The exit polls are showing Greg Koukl of STR the winner over Deepak Chopra by TKO.
"Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason graciously, fairly, kindly, steamrolled Deepak Chopra on Faith Under Fire last night. I mean, it wasn't even fair. Wasn't even close. TKO first round, except the fight kept going." -- Alpha & Omega
"Greg did a superb job of representing the gospel in content and character, modeling the qualities of an ambassador that he and the folks at Stand to Reason seek to instill in others. He repeatedly demonstrated the problems with religious relativism and exposed the fact that, contrary to his denial that he is dogmatic, Dr. Chopra adheres to a theological position of which he seeks to persuade others." -- The Christian Mind
"As someone who teaches world religions and worldviews, I listened hard to hear Deepak Chopra’s unique spiritual worldview, and only heard the drip and drab of a modernized Hinduism.
I want to thank Lee for putting on such a discussion. This is what Christian TV should be about. " -- SmartChristian
"Koukl was sharp -- very sharp. I want to watch it one more time and then post some analysis. I have to say, it was the best display of tactical apologetics I have ever seen." -- The Dawn Treader
Not all reviews were positive.
I lifted some thoughtful comments from Primitive Thoughts Of A Christian Philosopher.
"I didn't think Greg came across well (and I'm a 15 year fan). My guess is the adrenaline was pumping.
Greg was talking so fast that, even as an above average thinker who's familiar with his arguments, I couldn't process all he was saying."
... and ...
"There were some moments when I got the impression Greg decided what he was going to say before the show started, so he wasn't really responding to so much to what Chorpa was saying as he was making points he had decided beforehand to make. And I agree he often made his arguments so fast it would've been hard for somebody to follow if they weren't already familiar with Greg's arguments."
... and ...
" I can be talked out of the term "bully." 8 )
I know Greg didn't mean to come across that way. And certainly he didn't pick on the guy or put him down. Just the intensity of his delivery really seemed out of place considering the demeanor of his opponent. Chopra seemed like a nice, gracious guy. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Koukl's motto is "be egalitarian towards people, but elitist toward ideas." Greg was hard on Chopra's ideas -- very hard. However, I actually thought Greg was quite gracious toward Chopra. If it seemed like Chopra was outgunned -- it was because his ideas were so weak.
Chopra kept repeating the line "I respect your beliefs. I just don't share them."
In other words, Chopra was saying, "I think you are wrong." Chopra was being disingenuous by asserting that he respected Koukl's beliefs. He did not respect them. He thought Koukl was wrong -- dead wrong.
What Chopra really meant is that he respected Koukl's right to hold different beliefs. But content of Koukl's belief was not something Chopra respected -- Chopra clearly thought that Koukl's views were intolerant and narrow-minded. That, friends, is not anyone's definition of respect.
I will post more on the Koukl / Chopra debate. There is so much to talk about.
Just curious, how many non-Christians and nontheists pegged Koukl as the winner? (For that matter, how many even witnessed the debate?)
Also, why a "technical" knockout, and not just a knockout?
Posted by: tgirsch | May 04, 2005 at 16:48
"how many non-Christians and nontheists pegged Koukl as the winner"
I don't know. I did a technorati search to see what people thought. I reported on what I found -- which was not unanimous ... hence, the "technical" knock out.
Some Christians thought Koukl talked too fast -- probably true. Others thought his arguments only made sense if you understood them a priori. I knew his arguments a priori, so I cannot judge that.
Other Christians thought Koukl was mean -- a "bully". I beg to differ. One wonders if those folks think that anyone who says another person is wrong is guilty of being mean.
Posted by: Jeff | May 05, 2005 at 11:27
Jeff:I did a technorati search to see what people thought. I reported on what I found -- which was not unanimous ... hence, the "technical" knock out.To pick a nit (it's what I'm best at, after all), it's not a "technical knockout" then, either. It's a win by decision, and not even a unanimous one. :) A knockout means the opponent was unwilling or unable to proceed, and a technical knockout is a subset of this -- the judges aren't involved in a knockout decision, only the referees. You learn something new every day.Others thought his arguments only made sense if you understood them a priori.Not having witnessed the debate, I'm guessing there's something to this.
Posted by: tgirsch | May 05, 2005 at 12:16
Ok -- you knocked out my argument for the debate being decided by a technical knock out ;-)
Too bad you missed the debate -- we would have had much to talk about ;-)
Posted by: Jeff | May 05, 2005 at 16:59