World-famous atheist Richard Dawkins has given, I've counted, about 10 excuses for not defending his 2.5 million+ bestselling book The God Delusion against world-leading Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig, who tours the UK from October 17th.
He resists despite the fact that a fellow atheist from Oxford University has accused him of cowardice*; not to mention the latest news that Craig's critique of The God Delusion will actually be hosted by another atheist academic from Oxford (whom he will have debated just 4 days prior) in front of a panel of skeptics (from Oxford) and that 4/5 of Craig's debate opponents will be from... Oxford (the other one's Cambridge, so I guess we can let that slip for not quite cutting the intellectual mustard).
And Dawkins' latest excuse is truly unbelievable: "I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion." (Telegraph)
Pause to consider, for a moment:
1) Craig has not sought to debate Dawkins. He's responded to invitations from independent organisations who have tried to set this up - in fact he's never set up a single debate, himself, in his life!
2) Best of all, Dawkins will actually be spending October... self-promoting! He'll be charging around the country and in TV studios plugging his new book The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True! In fact, Dawkins will be promoting it in the Royal Albert Hall on October 19th, while Craig is in Cambridge delivering a lecture on Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design.
 |
Dawkins has no fear sharing the Sheldonian Theatre with members of the "in-group" (atheist author Sam Harris) |
To top it all off, while Dawkins' record of academic responses to Craig's arguments remains precisely zero, he's found plenty of time to hurl insults at Craig on his website, including "ponderous buffoon" and that his logic is used to "bamboozle his faith-head audience". Isn't that the wrong way round? Shouldn't this "faith-head" be hate-mailing him? At this rate, might we even find Dawkins making irrational arguments (or is that just a silly question)?
So, there you have it. Rather than share his stage, Dawkins prefers to stage his shares. Rather than engage in an academic exchange and critique of his published work, he'd rather you just "buy" his arguments (on faith)?
Call it irony, hypocrisy, whatever you want... it's certainly not "bright".
(Reasonable Faith UK Tour website: http://www.bethinking.org/craig)
* (Telegraph article in which atheist accuses Dawkins of cowardice: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html)
A very lucid account. Not a good time for Dawkins' reputation.
ReplyDeleteI got tickets to the 25th in Oxford, I hope it is still good without Dawkins there for discussion
ReplyDeleteAre you saying because "independent organisations ... have tried to set this up" therefore Dawkins is compelled to do what these "independent organizatons" want?
ReplyDeleteWho are these "independent organizations" and who died so that because an invitation has been given from these people it cannot be refused?
Modern atheists fancy themselves as "thinkers", and automatically more intelligent than "believers" by virtue of being disbelievers (two genetic fallacies in one). Many that I have encountered have done their alleged learning by reading and regurgitating the writings of the hypocritical coward and lousy philosopher, Dawkins. No wonder I have such difficulty having a logical discussion!
ReplyDeleteArthur:
ReplyDeleteNope, it's not the independent organisations which mean Dawkins should debate, rather it's that Dawkins proves himself to be ill-researched and baseless in his accusation. It's Dawkins' own influential status and over-confident preaching about being a rationalist and truth-seeker, which obliges him.
The organisations have all ranged from Veritas, Fixed Point, Premier, Damaris, British Humanist Assocation, UCCF, Cambridge Union and Oxford Union. Obviously, these are not Dr Craig, but people asking him and Dawkins to do the debate.
"who died so that because an invitation has been given from these people it cannot be refused?"
Weird comment. Of course invitations can be refused, but doing so in this context - and giving the specific excuses he's given - Dawkins shows himself to be a hypocrite, and probably coward too.
I watched William Lane Craig's debate with Christopher Hitchens on YouTube. I can see why Dawkins doesn't want to debate with him. He didn't seem to understand the first thing about atheism and despite Hitchen's repeated explanation still didn't seem to get it in his summing up. He's obviously an effective preacher but I found him entirely unconvincing in debate.
ReplyDeleteDinger:
ReplyDelete"He didn't seem to understand the first thing about atheism and despite Hitchen's repeated explanation still didn't seem to get it in his summing up."
No offense, but you sound as though you weren't even listening to the debate. During the cross-examination, Hitchens (eventually) admitted (after much dodging and filibustering) that he holds the view that God "DOES NOT exist". that is not mere absence of theism, but a positive claim, which requires arguments and justification.
In fact, I find your comment ridiculous. So many atheists have also commented on a youtube video I composed:
http://youtu.be/AHIIjfxr4o0
...which covered this very subject, with the very same remarks. They completely omit (as if deaf) the moment where Hitchens switches to "hard atheism" and says, I quote: "I will go so far as to say, have the nerve to say that it DOES NOT, therefore exist".
How clearer could it be?
Well, you might think its ridiculous but I thought he put over the point very well. Look, you are not going to prove to anyone of rational mind the existence of God my poring over the exact semantics of what someone says when trying to explain their position. It's obvious what the difference is between agnosticism and atheism. No-one can disprove the existence of God in the same way that you cannot dis-prove that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. To my mind, the accepted meaning of someone who considers themselves to be agnostic is that they believe that there is something like an equal chance between God existing and not. They just can't make up their mind. An atheist is someone who has examined the evidence (or rather the lack of it) and has come to the conclusion that they find it very very highly unlikely that God exists. Some are atheistic enough to assert that there is no deity. But if I want to convince you that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden then I would say that the onus is on me to prove that there are and not on you to prove that there are not. If you were to say 'Fairies do not live in your garden' I would find this totally acceptable since I have not given you any convincing evidence to the fact that they do.
ReplyDeleteBut how can you possibly prove that there are not.
The problem with the religious mind is that it wants to believe in simple answers to complex questions. Q. Why is there a world? A. God created it. Believe in God and go to heaven. Don't believe and burn in hell.
Hitchen's is at least honest that his atheism varies in degree.
"you might think its ridiculous but I thought he put over the point very well."
ReplyDeleteGood for you, why not try to explain why? At the moment your argument seems to consist of:
Hitchens: "I will go so far as to say that God does NOT exist"
Dinger: (fingers in ears) LALALALLALALAAA!!
…can't you do better?
"To my mind, the accepted meaning of someone who considers themselves to be agnostic is that they believe that there is something like an equal chance between God existing and not."
Then you need a dictionary. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, nothing to do with positively asserting a 50/50 probability.
"The problem with the religious mind is that it wants to believe in simple answers to complex questions. Q. Why is there a world? A. God created it. Believe in God and go to heaven. Don't believe and burn in hell."
Genetic fallacy and ad hominem attack. You need to learn a few things about logic and fallacies.
"Hitchen's is at least honest that his atheism varies in degree."
Oh please, at least make an effort. What part of "I will go so far as to say God does NOT exist" can't you understand?
I'm sorry if you took offence at 'The problem with the religious mind ... '. But this is why religion is so comforting to so many people. Your argumentative approach seems to suggest that you have some big beef about something.
ReplyDeleteSurely 'Chipupon' rather than 'Birdieupon' would be a better name?
Why do you care so much about the exact position of what Hitchens/Dawkins et al think? You seem obsessed with semantics, perhaps so that you can in some way prove them wrong about something. Aren't you more interested into getting to the truth of the matter? Why not argue the case for God yourself instead of making jeering videos. Arguing about dictionary definitions of words does nothing to strengthen your case.
No offense taken at all. Was simply pointing out the fallacy. And I'm not obsessed with semantics, and I do care about truth - it just so happens to be true that Hitchens confessed "hard" atheism (if you want to use that phrase) yet many atheists seem to completely gloss over it. And I can't help but notice you brought it up - wasn't even planning on talking about it (it's certainly not the topic of this blog post, nor the central issue of this blog, despite the name).
ReplyDeleteAnd if you don't care about dictionaries? Well, then all I can say is parrot navigation tablets ;-)
To make one's life as Richard Dawkin's has to consist of spending one's life stating that his subject matter doesn't exist is somewhat unbelievably foolish. Yet I'm sure the money runs his life as well as his self made man man.
ReplyDeletecolin spratt