Sign the “Richard Dawkins Should Debate William Craig” petition

13 Comments

1. Jason Motsinger
   Posted May 25, 2009 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

   Dawkins is a coward.

2. Thou
   Posted May 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

   I’m still wondering who these people are, given that I’ve never heard of Dawkins outside slander, or Craig at all…

   But sure, let’s demand they fight.

3. Mike H
   Posted July 10, 2009 at 5:38 am | Permalink

   Why would a scientist debate a “apologist” on whether god created the universe or even exists? What possible scientific perspective could William Craig offer, and vice versa? Seriously, I want to know. You do realize, of course, that the answer to this question is why Dawkins doesn’t debate cretinists.

4. admin
   Posted July 10, 2009 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

   Hi Mike, thanks for the questions.

   William Lane Craig is a philosopher + theologian, so your questions are quite reasonable re science.

   I think Craig is an incredibly well-rounded apologist, by which I mean that he also knows and has written a lot even on science.

   Why should he debate Dawkins? That is much easier I think. It is simply because Dawkins makes many claims that are not scientific — if he stuck to his science, then he would not have the cult-figure status among many people, and philosophers would probably ignore him. So the problem is, Dawkins has gone way beyond making scientific claims and instead has entered a realm beyond the scientific veil so-to-speak.

   Are you aware that prominent atheist Michael Ruse said that the reading The God Delusion made him embarrassed to be an atheist? This is why they should debate, because Dawkins has strayed into a field where he has little knowledge, but refuses to acknowledge it. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has said something along the lines of Dawkins abilities with logic in The God Delusion would lead him to fail his sophomore class.

   So I think the real reason Dawkins won’t debate is because he would be severely beaten, which would hardly be a surprise as his expertise is not in the area that the debate would be within.

   But this is really the whole point. Dawkins has strayed beyond his field into a place he probably should not have gone.

   Feel free to reply.

   Blessings,

   Rob

5. Ttiotsw
   Posted July 29, 2009 at 5:38 am | Permalink

   You do not debate science any more than you debate solutions to mathematics problems. Science is a systematic study of the world around us. On the other hand you can debate policy and politics of Science e.g. Science funding and you certainly can debate the subjective i.e. opinions. Dawkins is primarily a biologist and so is a scientist. He is also a very good teacher of science. The God Delusion is the first book that steps off the well beaten track though not far in that it says that the question of God is not incompatible to science and that it is a matter of probability. He should be thanked for this effort because all of us want to know. The best response to this isn’t debate but evidence for God (or gods ). The power of science is that the first evidence for God would wholesale make just about every scientist in the world accept God in the same way that Einstein’s energy matter equivalence is defacto accepted today (whereas in Lord Kelvins time when radioactivity was unknown then it was not accepted). So if we consider Dawkins to be like Lord Kelvin and the error is in the lack of knowledge then the answer is simply provide the evidence for the new source (of heat). The rest falls into place and the consensus in the scientific community, and society in general changes forever. Debate cannot and will not create evidence for God any more than debate created the evidence for radioactivity that lead Einstein to state his theory. No, it takes people like the great New Zealander, Ernest Rutherford and many others to provide the building blocks that form the foundation of a theory. The theory is God – where are the Rutherford’s?, the Curie’s ?the Maxwell’s? the Bohr’s? the Einstein’s?. Where is the evidence ? Dawkins is pointing out the paucity of evidence. There should be no debate to that observation.
   I’m happy to admit I do not sell used cars and I’d be happy to admit that a good used car salesman is a good skill to have if you are selling used cars but would you let that same person fix your brakes ?. As you say – a good philosopher would beat Dawkins but this is in the same way that a good car salesman would beat a mechanic. William Lane Craig has a good skill in debate but would you let that same person do science ?

6. admin
   Posted July 29, 2009 at 9:44 am | Permalink

   Great questions, and the simple answer is yes. If Dawkins makes the claim, he bears the burden of proof. He has made many claims about theology and philosophy, thus he bears the burden of proof.

   Because Dawkins has, as you have admitted, drifted into the fertile land of the philosophical, that is where this particular battle should take place. He has moved from scienceville into philosophicalville, from car salesman to mechanic, thus Dawkins should be prepared to debate that topic. (Craig is more than capable of debating within both btw!)

   But this is typical of the new atheists — they are full of hot air, and little else.

   Have you read any reviews of Dawkins’ work from his opponents? Not the weaker opponents, but the best opponents?

   Personally, I think Dawkins is smart enough to know that he should pick his battles carefully, thus Craig is crossed off his list.

7. Scotty
   Posted August 3, 2009 at 4:34 am | Permalink

   Agreed. Dawkins has often ventured into the philosophical realm, and just as many times been firmly rebuffed by apologists. He mixes (sometimes) good science with large amounts of pseudo-science and pure assumption, and then uses that platform to make a “scientific” attack on anyone who doesn’t believe as he does.

   As Dr Robert Winston (Lord now I think) recently said, he is bringing science “into disrepute”, and that he “doesn’t seem to understand the limitations of science”. Even atheist Michael Ruse called the God Delusion an “embarrassment”.

   As such, as has already been said here, if Dawkins wants to keep preaching his atheistic religion it should be subject to the same philosophical stress testing any world-view is.

8. mortimer duke
   Posted August 9, 2009 at 11:01 am | Permalink

   “The ideology Dawkins is selling is the worship of competition. It is projecting a Thatcherite take on economics on to evolution. It’s not an impartial scientific view; it’s a political drama.” – Mary Midgley

9. Sunep
   Posted August 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

   Well, well. Dawkin should not debate craig because craig is a philosopher whereas Dawkin is a scientist. This is what some of the commentator seems to say.

   Then what about Dawkins refusal to debate Michael Behe, saying he does not have enough knowledge in biochemistry and his refusal to debate Lee Spetner (Bio physicist) on the issue of information in DNA.? Common guys do you think that Dawkin can go on saying anything he like without any scrutiny? Well apparent he doesn’t make excuses like I’m not a theologian when ask to debate “not so knowledgeable” pastors.

10. nathan
    Posted October 31, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    just debate dud.Lets see who gonna win.

11. James Verner
    Posted November 22, 2009 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    I think it is about time that the Dr Craig and his fellow intellectuals get their chance to make their own impact on society. Athiestic propaganda has infiltrated the schools. False assumptions have been inculcated into children’s minds with regard to how much better it is to believe in athiesm than in theism.

    The time is now ripe for Dr. Craig and many like him to take on the Dawkins crowd and, hopefully, one day in the not-too-distant future the topic of creation will be taught in our schools once again.

    If Dawkins doesn’t debate Craig, given his boastful attitude in The God Delusion, then he is a coward!!

    James Verner

12. admin
    Posted November 22, 2009 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Amen James, but I think we have to earn the right to make an impact on society. I am far from convinced that we have earned that right however. We canot win these arguments by force, but rather by out-thinking these people. I have little doubt that we can do this!

    What we are seeing right now however is a resurgence of interest in academia by Christians. This is long overdue and we are paying a severe price for abandoning this aspect of God’s kingdom.

    Do the Christian community a favor James and dedicate your life to the life of the mind. Google search for “Apologetics 315″ and get resources and start learning, and check out the websites that we link to. Apologetics is a fast paced place to be right now!

    Regards,

    Rob

13. James Verner
    Posted January 12, 2010 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Dear Rob,

    Thanks! I appreciate your encouragement. I am the guy who wants to bring prayer back to our schools, and whom you encouraged to learn more in the field of science. I shall try to do this. My life as been spent in work in the Buddhist world, who are also athiest. Folk Buddhism is a challenge. That’s what I studied and in which I earned my degrees. I agree that we have not yet gained the right to speak out on some fronts. Still, up till now we have appeared far too intimidated by the opposition. Let us keep the pressure on them. We have made a great start and strong support for men like Dr. Craig would be a good beginning. James Verner