Write an 6-page interpretive essay that demonstrates, using evidence from the debate itself, that either Hitchens or Craig–who both evoke science in their arguments–is the debater with the greatest allegiance to the scientific method, as we will come to define this in class, and to good-faith argumentation in the Socratic sense. You may not choose a middle ground and say that both sides are equally Sophistic and Socratic. It is up to you to choose how you make your determination, but your terms of analysis, your yardstick by which you make your decision, should be usefully clear in the first part of your thesis section.
You must have a paragraph that offers a road map—”In this essay I will. . .” in which you name your yardstick methodology and specifically name the aspects of bad-faith argumentation that you will be exploring. And then say that you will, in your conclusion, be addressing the likely negative consequences for engaging in this kind of bad-faith argumentation.
For a conclusion: make a forward-thinking case about the negative consequences in a pluralistic society for making bad-faith arguments in favor of science AND for faith. In other words, no matter who you think is making the better, good-faith case in this debate, use the conclusion to contemplate the negative consequences for those who debate in bad faith. For example: if you think Hitchens is the best “good-faith” debater, what would a “bad faith” argument in favor of science look like and what might the likely consequences of that be? Conversely, if you think Craig, a man of evident faith, is making a bad-faith argument, what would a better, good-faith argument look like? What are the negative consequences for Christianity when a Christian apologist ignores this?
