Debate Revisited

As a follow-up to my article on the debate/dialogue “The Christian God, The Jewish God, or no God’, David Bahnsen has posted his review. Just a brief snippet and I would recommend that you read his review. At the same time, check out his other articles.

I believe all the participants in the debate had high points, and low points. Prager was not as interested in the rigid format of the debate, but his abundant talk radio interview skills gave him a true edge in rhetorical and audience connectedness. From a cogency standpoint, though, I thought Prager was mildly disappointing. I have alluded already to the concerns I had with Dinesh, but I do believe he won the debate. He was scholarly, clear, and effective. If Dinesh chooses to surround himself with a greater theological and philosophical acumen, he will continue to grow as a first-rate apologist. He presently does better in the arenas of sociological and historical argument for the faith than he does the epistemological, but I believe that is evolving (no pun intended). As for Hitchens, I have to be fair when I say that he can not exactly win a debate, when to do so would mean “proving a negative.” He is a gifted writer, a historical genius, and a moderately talented philosopher. I already know that his atheism is deeply rooted in ethical and personal objections (his strong dislike of God, primarily), and not genuine metaphysical obstacles. I will pray for him. You should too. His is a problem of worldview. Any attempt to argue him into conversion is futile. Period.

One point of agreement and disagreement with the above paragraph. I disagree that Dinesh won the debate. I agree that if DInesh continues to “evolve” in the theological arena, he will become a much more polished apologist.