God's Existence Debated

Last night, the Harvard Secular Society (HSS) and the Harvard- Radcliffe Christian Fellowship (HRCF) debated the existence of a Benevolent Creator, tackling the age-old question, "Does God Exist?"

The HSS was represented by Derek C. Araujo '99 and Christopher M. Kirchhoff '01. Matthew J. Peed '00 and John S. Pittard '00 represented the HRCF. Lecturer on the Study of Religion Eugene C. McAfee, who is also Lowell House's senior tutor, moderated the debate.

The event was held in Science Center D, in front of such a large audience that Kirchhoff, who is also a Crimson editor, said the room "felt like Noah's Ark" in his opening speech.

The audience's enthusiasm for the debate was first evident at their welcoming applause for McAfee, who said he wished his classes would show the same response to him.

After giving a brief summary of Plato and Aristotle's beliefs about God and a Benevolent Creator, McAfee outlined the debate's format.

Both teams were allotted 13 minutes for opening speeches, which were followed by seven-minute rebuttals. Afterwards, there were 15-minute cross-examinations and then four-minute closing statements made by each side. McAfee's kitchen timer buzzed to signal the end of speeches.

Kirchhoff, representing the HSS, began the debate with an opening speech that called for the HRCF to provide evidence that a belief in God was justified.

"Like any hypothesis, God is open to question," he said.

Kirchhoff also explained some of the benefits of Atheism.

"To believe in Atheism is to believe in reasonable and justified claims," he said.

Peed gave opening remarks for the HRCF, introducing questions about the validity and finality of scientific evidence that played a major role in the debate.

"We embrace the usefulness of science," he said. "But there are questions that are not scientific."

Peed said that phenomena such as free will and the origins of laws could not be traced to a scientific origin.

Peed elaborated on the "Big Bang" theory and the creation of the Earth as evidence for the existence of a Benevolent Creator. He also said that the universe was created for the sole purpose of sustaining life.

"It's not an amazing coincidence that the universe's expansion and collapse rates are balanced," he said.

During the rebuttal and the free-form cross-examination period, the teams addressed the opening statements of the other sides. The sides frequently returned to the issues of causality and of free will.

In the concluding speeches, Araujo summarized his arguments and then apologized to anyone that he or his partner might have offended in the audience.

"We don't mean to give you hell," he said. "We only mean to convince you that you don't need to worry about it."

Pittard concluded his side of the debate on a more serious note, challenging audience members to "fully put [their] trust in God."

Audience member Paul E. Mussman '00, a Catholic, said he thought the debate was eloquent, but that he was expecting different arguments.

"I don't think that the issues addressed were really what the debate was about," he said. "It also turned into a chicken-and-the-egg debate over whether God or the universe came first."