I took an opportunity to listen to the debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins on Christianity/Atheism that I posted about previously. All in all, it was abysmal. I say this because Peter Atkins turned out to be an a-one jerk who offered no argumentation in favour of atheism and proceeded to belittle McGrath and make fun of him. For an Oxford professor of Atkins’ stature, this whole thing was a lesson in ridiculousness (if that’s a word). To say that I was frustrated last night is an understatement – I was borderline angry. If I had been in attendance that night, I would have been quite disturbed at having wasted my time.
Another aspect that I found unsatisfying with the debate was McGrath’s failure to really press the point home that Atkins’ view not only provides as with no meaning to life, but that when Atkins assumes meaning to anything (including taking part in the debate that night!) he is assuming the veracity of the Christian faith. It would be great if McGrath took a page from his friend Joe Boot, who is a disciple of Van Til. McGrath is brilliant, and if his apologetic method was more precise and biblical, he would be a devestating opponent. After listening to this debate, I have become even more convinced that evidentiary arguments in apologetics are efforts in futility.
I had to listen to some Bahnsen after listening to that debate, otherwise I would not have been able to sleep for frustration.