Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

N

Nothxkbi

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
4,529
Reaction score
3
Location
Amanzimtoti - KZN
Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”.
But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

An emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, Prof Dawkins last year supported a plan to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests.

Prof Craig is a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, in California, and the author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles on Christianity.
He has debated with leading thinkers including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.

Prof Craig is due to visit Britain in October this year. Four invitations to take part in public debates were sent to Prof Dawkins from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and Premier Radio.

Prof Dawkins declined them all. He told The Daily Telegraph that he had recently debated Prof Craig, in a boxing ring, in Mexico, and claimed he was not impressed by his opponent. His critics say this event was a six-person discussion, not a rigorous debate, but Prof Dawkins disagrees.

“I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion,” he said.

Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”

Prof Craig, however, remains willing to debate with Prof Dawkins. “I am keeping the opportunity open for him to change his mind and debate with me in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford” in October, he said.

Prof Craig will be using his UK tour to analyse The God Delusion and to present his own “strong rational grounds” for belief in God.

His tour will include a London conference on the defence of Christianity and a debate in Manchester with the atheist, Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, on the existence of God.

Prof Dawkins made his name as an evolutionary biologist with his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene.

He has gained world-wide attention for his outspoken criticism of organised religion, and argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States showed that a harder line must be taken with believers.
Click to expand...

It's become hard to discern between the two these days. I've read nearly all of his books, still working through The God Delusion, impressive as they are, the fine line between science and Atheist preaching is becoming a very thin line with every day that passes. It's almost depressing, the one thing Atheists preach against is what they are becoming and they cannot see it. :(
 
Last edited:
Nothxkbi said:
It's become hard to discern between the two these days. I've read nearly all of his books, still working through The God Delusion, impressive as they are, the fine line between science and Atheist preaching is becoming a very thin line with every day that passes. It's almost depressing, the one thing Atheists preach against is what they are becoming and they cannot see it. :(
Click to expand...

Please don't put all atheists in the same box. kthxbi :p
 
Nothxkbi said:
It's become hard to discern between the two these days. I've read nearly all of his books, still working through The God Delusion, impressive as they are, the fine line between science and Atheist preaching is becoming a very thin line with every day that passes. It's almost depressing, the one thing Atheists preach against is what they are becoming and they cannot see it. :(
Click to expand...

If religion (and a whole host of other irrationalities) didn't have the footprint in the world it has, there'd be no need at all for people like Dawkins to stand up and speak out.

There is no fine line, as far as I am concerned. He's just a guy (albeit a highly educated and knowledgeable one) speaking his mind.

As for the debate. I don't blame him, after seeing some of the 'best of the best' apologists for various faiths debate folk like Dawkins and Hitchens, it's a terrible sight to behold.

I would not do it either. No point in arguing with people who ultimately rely on faith, none.
 
Last edited:
There are a few good reasons, if they both get on stage, then what we are saying, without any knowledge on the subject, that essentially both theories have equal merit/validity, simply by both persons or both sides given equal oppertunity.

I don't think people like Dawkins as a matter of principle want to give religion and religious folk equal oppertunity because they are against many things that can happen because of religion, not that they are necessarily inherent in it. I also think they don't want neutrals to think that because a religious person is on stage with a renown scientist, that religion is deserving of the same sort of respect, time that science is, or that religion should be held in the same sort of ground, as if both ideas have the same merits.

They are fundementally different. Regardless if you are religious or atheist.

There is a significant burden of proof required for science and scientific theory. Religion by definition as a general principle, is about having faith, that is to believe or accept something WITHOUT evidence.

I'm sorry, but you cannot have a rational debate with religion. Any such rational debate would boil down to this, do you believe in god without requiring evidence, I.E. do you have faith. The religious people say yes, the atheists say no. End of debate.

There is nothing else. That is atheism vs religion. There might be specifics depending on the different religions, but atheists don't really care to which god you preach or don't preach.
 
There's a particular kind of religion which emerged in the 20th century that I'm more concerned about than the typical monotheistic fables:

"A new type of superstition has got hold of peoples minds, the worship of the state. People demand the exercise of the methods of coercion and compulsion, of violence and threat. Woe to anybody who does not bend his knee to the fashionable idols!" - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government.
 
Nothxkbi said:
It's become hard to discern between the two these days. I've read nearly all of his books, still working through The God Delusion, impressive as they are, the fine line between science and Atheist preaching is becoming a very thin line with every day that passes. It's almost depressing, the one thing Atheists preach against is what they are becoming and they cannot see it. :(
Click to expand...

I am an Atheist and do not preach anything. If people want to believe in gods and fairies, I let them. I have never tried to convince people to leave their religion, but I have lost count how many times people have tried to convince me to change (to another religion even when I was a christian).
 
Damned if you do, damned if you don't! :D

(whether you are damned to Hell or not... I'm not sure... perhaps we can debate that some time!) :D
 
Well, Dawkins sure likes to discuss theological and philosophical matters with theologically and philosophically uninformed opponents in his own "relentless drive for self-promotion". Dawkins just is not a good debater and honestly, his knowledge about philosophy of religion, logic and metaphysics just is not sufficient. Craig is much more educated on these issues. Craig has debated many well-known scientists and philosophers. While such a debate might be fun, to have Dawkins on Craig's CV is like having Haggard on Dawkins' CV.

You only have to read Dawkins' God Delusion to realize just how out of depth he really will be in a debate such as this. His "central argument" is hopelessly flawed and he can't even get the arguments for theism right. On top of that (after confusing Aquinas' teleological argument for Paley's watchmaker argument) Dawkins constantly makes use of metaphors about natural selection as if it is some sort of "teleological force" (like Darwin argued, he was after all a teleologist) that is is some sort of cause or force that really has a causal role in the trajectory of evolution. Dawkins seems to be, ironically, a natural selection teleologist.
 
Last edited:
He gave a reason why doesn't debate religion; because of his stance on religion he will be giving religion a podium of validness which is up for debate when he believes entirely it's not valid and there is no debate.
 
boramk said:
He gave a reason why doesn't debate religion; because of his stance on religion he will be giving religion a podium of validness which is up for debate when he believes entirely it's not valid and there is no debate.
Click to expand...
Bit of a hypocrite if that is the reason, I mean he had religious debates with other religious figures. But in this case it is understandable.
 
WilD_CaT said:
There are a few good reasons, if they both get on stage, then what we are saying, without any knowledge on the subject, that essentially both theories have equal merit/validity, simply by both persons or both sides given equal oppertunity.

I don't think people like Dawkins as a matter of principle want to give religion and religious folk equal oppertunity because they are against many things that can happen because of religion, not that they are necessarily inherent in it. I also think they don't want neutrals to think that because a religious person is on stage with a renown scientist, that religion is deserving of the same sort of respect, time that science is, or that religion should be held in the same sort of ground, as if both ideas have the same merits.

They are fundementally different. Regardless if you are religious or atheist.

There is a significant burden of proof required for science and scientific theory. Religion by definition as a general principle, is about having faith, that is to believe or accept something WITHOUT evidence.

I'm sorry, but you cannot have a rational debate with religion. Any such rational debate would boil down to this, do you believe in god without requiring evidence, I.E. do you have faith. The religious people say yes, the atheists say no. End of debate.

There is nothing else. That is atheism vs religion. There might be specifics depending on the different religions, but atheists don't really care to which god you preach or don't preach.
Click to expand...

So Richard Dawkins is willing to give his opinions to television and radio presenters, and debate a pastor who preaches against gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex according wiki, and a other priest that fairly obscure and only known for a controversial play called "Hell house" but not willing to debate with a man who probably has the some credentials in the Christian world ?
 
Mineer said:
...a man who probably has the some credentials in the Christian world ?
Click to expand...

He might have credentials but he has NO proof. He probably should not have debated with those other guys as it's pointless.
 
ponder said:
He might have credentials but he has NO proof. He probably should not have debated with those other guys as it's pointless.
Click to expand...
Of course he does, that is what is being debated... the various PROOFS.
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
Of course he does, that is what is being debated... the various PROOFS.
Click to expand...

If it's not scientifically reproducible proofs then it's not proofs, end of story. Else I could tell you the earth is flat because I believe it to be so, that's not a proof.
 
ponder said:
If it's not scientifically reproducible proofs then it's not proofs, end of story. Else I could tell you the earth is flat because I believe it to be so, that's not a proof.
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense! Empirical science does not deal in proofs, "scientifically reproducible proof" is a nonsense statement. Empirical scientific hypotheses and theories rely on evidence to accept or reject a hypothesis and NOT prove or disprove it.

For example, there is certainly a lot of evidence to suggest that the big bang theory is true and that the universe began and that it is certainly reasonable to accept the theory. It can be argued that the theory that the universe has been in a steady state for infinity has been rejected through observation and that it is reasonable to reject that theory. But the large amount of evidence does not prove the big bang theory to be true. At best there is no reason, based on the evidence, to reject it. In order to formally prove or disprove a statement, one has to rely on a formal system of logic, for example deductive logic.

Formal proofs such as the metaphysical proofs in these debates are what is being debated. Some of the proofs rely on empirical observation, but the empirical observations are not PROOFS on their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X