God Debate at St. Cloud State University

This story originally appeared on the SCSU Intellectuals blog on February 25, 2010. Used here with permission.

By Benjamin Seghers, SCSU Intellectuals

Recently the Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU) and the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) hosted a debate at St. Cloud State University between August Berkshire and Joe Boot on the existence of God, with Prof. Suzanne Stangl-Erkens serving as the moderator. Boot argued in the affirmative, while Berkshire argued in the negative. The turnout was spectacular. There were 700 seats set out in the Atwood ballroom and an additional 200 were brought in to accommodate the influx of people. Even then, there were still people standing, so attendance was close to 1,000 people. That was far more than I think anyone was expecting. It was clearly a subject many people were interested in, including college students. In most of these types of events on campus, there are usually more older adults than young people. I did not notice that here. It seemed that God-fearing Christians outnumbered the secular nonbelievers in the crowd, but that would be consistent with the broader demographic, though there was still strong support for Berkshire. Unfortunately, the audience was not polled beforehand to measure their beliefs, though I noticed more people went towards SSA's table than to Boot's near the entrance of the ballroom. I think free material enticed people more than books for sale.

Secular Student Alliance at St. Cloud State University.

Berkshire and Boot had very different styles and approaches. Berkshire was calm, straightforward, and concise, while Boot always seemed to be yelling and went over the allotted time on several occasions. With regard to their arguments, Berkshire was very concrete and straightforward, whereas Boot was much more philosophical and abstract. For example, Boot argued the existence of God is necessary if we are to make any intelligible sense of the world, while Berkshire referred to this line of thinking as "God of the gaps," holding that since Boot could not find any natural explanation for certain phenomena, he was merely trying to fill the gaps with the invention of a deity. Ultimately, Berkshire's argument was that he cannot find sufficient evidence to lead him to believe in the existence of a god, whereas Boot argued that such an existence is logically necessary.

Who had the stronger arguments? Being a member of SSA, I am naturally inclined to say Berkshire, just as I am sure most of the Christians in the crowd would say Boot. Did anyone in the crowd change their mind? I don't know; maybe a few. As I said, there was no polling to objectively gauge this. For those coming in unsure, I hope either debater helped clarify the positions so that informed and educated decisions could made.

Personally, I enjoyed the event. It was great to hear from Boot a perspective that I had not heard before. Berkshire also brought interesting arguments that I was unfamiliar with, which helped me solidify my beliefs. I do have to admit though, one my favorite quotes from the discussion was from Berkshire: "According to Christian theology, God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself."

In the end, I think the debate was very constructive. Open, intelligent, and civil dialogue serves an important function in liberal democratic societies. The fact that we are able to hold discussions on such topics is a testament to progress of society. Just a few decades ago atheists were relegated to second-class citizenship. According to the then-Vice President Bush, atheists were not to be "considered as citizens, nor … patriots." I am pleased we are now able to discuss the topic rationally, respectably, and with impunity.

Benjamin Seghers is pursuing a BS in international policy with a minor in economics at St. Cloud State University. He writes about politics, philosophy, campus happenings, and more on his blog, SCSU Intellectuals.

© Copyright 2010 Benjamin Seghers