Richard Dawkins: "I am ashamed of my university!"

You'd think that if William Lane Craig were not such a big deal, then Dawkins really wouldn't have much to say about him. While Dawkins certainly would like us to think his arguments are of no significance, the fact is that when it comes to Craig personally, Dawkins just doesn't know when to keep his big mouth shut!

Yes, the greatest no-show on Earth has now seen the video of Craig's lecture response to The God Delusion and has been posting his own response not to Craig, not to academic journals... But on PZ Myers' blog!

That's right, the leader of the "Brights" has taken refuge as a troll:

"Craig is not a skilled debater. His style is tediously to drag out pompous syllogisms, which his opponents ignore because they are irrelevant, and which his disciples cannot understand: the combination of incomprehension plus his loud voice makes them think he has ‘won’ the debate, and this impression is reinforced by the fact that he always declares that he has ‘won’ whether he has or not. If anybody does succumb to his incessant badgering for debate (he seems to have nothing else to do with his time), the best technique would probably be to agree to debate him on the question of biblical morality, and then quote his own words at him, on the subject of the genocide of the Canaanites:" (Richard Dawkins, Pharyngula; comment 17)

So, no response to the arguments. Still the same tantrums, whining and insults from the sidelines that he's resorted to in the past. Dawkins evidently suffers from "Basil Fawlty" syndrome: a complete failure to self-reflect on one's own psychology and actions. How can he not realize such comments merely imply that he's compensating, for feeling too dumb to handle Craig's rebuttal of his "unrebuttable" book?

Furthermore, Dawkins proves himself hopelessly inconsistent yet again: he's just claimed that "Craig is not a skilled debater", yet when I asked him in 2009 to explain why he won't debate, Dawkins' 5th excuse (out of at least 12, spanning 4 years) was because Craig is a "professional debater"! *

But wait, you ain't seen nothing yet:

"I’ve just listened to the last part of the recording of Craig’s Sheldonian speech. Incredibly, he not only repeats his outrageous defence of genocide almost word for word, but is actually applauded for doing so, If the applauders were Oxford students, I am ashamed of my university. A show of hands at the end showed that almost a hundred percent of the audience were religious, so they were not a typical student audience. I’m still ashamed of them. I’m also ashamed of the chairman, Millican, who let him repeat those disgusting words without a murmur of protest." 
(Richard Dawkins, Pharyngula; comment 119)

There you go. Not only is atheist Peter Millican ex-communicated (who, incidentally, has written far more of substance in disagreement with these Old Testament narratives and actually has a proper Oxford professorship... oh, and he actually had the courage to debate Craig) but apparently, the entire institution of Oxford University is also completely unworthy of almighty Dawkins! He's also gone so far as to attack John Lennox for "masquerading as a scientist while believing Jesus turned water into wine" (something which never stopped Dawkins debating him thrice before, and so much for the "new-found respect" Larry Taunton thought they shared) as well as hinting that Dr Daniel Came is one of those treacherous "'I'm-an-atheist-but' fellow travellers".

Simply astounding. Clearly, nobody is safe from the wrath of Dawkins' personal attacks. However, if you're looking to find shelter, evidentally the best place to dwell is within an academic learning environment. You won't catch Dawkins lowering himself from his high chair to mix with such a shameful crowd (though, while he's up there, can someone please wipe his mouth and change his nappy)?

We have proof Dawkins has seen the video yet not responded to the arguments. The "why" question indeed appears silly at this point. Dawkins' behaviour betrays a fear and maybe even an inability to respond intellectually (though I'm still holding out hope that he can).

Especially, it may be worth pressing him to respond to his contradictory handling of the moral argument, as criticised by Craig. Not only does Dawkins commit the same fallacy every time he blusters on with his diversionary "Canaanites" tactic, it's also the simplest to grasp... If he needs to work his way up in baby steps, that is.

Thank God for atheists like Millican, Came, Law and quite a number of others who don't have as much media attention, yet make up for it with integrity.

(wish this one were mine too, but it's Emerson's!)

* one desperate Dawkins fan, on the very youtube page of Dawkins' 2009 excuses, even had the following to say:

"Dawkins called Craig a "Professional Debater". So to claim Dawkins said Craig is 'not a good debater' is an outright lie." - Enyulan

So much for attention to evidence, but it's handy to know that logically, therefore, even some atheists agree we can justifiably accuse Dawkins of lying (or just plain losing his grip)!

I directed the youtuber to Dawkins' own blog comments:

Dawkins' "shameful" Pharyngula outbursts (comments 17 & 119): http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/08/why-i-will-not-debate-william-lane-craig/#comments

Dawkins attacks John Lennox: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643752-archbishop-calls-for-nhs-bill-to-cover-spiritual-health/comments?page=2#comment_886901

Dawkins scraping at the "no true atheist" fallacy to dismiss Dr Came and other critics: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643584-why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig/comments?page=15#comment_883363

Richard Dawkins Attacks John Lennox in Latest Craig-Bitter Hissy Fit!

What won't Dawkins do next? That is the question!

It has been truly extraordinary watching the reverse-evolution of Richard Dawkins - from self-promoting and self-professed leader of the "Brights" - to a ranting, toy-throwing infant, with literally nothing more than incoherent ad hominem left. One wonders whether he still believes his arguments are "unrebuttable".

Many are familiar with his desperate attempts to undermine William Lane Craig, so to avoid manning up and debating him during his recent UK Tour. He's given at least 12 excuses over the past 4 years, the most recent of which was a smokescreen that even fellow atheists saw through: "I really don't like how 'dr' Craig interprets a particular old testament narrative, therefore I don't need to engage with his arguments for theism or criticisms of my multi-million-selling, non-peer-reviewed book".

But who could predict that Dawkins would lose all sense of coherence and discernment while throwing his latest tantrum? In a recent forum post on his "clear-thinking oasis" website (Pretentiousness Police! Pull over!) Dawkins actually attacked Prof John Lennox, for being just as unworthy of engaging with as Dr Craig! His reason? That Lennox "masquerades as a scientist while believing Jesus turned water into wine"!

As the video above shows, this excuse did not stop Dawkins debating Lennox three times in the past! Indeed, John Lennox gave an actual argument as to why such a belief is not incompatible with science (briefly: 1. if God exists then he can feed new events into the system he's already created, 2. turning water into wine is such a new event, 3. therefore if God exists then he could do it)!

Dawkins' response? The fallacy of personal incredulity.

And now, behold the abject desperation and emotionalism! Evidently, while still fuming at Dr Craig being endorsed even by fellow Oxford atheists, as worthy of civilised discussion and debate, Dawkins feels the need to lash out even less discriminately than ever before. The important thing to remember is, apparently, that if you're not an atheist.... YOU'RE NOT WORTHY!

Given the sheer inconsistency of Dawkins' "sick notes" (love that expression, Tim Stanley) which includes contradicting himself over whether he was aware of Craig's "Cannanite article" and when, and the reports that Dawkins felt wounded in his pride by Prof Lennox's debate performance, I cannot help but conclude that baby Dawkins has thrown his toys out of the pram: all this could have been settled agreeably, ages ago, by a straight-forward, honest, even debate.

Instead? Dawkins is left scraping the barrel of empty New Atheist polemic. He has no arguments to offer, merely abusive comments which make his elderly, retired self indistinguishable from the pubescent teenager frantically seeking an anger-outlet for the frustration of attempting to burst his pimples.



Footage of Dr Craig's response to Dawkins' The God Delusion is imminently due to hit youtube.

In the meantime, however, I'll leave you with this report. It's a personal testimony too, and will explain the recent change to the sub-heading of this blog.

Indeed, while I've no fear of voicing my comments on Dawkins' pathetic and hypocritcal behaviour, I still mean what I said, in this video - such is the (irreducible?) complexity of life:



If you're still a follower of Dawkins, after all he's done and all I've demonstrated on this page...

please...

...re-evaluate your faith!