Dawkins accused of cowardice

rossc007

Apologies if posted already

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

I'm sure this William Lane Craig is just looking to up his profile, I'd be interested to know how many times Dawkins is approached for a debate a day!

Hasn't Dawkins debated Craig on numerous other occasions? I've seen one or two, if I'm not mistaken.

I'd imagine somebody like Dawkins would eventually get sick of debating, as most debates cover pretty much the same topics. There's only so much you can say on an issue before it starts to get boring.

CerebralCortex

Craig is a notoriously good debater but only that. This is the same guy that said despite the evidence he'd still believe. There's nothing to be really gained from debating him.

Galvasean

If Dawkins accepted every invitation to debate he was given he simply would have no time left to do anything else. A quick search on Youtube shows he has taken part in such debates numerous times. Unless Craig can come up some interesting new point or idea worthy of debate that hasn't already been covered why should Dawkins feel obliged to join him?

nozzferrahhtoo

I have watched Craig many times and I honestly would not even call him a "good" debater.

His main skill which I noticed over the years, and which Sam Harris summarised perfectly when he met him in a debate.... is in summarising his opponents points in a way that has nothing to do with what the target actually said, leaving Craig free to avoid literally every point he wants to. It is strawman all the way and much like Worzel Gummidge I do not think you'd find a man left if you took the straw out.

He might get away with that in a debate with no recording devices around, but now in the modern age that he is in multiple debates on you tube it is easy for anyone to listen to his summaries and then go back and listen to what the person actually did say.

To put it mildly I have not found a single summary that was accurate or honest. I heartily recommend the Harris V Craig debate if you want to see this for yourself.... especially at the point Harris points out this "tactic" of Craigs.

Zombrex

rossc007 wrote: »

Apologies if posted already

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

I'm sure this William Lane Craig is just looking to up his profile, I'd be interested to know how many times Dawkins is approached for a debate a day!

Unsurprising if you Google this the only people who seem to be making a fuss, and throwing around accusations of being a coward, are theist website that take a very low view of Dawkins anyway.

Craig is a hack, utterly uninterested in the logic of his arguments merely interested in appealing to the lowest common denominator. Refusing to debate him is like refusing to debate JC, ie something the person will no doubt make a big deal of but everyone else just things "Very sensible"

Mattetho

I am amazed at the insults and personal attacks that dogmatic atheists make against believers. Professor Craig is no "hack" , and in fact those types of pejorative put downs just goes to show how brilliant and effective Dr. has been and continues to be. Dawkins is petrified of Dr Craig because he knows that his case against God is an emotional one not an intellectual one. Craig already destroyed dawkins in mexico and exposed him and he will do so again if the coward dawkins comes out of the fear closet and put his money where his mouth is. dawkins is a child and a coward and real intellectual academics like atheist dr daniel dennett himself has confirmed this.

dawkins you anti-intellctual coward!

Mattetho

Craig will destroy the coward dawkins

Monty Burnz

Mattetho wrote: »

Craig will destroy the coward dawkins

Intelligent argument fail.

Galvasean

Mattetho wrote: »

I am amazed at the insults and personal attacks that dogmatic atheists make against believers.

Mattetho wrote: »

dawkins is a child and a coward and real intellectual academics like atheist dr daniel dennett himself has confirmed this.

dawkins you anti-intellctual coward!

Smart post.

Mattetho

Mattetho wrote: »

I am amazed at the insults and personal attacks that dogmatic atheists make against believers. Professor Craig is no "hack" , and in fact those types of pejorative put downs just goes to show how brilliant and effective Dr. has been and continues to be. Dawkins is petrified of Dr Craig because he knows that his case against God is an emotional one not an intellectual one. Craig already destroyed dawkins in mexico and exposed him and he will do so again if the coward dawkins comes out of the fear closet and put his money where his mouth is. dawkins is a child and a coward and real intellectual academics like atheist dr daniel dennett himself has confirmed this.

Hypocritical much?

Edit: Heh, Galvasean got there first. :P

Turtwig

Craig is an expert debater. That's not a compliment though. He's a master of strawmanning and misunderstanding.

Debate a more reputable and frankly honest Christian. Why so many are under the illusion that Craig is some form of Champion for Christianity is beyond me. He's the equivalent of what Lord Monckton is to climate science a perennial bull****ter who knows only how to sell himself to a crowd.

Mattetho

"Smart post".

wow what an intelligent reply.

Knasher

I'll admit I laughed when I saw you were calling Dawkins a coward in your first post here; I assumed you were a regular user and registered a new account to hide behind so you could make this post. Which of course would be a very cowardly thing to do. Apologies for that and let me be the first to welcome you to boards.

Mattetho wrote: »

Craig already destroyed dawkins in mexico and exposed him and he will do so again if the coward dawkins comes out of the fear closet and put his money where his mouth is.

Really when, I had a look on the internet and I couldn't find any links to their debate, I'm sure you didn't just make this up so I'd love to see your source. In any case, assuming you aren't misrepresenting something, if Craig has already "destroyed" Dawkins, why exactly do they need to debate again.

Mattetho wrote: »

dawkins is a child and a coward and real intellectual academics like atheist dr daniel dennett himself has confirmed this.

Again, sorry to question your sources, but where is this coming from. I'm sure that Dawkins and Dennett disagree on tons of things, but I find it hard to imagine he would harbour such spite against the man to call him a coward and a child.

Mattetho

How surprising. First Dawkins denies that the event in Mexico was a debate when Craig spoke with him there (see podcast 2011-01-17). Now Dawkins claims that it was a debate when organizations asked him to debate Craig.

Mattetho

Mattetho wrote: »

"Smart post".

wow what an intelligent reply.

Almost as intelligent as your wonderfully well-informed and reasoned opener.

But, aside from that, welcome to Boards.

Mattetho

"He's a master of strawmanning and misunderstanding"

really??? can you give me just one example??

Knasher

Mattetho wrote: »

"He's a master of strawmanning and misunderstanding"

really??? can you give me just one example??

The debate and description that nozzferrahhtoo gave covers it nicely.

My impression of that debate was that Craig initially made two points, Harris first addressed the second point and Craig remonstrated him for ignoring his first. Then Harris addressed the first point and Craig concluded that he had won because Harris hadn't addressed his second. If anything the real victory was that Harris didn't loose his cool and call Craig an idiot.

MagicMarker

Mattetho wrote: »

"He's a master of strawmanning and misunderstanding"

really??? can you give me just one example??

No, he made the claim, now you have to disprove it, isn't that how it works?

Mattetho

sure, you can go to youtube and type in dawkins debates craig in mexico - that is easy. then type into the telegraph on-line carrying dawkins accused of cowadice and note daniel dennett's comment on dawkins avoiding craig.

Knasher

Mattetho wrote: »

sure, you can go to youtube and type in dawkins debates craig in mexico - that is easy. then type into the telegraph on-line carrying dawkins accused of cowadice and note daniel dennett's comment on dawkins avoiding craig.

Ah, so you want me to search for your sources for you. It would really be faster if you just posted the links seeing as you've clearly done your research.

EDIT: Actually , seeing as you mentioned the telegraph, am I right to assume that you are talking about the article linked to from the first post. In which case I'd recommend you reread it because it actually says:

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 believe I've also found the video you are referring to, which is two hours long and partly in Spanish. If I get a chance I'll take a longer look, but at the face of it I'll say that Dawkins summation of Craigs argument was accurate however he did make a poor choice of words when he said proof instead of reason to believe. He was hardly destroyed however.

In any case here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8

liamw

Mattetho wrote: »

dawkins you anti-intellctual coward!

You don't feature in this by any chance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc

Galvasean

Mattetho wrote: »

"Smart post".

wow what an intelligent reply.

Indeed, I must admit the post by -JammyDodger- was probably better. However, mine contained more venom.

virmilitaris

Anyone that seen craig with hitchens (2 times I think) knows just how dishonest he is.

craig almost never addressess the points raised by his opponents but rathe goes on his own tangents of what he wishes his opponent has said. One debate with hitchens at a Christian book expo makes this point very clear. Just want the end remarks by each speaker.

bnt

It's a crafty strategy. Craig and the others like him want a debate on the level of their sophisticated theological views; but before you can have a sophisticated theological view, you have to accept the basic theology underpinning the whole thing. By basic I mean the simple questions such as the existence of a god or gods.

Dawkins, like most (if not all) atheists, does not accept the validity of the basic theology, and so he's not going to seriously entertain the sophisticated theology. Those claiming it have not presented valid evidence* to support it. He's not going to accept it on faith. Craig would love it if he did, of course - it would bolster his arguments. Since they're not operating under the same basic assumptions, I see no point in higher-level debate.

* this is something I have to keep reminding people: the Bible, Qu'ran, Talmud and so on are not evidence, they are testimony. They tell you what people said, but that's not enough to establish facts about exactly what happened thousands of years ago. People can, and do, say anything.