A Very Brief Commentary on Howe-Shermer Debate

Tonight I watched the debate between Dr. Richard Howe and Dr. Michael Shermer live via the internet. Here is a very brief commentary on a few salient features that come to mind.

Commentary

Howe presents a standard set of arguments for God.( I especially like the way the Thomistic argument is put together.) Note: the God Howe is arguing for is a being—Who is the personal, timeless, immaterial cause of the existence and design of the universe and the ground of moral reality. Howe is not arguing specifically for the Christian God.

Shermer attempts to relegate Howe’s arguments as the “God of the gaps arguments.” He reasons that we do not need to make the God of the gap argument anymore because science is finding answers or explanation as to why things are.

Howe agrees that the “God of the gaps” is fallacious. But that is not what he is doing. To illustrate, if there is a fire and if the evidence shows that an arsonist did it, the investigator cannot be accused of “arsonist of the gaps,” since he is simply positing an intelligent cause of the fire. (This is clarified during the Q and A. Yes, the arsonist is a natural cause of the fire. But Howe’s point is to illustrate that there is an intelligent being behind the cause of the fire.)

Shermer asks—Who created God? Shermer’s theory: ID=ET=God. Extra terrestrials (very advanced beings) could create and design. And thus ETs are the most you can get to, not God. For, unless we can test or measure it, we won’t accept it.

Howe comes back with the road-runner tactic, asking, “Can Shermer’s claim be measured?” (For more of this, see I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek.)  From the moment Howe exposed Shermer’s unjustified, and self-refuting, philosophical bent, Shermer spiraled down, I think.

As a consequence of Shermer’s self-refutation, as he goes along, he makes category mistakes by asking for a way to test God, as to how and when he created things.

Shermer does not have an answer to Howe’s question as to why look for natural and not supernatural explanation. He simply keeps invoking his self-refuting position—“unless we can’t measure, we can’t accept it.”

Then Shermer begins to attack miracles and unanswered prayers, which aren’t even a part of Howe’s argument. Howe says that miracles do not come into picture until after God’s existence is established; hence, they are not used as arguments for God.

Of course, there are other things not covered in this review, and I know this review is biased. But who doesn’t have a bias? Besides, do not look at the bias; look at the reasoning and argument.

I encourage everyone to get a copy of the debate, and you will see in motion what Southern Evangelical Seminary is all about.

Hi calvinfab!

The DVD is now available for purchase at SES bookstore.

Aaron