Tag Archives: Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins debates William Lane Craig from the safety of the Guardian

Posted on by
11

Richard Dawkins has stated as one of his reasons for refusing to debate William Lane Craig that Craig is a “Christian ‘philosopher’ [who] is an apologist for genocide”.

He then goes on to quote Craig’s understanding of the Biblical passage on the destruction of the Canaanites – and labels Craig as “ an apologist for genocide”. In doing this, Dawkins is debating Craig, without giving Craig the opportunity to respond.

Two can play at that game, of course. So here is Richard Dawkins smiling cheerily at the idea of cannibalism:

And here he is advocating infanticide:

But would he eat the murdered babies? Can we look forward to another article in the Guardian where he might enlighten us further on his culinary experiments?

Perhaps Craig would be doing Dawkins a favour by being willing to share a platform with an apologist for infanticide and cannibalism.

 

Richard Dawkins explains why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig

Posted on by
2

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.

 

Hi, my name is Pastor Jack and I’m an atheist

Posted on by
3

Not unlike AA, there is now an organisation whose purpose is to support clergy addicted to unbelief. It is called The Clergy Project. It boasts a hundred members who:

use it to network and discuss what it’s like being an unbelieving leader in a religious community. The Clergy Project’s goal is to support members as they move beyond faith. Members freely discuss issues related to their transition from believer to unbeliever including:

  • Wrestling with intellectual, ethical, philosophical and theological issues
  • Coping with cognitive dissonance
  • Addressing feelings of being stuck and fearing the future
  • Looking for new careers
  • Telling their families
  • Sharing useful resources
  • Living as a nonbeliever with religious spouses and family
  • Using humor to soften the pain
  • Finding a way out of the ministry
  • Adjusting to life after the ministry

The organisation is sponsored by Richard Dawkins who devoutly encourages apostates who have, as he says, seen the light to join in a koinonia of disbelief with other faithless victims trapped in pulpits of pretend piety.

I’d love to get a list of the names of members to see if they include an Ingham, Hiltz or Bird.

 

There's Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th

Posted on by
2

Richard Dawkins has refused to debate William Lane Craig during the Reasonable Faith tour. Up until now I had been labouring under the assumption that Dawkins was simply too pusillanimous to debate Craig since he knew he would be in for a good thumping delivered with nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

But now there is a new theory that is about to be plastered over Oxford buses: since he won’t be at the debate, we won’t see or hear him, therefore there is no evidence for his existence – by his own measure, Dawkins is as real as the flying spaghetti monster. At one time he did exist, of course: he existed on Youtube. But outside video-sharing mythology, I am not so sure. He may be living proof – well, non-living proof – that cogito ergo sum really works: he refused to debate Craig, demonstrating that he doesn’t think. He realised his mistake too late and, before he could even mutter “oh Darwin” –  poof! was gone.

From here:

A message with a familiar ring to it will be rolling out on the side of buses in Oxford from 10th of October. ‘There’s Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre’

The advertising campaign follows Richard Dawkins’ refusal to publicly debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when he visits the UK in October. He has an open invitation to debate Craig at Oxford’s Sheldonian Theatre on 25th October.

The Oxford bus campaign echoes the 2009 London atheist bus advertisements: ‘There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying And Enjoy Your Life.’

Richard Dawkins: the Magic of Hypocrisy

Posted on by
5

Richard Dawkins has refused to debate William Lane Craig; his excuses have included a classic piece of projection: “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion.”

Someone kindly emailed me this poster which, if you click on it, will reveal a high resolution version suitable for printing and attaching to the side of a bus.

Richard Dawkins promotes his new devotional

Posted on by
Reply

Further evidence that the atheism of Richard Dawkins is a religion: he wants his book to be read as a family devotional.

 

Amongst the condescending smarm, at around 1:42, Dawkins intones this:

Among the myths in several of the chapters, you’ll find the Judeo-Christian myth – not given any special privileged position, but just tucked in there somewhere……

What I want to know is, if some nincompoop invented Christianity, why didn’t he make it easier to be an adherent of it?

After all, the aim of contemporary new age religions is to make everyone just feel good, often with the assistance of the inhalation of illegal substances. Who in his right mind would invent a religion whose incentive to join was imminent death and torture?

 

A call for the church to take on the new atheists

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

Clergy are to be urged to be more vocal in countering the arguments put forward by a more hard-line group of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who have campaigned for a less tolerant attitude towards religion.

A report endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, warns that the Church faces a battle to prevent faith being seen as “a social problem” and says the next five years are set to be a period of “exceptional challenge”.

It expresses concern that Christians are facing hostility at work and says the Church could lose its place at the centre of public life unless it challenges attempts to marginalise religious belief.

The rallying call comes amid fears that Christians are suffering from an increasing level of discrimination following a series of cases in which they have been punished for sharing their beliefs.

I agree.

However, if the church is to create a bulwark against the onslaught of God hatred from the ilk of Dawkins and Hitchens, it will have to ensure its own belief is robustly Christian. The kind of wishy-washy liberal Christianity of someone like Tony Blair will not withstand the typical diatribe of the anti-God brigade, as evidenced by the Hitchens vs. Blair debate in Toronto.

William Lane Craig, has sent Dawkins and his cohorts scurrying for the hills, whimpering excuses, although Dawkins says he is quite happy debating a bishop or archbishop. This is not surprising; since many bishops and archbishops dither on what the resurrection is or what the gospel is, they aren’t going to stand much of a chance defending something whose truth they themselves doubt.

 

Atheists running scared

Posted on by
1

From here:

Polly Toynbee, the Guardian columnist and president of the British Humanist Association, had agreed to debate the existence of God with the Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology, California, Dr William Lane Craig, at Westminster Central Hall in October, during Professor Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” tour.

[.…]

The humanist philosopher Pro­fessor A. C. Grayling also refused to debate with Professor Craig

[….]

Professor Richard Dawkins has been invited to debate with Professor Craig in Oxford, on 25 October. If Professor Dawkins refuses, the organisers say that Professor Craig “will lecture on the weakness of Dawkins’s argu­ments in his book The God Delusion”.

Why don’t atheists like debating William Lane Craig? Because he uses logic and, as Polly Toynbee noted, that is not her kind of forum.

Peter Atkins, Pro­fessor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, must have more guts than the others because he is going to debate Craig. If this 1998 exchange is anything to go by, it should be a rout.