Why won't Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig?
Offline I noticed a bunch of stupid videos on youtube with William Lane Craig misquoting Dawkins and pretty much regurgitating the God Delusion in a watered down ass backwards fashion. I know it would be feeding this fools ego but I really would like to see Dawkins put an end to this. Hitchens already destroyed him but its Dawkins that the crowd is calling for to take him out!!! Just got through watching Hitch vs Craig this was the best part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL-m1yuEyNE&feature=related
- Login to post comments
Offline So, in essence, debating with William Lane Craig is like teaching Planck's Constant to someone's cat, and an inherently inefficient expense of time and (on Dawkins' behalf) credibility.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
Offline funknotik wrote:ubuntuAnyone wrote:funknotik wrote:What exactly do we or does Dawkins have to know about religion in order to say it's not true? I really don't understand your point, where talking about a fucking fairy tale here?
Fairytale or no fairytale, he lacks understanding about the issues that he addresses in the book. Even some harsh critics of creationism read his book and weren't impressed. He has been labeled an atheist "fundamentalist" because he sounds like a fundamentalist (ie. the likeness of someone likeness Kent Hovind)
Ok can you site a specific instance where this is the case? What specifically do you think he should be more knowledgeable about, and which harsh critics of creationism where not impressed with his book? As far as the fundamentalist bit that word gets tossed around a little to much when referring to people who are trying to make a difference. In that sense all the four horsemen and pretty much everyone on this message board with an atheist badge qualifies as a "fundamentalist."
Consider this:
Quote:"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"I mean...this and its context is hardly a rigorous treatment of the OT, even generally speaking. This sounds more like a rant than it does an evaluation. Second, I don' think you'll meet a Christian or Jew that feels this way about the OT...maybe you know one, but I never have. He seems to ignore or not even address the apolegetic material that has been produced to answer these claims.
Don't have much time but I'll address this part above. I want to clarify here, you are proposing that Richard Dawkins should learn about the possible reasons that apologists have made for god being an asshole in the old testament instead of simply reading the text and making an interpretation from what he read? Considering that there are probably thousands of different interpretation of the same text, what need do we have for apologists? All they are doing is coming up with a reason why some absurd claim was made in a text written 2000 years ago in bronze age palestine. By this same logic couldn't there be Scientologist apologists, unicorn apologists, etc. I just don't understand whats the point when the original claims being made in the text are clearly ridiculous. Also the reason I won't meet a christian or jew that believes the statement Dawkins made is because they probably haven't read the their own holy texts and the only interpretation they have of them is regurgitated and watered down by a priest or rabbi. Most churches and religious organizations probably don't focus on the evil things it sais in the bible if they did it wouldn't be a very profitable business. The only time i've ever heard anyone quote from the OT is in Pulp Fiction before Jules shoots everyone in the room. What I am proposing is that a christian apologist could argue his point incredibly but ultimately it's all bullshit, I don't understand how anyone could take it seriously. Where are the Greek god apologists?
- Login to post comments
). The second one is often the one cited by some can be divided into two sub categories-- that is belief about a god's existence and belief about a god's action. The former is the concern of apologists, and the latter is the concern on matters of eschatology--that is they suppose that their particular god has established a precedent in the past thereby they can trust that the god will deliver on its promises. I think Dawkins is largely ignoring or confused about the second category as it seems he think that faith is exclusively the first, yet addresses teleological arguments which theists tout as evidence. This and other things goes to show that I think Dawkins is ignorant on matters of religion.
Because it would do more for Craig's resume than for Dawkins' CV?
His view is that debating them lends them credibility that they don't merit.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Dawkins renege on it then. He debated McGrath and has lent his opinion in various forums and media.
Any one that refuses to debate over credibility issues loses credibility imho.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
I'll borrow Dawkins' example.
Should geologists debate flat earthers or just laugh at them?
Should astronomers debate geocentrists or simply mock them?
Should we take obviously ludicrous ideas seriously by debating their apologists? If they don't pay attention to the facts, their minds won't change because Dawkins debates them.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It should be semi-obvious why he doesn't debate him: it's a waste of time.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Nail-on-the-fucking-head!
I personally don't understand why other Atheists take Craig so seriously...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Who takes him seriously? I find it impossible to take anyone seriously who can't pull a tangible fact from their arsenal of faith. There is only one solid fact about the guy, that the religious take him seriously. I do see why Dawkins should debate him and I see why he shouldn't. But I would actually prefer to see him go ahead and destroy the faith breathing man.
It plants a seed of doubt amongst the religious when Dawkins will not debate their hero just as it is quite understandable to someone of fact that he will not. But who are we trying to convince, the religious or those who are already aware of reality?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I suppose that cuts both ways: should a theologian debate an biologist about theology or laugh at them?
Sorry for my cynicism, but I think Dawkins is a poor theologian...embarrassingly so. Perhaps this is why most theologians write off his books as sophmoric.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
I suppose one could ask why theists take Dawkins so seriously.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Dawkins treats Theology as not a serious discipline, and Harris is even more dismissive (see my sig), and I basically agree. The comparison to the Flat Earth Society is quite relevant. Theology, by its definition, is no longer worthy of taking seriously, and the reaction of Theologians is both understandable and irrelevant. They are on the losing side of the progress of understanding, so it is not a symmetrical situation, regardless of what you or theologians might think. I am embarrassed for you, if you take them seriously.
No matter how much you elaborate arguments based on, and even apply rigorous logic to, a set of deeply flawed assumptions, whatever you come up with is crap, and deserves to be laughed at or ignored.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The difference here is that biology is actually useful to learn about the nature of the world around us where. Theology is a branch of human ignorance about as important as tarot card readings. Being a theologian is basically knowing alot about christian lore, it's like specializing in Lord of The Rings.
A theologian is not necessarily committed to a particular religion, per se. As I wrote previously, theologians don't share your sentiment and would probably offer that if they are right, they are studying that which is of the utmost importance.
Even if they're wrong, that's no excuse to be lazy and sloppy like Dawkins as he is embarrassingly ignorant about theology.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Yeah, and if what Scientologists say is true, it would be just as important. If any nutty idea about what we should be doing to avoid disaster was true, then it laso would be of 'utmost importance'. That is an utterly vacuous statement.
So, based on the premises they start from, that Theism of some form is fundamentally true, their conclusions, no matter how rigorously argued, are of negligible importance.
Interesting. I consider Hitchens the least credible of the four, but I do share a strong regard for Dennett.
I used to read Philosophy, but I now find Science is becoming far more credible and informative as it progresses, especially into the study of cognitive and neuro science. One the things I like about Dennett is that he bases his arguments very much on the best current science.
Dawkins is solid on biological science, less rigorous on other issues. Harris is much more informed in most of his statements - he has a degree in Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Neuroscience, which gives him a broader base to address these questions.
[ Sorry - I accidently hit 'edit' instead of 'quote' - as a mod I can do that - so this post appeared for a time as from ubuntuAnyone ]
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Edit:
If you've read The God Delusion, you can probably agree that Dawkins' philosophy is often...poor. He's a respectable biologist, and a very smart guy, but he has so little respect for theistic arguments that he ends up not adequatedly understanding and/or addressing them.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
In the format for most of these theist/atheist debates, Craig would more than likely have the upper hand. Some examples:
Craig vs Atkins
Craig vs Zindler
Craig can spew off soundbites which sound credible to most people, while the refutations thereof must be more verbose, and therefore likely more cumbersome. Craig can say "I still haven't seen any evidence god doesn't exist" to a roomfull of applause, while Zindler is met with blank stares when trying to explain it's the theist's burden to prove the existence of god, not the atheist's to prove a negative. Craig's always reaches for his beloved kalam argument. A physicist could probably chop up his "universe began to exist" line, but not perhaps not in terminology accessible to the layperson. Atkins, for one, looked flustered when responding to Craig.
There are no theists on operating tables.
True, if the assumptions are false.
I too think Dawkins is a brilliant biologist. I just wish he'd shut up about religion.
Even with Harris' degree's I think his premises are fallacious. I wasn't impressed. But yeah, he is probably better equipped than to handle such things.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Oh... that makes two of us then!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
this is awesome! I don't like William Lane Craig either... he barely fits on its ego. Hitch is a very good speaker, I like him. I've watched a bit of the debate. At some point Hitch said: "I would be very depressed if it was true" (God's existence). It made me think... I would also be very depressed if the afterlife didn't exist.
Well, let me start by observing that Dawkins has already made his position clear.
First, it may create the impression that such a debate has some merit because Craig and/or his ilk are worth paying attention to. They simply are not.
Second, it would be a huge waste of time. Such a debate is not just the two hours on stage. It is also the thirty or so hours spent reading the recent writings of the other person to get a feel for what they might do and as much time as it takes to be able to reply to whatever comes up.
=
Dawkins must contradict himself as He debated McGrath. Also, according to Craig, Craig offered to debate Dawkins, but Dawkins refused saying that he'd debate a theist only if such was a bishop. Using that as a reason for not debating someone is lame, I think....really a sort of genetic fallacy.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
If the after life of Christian lore where real I would be much more depressed than if nothing happened. It would be an eternity of slavery and ass kissing in a Christian theme park in another dimension, with NO SEX!!! Now that's fucking depressing suddenly the thought of oblivion doesn't seem so bad. LOL!
I don't believe in the afterlife of tradicional Christian interpretation... thank God!
That statement reminds me soooo much of ciarin. ( hello if you're lurking )
Dawkins isn't a theologian so arguing theology (which is WLC's area) would be pointless. Same for Craig arguing biology. If you can find me an atheist theologian...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Oh look, someone who thinks people aren't allowed to have opinions about religion unless they are experts in that field.
Should laypeople ask your permission as well or is it limited to specialists?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
^ I agree with the above statement. I'm not sure wtf it is we are supposed to know in order to say religion is bullshit. You could read the wikipedia about any given religion and that's all the theology you need to know it's utterly deranged. I could give a rats ass about the particularities of a poorly written story book from the bronze age, I'm sure Dawkins cares even less.
That's a false dichotomy, nor did I say that.
I said if Dawkins wants to make a living out of bashing religion, especially as high profile as he is, it'd do him some good to get an education about religion. It's pretty apparent he doesn't...is this not similar to the indictments made against quacks like Hovind? He thinks evolution is utter bullshit and apparently has not read much about it in order to appear educated about it.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
It may be utter bullshit, but that's not the point. I figured some like Dawkins might do a little more than a Wikipedia's articles worth of research if he's going to write a book, but from the sounds of it, he didn't even bother to do that. The God Delusion read like a like the National Inquirer or some other toilet paper worthy material. Its not just "poorly written story book from the bronze age" that he writes about either.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Now you're backing off from how Dawkins should "shut up" about religion? I don't agree with Dawkins on everything but it only takes a cursory examination of the Bible to see that Christianity is a blood cult and God is a death fanatic.
Or should I shut up as well? By the way, how's the search going for the atheist theologian you want to have debate religion? Harris wouldn't qualify - he's only a philosopher, right?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Among the nonsense science teacher Kent Hovind has said in his "lectures":
What statements on religion has Dawkins or anyone else made that you find similarly egregious?
There are no theists on operating tables.
Hovind is simply a mouthpiece for the ignorant and uninformed, for people who don't want to know about evolution. He is "the sky is falling" kind of guy.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
What exactly do we or does Dawkins have to know about religion in order to say it's not true? I really don't understand your point, where talking about a fucking fairy tale here?
Do you always bifurcate?
I'd wish he'd shut up about religion because is obviously uneducated about it. He's damaging his credibility as an intellect by publishing junk.
Are you writing books for mass markets or being ask to speak at high-profile engagement on religion?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Fairytale or no fairytale, he lacks understanding about the issues that he addresses in the book. Even some harsh critics of creationism read his book and weren't impressed. He has been labeled an atheist "fundamentalist" because he sounds like a fundamentalist (ie. the likeness of someone likeness Kent Hovind)
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Which is precisely the way many people on both sides of the debate feel about Dawkins.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
The critique was not that Dawkins makes statements about religion..the problem is that he doesn't. In fact, he ignores (that is, he "cherry picks" ) what he wants to address and then does a poor job handling it. This was mine and other impression of The God Delusion at least.
H. Allen Orr: "The most disappointing feature of 'The God Delusion,' is Dawkins' failure to engage religious thought in any serious way...You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology...no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions."
Alister McGrath: “Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking.”
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
So your complaint is in fact not "similar to the indictments made against quacks like Hovind" as you previously insinuated. Your problem isn't that Dawkins speaks on matters about which he's unfamiliar (as does Hovind), it's that he doesn't speak on matters about which he's unfamiliar.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Kent Hovind not only does as you described (misrepresents evolution) but also that he ignores the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution...This is the indictment to which I was alluding. Whether he does so willfully or not, I don't know...but If I had to guess, it is because he hasn't bothered to actually crack a book on the subject. If you follow the thread, this is what I'm talking about. The things he does address I think are poorly done, which I believe is his lack of knowledge concerning the debates surrounding the issues.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Ok can you site a specific instance where this is the case? What specifically do you think he should be more knowledgeable about, and which harsh critics of creationism where not impressed with his book? As far as the fundamentalist bit that word gets tossed around a little to much when referring to people who are trying to make a difference. In that sense all the four horsemen and pretty much everyone on this message board with an atheist badge qualifies as a "fundamentalist."
Consider this:
I mean...this and its context is hardly a rigorous treatment of the OT, even generally speaking. This sounds more like a rant than it does an evaluation. Second, I don' think you'll meet a Christian or Jew that feels this way about the OT...maybe you know one, but I never have. He seems to ignore or not even address the apolegetic material that has been produced to answer these claims.
Or something like this:
Or how about this one:
I've met numerous theist who don't think this way about faith...I really think he's misinformed about the notion of faith in general.
So, if I don't have an atheist badge, I'm not of the fundamentalist variety? Dang.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”