U-M Asks: Does God Exist?

by Lee Bockhorn

Last Thursday evening, a stimulating debate on the question "Does God Exist?" was held at U of M's Rackham Auditorium. Sponsored by the Michigan Christian Grads, the Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Christian Leadership Ministries, the debate was witnessed by a standing­room only crowd of students, faculty, and local citizens. Guest professor Dr. William Lane Craig argued for the affirmative, while U­M philosophy professor Dr. Edwin M. Curley argued against the existence of the Christian God.

The debate adhered to a rigid structural format, with both speakers given the opportunity to make twenty minute opening statements, followed by rebuttals. The debate ended with the chance for those in attendance to pose questions to Craig and Curley.

Learned and articulate, both Dr.Craig and Dr. Curley made compelling arguments for their positions. Craig began by drawing a framework for the rest of his arguments, saying that we must "ask two basic questions are there any good reasons why God does not exist? Are there any good reasons why God does exist?" In response to the latter, he offered five reasons: God's existence makes sense of the universe's origin, of its complex order, of objective moral values, of the historical facts of Jesus's life and death, and finally, that God can be immediately known and experienced.

Dr. Curley told the audience that he was "not defending atheism," but merely rejecting the existence of the Christian God as framed by the debate. He began by describing and then rejecting many traditional Christian doctrines such as predestination, the omniscience of God, and original sin as either philosophically unacceptable or inherently self­contradictory. For example, he asked how it was possible for a supposedly just and loving God to will beings to hell in accordance with predestination. He also challenged Craig's claim that God's existence makes sense of objective moral truths by asserting that Christian belief actually "makes morality as we know it unintelligible... since our ... loyalty must be to God and he might command anything, as there is no predicting what he might require... no act is out of bounds."

The debate touched many areas of knowledge, from the obvious theology and philosophy to the not­so­obvious, such as physics, biology, and cosmology. Craig and Curley chose unique and contrasting methods to convey their ideas. While Craig took an uplifting, sincere approach which included descriptions of his own experiences while in search for truths about God, Curley opted for an often light­hearted, tongue­in­cheek style which many audience members responded to. (An example: in response to Dr. Craig's use of probability statistics to argue that the universe must have been created by a sentient being, Dr. Curley replied, "the numbers cited by Professor Craig are awfully impressive Good Lord! [audience laughs] ... I guess old habits die hard.")

The audience response to the debate was overwhelmingly positive. In the question­and­answer session following the debate, students asked intelligent, thought­provoking questions, and many students remained in the auditorium after the debate's conclusion to continue informal discussions with the speakers.

"The speakers had very different styles, but both were effective at presenting their side; they made sincere and strong arguments," said Dan Piccolo, a School of Music freshman. Piccolo, echoing the sentiments of many other students, said he attended the debate because "it's an issue I'm in the middle on I wanted to see what some knowledgeable people had to say about the existence of God."

Bryan Berghoef, a member of Campus Crusade for Christ who helped organize the event, said that the goal of the sponsors was for the University community to "hear the issues of the Christian God's existence debated by highly intelligent philosophers, so that students would have the chance to really think about them." He also stated that he was not surprised by the immense turnout, since "there was significant publicity, it's an appealing topic, and people were confident that the debate would not be slanted towards either side."

Obviously, many in attendance came with strongly held views on the subject, looking to hear arguments to strengthen their own beliefs; however, a large contingent also came without a predetermined viewpoint, eager to hear arguments on both sides and be convinced one way or another. With the tremendous attendance, intelligent argument presented by both sides, and meaningful student participation, this debate epitomized what the university experience should be: an honest, reasoned search for fundamental truths. No matter which side the audience members believed to have "won," they could all agree that the debate was a wonderful sign that a legitimate intellectual life still survives at the U of M. MR

This article was published in the 11 February 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 16, Number 7).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.