And he does it with insults and petulance:

This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.

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. Perhaps he is a “theologian”. For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

Craig’s latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice.

A few points:

Craig isn’t the person trying to cajole Dawkins into a debate, it’s the debate organisers and many of Dawkins’ atheist friends who want it.

Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, has not only heard of Craig, but has written to Dawkins suggesting that, since he has debated the intellectual heavyweight,  Pastor Ted Haggard, perhaps he should take on the “foremost apologist for Christian theism”, William Lane Craig.

Dawkins’ own link to the Wikipedia article on Craig describes him as an “American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist. He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion”. Funnily enough, it omits to mention that Craig is someone who parades himself as a philosopher.

Calling Craig “an apologist for genocide” is damning evidence that while Dawkins is happy to use insults against Craig, he is less confident in using reason.

Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris both debated Craig and were routed. That points to the real reason why Dawkins won’t debate Craig: cowardice.