(Edit notes: After some email dialogue with Dr. Avalos, I have made some corrections to my review to more accurately state both his and my positions. Edits can be found in italics below.)
Last Thursday night Andrew Friend and I attended a debate between Iowa State religion professor Hector Avalos and Evangelist Keith Darrell. Some of you may have heard of Hector Avalos before and know that he is a fairly outspoken Atheist. Keith Darrell is less well-known, but spends most of his time traveling around to Universities and evangelizing on campus for an entire day.
This debate was actually organized by the Atheist’s and Agnostic’s club at ISU as a result of a visit by Darrell to campus. One of the members of the A & A club had dinner with Darrell and asked if he would be interested in doing this debate, to which he answered in the affirmative.
I must say it was an interesting experience. The topic for debate was: “Is the Bible the Source of Absolute Moral rules for Today?” Darrell, of course, was there to argue yes, and Avalos, no. I was rather disappointed in the topic choice, as this is a rather narrow subject and many of the answers and reasons given by either side were quite predictable. It also did not leave much room for growth or change from either side.
For the most part it hardly felt like a debate. The hour was broken down into different time periods where each gentleman was allowed to give their argument and/or answer challenges the other had raised. For most of the evening there was no significant back and forth debating.
To be honest, going in I did not expect much from Keith Darrell and figured Hector Avalos would beat him rather badly. However, after the debate, I came away feeling better about Darrell and rather surprised at the poor arguments that Avalos used. What was most frustrating was that Avalos basically had his argument already decided and just went through it at each turn, never responding to challenges from Darrell or addressing legitimate questions. Darrell, while not answering every challenge, always addressed at least some. Avalos conducted himself with a rather confident air that he was the unquestioned right person in the debate and there was, therefore, really nothing to challenge him on.
Avalos’ basic challenge to Darrell was that God was a bad God, if he even existed because he promotes all of these horrible things like slavery, stoning and genocide. Also, there is no empirical evidence that God exists, or has ever done anything. Darrell’s response, which I felt was quite strong, was to question where Avalos based his belief that those things were wrong. If God is not the source of morals that taught those things, and there really are no absolutes then how can Avalos portray anything as evil? If everything is dependent upon how “I” feel about it then if someone else feels differently, I have no room to say otherwise or judge that person or god as evil for it. There is no source. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, Avalos basically ignored this challenge all night and never answered the question. My guess is that he could not. The only counter he had to this was accusing Darrell of circular reasoning over and over again, even though Darrell did provide an answer to that, noting that the source of everything is inherently circular because there is nothing that provides it with justification, it just is. (As Dr. Avalos pointed out to me in his correspondence with me, he did not have the need to respond to Darrell’s challenge, as Darrell’s question was not within parameters of the debate. Darrell was supposed to answer how the Bible was the source of Absolute moral rules and this question did not do that.)
The Q&A period was mostly Athiests challenging Darrell on different things that he said, although there were a few Christians that challenged him as well. One interesting question for Avalos was a girl basically asking for his testimony on how he was converted to Atheism–I was not expecting that.
I was surprised at the somewhat harsh tone that I felt Avalos used during the debate. However unfair it probably was on my part I was actually expecting more of that from Darrell, and was pleased when I did not sense that from him. He claims to have rejected God because archaeology has “proven” that most of the Bible is wrong, but he did not really share any of that research with us. (Through our correspondence I was corrected on the previous statement. In my recollection of the debate, I confused some of what he said and placed the wrong words in his mouth. What he actually believes after study of the evidence is that there is no evidence for the divine origin of the Bible. Also, this was in the context of the Q&A session which did not lend itself to offering research examples.) Darrell seemed to spend more time engaging Avalos’ writings, but as Avalos pointed out, those excursions did not really deal with the subject at hand.
Afterward, Andrew and I went and discussed the notes we had taken over ice cream at Culver’s. This was a very enjoyable time and I wish more students had been there to share in our discussion.
For those of you wishing to view the debate it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DIMWV1VSq8
The Q&A period can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqbBixOsAbU
Some pictures:
-
- Keith Darrell offering his argument.
-
- The two debaters & their topic.
-
- Hector Avalos offering his argument.
