Comments on: Tuesday! Tuesday! Tuesday! It's Hitchens vs. Roberts!

By: Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? | The A-Team Blog

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? | The A-Team Blog — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 04:05:26 +0000

[…] yesterday’s debate, Hitchens brought up an oft-cited argument against Christianity, saying that we would need an […]

By: jcoulter

jcoulter — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:39:00 +0000

Roberts admits his disadvantage when engaging a gifted rhetorician like Hitchens, and prefers to dissect him at his leisure on his blog. Quite good reading.

By: Xiao Tien

Xiao Tien — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:34:00 +0000

Hi Amy,

Thanks for your response. That makes a lot of sense!
Thanks also to you and Roger for maintaining this blog, I have learned a lot reading your posts.

Sincerely,
Xiao (my chinese name)

By: Amy

Amy — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:06:00 +0000

Hi, Xiao. Thanks for the comment. I think the problem was that Hugh didn't bring together people with matching knowledge and skills. Pastors have certain skills that make them good pastors. Debaters have different skills that make them good debaters. Pastors have in depth knowledge about things like theology and counseling, but are not necessarily trained to think philosophically, or spot the weaknesses of opponents' arguments, or even be particularly confrontational. I think Hugh should have brought in a professional philosopher/apologist who is practiced in the art of debating. I know Roberts has a lot of knowledge about the subject, but he's just not a debater, he's a pastor and a writer (he's been filling in some of the gaps from the debate on his blog). He's good, smart, and knowledgeable, but he's not a debater. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him. In fact, it's the gifts that make him a good pastor (empathy, a drive to find common ground and bring peace, etc.) that lessen his ability to be a good debater.

Not long ago Newsweek (I think) did the same thing when it printed a debate between Rick Warren and Sam Harris. If they're going to have an atheist philosopher/apologist, they should match him with a Christian philosopher/apologist. That just seems like common sense. That way, they're both skilled and knowledgeable about the same things and you'll start with a level playing field.

This is why we have the whole body of Christ. We need pastors, but we also need apologists so both functions can be fulfilled when the need arises.

So that said, I think that Roberts did have some good things to say, but I agree that he missed some important points, and that was frustrating. I think Hugh should have picked someone who is a more suitable match for Hitchens.

By: Xiao Tien

Xiao Tien — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:10:00 +0000

Hi Amy!

Overall I thought the debate was dissapointing because Pastor Roberts was too passive. There were a number of points he could have made which he didnt. The only point he made that stuck with me is that christians should examine their faith and read Hitchen's book. Do you agree and why do you think he used this debate tactic? (or non-tactic)

Thanks!