tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Read all about it: Richard Dawkins' new excuses for not debating William Lane Craig (again)

Richard Dawkins, former Professor for the Public Understanding of Atheism at Miskatonic University, has posed so very many reasons as to why he will not debate William Lane Craig that it is difficult to keep up with his various evasions (although a very good list is found here). At some point in the, now distant, past Richard Dawkins crossed the line from offering “reasons” to making “excuses.”

Dawkins has become a caricature of himself and, at the very same time, the perfect poster boy for the New Atheism. His latest attempt to abscond from debate is peppered with well-within-the-box-atheist-group think-talking points-de jour beginning with the emotive and ad hominous nature of the title of the article itself: Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig – This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him (Guardian, Oct 20, 2011 AD).

He writes:

Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either.

This is fascinating as it comes from a man who parades himself as a scientist but is, and has always been, an apologist for an anti-Christian support group which promulgates turning Darwinism—a theory that is supposed to be about biology—into a worldview (and do so dogmatheistically).

You have to know how to properly interpret Dawkins. Note that he does not mention as single name of the professors (plural) with whom he consulted. This likely means that, if he actually asked anyone at all, he climbed the very heights of Oxford’s imitation ivory tower, blew the dust off of some professors who think that the latest technology is the carrier pigeon and got a, “Good heavens chap, never heard of the bloke.”

All this means is that Richard Dawkins needs to get some new friends and resources, that get out more—let the fresh air of modern day scholarship into the isolation of that dank British tower of Barad-dûr.

Now, the very same Richard Dawkins who commanded his daughter, “Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent” has become infamous for doing just that himself. Regarding refusing to debate William Lane Craig, he notes:

I took pleasure in refusing again…I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year…

Note that he does not mention as single name of who is represented by the more worthy invitations (plural). He does note having debated Archbishops of Canterbury, Bishops, a Chief Rabbi, and indeed, he has debated others such as John Lennox—even whilst he had previously stated that he flatly refuses to debate “creationists.”

Dawkins refers to Craig as “an apologist for genocide” and further refers to “horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament” and “divine bloodlust.” Now, as an atheist he can most certainly condemn genocide. In fact, as long as he can communicate, he can condemn that which he will (meaning that he can make an “statement” the he wished). However, upon what does he premise, what is his basis, upon what foundations does he condemn? Upon an ethical basis, of course, “all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind”—G. K. Chesterton. But, upon what is his ethics premise, based, founded?

Let us see whether he can, in any reasonable manner, connect his emotive condemnation to his worldview. He has written:

…nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. [River Out of Eden – A Darwinian View of Life, p. 96]

How does condemnation arise out of cruel, pitilessly indifference whereby there might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous-indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose?

It does not.

Another Dawkinsian statement:

We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA…It is every living object’s sole reason for living…that the purpose of all life is to pass on their DNA means that all living things are descended from a long line of successful ancestors…which can best be understood as fulfilling a purpose of propagating DNA…There is no purpose other than that. [Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins]

How does condemnation arise out of us being machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA, whose sole reason for living is to pass on DNA?

It does not.

Another one:

What is a human? What is a human self, a human individual? That’s more difficult. It’s not a question I can answer – it’s not a question any scientist can answer at present, though I think they will. I believe it will turn out that what a human is, is some manifestation of brain stuff and its workings…”I’m certainly happy that we are a product of brains and that when our brains die, we disappear. [Pollard interview]

How does condemnation arise out of manifestation of brain stuff and its workings which will disappear?

It does not.

How about this one:

Justin Brierley:Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins:You could say that, yeah. [during an interview with Justin Brierley]

How does condemnation arise out of arbitrary evolution?

Well, apparently it does, in fact, it just does, it just happens to have happened and since it is arbitrary it is by a merely odd turn of evolution that rape is not moral as it might very well be in a cruel, pitiless, indifferent universe.

In fact, many atheists argue that rape played a beneficial role in human evolution—see Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 6 of 6

Now, the real new excuse that Richard Dawkins offers for refusing to debate William Lane Craig is twofold: emotive ad hominem besmirchements and the contents of the Bible which Craig defends.

Firstly, Dawkins refers to Craig as someone who “parades himself as a philosopher.” Well, Craig is just that and has published on everything from cosmology to the nature of time and has dealt with theological issue ranging from Islam to atheism. Secondly, Dawkins refers to Craig as a self-promoter. This, by the way, coming from a man whose claim to infamy has been weaving Darwinian tall tales and being the poster boy for self-promotion.

But then Dawkins refers to Craig’s “dark side, and that is putting it kindly.” It is at this point that the issue of his unjustified condemnation of “horrific genocides” come into play as he notes:

Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth.

It is true that taking on the atheist talking point about divine bloodlust is unfairly ignoring the historical context. It is also true that atheist are the most naively literal with regards to the Bible. However, while some believers might shrugged off the issue as being mere naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth this is not the appropriate approach.

Dawkins specifically notes Deuteronomy 20:13-17. Yet again, the issue is twofold: he does not and cannot justify his condemnation and so his condemnation is unwarranted, null and void and impotent and he is publishing this in a British newspaper rather than doing what? Rather than debating the topic with Craig.

Richard Dawkins goes on to quote William Lane Craig’s commentary on these verses and, granted, his early comments were very weak indeed. In fact, in a very, very, very rare moment of honesty and clarity Dawkins even quotes a later comment from Craig stating, “I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God’s command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land…” Since that time, Craig has refined his views even more via, for example, the works on these issues by Paul Copan—see: Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God.

But, of course, this is not enough as then Dawkins besmirches Craig thusly, “So, apparently it was the Canaanites’ own fault for not running away. Right.” Well, the Biblical pattern is that God gives the Pagan nations centuries to repent. When He finally sends His people to confront them they are offered terms of peace. If peace is rejected then war ensues.

Pray tell, upon what does Dawkins condemn any of it at all? Clearly, the Israelites and Canaanites came to a good ol’ fashioned Darwinian struggle and the Israelites survived as the fittest—period!

Now we come to the very bottom line of Richard Dawkins caricature of himself—perhaps as the absent minded professor. You see, rather than taking on such issues with Craig at the debate, he asks, “Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t.” Well, Prof. Dawkins, you may recall that you have and you did. You see, Dawkins already debated Craig which is what makes this whole to do all the more ridiculous. In fact, you can see from the attached video why Dawkins does not want to debate Craig, again, as the results were disastrous for Dawkins.

Lastly, Dawkins notes:

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig’s words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.

A Richard Dawkins caricature could not have said it better. Remember that you have to interpret Dawkins in order to understand the New Atheist modis operandi. This is what he is saying:

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for the very same genocide which I cannot condemn, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig’s words as quoted above in an un-historically contextual, un-grammatically contextual, un-culturally contextual, un-genre considering manner, then walk out so as to not have my colleagues delicate preconceptions replied to (in other words, leave before the atheist group think talking points are defeated) and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as the atheist lemmings will follow the cult of personality hero right out the door.

——————————

In case it is of interest here is a list, surely out of date by now, of 48 personages whom William Lane Craig has debated:

Will William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page
, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.


Posted

in

by

Tags: