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