Thursday, October 06, 2011

Debating Dawkins

When William Lane Craig routs unbelievers in live debate, their comrades generally excuse the loss on the grounds that Craig is a better debater. But to be a fluent public speaker, to be quick on your feet, is no evidence that you’re right. They make the same excuse for Richard Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig.

I’d simply note that this oft-cited excuse is predicated on a false premise. Let’s say Dawkins isn’t Craig’s equal in live debate. Still, Dawkins is, by all accounts, a superb writer.

I’m sure that Craig would agree to a written debate with Dawkins. Each side would have a word limit. There’d be a specified number of exchanges.

Winning or losing wouldn’t turn on who can think faster or speak faster. Dawkins could take all the time he wanted to formulate his arguments and polish his sentences.

So why doesn’t Dawkins agree to a written debate? 


  1. Um...was that even proposed by anyone other than you?

  2. I don't know. I saw Dawkins on Bill O'Reilly last night. Bith these guys were way off. Dawkins with his evolution, which O'Reilly wouldn't let him talk about. And O'Reilly with his religion is a good thing, Jesus & Buddha.

    The Gospel shines so bright when I watch TV like that. These intellectual giants, with all their wisdom, become fools in their folly.

  3. Steve said...
    So why doesn’t Dawkins agree to a written debate?
    Ben said...
    Um...was that even proposed by anyone other than you?
    Um...why hasn't Dawkins proposed it?

  4. "Um...why hasn't Dawkins proposed it?"

    He hasn't thought of it yet...give him time. It doesn't mean he's stupider...time...all he needs is time...just like evolution.

  5. There is nothing for Craig and Dawkins to debate. Craig has no worthwhile arguments. If he has any, let him make them public and invite Dawkins to respond. Craig's stuff so far is just hot air.

  6. Carbonman,

    Thanks for your vacuous assertion. Thanks for illustrating the empty cupboard of atheism.

  7. Steve what do you think of the moral absolute argument by Christian apologists, do you think it is rational or just emotionally appealing. a consistent atheist(or nihilist) will just say that they will just live amoral lives and make the most of their existence on earth. God bless

  8. Dawkins has more than just a sneaking suspicion that God exists and he may have witnessed Craig’s flattening of Hitchens, so Dawkins will continue to make excuses. It’s much easier debating the strawmen Dawkins posits in his books than getting publicly chastened by Craig.

  9. Carbonman said:

    "There is nothing for Craig and Dawkins to debate. Craig has no worthwhile arguments...Craig's stuff so far is just hot air."

    Since you don't say which specific arguments from Craig you don't find "worthwhile," or why, there's not a whole lot to say to your comment. There's no substance. It's vacuous. Or, if you prefer, your comment is "just hot air."

    "Craig has no worthwhile arguments. If he has any, let him make them public and invite Dawkins to respond."

    Craig has a website with plenty of arguments accessible to the general public. This would include Dawkins.

    Craig has publicly responded to Dawkins' material several times (e.g. here, here, here).

    Dawkins could easily respond to Craig's arguments against his arguments.

    So why doesn't Dawkins do so?

  10. This is a good idea actually, and Dr Craig does engage in post-debate discussion with his opponents where they respond in writing, and published works.

    I do sort of feel that a debate with Prof. Dawkins would yield nothing of interest. Prof. Dawkins has a great amount of authority and experience within evolutionary biology, but he erroneously uses this aspect of his experience to speak on matters where his knowledge is rudimentary at beast. He has no official qualifications in philosophy or theology, and so listening to him debate someone like Dr Craig who has over 23 years professional accredited experience in those fields, leaves me wondering what we would learn, if anything?