Richard Dawkins v. William Lane Craig: Do You Second That Emotion?

This video rather cleverly (and, I think, fairly) catches out Richard Dawkins evading the substance of William Lane Craig’s debating points, substituting them with the straw man argument that Craig is making merely emotional appeals:

And here’s Smokey Robinson (which you’ll have to click over to YouTube to watch):

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Richard Dawkins v. William Lane Craig: Do You Second That Emotion?

  1. andrewclunn says:

    What dribble. How about you watch the whole debate?

    I could selectively quote and edit any debate to make it look like somebody won or lost.

  2. andrewclunn says:

    Let me also note, I’m purposefully not going easy on you Santi because I know you can take it 😉

  3. Dawkins is out of his league arguing against professional philosophers. Sure, perhaps he is a premier biologist, but as far as critical philosophical thinking, hes a bit slow.

    I think this is the case with most atheists though. The have always been taught by other atheists that theism is just an irrational emotional idea, one that is akin to fairy tales, and not worth arguing about, since we dont argue against unicorns…This is why they are such terrible debaters, they dont give the arguments any thought, they assume its nonsense and so they dont do the research into what the arguments for the existence of God actually entail.

    Its intellectual laziness, and its all because they dismiss it all without ever engaging the ideas, they have spent their time attacking what they think are the reasons people believe in God.

    • That is a pretty interesting concept. You seem to be saying that philosophically you can prove the existence of god – or at least make a compelling case. But that the scientists, who deal in proving things daily that affect the lives of pretty much everyone in the world are lame at proving things.

      It seems to me that intellectual laziness is actually the reason that most people believe in god. All of us, in every day life, require some burden of proof to believe things. The bigger the claims, the bigger the burden of proof. Yet, where religion is concerned, people give up this reasonable burden of proof. For many, it is just laziness. Believing the unbelievable that is drilled into you from childhood and being too lazy to really interrogate it with the zeal you would interrogate any powerful claim. Some do so out of fear and hubris, with the need to believe in an immortal soul.

      Your post also shows how little you know of atheists. Most of us started out as Christians, then started asking questions. Christianity fails to provide any real answers when analyzed under the standard burden of proof that all of us use in our everyday lives. Of the atheists I personally know, this is how all of them turned to atheism. Myself included.

  4. The first problem with his argument is that it assumes we know everything. Shouldn’t he have said “the Universe has no purpose THAT WE KNOW OF?” Sans God there is no purpose? Which means we must know EVERYTHING else. Obviously, this is a moronic argument. We know virtually nothing.

    The second problem with his argument is even more assumption and greater hubris. That if God exists that he cares. Again, the assumption that Christianity is right. In a virtually infinite universe, does he see no chance that god does not care about us at all? What if he really only cares about some planet in Andromeda and we are just a side effect of evolution?

    Lastly, his claim that Biblical theism succeeds where atheism fails? I guess if you feel that the goal is immortality, then yes, this is true. But even then, biblical theism does not succeed. To succeed in showing we all have an immortal soul, you would need some strong evidence. Great claims require great proof. Biblical theism makes the really big claim, yet does so with ZERO proof. And no, the bible is not even remotely close to proof.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s