I wanted to second Dr. Michael Egnor’s recommendation of the Rowe-Grayling debate. As Egnor puts it, “Rowe devastated Grayling.” If you don’t care to take our word for it, read the post by Dr. Grayling’s fellow atheist Jerry Coyne, “Anthony Grayling vs. Rabbi Rowe on God’s existence.”
It must come as a disappointment that the young rabbi and former tank driver with the Israel Defense Force got the better of the distinguished philosopher and “fifth horseman of atheism.” And indeed Coyne’s remarks, while trying to be kind to Grayling, read like a stifled wince.
Coyne cites a reader, Mark:
I have to admit to finding the prospect of an orthodox rabbi holding his own in a debate with Dr. Grayling on God’s existence rather disheartening, but I’m afraid that’s exactly what went down the other night in London.
Coyne says he was “dubious” that this was the case, until he watched the video. Coyne rationalizes:
The reason that Grayling didn’t crush Rowe was based on one thing: Anthony wasn’t up on the responses of physicists to the “fine tuning” and “first cause” arguments for God.
The evolutionary biologist’s admissions, though, are telling. Grayling “should have given a fuller response” on this point, his “response is weak,” it’s “not a great response,” on the other. More:
It’s useful for everyone who encounters these arguments — and they are now the default argument of the Sophisticated Theologians™ because they sound so daunting — to know how physicists respond to them.
He means atheist physicists like Lawrence Krauss, who had a hard enough time offering a relevant response (as opposed to hurling insults) in a debate with Stephen Meyer, despite the fact that Meyer was crippled that night by a blinding migraine.
Coyne concludes:
At any rate, it’s time to bone up on the fine tuning argument, and the argument for God from the constancy of the “laws” of physics.
When your colleague and comrade evaluates your performance in a debate and says, in public, it’s time to “bone up” on a fundamental subject, that’s bad. Actually, I feel bad for Grayling.
Coyne thinks he himself has got Rabbi Rowe’s points wrapped up and he explains how he’d answer them. Fine. Let Rowe issue an invitation to Coyne to debate, too. If he does, however, the rabbi should not hold his breath waiting for a willing response.