Rhetoric: Does God Exist? The Craig-Law Debate Essay

Introduction

The question of God’s existence has been at the forefront of multiple discussions for centuries. Despite the seemingly impossible task of proving the statement regarding the existence of God either true or false, numerous efforts have been undertaken, the debate between William Lane Craig vs. Stephen Law being one of the latest endeavors. In the specified conversation, both participants introduce impressive rhetorical strategies that serve to convince their target audiences of the correctness of their assumptions (Lusk, 2021). Though each of the speeches introduces a unique rhetorical approach to convince its target audience, Craig’s statement falls flat due to the presence of logical fallacies, while Law’s falters due to the choice of tone.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Each of the speeches in question utilizes the core components of rhetoric, namely, ethos, pathos, and logos, carefully in order to ensure that the main statements reach their target audiences. Specifically, the speech by Craig places a very heavy emphasis on the logical component of the analysis and seeks to introduce legitimate proof for the theological statement in question. As a result, the use of logos is evident and demonstrably emphasized in Craig’s argument. The specified approach introduces an unusual perspective on a theological argument for the general audience, which typically perceives theological discourse as entirely faith-based (The Princeton Review, 2020). Specifically, Craig’s claim that “the real existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to metaphysical absurdities” delivers an especially powerful effect due to its logical consistency and cohesion (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.8). Thus, the appeal to logic and the promotion of a rational perspective on the concept that a substantial number of people believe to be lacking a logical foundation represents an essential aspect of Craig’s rhetorical approach.

Compared to Craig, who focuses profusely on the logos aspect of the rhetorical framework, Law seems to deviate into the area of appealing to the audience’s emotions. At first glance, Law also seeks to introduce the elements of logos into his speech as a site foundation for his statement. However, on further scrutiny, the close attention to pathos in Law’s argumentation becomes apparent. For instance, Law utilizes the to quoque fallacy in his speech profusely, which distracts from the rational aspect of his statement and, instead, encourages the audience to connect with his speech on an emotional level. For instance, Law states the following at the beginning of his speech: “Professor Craig seemed to be suggesting that I think Christians think God is good because, you know, they draw that conclusion on the basis of what they see of the world around them” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.97). The specified argument appeals to the personal style of Craig’s approach to the discussion as opposed to the actual statement that he provides, which devalues the overall meaning of Law’s claim (Mihăeş et al., 2021). Thus, the juxtaposition of Craig’s integration of logos into his argument to Law’s use of pathos and the to quoque fallacy minimizes the positive impression of Law’s statement.

Furthermore, the second rebuttal that Law provides incorporates the rhetorical approaches that reinforce the overall impression of the weakness in his argument. Specifically, the fact that he resorts to incorporating personal experience as the main reference for his assertion exacerbates the weakness in his judgment (Wink, 2020). Furthermore, the integration of an anecdotal story regarding the supposed sighting of a UFO makes his claim obviously appealing to people’s preexisting biased perceptions concerning faith as opposed to an honest rebuttal of the established statement: “Let me tell you a story from 1967. It’s a UFO story” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.143). Therefore, even though the overall idea that Law strives to convey comes from the place of rational thought, the manner in which he purports it undermines his intent and the core message that he seeks to convey.

In turn, the ethos of each speech appears to be equally consistent and properly conveyed. Namely, both Law and Craig express their willingness to contribute to the discourse and resolve the core premise of religion, namely, the existence of God as the almighty being that created life and the universe. Specifically, both authors seek to locate the truth and prove it to the broader audience: “What makes the Supreme Being worthy of worship is not simply his power but rather his moral excellence” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.84). However, even in the specified aspect of both speeches, a certain element of personal confrontation, which reduces the moral stance of both experts and leads to the impression of the discourse in question being an example of a personal confrontation as opposed to a theological discussion: “Dr. Law has yet to respond to any of my three arguments under my first contention that there are good reasons to believe that God exists” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.113). Nonetheless, the general presence of strong ethos in both speeches is undeniable as both experts seek to resolve a complex philosophical issue.

Additionally, both speeches feature a variety of rhetorical tools integrated to increase the power of the argument and the extent of its persuasion. For instance, Craig’s speech tends to be represented by pronouncedly formal language: “But it is a strange form of atheism, one not worth the name, that admits that there is a beginningless, uncaused, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, Personal Creator of the universe” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.114). The specified approach contrasts with the one that Law adopts and that represents the integration of elements of a more relaxed approach. Specifically, Law’s speech is often interrupted, incorporating irregularities in its flow: “We can, for much the same sort of reasons, observational reasons, quite reasonably also rule out the suggestion that Professor Craig’s good God created it. If any……that’s the end!…” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.184). On the one hand, the specified approach to building a discourse symbolizes spontaneity and authenticity, therefore, increasing the levels of trust in the audience (). On the other hand, the specified rhetorical approach minimizes the perceived academic authority of Law’s claims, which makes his speechless convincing in the audience’s eyes.

Compared to Law, Craig utilized a dramatically different approach that made his speech quite dry yet coherent and consistent. Specifically, the flow of his narrative is often self-interrupted as he struggles to construct his rebuttal of Craig’s statement: “This is undoubtedly a belief that just seems obviously true to us, and, indeed, I’ll put it forward quite happily; but I am willing to take it back later if I need to, O.K., objective…” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.140). As a result, the overall narrative that Law integrates into his speech appears to be less convincing, even though, objectively, he offers reasonable and rational statements.

Another peculiar rhetorical device that is featured quite often in both speeches is aphoria. Defined as the presentation of a rhetorical question to which the speaker provides the answer, the described strategy serves to draw the audience’s attention to a specific point. In turn, both Law and Craig make efficient use of the specified rhetorical device in order to help the audience focus on the inconsistencies in each other’s statements. For instance, Law justifiably outlines the following using aphoria: “. But then why, you may ask, would an evil god allow a few people such as David Beckham to lead a charmed life? Why? To make the rest of us feel worse, of course!” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.65). The specified framework allows Law to encourage the audience to question the legitimacy of the established theosophical and theological principles, therefore, subverting the narrative of God’s existence and omnipotence.

In turn, Craig also incorporates the specified rhetorical device into his speech quite consistently for the same purpose. In fact, Craig’s use of anaphora leads to questioning not only Law’s assertions but also Law’s authority, in general, which can be seen as a rather dishonest rhetorical practice. For instance, Law introduces the following claim into his narrative: “What argument does Professor Craig offer for supposing that it is nevertheless true? It appears to be to point out that an evolutionary explanation of why we believe rape is objectively morally wrong wouldn’t make rape objectively morally wrong. Well, so what?” (“Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate,” 2011, para.139). As a result, the authority of the opponent is undermined to an extent.

Conclusion

While Craig presents his speech as an endeavor to pursue logic and reason, his appeal to authority reduces the credibility of his statement, whereas Law’s statement is weakened by the ad hominem fallacy. Thus, both authors represent their statements in a rather flawed manner that appeals to their target audiences directly, while failing to convince the opposing side. As a result, though they are wildly different from each other, both speeches create a similar impact, leaving those undecided or supporting the opposing side unconvinced. By incorporating a greater sense of openness and genuineness into their argument and avoiding obvious logical fallacies in their statements, both speakers would have succeeded to a significantly greater degree.

References

Does God exist? The Craig-Law debate. (2011). Reasonable Faith. Web.

Lusk, A. (2021). Rhetoric, Media, and the Narratives of US Foreign Policy: Making Enemies. Routledge.

Mihăeş, L. C., Andreescu, R., & Dimitriu, A. (2021). Handbook of research on contemporary storytelling methods across new media and disciplines. IGI Global.

The Princeton Review. (2020). Princeton review AP English language & composition premium prep 2021: 7 practice tests+ complete content review+ strategies & techniques. Princeton Review.

Wink, K. A. (2020). Rhetorical strategies for composition: Cracking an academic code. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.