Richard Dawkins Again Refuses Debate With Christian Apologist William Craig

[Mind Over Matter]

Richard Dawkins has again refused to debate world-renowned apologist William Lane Craig on the rationality of faith and the existence of God.

Many believe that Craig’s upcoming “Reasonable Faith” tour in the U.K. is intimidating Dawkins, who refuses to engage on a one-on-one talk with the leading Christian apologist, famous for his revival of the Kalam cosmological argument which asserts that God caused the universe to first exist.

But Dawkins, defending his decision, previously shared during a panel that Craig was not a worthy opponent.

Though the author of The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion found Craig’s background insubstantial, many of his fellow atheists have debated with the theologian, including Bart Ehrman, Richard Taylor, and two of the “Four Horsemen” of New Atheism, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

In fact, Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of [his] fellow atheists.”

Not only a “professional debater” as Dawkins labeled him, Craig has authored or edited over 30 books, and also is the current research professor of philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology in California.

He has made significant contributions to the philosophy of time and religion, and also works as a New Testament historian.

Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig has become an international issue, with many critics and intellectuals interpreting the British evolutionary biologist’s actions as a sign of cowardice.

“The absence of debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your [cover letter] and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part,” Daniel Came, an atheist and Worcester College philosophy lecturer wrote to Dawkins in a letter, according to the Telegraph.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-continues-to-refuse-debate-with-christian-apologist-william-craig-56780/



Dawkins finally met someone with a superior intellect in terms of theology. He is smart for avoiding debate because he knows he would ultimately lose. He saves more face by shying away and claiming his opponent is unworthy than by standing up to him and getting his ***** kicked.

 

[James R]

Interesting that you left the following Dawkins quote out of the article, Mind Over Matter:

I always said when invited to do debates that I would be happy to debate a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, an archbishop, indeed I have done those, but I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters; they’ve got to have something more than that. I’m busy.

 

[Jan Ardena]

MoM,

Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig has become an international issue, with many critics and intellectuals interpreting the British evolutionary biologist’s actions as a sign of cowardice.

Dawkins prefers easy targets, or well staged events, in a bid
to keep his crafted reputation in tact.
Anything that doesn't upset the God-less, religious agenda.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Anything that doesn't upset the God-less, religious agenda.

"Godless religious agenda"? What does that mean?

 

[James R]

Dawkins' point of view is that debating creationists gives them legitimacy by proxy. Why do it?

 

[wynn]

Dawkins finally met someone with a superior intellect in terms of theology. He is smart for avoiding debate because he knows he would ultimately lose. He saves more face by shying away and claiming his opponent is unworthy than by standing up to him and getting his ***** kicked.

This is the level of your comment, MoM:

While I myself am not pro-Dawkins, I don't side with some of his opponents who have nothing but cheap, angry populism to offer.

 

[wynn]

Dawkins prefers easy targets, or well staged events, in a bid
to keep his crafted reputation in tact.
Anything that doesn't upset the God-less, religious agenda.

Riiight.

While the theists are supposedly to be acknowledged the right to choose whom they talk to and under what circumstances, and to sometimes refuse to talk to certain people,
the same does not go for non-theists.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Riiight.

While the theists are supposedly to be acknowledged the right to choose whom they talk to and under what circumstances, and to sometimes refuse to talk to certain people,the same does not go for non-theists.

What? You expect me to take your word for it?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dawkins' point of view is that debating creationists gives them legitimacy by proxy. Why do it?

Yea, we know his POV.
Doesn't diminish the claims of cowerdice.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yea, we know his POV.
Doesn't diminish the claims of cowerdice.

Wrong. And also stupid.
If Dawkins has previously stated who he will and not debate (and given his reasons) then a post-facto invitation to debate by one of the latter group is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

 

[Arioch]

Why should he debate creationists who didn't even have the balls to defend their precious delusion in court?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Wrong. And also stupid.
If Dawkins has previously stated who he will and not debate (and given his reasons) then a post-facto invitation to debate by one of the latter group is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Dress it up however you like, untill he debates Craig-Lane, he will
look like a coward.

jan

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

Again, why should he debate creationists who didn't even have the balls to stand up for creationism in court? Sounds like Mr. Lane is the coward here.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dress it up however you like, untill he debates Craig-Lane, he will look like a coward.

Only to the ignorant and deluded.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Only to the ignorant and deluded.

Can you support that assertion?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I already have.
Dawkins has stated who and who he will not debate.
Therefore any accusation of "cowardice" is based on either ignorance of that statement or delusion that it somehow doesn't apply in this case.

If he refuses to debate a ten-year old child would you also claim that to be cowardice?

Like he said:

I’m busy.

 

[Yazata]

Richard Dawkins has again refused to debate world-renowned apologist William Lane Craig on the rationality of faith and the existence of God.

Since when do people have to accept every challenge that's thrown in their direction?

I'm reminded of the movie stereotype of Old-West gunfights, in which a succession of young-guns "call out" an aging "shootist", hoping to make a name for themselves by being the one to kill him. If the legend doesn't respond, then the shouts of "coward" fly.

Many believe that Craig’s upcoming “Reasonable Faith” tour in the U.K. is intimidating Dawkins

I'm sure that many of Craig's supporters do think that. And many of Dawkins' supporters doubtless think that Craig is engaged in his own publicity stunt.

So what?

Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig has become an international issue, with many critics and intellectuals interpreting the British evolutionary biologist’s actions as a sign of cowardice.

"You come out here in the street and face me! Coward!!"

Dawkins finally met someone with a superior intellect in terms of theology.

Superior education, but not superior intellect. I don't think that Dawkins has any formal education in Christian theology.

If Craig thinks that he's such an invincible intellectual gun-fighter, then maybe he should be trying to 'call out' leading non-Christian philosophers of religion instead of a succession of media celebrities.

He is smart for avoiding debate because he knows he would ultimately lose. He saves more face by shying away and claiming his opponent is unworthy than by standing up to him and getting his ***** kicked.

Give it up, MoM. You're acting like a child.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I already have.
Dawkins has stated who and who he will not debate.
Therefore any accusation of "cowardice" is based on either ignorance of that statement or delusion that it somehow doesn't apply in this case.

If he refuses to debate a ten-year old child would you also claim that to be cowardice?

Like he said:

Poppycock.
There comes a time when he has to face the big boys of debate, or
else he will come across as a coward.
Hopefully this challenge will make him put up or shut up.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Poppycock.

Thus perfectly illustrating my point.

There comes a time when he has to face the big boys of debate, or
else he will come across as a coward.

Why?

If he refuses to debate a ten-year old child would you also claim that to be cowardice?

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

There comes a time when he has to face the big boys of debate

There are no creationist "big boys" of debate. They're all, without exception, either remarkably ignorant or inveterate liars. Why should he tarnish his scientific reputation by interacting with these pathetic excuses for human beings? Especially when they're cowards themselves, as Craig has long since revealed himself to be.

It's not his arguments that make certain atheists and scientists reluctant to debate him, his arguments are all easily refuted. No, it's his documented history of deceit and his overenthusiastic willingness to engage in logical fallacies, such as cherry picking from the data and even engaging in ad hominems. Why should anyone willingly subject themselves to such a debasing experience when they have better things to do? Such as maybe pounding nails into their eyes, that would be more productive.

or else he will come across as a coward.

Ah, so the appeal to consequences argument. If not A then B, I don't like B, so therefore A. One, this line of logic is flawed in that "if not A then B" is not necessarily true. It's not demonstrably true that the majority of people will think Dawkins a coward for not engaging in a pointless waste of time with this piece of human refuse. Secondly, why do you think that Dawkins would care if people consider him a coward? He's a scientist first and foremost, whether or not people think he's a coward will have a negligible impact on his work or his speaking tours.