offended to blowing up those who disagree with them.
Michael claims that religion motivated the abolitionists to oppose slavery. Yet slavery was abolished only a couple of hundred years ago, whereas Christianity claims to be twenty centuries old, and other religions are much older. Why did the divine message take so long to make a difference? Oh, I almost forgot – Michael is an atheist. How silly of me. He can see that the beliefs of the religious are false, but they can’t see that for themselves so let’s protect their belief system despite the complete lack of evidence in its favour. If this is not an insufferably arrogant and condescending stance, then arrogance and condescension have no place in reality.

The September 11th hijackers were almost exclusively Saudis, groomed and trained by Osama bin Laden. Michael, have you been to Saudi Arabia? I lived and worked in bin Laden’s home city for twelve years. Believe me, neither desperation nor poverty features large in the experience of the typical Saudi male aged 18 to 35. Five-times-daily indoctrination in the necessity of jihad, and the paradise that awaits the martyr, are right at the forefront of their consciousness, however. Put from your mind any picture of desperate, heroic young men seeking valiantly to redress the imbalance of western imperialism. Without their mediaeval belief system none of them would have been motivated to act as they did. My evidence? The complete absence of secular hijackers from among the nineteen, and the declamations of bin Laden himself in gloating over the attacks while describing the eternal virgin-soaked bliss which he believes his footsoldiers are now enjoying.

As for the Irish troubles, if all the children could have been Pied-Pipered away at the height of the conflict, and brought up free from sectarian labels, then old wounds would have likely been forgotten within a generation. Segregated schooling, according to parental religion, was largely responsible for dragging the troubles on and on and on.

If everything needs a cause, then so does god. If not, not, and uncaused things can happen. There is no profound truth here. There is no insight that requires years of study and meditation. The emperor’s equipment dangles freely in the wind. If god is necessarily uncaused, provide explanatory proof. Do not simply say that because some fools take silly things seriously the rest of us should too. Baseless twaddle is nothing but baseless twaddle.

Mary Midgley was either too lazy to read, or too stupid to understand, Dawkins’s point about selfish genes. Either way she was just plain wrong. Like Dawkins I would be indignant if I had written a carefully researched, ground breaking book, and had it dismissed by someone who clearly either hadn’t read it or hadn’t understood even the title.

If beliefs are wrong then they are wrong. It doesn’t matter how bright or how educated the holders are. Michael appears to be saying that wrong beliefs deserve respect simply because people hold them. That is utter rubbish. No belief deserves so much as an ounce of respect unless it can be defended on reasonable grounds. If someone wishes to believe fantastic things privately then so be it. The rest of us need never know. But as soon as those beliefs start affecting – or shortening – other people’s lives, they become public business, and open to public debate, no punches pulled.

The truth, Michael, is ever so simple. God very probably does not exist, and anyone who claims otherwise needs to back up their claim with evidence if they wish to be taken seriously. If you don’t like that, bad luck. Live with it.

Craig's self-contradiction

I have been listening today to the mp3 of Craig's debate with Arif Ahmed. I wasn't surprised to hear Craig trot out his pat list of empty proofs. But he scored a peach of an own goal, more than once, in his responses to Ahmed's clear and incisive rebuttals.

As in every one of his debates, Craig 'proved' the existence of a transcendent, timeless, spaceless, personal being of unimaginable power; a being about which he claims to know a great deal. In the fifth of his 'arguments', the one he always says is not an argument at all but he gets it in anyway, he described his own directly experiential loving relationship with this being.

Later, when Ahmed challenged him to justify god's lack of intervention to mitigate atrocities such as the gruesome gassing of countless young men in the trenches of the Somme, Craig argued that we mere humans cannot know the complexities of the divine purpose, and that the suffering that goes on in this life may well be necessary to enhance the experience of the next. The own goal is this: Craig is prepared to sweep the problem of theodicy under the carpet of god's mysterious inscrutability, a most convenient hiding place for debating points you've no answer to. Yet, when it suits him, Craig goes into great detail about god's actions and rationale, creating the universe out of nothing, waiting fifteen billion years or so and then sending his only begotten son to absolve fallen man of his sins.

Dr Craig, you cannot have it both ways. If, as you say, we cannot determine god's rationale in presiding over obscene suffering on a global scale, then neither can we comment on any of his other alleged actions, such as creating the world or establishing lovingly dictatorial relationships with individuals.

At one point in the debate Craig rose in my estimation, albeit slightly. In his closing address he gave an account of his path to Christianity, a credible and genuine tale culminating in a decisive encounter with a female fellow student. Thus was Craig's position honestly displayed: he is a theist for his own private reasons, and his so-called proofs of god are nothing more than affirmations of his own faith. They prove nothing that is external to him. Those among Craig's supporters with whom I've so far been privileged to interact appear to share that position, i.e. they have already made up their minds that god exists during some prior chapter in their lives, and they now go around bolstering their confidence by trotting out 'proofs'.

Responses to Dinesh D'Souza's arguments

The rebuttals below are aimed at Dinesh D'Souza's case as presented in a debate with Christopher Hitchens. Click here for the mp3 of the original debate.

Dinesh D’Souza’s Arguments with italicized responses

1. The militancy of atheism and the importance of reason

We are living in an unusual time in which atheism has emerged as a kind of militant phenomenon. This is a little odd. If you are an unbeliever, why be militant? I don’t believe in unicorns but I haven’t written any books on the subject. I don’t denounce unicorns; I live my life as if unicorns do not exist. But what we have from the atheist side is a belligerent attack on theism and specifically on Christianity. I want to answer this attack by using the same tools of reason, of scepticism, of science and of evidence that is the banner under which the atheists march. I shall not rely on scripture or any other kind of theology to make my points. I am going to focus entirely on reason and evidence.

A short distance from the window to my right stand two turreted buildings. Six times each day, often at unsociable hours, they blast out a tinny, invasive, penetrating, powerful, electronically over-amplified wailing, proclaiming to the faithful (and to everyone else, interested or not) that it is time for prayer. One of the mosques is frequented by Shia Muslims; the other by their Sunni counterparts, and it is an article of their faith that each group must one day overpower and destroy the other. Insofar as they can agree on some common ground, they share the objective of complete eventual extermination of people like me, as well as those of other religions, should we refuse to convert to Islam. They believe themselves in possession of the inerrant, unalterable and final words of god. No further inquiry or other work is needed as far as they are concerned. Everything mankind could possibly need is written in the Holy Qur’an.

If all of this is not a belligerent attack on reason, on freedom, on common sense and ultimately on life itself, then what is it? Mr D’Souza, as an atheist I would like nothing better than to forget about the obscene and dictatorial figure of god once and for all. I would love to live in ignorance of the vile fiction of his history and the equally disagreeable fantasy of his petty despotic intentions. But I cannot, for they are forced down my throat daily, if not hourly, by the constant haranguing tirade of the faithful. Never mind a belligerent attack on theism. Atheists are amateur beginners when it comes to belligerence. If you want to find examples of communities that can really show us how to do belligerent with a capital B, look to the world’s major religions.

Islam is of course not the only offender. Bible bashers and Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on doors to interrupt family life and to spread their filthy message far and wide. I and others are constantly patronized by theists who consider themselves on a holier plane than we. Not long ago a Christian theist invited himself to my apartment and stayed for much of the day, during which time he tried to persuade me of the merits of ‘intelligent design’ and the historical accuracy of the Bible. When I offered counter-arguments, mainly to suppress the urge to chew off my own leg through sheer boredom, he told me quite bluntly that I should take Ludwig Wittgenstein’s advice and remain silent on matters for which I have no evidence. The irony of his statement is almost as delicious as the irony of his failure to see that there was any irony at all.

I think, Mr D’Souza, that you would get on well with my garrulous theist friend. You too have opined that atheists should just shut up because we don’t believe in god, and there is no sense in being militant about unbelief. You have likened atheism to a lack of belief in unicorns. But I have yet to see a unicorn-led theocracy assemble a secret uranium enrichment plant for some sinister single-horned purpose at which we can only guess, and neither have I seen a stable of nineteen unicorns force a series of human-packed airliners to crash into densely populated buildings. Quietly enjoy living your a-unicornist life, but please remember that you and your kind routinely deny me the similar luxury of a quiet life of atheism.

2. Christianity as the source of values

In reading atheist books, I see that the values the atheists cherish the most are individual dissent; personal dignity; equality of men and women; antipathy toward oppression and slavery, and compassion as a social virtue. These values came into the world because of Christianity. We know this partly by looking outside western civilization where we see that these things we take for granted – a tsunami devastates part of the world; all the western, i.e. Christian, nations rush to help and no-one else seems to – something unique is going on that’s internal to our civilization. You might respond that western civilization isn’t built only on Christianity; it’s built on Athens, i.e. classical reason, and also on Jerusalem, which is Judaism and Christianity. If you look at the world of Athens, i.e. Greece and pre-Christian Rome, you discover that those civilizations were based on slavery. Women were treated very badly and human life didn’t count for much. The Spartans would leave feeble children on the hillside to see if they were still alive in the morning. The great philosophers of Greece and Rome viewed these incidents with equanimity. It is only from Christianity that these things which had been uncontroversial for a long time become controversial for the first time. Sam Harris tries to blame slavery on Christianity but slavery was a universal institution practised in every known culture. The Greeks, Romans and Chinese had it. There was slavery in ancient India. The American Indians had slavery long before Columbus. Christianity was the first movement in the world to oppose slavery. First the Quakers and then the evangelical Christians took a theological idea – that we are all equal in the eyes of god – an idea that for some centuries was seen as a mere spiritual truth – and they gave it a political application. If we are all created equal in the eyes of god, no man has the right to rule another man without his consent. This idea became the moral engine of the anti-slavery movement in Europe and America. It is also the basis of democracy.

The cherished values are good ones. I would add, though, that a free and inquiring mind is a highly valuable and respectable virtue. I do not believe that any of the listed values came into being because of Christianity, for all of them can be dated to pre-Christian times. Confucius knew all about reciprocity as a social virtue, and compassion derives itself from such empathy. Some non-human primates display social behaviour and altruism. Did they learn this from Christianity? I’ll go on doubting it because I’d like to think our apish cousins too intelligent to become distracted by religion in the way that much of humankind has.

Perhaps your failure to complete a single clear sentence while asserting that only Christianity can explain tsunami aid is indicative of your hesitancy to be too direct in such a blatant falsehood. Aid for the tsunami victims came from around the world, from Buddhist, Muslim and secular communities, united in the horror of what had happened, and imagining the desolation of those who had lost their loved ones and homes. Such feelings are basic human qualities shared by all, regardless of the religion into which they may have had the misfortune to be born. May you quickly come see the wicked arrogance of your unwarranted elevation of Christendom to a supreme moral pedestal, in order that you may publish a full retraction with all dispatch.

Good for the Christians, eventually realizing that slavery was a bad idea after they themselves had supported it for generations. Good for the Christians for realizing women are intelligent enough to vote, after reserving that pleasure for men only throughout centuries. Mr D’Souza, Christianity claims to be twenty centuries old. Slavery was abolished within the last couple of centuries or so. What were Christians doing in the centuries before abolition? Did it take the world that long to read Christ’s divine message? God would have done better to use pigeon post.

The idea that all people are equal is most emphatically not a theological concept. Moreover, religion does an extremely good job of rendering people very unequal indeed. You have undertaken not to refer to scripture in this debate but theists often cite scripture in support of their supernatural claims, and it is scripture that speaks of god’s chosen people and of separating sheep from goats. The scriptures endorse slavery and genocide. Please do not mention religion in the same breath as equality.

3. Incompatibility of Christianity and science

This is one of the rallying cries of modern atheism. That is puzzling because the leading western scientists of the past 500 years were mostly not only theists but specifically and devoutly Christian. Hitchens and Harris posit a conflict that was not apparent to the great scientists of the west from Kepler to Newton. Modern science is based on three Christian assumptions that are, at root, metaphysical.

(i) The universe as a whole is rational. The universe embodies rationality. That is odd. It’s easy to say that my friend Bill is rational, but it’s another thing to say that matter and objects and planets follow rational principles.

(ii) The universe obeys laws that are comprehensible in the language of mathematics. That is very strange. Drivers can follow laws, for example stopping at a stop sign, but how does matter obey laws? How does the electron know what to do? Matter is unbelievably well behaved. It follows Newton’s inverse square law and Einstein’s laws. This is a metaphysical proposition.

(iii) The laws of nature are mirrored in our minds. We can apprehend and understand the laws. This is very odd. Why should the goings-on within our head match the goings-on of the universe? Believers know why. God is believed to be omniscient, i.e. super-rational. He built the universe to embody rationality. God is a lawgiver and the universe reflects his laws. We are made in god’s image; we have a spark of the divine. The atheist cannot take any of that for granted. This is faith-based science.

Up until the 19th century practically every thinking person was a theist, which in the western world meant being a Christian. Children were born and forcibly baptised into it. There was no choice. Before Darwin it seemed quite reasonable to believe in a supernatural creator so it’s not really surprising that most scientists did. However, Christianity by its very nature comes into direct conflict with science. As Richard Dawkins has said, a universe with an all-powerful god in it would be a very different kind of universe from one with no god. (Theists often misunderstand this, believing that Dawkins means ‘the universe would look different than it does now if god were real,’ but what he’s actually saying is that god, whether he exists or not, is a scientific hypothesis.) Science is all about understanding the way the world works from the bottom up. As Daniel Dennett puts it, science deals in cranes, not skyhooks, because skyhooks have no explanatory power and science is all about explaining. Virgin births, resurrections, water turning into wine, little fishes feeding thousands of people… all of these things conflict directly with what science tells us about how the world behaves.

Now for the three points.

(i) The universe as a whole is rational.

No, Mr D’Souza. The universe is pretty irrational on the whole. Read a book on quantum physics and tell me how rational you find that. As for the macroworld in which we live, our minds have evolved to be rational, because being rational was highly advantageous back in the Pleistocene when lots of clever critters were trying to eat our ancestors while they themselves were trying to avoid starvation. More of this in point (iii).

(ii) The universe obeys laws that are comprehensible in the language of mathematics.

Not really. It’s more meaningful to say that the universe behaves in a way that can be described and predicted, to a close degree of approximation, using a mathematical language that has been developed to fit the way the observable universe behaves. Mathematics is only an approximation, though. It is not a perfect description of reality, as Bertrand Russell and others proved when they showed the contradictory nature of set theory by considering the ‘set of all sets that are not members of themselves’.

(iii) The laws of nature are mirrored in our minds. We can apprehend and understand the laws. This is very odd.

It is not odd at all. We would not have got far on the African plains had we evolved capricious minds that did their own thing rather than running a virtual reality simulation through which we could make reasonable predictions of the immediate future and act accordingly. Our minds are shaped by the world in which we are evolving. You, sir, seem to assume that the world was shaped in order to fit the mind of god, which happens to be similar to our minds. You have your cart before your horse. The so-called physical ‘laws’ are not like laws set down by Parliament, which set out a standard of behaviour to which we must aspire. Judicial laws need police and judges to enforce them. Physical laws are generalized descriptions of how matter behaves. They are arrived at by observation. The behaviour of matter comes first, and ‘laws’ are written down by scientists to describe what they observe repeatedly happening. If we liken that to judicial law, governments would have to observe the behaviour of the population and write down laws that fit what they see happening. What a fascinating book of statutes might be thus produced.

4. Evil done by Christianity

We hear how Christianity has been terrible for the world. In truth, the casualties of Christianity – the Inquisition; the Crusades; the Salem witch trials (at which only 18 people, not thousands, were executed) inflicted quite light damage. Over 300 years the Spanish Inquisition killed two thousand people. Compare that with the crimes inflicted by atheist regimes not 500 or 1000 years ago but within our lifetimes. Stalin, Mao and Hitler caused over 100 million casualties in just five decades. Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history. Christianity has done a lot for the world. We would be a lot worse off without it. Thank god for Christianity.

The Inquisition, the Crusades and the Salem witch trials were all direct results of scripture as interpreted by the religious authorities of the day. Stalin’s regime may have been secular but it had all the hallmarks of a theocracy, capitalizing as Stalin did upon his people’s prior orthodox conditioning. Stalin certainly did not carry out his wicked deeds citing atheism as his motive in the way that the inquisitors and crusaders chanted scripture as theirs. Hitler never renounced his Roman Catholicism, and his discrimination against the victims of the holocaust was based on theological differences. Mao’s totalitarian state had many of the attributes of religion: reverence toward a single god-like leader, and severe penalties for doing, saying or thinking the wrong things.

If you had been present at the Salem witch trials, Mr D’Souza, knowing what you know today, perhaps you would have said, “Sorry, ladies, as there are only eighteen of you to be hanged, it’s not really a problem.” No doubt each one of the condemned would have congratulated you heartily on your exemplary Christian values as they were led to the scaffold. I am sure none of them would have felt moved to condemn you for your apparent callousness toward innocent victims of idiotic, theologically inspired mass hysteria. You do of course realise that none of the eighteen can possibly have been guilty as charged, since their alleged misdemeanours could not have been carried out at all, by anyone. As for the two thousand who were brutally tortured to death by the inquisitors, if they could have heard your case I am sure they would have been only too happy to suffer and die in furtherance of the Christian values of their murderers, soothed by the knowledge that Christianity would go on to do all the good in the world that you have described.

And what of the great good that Christianity is doing in the world of today? The continent of Africa, birthplace of humanity, is subject right now to a massacre of Biblical proportions as a result of HIV/AIDS. It is absolutely vital that men and women be educated properly in limiting the spread of the virus, and that condoms be made available to all, if we are to avoid an extinction event. The response of the Catholic church? To speak forcibly against the use of condoms, filling people’s minds with corrosive theistic garbage and ensuring that millions more children will be orphaned before this terrible disease has run its course. I would have his Holiness the Pope held personally responsible for this holocaust, and would have him manually carve the name on the headstone of every AIDS victim who became infected as a result of his noble Christian values. And I would have you follow him round, sir, with a second hammer and chisel, adding your closing words to each stone: Thank God for Christianity.

William Lane Craig's Empty Arguments

Dr William Lane Craig and others have been engaging in public debates for years, against adversaries such as Christopher Hitchens, Peter Atkins and Lewis Wolpert. Every time the theistic arguments advanced are much the same. Here they are, with my responses in italics. I must add that many of the points I list are not original. Fellow secularists will, I am sure, detect herein the borrowed thoughts of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others.

Click here for the mp3 of the Craig-Atkins debate.

Dr William Lane Craig’s Arguments with italicized responses

1. Origin of the universe
Why is there something rather than nothing? Astrophysical evidence suggests the universe began 15bn years ago. Matter, energy, space and time were created at that moment. The Big Bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing. Nothing can come from nothing without a cause so there must have been a cause that brought the universe into being. We can summarise as follows:

(i) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(ii) The universe began to exist
(iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause

This cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, immaterial being of unimaginable power. It must be timeless and changeless because it created time. Because it created space it must transcend physical space and be immaterial, not physical. It must also be personal, because a changeless impersonal cause cannot exist without its effect, e.g. the temperature dropping below zero always causes water to freeze into ice. The cause must be a personal being which made a free choice to create a new effect without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man who had been sitting for eternity could freely choose to stand, and thus we would have a new effect arising from an eternal cause. Thus we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator.

Peter Atkins suggests in his book that the universe may have originated in a swirling dust of mathematical points which finally came by trial and error to form our space-time universe. This is obviously self-contradictory as it assumes time and space in order to explain time and space. Dr Atkins suggests that time brought the points into being, and the points brought time into being.

The Christian view – that there is a personal creator of the universe – is not only logically consistent, but follows from the logical premises laid out.

Why, indeed, is there something rather than nothing? I do not know, and, insofar as the question seeks a reason for the beginning of the universe, neither does anyone. One difference between me and Dr Craig is that he claims that he DOES know. He claims to know precisely why the universe was created: it was the personal choice of the Christian god. Having made such a bold and specific claim, Dr Craig has a great deal of work ahead of him as he must find specific evidence to support it. Let us see how he gets on.

Dr Craig’s three-step ‘proof’ seems reasonable at first, but he has walked straight into a logical fallacy based on inductive reasoning. He cannot imagine anything beginning to exist without a cause, so he states that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. This is rather like saying that all swans are white – that is, until a black one turns up. All beginnings are caused, until an uncaused one turns up. The ‘proof’ proves nothing. It’s worth saying at this point that such a trick is typical of the theist in debate. Starting from his comfortable set of conclusions, i.e. that the god of the Bible created everything, he concocts facile ‘proofs’ which he thinks (or rather, wants his audience to think) support his claims. In contrast, the scientist starts by assuming nothing, and formulates hypotheses based on evidence alone, without postulating complex entities for whom not a shred of evidence has been presented.

However, let’s grant Dr Craig’s point that the universe may have had a cause. What do we know of that cause? Nothing at all. We know that the universe began billions of years ago in an event popularly termed the Big Bang, but beyond that all is speculation. Nevertheless, listen to Dr Craig, out of whose magician’s top hat comes ‘an uncaused, changeless, timeless, immaterial being of unimaginable power.’ Where is his evidence for such a being? He has no evidence at all. Philosophical word games are not evidence. Why could this ‘being’ not be caused and ever-changing, based on what Dr Craig has said? His description is nothing more than a series of unfounded assertions.

If, as Dr Craig would have it, this unimaginably powerful being created the universe, space, time and everything, then presumably it also created the rules of logic. Yet Dr Craig requires the creator to obey a sequence of logical events, namely making a free choice without prior cause. The choice – to create, or not to create – is constrained by the rules of logic. If the creator chooses to create, then he denies himself the choice of not creating. He cannot have it both ways, i.e. he cannot simultaneously create and not create without violating the rules of logic, and that rule applies before he has carried out the act of creation and created logic in the first place! Dr Craig seeks to apply logic to a ‘time’ before the beginning of the universe and the beginning of logic. His words are meaningless.

I have not yet read Peter Atkins’ thoughts on the beginning of the universe but, whether they be plausible or not, they do nothing to support Dr Craig’s assertion that the Christian god created everything. Dr Atkins depicts an imaginary scenario consistent with what little is as yet known. Dr Craig presents an imaginary scenario involving an unexplained complex creator. Such a scenario does nothing to explain what really happened.

The Christian view – that there is a personal creator of the universe – fits their belief system very comfortably. Unfortunately for that belief system, though, not a shred of evidence for such a personal creator exists.

2. The complex order in the universe
Life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than life-permitting universes like ours. Many physical constants – such as the rate of expansion of the universe – would prohibit life if they were even very slightly different. Such claims can be made for around fifty other quantities and constants present in the big bang. It is incomprehensibly improbable that these constants should have ideal values by accident.

(i) The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either natural law, chance or design.
(ii) It is not due to either law or chance
(iii) Therefore it is due to design.

We are here; there is no denying it. Who knows how many universes may exist? We do not know. There is no reason to suppose that our universe is the only one, or the only possible one. There could be an infinite number of universes, almost all of them life-prohibiting because they have the wrong set of physical constants.

There is no law against improbable events occurring, especially if you have long periods of time for them to occur in. Yes, it seems very improbable to us that the initial conditions of the big bang were just right for the development of life, but nevertheless life is here. Our astonishment at our good fortune may be profound indeed but it proves nothing at all about how the universe came to be. What if this universe had turned out differently, and we weren’t here. Would we now be saying, “Ah yes, our non-existence is exactly what we should expect, based on a probabilistic analysis.”? What a silly idea. It’s no good applying probabilistic prohibition to events that have already occurred.

Dr Craig’s argument is just the old Argument from Design using different words. That argument used to be applied to the complexity of living organisms, until Darwin’s explanation, based on gradual evolution by natural selection, banished it from biology. Now the creationists have become interested in the world of physics. Physics has not yet had its Darwin, so we don’t know how the initial conditions came to be, or what other values the salient physical constants could have had. We can’t conclude anything at all from what we don’t know. Our ignorance most certainly does not provide evidence for the existence of the Christian god. The greatest problem with god as designer comes from the argument from design itself: god must be highly complex, so who designed god? The argument shoots itself in the foot before it starts. If god (a) exists and (b) was neither designed nor caused, the onus is on Dr Craig to prove those claims without falling into logical fallacy.

The 3-step proof in this section is laughable. It’s a variation on the classic false dichotomy, except that it’s a false trichotomy. Theists are fond of trinities. Consider this alternative:

(i) The fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either natural law, chance, or some other factor of which we have no knowledge as yet, and may perhaps never know.
(ii) It is not due to either natural law or chance.
(iii) Therefore it is due to some other factor of which we have no knowledge as yet, and may perhaps never know.

3. Objective moral values in the world
If god does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. Michael Ruse argues that morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory. Nietzsche said that without god there is no meaning or value in life. It is not necessary to believe in god in order to behave morally or to recognize moral values. The question is this: do objective moral values exist? In the absence of god, the morality evolved by Homo sapiens is not objective. Acts such as rape are socially disadvantageous, and so in the course of human development have become taboo, but that does nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. Without god there is no absolute right and wrong. However, objective values do exist and deep down we all know it. There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, cruelty and child abuse are moral abominations. Love, equality and self-sacrifice are really good.

(i) If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
(ii) Objective moral values do exist.
(iii) Therefore god exists.

Dr Craig’s opening statement in this section needs close scrutiny. Do objective moral values exist? That means, is it true that some things are simply right and others are simply wrong, regardless of one’s point of view? Examples like murder and rape seem easy because they are so obviously bad. But is the matter always clear-cut? Torturing a prisoner during interrogation seems morally reprehensible, but what if he knows the location of an atomic bomb which will blow up the city of New York in an hour? Should we act morally toward the prisoner and allow millions of people to be killed, or should we use unpleasant means to learn the whereabouts of the bomb and thereby act morally toward the potential victims? We can’t escape acting immorally toward one party or the other. So much for objective moral values. Morality is nothing but a series of judgments made according to circumstance.

From my university days I recall a discussion between two students - a medical student and a historian - about a landlady's plans to have her adopted pet cat neutered. The historian was all for the operation, carried out humanely under general anaesthetic, to prevent future suffering by averting the potential births of hundreds of stray kittens, most of whom would die young and horribly amid the garbage bins of Liverpool. The medical student was aghast, considering such mutilation an immoral act against an animal that had no choice in the matter. Who was morally right? I agreed with the historian and I still do, but I could and can see the future doctor's point. Can objective morality rescue us and settle the matter?

What about assisted suicide? A patient in extreme pain, with no prospect of recovery, may wish to end their life artificially before their condition does it for them. Many thinking people would agree that a person should be allowed to choose when to end their own life, claiming that it would be immoral to interfere. Others are just as convinced that suicide is morally wrong. Again, where is this clear-cut objective morality that can decide the matter for us?

Objective morality is a myth. Some things are obviously right and others are obviously wrong, but that has nothing to do with objective morality. It has more to do with empathy. A questioner put exactly this issue to Dr Frank Turek during questions in a recorded debate, and Turek rather embarrassingly demonstrated that he didn't know what empathy means. His voice rising in pitch and volume, he cried, "And what makes empathy right?" Dr Turek, the questioner's whole point was that it does not need to be right in order to become widespread practice. Empathy means feeling what another person or creature is feeling. Obviously we have to use imagination in order to do this as we can't wire directly into their feelings, but if we are asked whether it's right or wrong to commit rape we are likely to consider the potential experience of the victim before giving a response. It is wrong to commit rape because the effect on the victim would be horrible. Moreover, someone contemplating rape might imagine his feelings after the event, when he would know he had inflicted terrible harm on another person. Wishing to avoid those feelings might be a factor in his decision not to be a rapist. We don't need a celestial dictator to help us see those things for ourselves.

Is there a difference between right and wrong which is a hard-wired feature of the world, external to us all? I don't believe there is, but I think Bertrand Russell dealt neatly with those who do in Why I am not a Christian. I'll paraphrase his argument rather than pasting verbatim. Someone like Dr Craig, who says there is a clear difference between good and bad, must face this question: is that difference due to God's fiat or not? If it is, then for God there is no good or bad, and it means nothing to say that God is good, a claim that most theists make. If the difference is not due to God's fiat, then we do not need God in order for good and bad to exist, and the distinction between good and bad is logically anterior to God.

Russell snookers completely those who keep insisting that God is good. God is just as bad as he is good, because in creating the distinction between good and evil he created evil as well as creating good. Dr Craig is similarly snookered because, if God is (as he claims) a good and loving creator, then logically the separation of good and evil must be external to God.

Returning to Dr Craig’s 3-step proof, we can now see that his first premise simply does not follow. There is no such thing as objective morality so the proof falls before it starts. Interestingly the collapse of the proof does nothing to disprove the existence of god. It doesn’t have the slightest bearing on the matter one way or the other.

It’s also worth noting that the ‘proof’ assumes that god’s existence is a default position. Dr Craig seems to think that, because he believes he has shown that objective moral values exist, he has somehow proved god’s existence by disproving god’s non-existence. This is logical nonsense. If objective moral values did exist they could have been caused by something else, outside Dr Craig’s ken and mine. His reasoning is not reasoning at all.

Finally on this point, the logic itself of the 3-step proof is false. The first step follows the model:
If (not A) then (not B). But you can’t go from that to if (B) then (A). It’s rather like saying:
(i) If Winnie the Pooh does not exist, the honey would not have been stolen.
(ii) The honey was stolen.
(iii) Therefore Winnie the Pooh exists.
That’s not logic. It’s circular reasoning thinly disguised as logic. Poor Pooh’s guilt is assumed, and the assumption is used to prove his existence. Is this the best the theists can come up with?

4. The historical facts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
Jesus was a remarkable individual with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. He carried out miracles and exorcisms. He was resurrected from the dead – a divine miracle, which is evidence for the existence of god. There are three established facts best explained by the resurrection.
(i) Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty on the Sunday following his crucifixion.
(ii) Several people saw Jesus alive after his death. Jesus appeared to his disciples as the risen Christ. Sceptics and unbelievers also witnessed these appearances.
(iii) The disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection despite having been predisposed not to. There is no explanation for the rise of early Christianity unless the resurrection really happened.

There is no plausible naturalistic explanation of these three facts. Therefore Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be, which entails that god exists.

This entire section of Dr Craig’s arguments is nothing more than a simple affirmation of faith in the historical accuracy of the New Testament. Let’s deal with each of the three ‘established facts’ in turn.

(i) The empty tomb
Jesus’ tomb was not the first to be found empty, and it will not be the last. Tombs have been emptied by perfectly mundane, non-divine means since burials became fashionable in the earliest civilizations. The empty tomb proves nothing. Before leaping toward divine intervention as an explanation I might as well claim that god was responsible for the empty Ferrero Rocher box I found in the refrigerator.

(ii) Jesus seen alive after his death
Aside from the controversy over precisely when the gospels were written – largely accepted to be decades after the events they describe are supposed to have taken place – they do not of themselves provide evidence for supernatural goings-on. Suppose I were an unscrupulous historian who wanted people to believe my particular version of events. What could be simpler than to concoct a few emotive and plausible-sounding eyewitness stories and insert them into my narrative? We require more than a few tales in an old book before we throw over our acceptance of repeatable scientific laws. Dead people do not get up and walk about, days after being executed. Such antics would require suspension of natural laws, i.e. they would be miraculous. But, as David Hume argued, eyewitness testimony for the miraculous may be admitted only if its falsehood would be more miraculous than its truth. Lying and exaggeration have been practised by humans since the dawn of language, and they offer a much more believable explanation for ‘fact’ (ii).

(iii) Belief in the resurrection became popular
Well there wouldn’t be much point in writing a story about the beginning of Christianity unless, later in that story, Christianity was seen to have caught on. Once again, unscrupulous historians with their own agendas are known to exist in this universe. Based on what we know, the Biblical account of the spread of early Christianity is far more likely to be a result of their work than god’s. Does Dr Craig believe Christianity the only religion in the history of the world? If he is arguing that a religion’s popularity is an indicator of its truth value, surely he must grant the same status to all religions that have stood the test of time, including the cult of Olympian Zeus and the meteorological pranks of Thor and his hammer.

5. The immediate experience of god
This is not really an argument for god’s existence. It’s the claim that you can know that god exists, wholly apart from arguments, simply by experiencing him. This was the way people in the Bible knew god. To them god was not an idea but an experiential reality. Proofs for god can actually distract your attention from god himself. Draw near to god and he will draw near to you. If we concentrate too much on the proofs we may miss hearing the voice of god speaking to our hearts.

An opponent in debate must tear down all five of these arguments, and in their place must erect an argument proving the non-existence of god.

There are no arguments for god’s existence in section 5 of Dr Craig’s introduction. Indeed, he says as much in his first sentence.

I am sure that god is an experiential reality for the other characters in the Bible, just as Blofeld is an experiential reality for James Bond. However, stories in books don’t prove that the characters in them are real.

If the ‘proofs’ that Dr Craig has described are distractions from god, how do they support his case that god exists? What does god say when he speaks into our hearts? I am listening but I don’t hear him. Theists should not be allowed to get away with stating this kind of wild rubbish. They need to be challenged robustly.

As Dr Craig invites, I have torn down his arguments. It was rather like tearing down a wet tissue. However, I’ve no more need to erect a case proving god’s non-existence than I need to erect a case proving that Lemuel Gulliver wasn’t a real person. The burden of proof lies with him who proposes the existence of a supernatural entity. Dr Craig is not entitled simply to assert that god exists and challenge others to disprove his baseless assertion.

In another debate, Dr Craig was asked by the chairman, during the closing phase, if there was anything his opponent could have said that would have changed his mind. Dr Craig replied that there was nothing that would change his mind or make him depart from his faith in Christianity. The opponent, when asked the same question, immediately stated that simple basic evidence in favour of a supernatural creator would change his mind on the spot. The debate I’m referring to took place in 2007, between Dr Craig and Prof Lewis Wolpert, and was chaired by John Humphrys of the BBC.