Below is a great video on the continuing story of how Richard Dawkins, probably the most important militant atheist evangelist in the world, refuses to debate Christian philosopher William Lane Craig in a debate (even fellow atheists are calling Dawkins a coward). Evidently, Craig will be visiting the UK in October of this year, and will leave a chair open for Dawkins to debate him if he chooses to do so.
If you haven’t read anything by Craig, make sure to check out his website www.reasonablefaith.org, and books such as his substantive work, Reasonable Faith.
Having read both Craig’s works, and Dawkin’s The God Delusion, I must say that I understand why Dawkins doesn’t want to debate him. While Dawkins is clearly well versed in biological science, his understanding of even basic theology and Christian thought is extremely poor, resulting in a muddled, extremely simplistic argumentation against belief in God that becomes easy to dismiss when you realize he’s just taken the same questions and difficulties we’ve all dealt with, and proceeded to hurl them at all non-atheist/agnostics with a clearly spiteful, arrogant attitude that shows he has no respect for any of the 92% (or so) of the world’s population that believe there’s more to the Universe than random matter.
Craig has done quite well in previous debates, and it would be wonderful to hear him go toe-to-toe with Dawkins in a format that will reach more people (this would be quite the event), than written reviews traditionally do (here’s a section from what he’s written in response, with more in book form here).
I would also love to see Dawkins debate Craig, but if Craig’s debate with Hitchens is any indicator of how weak atheist arguments truly are I doubt we’ll see that happen. And quite frankly in light of how badly Hitchens was “spanked” I can’t say that I blame Dawkins for hiding.
Writing this reminded me of our interview with an atheist after Michael Brown debated Bart Ehrman at Ohio State on suffering:
“[Brown] sounded like someone who cares about you, Ehrman sounded like someone who wants to yell at you. … I don’t know, I’m disappointed and kind of shocked by it.”
I was talking to someone a while back, and he asked “we always hear of gay pride, do you know of any gay humility?” I think the same question could be asked of these atheists “have you ever heard of militant atheist humility?”
The format of this video is fragmentary, distracting, and does not allow the requisite reflection and analysis. I completely agree that Dawkins is a hack with respect to philosophy and a big mouthed atheist. Further, he is being cowardly in not debating Dr. Craig. Nevertheless, the medium matters; and this medium has not been used well.
Thanks for the feedback, Douglas. I’m sorry if you found that a bit of a whirlwind! I admit this was edited to give it a certain “punch” which may have been expense at some of the reflection. The main aim was really to throw all the evidence on the table and get it known – and there’ a lot to mention in laying out the case against Dawkins. My hope is that the style of the video will help it travel, as well illustrate the impact and gravity of Dawkins’ silliness. More detailed analysis can be done by those who want to re-watch and note down the points. I’ll be making more videos too, which will be shorter, so I’ll take on board that they’ll need a bit more “breathing space”.
Douglas,
I mean, I was thinking the same thing (at the beginning, when it interrupts WLC), BUT by the end of the video, the point comes across. Is it that important? You paid no money for it; it’s just a commentary on a certain happening that invites people to dive in, dig deeper, and learn more. It’s a hook; not a meal.
It’s a cut down version of the one above, but it focuses more on the “cowardice” accusation, and I’ve inserted some extra material, more recent news and viewpoints (including the fact that it appears Dawkins has been more than happy to debate “creationists” after all, as well as giving a new set of lame excuses).
I would also love to see Dawkins debate Craig, but if Craig’s debate with Hitchens is any indicator of how weak atheist arguments truly are I doubt we’ll see that happen. And quite frankly in light of how badly Hitchens was “spanked” I can’t say that I blame Dawkins for hiding.
Writing this reminded me of our interview with an atheist after Michael Brown debated Bart Ehrman at Ohio State on suffering:
“[Brown] sounded like someone who cares about you, Ehrman sounded like someone who wants to yell at you. … I don’t know, I’m disappointed and kind of shocked by it.”
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2010/04/21/vor-interviews-an-atheist-after-brown-ehrman-debate-at-osu/
I can hear Dawkins training to the “eye of the tiger” right now. It’s gonna take him a few years of study to get ready.
Too funny Jeff.
I was talking to someone a while back, and he asked “we always hear of gay pride, do you know of any gay humility?” I think the same question could be asked of these atheists “have you ever heard of militant atheist humility?”
wow…
The format of this video is fragmentary, distracting, and does not allow the requisite reflection and analysis. I completely agree that Dawkins is a hack with respect to philosophy and a big mouthed atheist. Further, he is being cowardly in not debating Dr. Craig. Nevertheless, the medium matters; and this medium has not been used well.
Thanks for the feedback, Douglas. I’m sorry if you found that a bit of a whirlwind! I admit this was edited to give it a certain “punch” which may have been expense at some of the reflection. The main aim was really to throw all the evidence on the table and get it known – and there’ a lot to mention in laying out the case against Dawkins. My hope is that the style of the video will help it travel, as well illustrate the impact and gravity of Dawkins’ silliness. More detailed analysis can be done by those who want to re-watch and note down the points. I’ll be making more videos too, which will be shorter, so I’ll take on board that they’ll need a bit more “breathing space”.
Douglas,
I mean, I was thinking the same thing (at the beginning, when it interrupts WLC), BUT by the end of the video, the point comes across. Is it that important? You paid no money for it; it’s just a commentary on a certain happening that invites people to dive in, dig deeper, and learn more. It’s a hook; not a meal.
Birdieupon,
I thought the video was great! Thanks so much for doing it. I hope it makes its way through the atheist forums and blogs.
Perfectly said Daniel: a hook, not a meal (though granted it’s a longer “hook” than you’ll often find in cinemas)!
Thanks for the encouragement and for featuring it, Marcus! I hope this can really travel and make whatever waves are appropriate!
For what it’s worth Birdie I too think it’s great and am glad Marcus took note of it.
Hello again Marcus!
Thought I’d point you in the direction of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg
It’s a cut down version of the one above, but it focuses more on the “cowardice” accusation, and I’ve inserted some extra material, more recent news and viewpoints (including the fact that it appears Dawkins has been more than happy to debate “creationists” after all, as well as giving a new set of lame excuses).
Enjoy!
Tomorrow, we ask the question at the same venue: Sheldonian theatre, Oxford…
Will The Archbishop of Canterbury – Dr Rowan Williams – debate Richard Dawkins, or leave an empty chair?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO_wywhZBEc