Although I think this is a good refutation by Dr. Forbes, I have a couple of clarifying points.
As far as I know, the death story presented by Dr. Forbes is the death story of Osiris, not Horus. Dr. Forbes also describes Horus as "not the sun god," which is partially true. There are actually two gods named Horus in Egyptian mythology that are, over the course of time, fused into one (Horus, the sun-god, and Horus the child of Isis and Osiris). However, the predominant story in the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, and the Book of the Dead is that of Horus, the child of Isis and Osiris. One reason for the confusion is that the same story of Horus, the sun-god, has also been depicted as Horus, the child of Isis and Osiris. The story of the fight of the sun-god, Horus, against darkness has also been acknowledged as the combat between Horus, the son of Osiris, and Osiris' brother, Set, for the right to Osiris' throne.[1] In fact, it is this story in which Horus battles Seth (Set) and fatefully loses his left eye in the battle. This alleged sacrifice of Horus' left eye, when presented before the mummified Osiris, is what brought Osiris back to reign as King of the Dead.[2]
Thanks, MJ
[1] The Egyptian Book of the Dead, trans. E.A. Wallis Budge, CXX-CXXI [2] Joseph Campbell. The Mythic Image. pgs. 29, 450
Last night at BiolaUniversity, Christopher Hitchens debated William Lane Craig on the question, “Does God Exist?” The gymnasium was completely filled, as were the overflow areas on campus. There were around 90 satellite broadcast locations; including five different countries.* This was a well-attended debate with the possibility of influencing thousands of people. The atmosphere was certainly filled with great anticipation of the exchange between two extremely popular philosophers. Unfortunately, though, the debate quickly became one-sided; lacking a logically woven argument for the position of non-belief in God from Hitchens.
Opening Statements and General Arguments
Craig offered five arguments for God’s existence: 1) The Cosmological Argument, 2) The Teleological Argument, 3) The Moral Argument, 4) The Evidence of the Resurrection, and 5) The Immediate Experience of God. After presenting a few reasons for the validity of each statement (including quotations from credentialed scholars in each area), he made two conclusions. The first one is that a non-believer in God must answer each of the arguments and show the arguments to be false. In other words, there must be some kind of impetus for a believer to doubt the evidences for belief in God. The second one is that the non-believer must then give some kind of reasonable argument to think God does not exist. Hitchens began his opening statement by suggesting all arguments for the supernatural are essentially the same: “Retrospective Evidentialism.” His definition of retrospective evidentialism is that as people gain more knowledge through scientific endeavors, they change their arguments for the existence of God based in what has most recently been discovered (later quoting the discovery of a heliocentric galaxy, and germs as the cause of disease). He then argued that since the Teleological Argument is unfalsifiable; it cannot be refuted. Hitchens asserted the problem of pain and suffering in the world (also know as the problem of evil) “is the will of a divine being ” if you believe in God. He claimed God to be a speciesist since he only offers a salvation opportunity to one creature on the planet. Plus, God only gave a small percentage of people the chance to hear about salvation through the Gospel message. Hitchens declares his position as “doubt” and he does not wish there to be a “celestial tyrant.” The reasoning he provides for his position is threefold. The first is that all observable phenomenon is explicable without God. The second he described as “for a priori reasons, I do not believe we can overcome death through rituals.” The third is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hitchens restated his argument from scientific inaccuracies used in religious arguments. He also asked “who designed the designer” and claimed this to be an infinite regress problem. His final opening statement was on the problem of poor design suggesting that the “nothingness to come” at the end of the universe was not fine-tuning. Rebuttals and Conclusion
At this point, the debate began to turn toward one-sidedness; which was disappointing. Craig gave answers to each of Hitchen’s points, however, Hitchens barely touched Craig’s arguments. Hitchens, instead, began to use examples of moral failure by persons claiming to be religious throughout history as proof that he was justified in refusing the arguments Craig presented. He further added to his argument from poor design and included an argument from the lack of an observable superior morality in religious persons. Finalizing his rebuttal, Hitchens claimed that human beings are degraded by attributing morality and free will to God. Yet, he did not provide the logical or evidential reasoning for the points he argued. Basically, his main points came across as 1) I do not accept the evidence given for God’s existence and 2) I do not want there to be a God.
My main concern with Hitchens’ approach was the lack of argument against Craig. He did not come across as having prepared for the debate. I had read some posts on the Two Chix Apologetics Facebook group stating that Hitchens was not expected to do well at this debate. In fact, they thought the debate was an uneven match-up. While I somewhat agree, I still think Hitchens should have engaged with the arguments Craig presented at a more intense level due to Hitchens’ adamant public views of religion. He was not just claiming that he disliked religion (although, as I said his argument comes across this way), but he claimed there are no good reasons to believe in God at all. Plus, he said his goal was to offer “freedom” from the oppressive nature of religious beliefs. However, his mode of logical argument was—what my friend next to me called—“stream of consciousness.” He went from one idea to another without fully developing an argument. Generally, Hitchens seemed to regard the entire debate as frivolous because his views stand on a priori knowledge. Why then would he debate?
Let me at least point out that I found one of Hitchens’ statements to have a ring of experiential truth. He stated, “If people think God is on their side; what will they not do?” Definitely, we have seen people commit many acts of evil proclaiming these are done in the name of God. Craig responded to this fact with the answer that people can act inconsistently with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is extremely important to study the doctrines of a religious belief to see if a follower's behavior lines out with the teachings of his/her religious leader. However, I think this argument can cut both ways and can be turned around to demonstrate horrible evils done by persons who claim there is no God.
The only problem with Craig’s arguments was the one instance in which he hastily responded to Hitchens’ question. Hitchens asked Craig if any Christian denominations were false after a series of questions about false religions. Craig made a comment that he does not believe Calvinism to be true. However, in the context of the other questions, Craig’s reply sounded as if he thought Calvinism was a “false religion.” He quickly cleared up the misunderstanding by stating that he did not agree with certain tenets of reformed Calvinism (no real shock to anyone who reads Craig). Unfortunately, I believe he will catch a lot of undeserved flack for his statement.
At the end of the night, I felt I had heard a great case for belief in God, but I was left with merely a few good jabs at the Christian view of God. I also felt like the atheist/agnostic viewpoint had been poorly represented and left undeveloped.
Thanks,
MJ
*Update as of 11/15/2011: Christopher Hitchens passed away at MD Anderson right here in Houston, Texas. Confident Christianity mourns with the Hitchens' family.
* Update as of 4/8/09: The most recent figures are in on the viewership of this debate. Over 10,000 people watched from the campus, local churches, and 120 satellite churches in 30 states and 4 countries. Read more at Biola University News and Events
