I waited anxiously for Evan Minton of Cerebral Faith to debate Chris Hansen on whether or not morality is relative. I very much enjoyed the debate, however, not for the reasons you may be thinking. The Christian side was absolutely demolished in my opinion and I will tell you why. (You can check out the debate here)
In the beginning opening statements, Evan reads off a transcript, presumably his own blog, simply quoting the moral argument as phrased by William Lane Craig.
I wasn’t a fan of the reading approach, as the cameras were on and it makes it seem that you aren’t prepared, especially when the person who didn’t write anything down seemed more prepared more than you are.
Despite Evan insisting on a week preparation, he was remarkably unprepared for Chris’ arguments. It seemed from the beginning that Evan was arguing in the hopes that Chris held to any moral values as objective, but could not find it because of Chris’ adherence to moral error theory.
There are sophisticated objections to this theory, however, Evan presented none of these. He rarely even challenged the claims Chris was making, instead he brought out emotional examples like a woman being raped or a baby being put in a fire and then freak out when Chris said that right and wrong don’t actually exist.
Evan seemed dumbfounded that this theory even existed and constantly stumbled and went off incoherent rambles. He also interjected many times, where some the members of the live chat as well as the moderator asked Evan to let Chris talk.
A commentator named General Han Solo made a comment that I thought summarized the debate concisely. He said “Evan spends 20 minutes blowing up a balloon, Chris spends 30 seconds popping it.”
It really was like that. Evan seemed to ramble on forever, just to get shut down by Chris’ objections or Chris for the hundredth time telling Evan that he wasn’t getting it. Because Evan really was unprepared for Chris’ position.
Both of Chris’ main objections to the divine command theory Evan was proposing were not sufficiently answered. Honestly, I think Evan came in with a script and when Chris didn’t follow that script of objections, Evan was astonished.
He also managed to recommend his website and books more than five times throughout the debate. As well as recommending his well-read opponent an introductory book on God and Morality.
Overall, Evan’s rehearsed introduction, flagrant self-promotion, incoherent rambling and lack of debate decorum contributed to his loss to Chris in this debate.
Chris on the other hand came off as well-read, he kept a cool demeanor and was polite despite Evan’s behavior during the debate and successfully rebutted every single one of Evan’s arguments.
It seems Evan hasn’t read Craig on moral error theory, so he wasn’t ready to parrot his points.
Chris is an honest skeptic and a genuinely thought-provoking person. I whole heartily recommend his website, he deserves more views than he is currently getting.