the7ones.comRecap of the Kyle Butt–Dan Barker debate on the existence of God
There were many surprising things about the debate on the existence of God held Thursday, Feb. 12, at the University of South Carolina. Maybe the most surprising is how evenly-matched the opponents seemed.
Why is this surprising? Because Dan Barker, atheist and co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is a seasoned debate veteran, having participated in more than 60 such events. He is lauded as one of the premier atheist voices in out time. For Kyle Butt, who is a Christian and a staff member of Apologetics Press, this was his first debate. And yet, Butt handled himself and the material very well, covering most of Barker’s topics and refusing to fall into certain debate traps. Plus, I was expecting more from Barker.
Speaking first, Barker used his first allotment of time to reel off a litany of supposed Bible contradictions. This was the second most surprising thing to me, since Barker is heralded as one of the top atheist debaters of today. If this is true, it seems odd that his first volley was a laundry list of supposed contradictions that any junior high student could download off the internet. Every passage that he addressed was taken out of context, and any junior high student who looked could likewise find the answers to these supposed contradictions with a quick Google. Butt showed great wisdom in not attempting to address each and every one of these passages, as I suspect it would have bogged him down and taken much of his allotted time.
Instead of becoming bogged down in addressing the supposed contradictions piecemeal, Butt used his time to put forth the two main areas from which he would argue. First, he would argue from the idea that since moral absolutes exist, God must exist. This is a classic argument, of course, that has never been ably refuted. Second, Butt argued for the existence of God from design. One thing that seemed to surprise Barker was Butt’s use of the design argument. Speaking during a break by accident near a live mic, he said he did not expect to address that issue. Since the proposition was narrowed to the existence of the God of the Bible, I think Barker expected to address more specifics about the Bible, not about general arguments for the existence of God.
Another surprising thing was the number of believers in God that were present, at least judging by crowd reaction to Butt’s presentations. I think I heard the number of 500-plus in attendance mentioned during the comments, and I would guess about two-thirds were siding with Butt. Someone who was on-site may want to confirm or correct this guess. Since this was a “Darwin Day” event, I expected Butt would be in a small minority at the event.
Finally, it was extremely surprising to me that Barker holds to the position that Jesus Christ never existed. Even the most liberal scholars have pretty much abandoned this idea due to the preponderance of evidence that He did exist. And yet, many who are uninformed may take Barker’s statement and go with it, even though it is indefensible.
In all, it was a very good showing from Butt for his first debate. He was calm and confident, and handled the issues well. I would have liked to have seen him handle Barker’s questions about “what is a spirit” a little better. But Kyle proved himself to be an able debater, and I expect great things from him in his future debates. His manner and presentation was very clear, he communicated very well, and for the most part stuck with arguments everyone could understand.
Again, with all the hype on Barker, I expected more from him. He showed himself to be intelligent and polite, which of course are admirable qualities. His first time allotment was a waste of time, but he did reasonably well with his other speeches. His position faltered greatly, in my opinion, on the question of the existence of morality. Under Butt’s questioning, Barker admitted that it would be okay for a person to rape a woman if it would save the lives of millions of people. Butt then started an infinite regress on the question, with Barker eventually admitting that it would be okay to harm two million people for the sake of six million. The question of morality has always been a problem for atheism, and Barker did not do anything to dilute the difficulty.
Certainly it would have been impossible for either combatant to address every minute issue in a one-night, two-hour debate. One thing I would have liked to have seen from Butt was a direct address in regard to Barker’s statement that Christ never existed. There is plenty to say in defense of His existence, but he let that moment pass. I would also liked to have seen Butt use more recent arguments in regard to design, specifically new DNA research and the argument from information (DNA is information, information requires a designer). But again, in the heat of such a battle, it must have been very difficult to address everything.
All said, both men did well. Obviously I think Butt carried the day. For debates of this nature, however, one or two hours is much too short of a time period to truly address the issues. Perhaps next year the sponsors will stretch the event into at least a two night (or two session, anyway) debate.
Comments are currently closed.
[...] I have posted some observations about the debate here. [...]
[...] I have posted some observations after watching the debate here. [...]
Great recap of the debate. I appreciate you taking the time to do it.
Great recap of the debate. I appreciate you taking the time to do it…. keep up the good work.
Even the most liberal scholars have pretty much abandoned this idea due to the preponderance of evidence that He did exist.
Whether Jesus ever existed is very much an open question due to the complete lack of contemporaneous evidence of his lifetime. It may be universally assumed among Christian scholars, but certainly not among objective historians. Your “preponderance of evidence” is little more than the Bible, and writings based upon it.
Robin,
Hi, thanks for stopping by.
Objective historians are exactly the sorts of people who admit and uphold the fact that Jesus existed. It is radical atheists who try to push this idea. I would challenge you to find some objective, serious historians who hold this view. Betrand Russell is not an historian. Neither is Dan Barker.
Look into the sources, Robin, and you will see that there is plenty of evidence outside the Bible confirming Christ’s existence. Look at Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Thallus and Phlegon, and Mara Bar-Serapion, all of whom mention Christ and Christians very early. They are secular or pagan writers, and did not base their writings on the Bible. The Jews themselves, enemies of Christ, spoke of Him in the Bablyonian Talmud, confirming that He was a real person.
There are other evidences, but the fact is this: Men may argue that Jesus is not the Christ, they may argue that He did not perform miracles, etc., but one thing historians know is true. Jesus lived, taught, and died on the cross at the hands of the Romans in the early 1st century. This is fact, and don’t let contemporary atheism sway you away from this fact without actually looking at the evidence yourself. If I can help point you to further evidence, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Thanks again for coming by, and may God bless you!
Matt
Finally, somebody coming out with an evaluation of the debate! I wondered how it went. I was gone, very busy at the moment, and not able to view the debate online.
I’d like to see this or something similar on BNc …
Thanks, Matt!
Randal,
Thanks! I had thought about writing something for BNc, but the audio was pretty choppy, and I didn’t get as much from the debate as I would have liked. The article here is sort of a sketch, and I did not take notes. So I don’t think I can remember much more. When I get hold of a transcript or DVD of the debate, I can do something more in depth.
Thanks, brother!
Matt
Muddying the water is all that could have been done. I would have hated to have had to defend the position of the athiest wouldn’t you? One thing about Dan Barker and all other athiest, eventially they will all be believers. God bless, dell kimberly
I was at the debate and enjoyed the electricity in the room that night. Christians were definitely the solid majority in attendance, which thwarted Barker’s usual strategy of playing to the audience. I believe he was very surprised to find himself in the minority that night. Kyle did an outstanding job as a first-time debater against a seasoned veteran. Our God and His word were ably represented that night!
The sources you list provide no evidence for the actual existence of Jesus. These men briefly mention the existence of Chistians and the fact that Christians follow a guy called Jesus or “Christus”. This is hardly evidence of a historical Jesus. These men were hardly eye witnesses and were even born decades after Jesus was supposed to have died. There are no eye witness accounts of Jesus at all. This seems odd considering his supposed importance.
I love how you say that Christian scholars are at complete agreement about the historicity of Jesus as if that proves anything. I guess the fact that all Muslim scholars are in complete agreement that Mohamad flew up to heaven settles the whole thing.
Now do some people believe in people or things that don’t really exist? Of course. How about the hundreds of people who belive in aliens. How about the fact that Mormons believe in an angel named Moroni who visited a guy named Joseph Smith. Now just because someone mentions Mormons and the fact that they believe in Moroni doesn’t confirm the existence of the angel just as Pliny the Younger writing (about 112 CE or about 80 years after the death of Jesus) that Christians follow “Christus” doesn’t confirm the existence of the dude let alone that he was born of a virgin, crucified, and raised from the dead. Maybe you should “look into the sources” and think more critically.
Shane,
Hi, and thanks for dropping by.
Sure it is evidence, Shane. In fact, there is much more evidence for Jesus than there are many other historical people that no one doubts existed. I suggest picking up a book like The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary Habermas. He does a great job of bringing in all historical evidence in one place.
Additionally, I would say the the greatest proof the Jesus lived is the spread of Christianity itself. Why in the world would a bunch of Jewish men go to their deaths for a Jesus who never existed? Now that would be absurd. Jesus lived, and the world knows it. That’s why people fight so hard to try to discredit Him and Christianity. No one spends much time arguing against mythical people, only real ones.
There are very few serious historians (if any), Christian or secular, who would deny that Jesus existed. For every one radical you might dredge up, I can find you 10+ who know He did exist. Now, whether they believe He is the Son of God is a different story. But few deny His existence.
Thanks for dropping by, and may God bless you.
Matt
Thanks for the summation, Matt. For those of us who couldn’t be or watch it live, it’s very helpful. God bless!
Mark,
Thanks, brother. Wish I could have been there live. AP says the DVD should be ready in about three weeks.
Full MP3 Audio of the debate between Kyle Butt and Dan Barker can be found here at apologetics315.com.
Brian,
Thank you.
Butt did a decent job and Barker was his usual *whiff* self. Butt had several good opportunities to press Barker but didn’t take them, and I would really encourage him (if he’s reading this, probably not) – brother, the Gospel is your most powerful tool, IT is the power of God unto salvation. There was at least one time you could have said it and it would have been great.
Anyway, a much more enjoyable listen (and a much more thorough pwnage of Barker) is his debate with Doug Wilson. The one with Manata was also an embarrassment for Barker.
Shane and Matt,
Thanks for your thoughts, and an insightful response.
As someone who studies these topics professionally I would say that the consensus view that Jesus actually existed among historians (believing and secular) is virtually a given. There are of course a few exceptions (Bob Price and Richard Carrier being the only two out of at least a hundred atheist New Testament scholars I have read…many whom I know personally).
The reason that Ehrman, Ludemann, Casey, Tabor, Crossley, Segal, the Jesus Seminar, et. al. accept the historical reality of Jesus without believing in the message is for purely historical reasons. For instance, we’re not just talking about four gospels as sources, but all of the independent sources behind them (many of which were oral that we will never know about with any certainty except to know they were there). It’s obvious whenever you study textual criticism that there are sources behind the gospels. For instance, most scholars admit that Mark was used by Luke and Matthew, and that there was another common source between them which was different from Mark (some call this Q). Some even divide Q into multiple documents due to linquistic characteristics. There is also information specific to Matthew and specific to Luke which most everyone agrees came from two more sources. Unbelieving scholar John Dominic Crossan argues for a “cross gospel” behind the crucifixion stories in Mark’s gospel. That adds another source. Whenever you add John’s gospel which seems to include a “signs gospel” as well as a different (yet similar in over 40 events) gospel, then you see that there are plenty of first century sources. This list only contains what scholars call Mark, Q (maybe Q1, 2 and 3), proto-Luke (L), proto-Matthew (M), the signs gospel, the cross gospel and John.
That’s just in the gospels. The earliest writings in the New Testament are actually creeds and hymns included in Pauline and other NT writings. For instance, it’s clear that 1st Cor. 15:3ff, Colossians 1:15-20, Phil. 2:3ff, etc. are previously written texts included in Paul’s letters. Whenever you do comparison analysis between texts such as the one in 1st Corinthians and compare it to a passage in Mark and another in Acts, most scholars date the text to within five years of Christ’s death (such as the unbelieving Jesus Seminar scholars who say 5-7 years after the crucifixion and possibly earlier). Some unbelieving scholars like Gerd Ludemann say that it most likely originated within 3 years of the death and resurrection experiences. University of Edinburgh historian Larry Hurtado, along with University of St. Andrews professor Richard Bauckham are about to release a paper arguing that this creed can be placed within six months of the crucifixion of the historical Jesus. For a source describing the resurrection, that’s very early for legendary accretion…but that’s for another day.
Of course, these sources, along with the entirety of Paul’s writings, James’ writing, Jude’s writing, the author of Hebrews, Revelation, 1st Clement, the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Josephus’ James reference, etc. which are for the most part clearly independent documents show that there is plenty of evidence for a historical Jesus, because there is no evidence in these texts showing that the writers/readers would be expected to see this individual as mythical or literary, but many texts which seem to argue against those who might not believe these events were historical.
If you take the Pastoral epistles to be non-Pauline, or Hebrews to be a collection of writings assembled together at a later date in the first century, then you are only admitting even more independent sources.
Now, you can easily retort that this abundance of separate sources (20 or so at least) from the 1st century which all refer to the historical Jesus by saying, “Well those were all obviously written by Christians and can’t be trusted.” Maybe, but the burden of proof then falls on you to show how, if Jesus was a myth, these clearly independent sources arose which are similar and different enough that at least virtually all secular scholars believe Jesus existed historically. You must show why in the first century context that these were written, if these were based on a known myth, why the perpetrators of the myth would die for those beliefs (James, Peter and Paul for sure according to Acts/1st Clement/Ignatius/Iranaeus/Justin), when they knew it was just a myth they were spreading. You have to show why monotheistic Jews would start worshiping the “Lord Jesus Christ” during that first generation if they knew him to be a myth.
The reason virtually all secular, atheistic scholars support the historical Jesus is that because the evidence is so strong and the opposing burden of proof too difficult to defend. If you don’t believe me, then read an atheistic New Testament scholar such as Ehrman, Casey or Crossan and see how they surprisingly argue from the historical record that most of the gospels are actually reliable and then consider what it would mean existentially if this historical Jesus actually existed, these writings are basically accurate and much of the New Testament be found to be true. Many of us were formerly skeptics before following this path in search of the truth.
Ranger,
Thank you for taking the time to give us that extensive post! Good information. Of course, many of us do not agree with some of the conclusions of the historical-critical methods, but when agnostic scholars admit that there must have been a historical Jesus, it just does not make sense for someone like Dan Barker to hold to Bertrand Russell’s old position.
Thanks again! Hopefully we can talk more…
Matt
I completely agree Matt,
I’m a Q-skeptic personally, follow Bauckham’s thesis from “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” etc. but was simply showing how even using the skeptical tools of the historical-critical method that the evidence for the historical Jesus is rather overwhelming.
Ranger,
You gave an excellent recap for their reasoning, and I really appreciate it. There are some things in your post that I have not studied or realized. You’ve given me some new ground to cover in my own studies. Stay in touch with me, okay?
Thanks again!
Matt
Kyle hasn’t changed much since FHU. Handled himself well. If anybody could do it, it was him.
I just finished listening to the debate and I agree that is was a pretty even debate. Like you said Dan lost ground with the opening statement and the rape discussion. Kyle I think fumbled on the design and spirit topics. I wish Kyle didn’t bring up creationism/ID. Dan should have nailed him with bringing up this psuedo science, especially on Darwin Day. For me Ranger’s comment above was the most helpful
Hi Matt,
Thanks for such an excellent recap of the debate!
I just wanted to make a correction:
“with Barker eventually admitting that it would be okay to harm two million people for the sake of six million”
The hypothetical situation was for Barker to harm two million people for the sake of six BILLION.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVq-p0-4l2E&feature=related
(start at 6:23)
I don’t know think it makes a difference, but just thought I’d add that in there.
Thank you, Andrew!
I appreciate you paying attention and catching that for me.
Very fair assessment of the debate, I’m glad you decided to write it up for us!
I’m a Christian, but I went into the debate fully expecting to see Dan Barker whoop up on the “new guy.” I figured it wouldn’t bother me much, and I wanted to see some of the stronger arguments for atheism. Plus, I had seen William Lane Craig crush enough people in debates that I only felt it was fair to see it go the other way.
Instead, I was very underwhelmed by Dan Barker’s performance. Even with no preparation on my end, I was able to refute things he said right on the spot. Some of those Bible “contradictions” he brought up led me to think, “Was this guy really a preacher before? How does he not know this?”
Both of them made mistakes, and I think the comments and your post have already pointed them out. But the debate ended up fairly even objectively (and from a subjective point of view, of course I side with Butt)…and importantly for me, it was very entertaining! Some of them get pretty dull, but this debate kept me interested the whole way through.