jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (68 posts)

William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    The first point I want to make is that Craig acted very immaturely when he used an empty chair to critique Dawkin's arguments in the God delusion.  I have no problem critiquing what someone claims, in writing or speeches, but to do it in such a satirical way, without being a comedian, was poor taste to me.

    Anyway, back to the point of this discussion.

    Dawkins lays out his case here for why he won't debate Craig- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … lane-craig

    1.  If someone takes an abhorrent position, then debating them legitimizes that position.

    2.  Legitimizing that position is irresponsible.

    3.  Therefore, if someone takes an abhorrent position, then debating them is irresponsible.

    Assuming the reasons are true, the conclusion necessarily follows.  This is a valid argument.  But validity is not necessarily soundness.

    I don't think premise 1 is justifiable.  This would lead to all pro-life people refusing to ever debate with a pro-choice position.  Our society is already divided enough when we do talk to each other!

    Where I think Dawkins goes wrong is that debating someone doesn't necessarily legitimize that position.  Would engaging in a formal debate with a member of the KKK legitimize the KKK's positions?  I don't think so.

    While it is true that Craig defends genocide, without any apparent hesitation, I think the best thing for Dawkins to do would be to make sure he brings that point up in a debate with him, and expose Craig for the Christian hack he is (since he is willing to defend anything the Bible says happened, no matter how atrocious).

    However, even if Craig does defend genocide (which I haven't seen him actually do openly in a formal debate with any atheist, only in writings, but I could be wrong on this), it doesn't negate the rest of his arguments at all!  The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, and Moral arguments for God's existence all would still need to be addressed, and if Dawkins believes those arguments are so easily demolished, he should take Craig on and do just that.

  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    Craig has already shown himself to be a Christian hack. Dawkin's has turned down many others who are far more intelligent than Craig.

  3. janesix profile image62
    janesixposted 3 years ago

    Dawkins is a rude pretentious twit,and Craig is an immoral twit without a mind of his own. The debate would only be a ground for posturing and would never resolve anything anyway.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is that because he's one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists and those who are scientifically illiterate believe he's rude and pretentious?

      1. janesix profile image62
        janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am speaking of his personality only. I have no problems with him expressing his views on any matter he wishes. It's the delivery that bothers me.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have met and chatted privately with Dawkins in a hotel lobby while he was waiting for his ride to a lecture he was giving at the local university. He was very nice and had no problem taking a picture with me. How do you even know his personality?

          1. janesix profile image62
            janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol...so you're a Dawkins fanboy...that's hilarious

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Because I spoke to him personally, I'm a fanboy? Where do you get these ridiculous notions?

              1. janesix profile image62
                janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm just teasing you dude. Having a bit of fun, that's all.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image83
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Uh-huh...

                  1. janesix profile image62
                    janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What's that supposed to mean? I admit to not being very nice and you think.....what?

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I would think the fact that you asked of you could have a picture taken with him suggests you are a fan.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  By definition, a fan (aficionado) is someone who is enthusiastically devoted to something. Getting a picture taken with a famous scientist doesn't really meet that criteria.

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    OK it was just for bragging rights down the pub then.

      2. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        He can be pretty obnoxious (and I say that as someone who agrees with him).  I am going from how he acts in interviews and other appearances.  N>1.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have not seen any such interviews or appearances where he was abhorrent, loathsome and hateful.

          1. janesix profile image62
            janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No one said he was. Obnoxious and pretensious is what we said

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You might want to check the dictionary, then. That is exactly how obnoxious is defined.

              1. janesix profile image62
                janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And YOU know that that is not the common use "definition" of the word. you know most people use obnoxious in the same way they use "annoying"

                NO ONE uses the word obnoxious to mean hateful. Grow up. You know you're wrong.

                1. janesix profile image62
                  janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't pretend, either,that you've never heard of lingual drift. I'm sure it's in a science book somewhere.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol You might want to contact the dictionary publishers so they'll conform to your personal opinions, but I doubt they will.

                  1. janesix profile image62
                    janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It is so sad that you simply don't have the ability to admit you are wrong, even when you perfectly well know you are.

                  2. janesix profile image62
                    janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Isn't it funny how language has stayed exactly the same throughout history for thousands upon thousands of years?

                    Are there any scientific theories that explain this amazing phenomenon?

          2. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The words I used were "pretty obnoxious".  Which is hardly an usual state for anyone who achieves celebrity status.  I was just indicating that finding the man unpleasant is not automatically a doctrinal issue.  He might just be unpleasant.

            1. 0
              Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Or he doesn't bend over backwards to appease religious people, like almost everyone else.

              If someone was pushing that we teach Greek mythology along side evolution and the Big Bang, what would your reaction to that person be?

              Also imagine presidents would even, at least in words, support that position as well!  And they would use the Greek mythology to deny climate change, evolution, and equal rights for gay people.

              1. janesix profile image62
                janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Or he just might be unpleasant.

                1. 0
                  Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's possible too.

  4. bBerean profile image59
    bBereanposted 3 years ago

    If Dawkin's admirers conduct themselves in the same fashion, how could you expect them to see anything wrong with his behavior?

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If there is something wrong with his behavior, could you point it out, specifically?

      1. bBerean profile image59
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Probably not to you, ATM.  I expect you either find Dawkin's arrogance and obnoxiousness quite acceptable, (in light of the brilliance you and he both believe he possesses), or perhaps you can't even see it at all.  So no, I don't expect you would see any problems with his behavior regardless of what I cited.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, I have found everyone who has some problem with Dawkins is because they have a problem, not him. Requests for him to speak come in by the boatloads around the world, people line up to see him in droves. He is one of the most popular scientists and authors on the planet.

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Arrogance is not a virtue, yet is a trait displayed by Dawkins. Ignorance is not a desired position to be seen in yet one Dawkins has no problem assuming, at times.

        Dawkins is a brilliant scientist. But expecting your area of expertise to be the end all answer to everything, plus to be unwilling, or unable, to think or function outside of your area of expertise can cause both of the aforementioned, and other, less than desirable personality traits to become pronounced when interacting with others and attempting to comment in areas outside of your area of expertise.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Show me where you see that? Most folks who say things like are merely irked by what he says and not how he says it.



          As I suspected. smile

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I stopped bothering to listen to Dawkins a while back. I never had a problem with the fact that he possessed an opinion, I simply find the way he shares it to be distasteful. Then again, I can say the same about you.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So, you have nothing, as I suspected. It's a problem with you, not him.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I have nothing that suits your fancy. His demeanor remains the problem. Sorry if not fawning in awe at his every utterance offends you.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You keep complaining but offer no valid complaints.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not certain where your confusion lies. We can, and do, judge the character of a person by their demeanor. If you don't like this, I understand. If you don't understand this, you don't understand a basic point in human interaction. To unilaterally insist that anyone who finds Dawkins to be a bit on the obnoxious side has nothing to back up this opinion shows your inability to observe impartially. Prominent and outspoken atheists are among those who consider his demeanor an embarrassment to the cause. But, they probably aren't blinded by adoration.

  5. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    What is really hilarious about this thread is that is shows folks aren't interested in what Dawkins actually says, they are far more concerned with how he says it, yet they are completely incapable of showing exactly those concerns. Most believers don't even listen to Dawkins but are more than happy to jump on the I-hate-Dawkins bandwagon.

    The should call these forums "HypocrisyPages"

    1. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My, my.  Looks like you and I might be two peas in a pod.  It seems we both feel that if anyone has a problem with the one we worship, it is their problem, not his!  wink

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not sure where you get the ridiculous notion that I worship anyone or anything. I have said in the past that worshiping is one of the worst things anyone can do or demand. It does nothing but diminish human nature to that of mindless robotic programming.

  6. bBerean profile image59
    bBereanposted 3 years ago

    Dawkins seems to consider himself "king of the Brights."  "Brights" are what he calls those who agree with him and what he considers himself to be.  Nothing arrogant about that, right? 

    Dawkins also seems to believe his views should be forced upon children.  Although not saying that directly, that is about what it adds up to.  Here is an interesting excerpt from a Salvo Magazine interview by Marcia Segelstein of Dinesh D'Souza, which speaks to this and gives an impression of Dawkins which I share.  The entire article can be viewed here:

    http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/sa … lstein.php

    'What is your reaction to Richard Dawkins's suggestion that the state should stop parents from raising children to believe in God?

    Dawkins argues that parents do have rights over their children, but that those rights are not absolute. Just as parents are not permitted to beat their children, they should not be allowed to brainwash their children into their religious faith. In a sense, argues Dawkins, you are retarding your children's future development by implanting myths into their young heads that they will have a very difficult time getting rid of later.

    I have two thoughts about this. First, I think it represents a little bit of desperation on the part of modern atheism, by which I mean that this apparent willingness to tell parents what they can and cannot do borders on the totalitarian. This idea that the state should intervene in parenting practices shows that there is a kind of hard edge to the New Atheism.

    At the same time, with a guy like Dawkins, you always have to pause because he knows so little about subjects outside of biology. In certain sectors of society, there's an awed reverence of Dawkins because he is a very learned and eloquent defender of Darwinian evolution. He has explained it beautifully and written about it very well. We often forget that the guy is a biologist, however, who actually doesn't know a whole lot about anything else. His knowledge of history is poor; his knowledge of philosophy is abysmal; and his knowledge of theology is non-existent. When Dawkins wanders out of his field, he thus makes uninformed and often idiotic statements. So while in some ways I feel indignant about what he says, I also feel almost a sense of pity for him. The poor fellow is wandering around in intellectual fields where he is such an innocent. "

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That is false, he never said such a thing. In this article, he talks about the Brights movement and how he thinks it well become a meme.

      http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essay … ights.html

      Can we therefore say that your claim is dishonest? You fabricated it?



      Another false claim that can be refuted by simply reading the article I linked.

      Yet, another fabrication?



      Yet, another fabrication, with a clause.



      From the link, a blatant lie...

      "We often forget that the guy (Dawkins) is a biologist, however, who actually doesn't know a whole lot about anything else. His knowledge of history is poor; his knowledge of philosophy is abysmal; and his knowledge of theology is non-existent. When Dawkins wanders out of his field, he thus makes uninformed and often idiotic statements. So while in some ways I feel indignant about what he says, I also feel almost a sense of pity for him. The poor fellow is wandering around in intellectual fields where he is such an innocent."

      Sorry, but Dawkins is well versed in religions, philosophies and history, especially when he researches theology.



      Because brain washing children is child abuse. Simple, really.

      One thing I do appreciate, bBerean, is that you're focusing back on the subject matter. smile

 
working