Is Richard Dawkins Afraid to Debate William Lane Craig?

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.

14 Responses to Is Richard Dawkins Afraid to Debate William Lane Craig?

  1. Paradigm says:

    It’s hard to judge the situation from a clip like this, which is clearly biased. But I always thought atheists seem to enjoy debating stupid people to make themselves feel superior. Which makes the he-is-beneath-me argument ring extra silly.

    I think the ad campaign with banners like “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” that he supported tell a lot. Logically there is no way to calculate the probability that God exists. About the campaign he also stated “this campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think — and thinking is anathema to religion.”

    Those arguments are so weak it is inevitable that there are religious thinkers who he’d find hard to debate. I would not be surprised if Craig is one of them.

  2. andrewclunn says:

    Huh? Didn’t you post a video of the two debating on this site already?

    • birdieupon says:

      a six person panel event – in which Dawkins gave a mere 1 minute 4 seconds of response to Dr Craig – is hardly the debate we’re talking about here!

  3. Cody Deitz says:

    Personally, I find Craig to be pretty frustrating. He is a good debater, but he expounds much of the same dogmatic theistic crap that’s already floating around. Eh, just me $0.02.

  4. Craig dresses up his babble with a nice vocabulary and tends to avoid dragging scripture into his whackado rationalizations, preferring pseudo-scientific terms. But it’s still just babble. You can call it an “ontological argument” but it really just means you have no evidence whatsoever for your babble. You can call it the “Kalam Cosmological Argument,” but all you’re really saying is that since you don’t understand the origins of the universe, God must have done it and you decline to explain why God does not require an origin when you assume that the universe does.

    That Craig’s babble contains more syllables than the usual religious nonsense does not make him intelligent nor his arguments worth more than the 30 seconds it takes to shoot them down with the merest assertion of logic. I give him an A for comportment, but an F in debate.

    I could debate the man with no preparation whatever, take a mere 30 seconds for each of his minutes, and trounce him comfortably. He’d do well to escape with his faith tucked between his legs. So I cannot imagine that Professor Dawkins harbors any fear of the man or is in the least bit worried that he could not hold his own intellectually.

    • After watching both Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens debate Craig, I really see nothing new, convincing, or intelligent about his rather dishonest rationalizations. Both atheists were too polite to use the word “bullshit,” but really that is all Craig has to offer.

    • David Yates says:

      Hmm, other than declaring Craig too loquacious for your tastes, all you’re doing is trotting out the tired old “If God created the universe, then who created God?” inanity. Christians have long argued that only that which has a beginning stands in need of a cause, and since our contention is that God has no beginning — but is rather eternal — he therefore has no cause. As Thomas Aquinas argued nearly 800 years ago, God is the Uncaused Cause. On the other hand, especially since astronomer Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is ever expanding, at sometime in the distant past it had a beginning point. Therefore, since nothing can bring itself into existence, it needs a cause. That Cause is what we’ve come to call God.
      Moreover, when pressed by comedian Ben Stein for a plausible answer to the question of how life began, Dawkins was reduced to sputtering that he found “very intriguing” the hypothesis that life could have been “designed” (I’m serious, he used the word “designed”) by a “highly intelligent” species from another planet and then “seeded” here on Earth.
      Excuse me?!? Isn’t this a self-professed ‘man of science’? If I’ve got this straight, even Richard Dawkins isn’t entirely opposed to “intelligent design,” just so long as that Intelligent Designer is a ‘little green man from outer space’ rather than God.
      Given that Dawkins couldn’t even coherently answer a simple question posited to him by an actor whose main area of expertise is economics, I think it pretty safe to assume that he has much to fear should he ever go up against a professional debater with a doctorate in philosophy such as Bill Craig.

  5. Pingback: Why are atheists' arguments better than Christians'? - Page 12 - Christian Forums

  6. pete says:

    dawkins is clearly afraid of craig and deep down we all know it.

  7. pete says:

    craig far too strong for dawkins…we all know it

  8. mr.bignoise says:

    Dawkin and his assistants are apparently afraid now

  9. Todd Pence says:

    Didn’t Ted Drange totally demolish Craig a while back in a debate? Does he really think he’s going to have any better luck against Dawkins?

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