William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (68 posts)

0
Sooner28posted 10 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.
reply report
58
A Troubled Manposted 10 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.
reply report
61
janesixposted 10 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.
reply report
1. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  lol...so you're a Dawkins fanboy...that's hilarious
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Because I spoke to him personally, I'm a fanboy? Where do you get these ridiculous notions?
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'm just teasing you dude. Having a bit of fun, that's all.
  reply report
  87
  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Uh-huh...
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What's that supposed to mean? I admit to not being very nice and you think.....what?
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  OK it was just for bragging rights down the pub then.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly.
  reply report
  84
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I have not seen any such interviews or appearances where he was abhorrent, loathsome and hateful.
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No one said he was. Obnoxious and pretensious is what we said
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You might want to check the dictionary, then. That is exactly how obnoxious is defined.
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You might want to contact the dictionary publishers so they'll conform to your personal opinions, but I doubt they will.
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then, the dictionary is wrong, too. Please make sure you make them aware of that.
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do you truly have no common sense, or are you just pretending?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Do you not know how to use a dictionary?
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It has? Thousands upon thousands of years?
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That was obvious sarcasm, I'm sorry you didn't get that
  reply report
  84
  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Or he just might be unpleasant.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's possible too.
  reply report
61
bBereanposted 10 years ago
If Dawkin's admirers conduct themselves in the same fashion, how could you expect them to see anything wrong with his behavior?
reply report
1. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If there is something wrong with his behavior, could you point it out, specifically?
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So, you have nothing, as I suspected. It's a problem with you, not him.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You keep complaining but offer no valid complaints.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  87
  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I don't follow Dawkins much, but if he's smarter than the vast majority of the population, then why can't he be a little snooty to backwards, ignorant people who aren't willing to educate themselves?
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. His fans are arrogant, close-minded and pretentious as well? Who would have guessed that?
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I'd explain, but your post clearly implies that you wouldn't understand the explanation.I will say this. If he wanted to be snooty to evolutionary biologists, he might be able to argue that as acceptable behavior.
  
  Edit. I just did a quick search. It appears Richard Dawkins has not firmly established a claim to a particular IQ level. So, you might revamp your claim to one that he is better educated in evolutionary biology. I think you could argue that more effectively.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  More complaining with no valid complaints. Still waiting for you to show something that would support your assertions? Nothing but emotions?
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly. Your emotions are the only thing standing in your way of understanding. Free your mind ATM. You'll enjoy it. I promise.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If freeing your mind means fabricating lies, no thanks.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I apologize if you find my opinion offensive. This is not an emotional judgment. Simply comparing behavior patterns. Determining which patterns are commonly agreed to be socially acceptable and which aren't. Many of his fall into the category of not. The fact thatyou not only refuse to admit he does come off as arrogant and presumptuous, at times; while even those who agree with, apparently, most of his views readily bemoan this fact leads me to believe you are incapable of voicing an unbiased opinion in the subject. Not surprising. If you are purposely ignoring the facts. You are lying to me. If you can't accept the facts. You are lying to yourself. Who cares if the guy is obnoxious? We all are at times. Just not quite so publicly as he is.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No, I find your opinions misinformed and based on emotions. Unless, you have something to back up your assertions, there's nothing more you can say.
  report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Apparrently sharing an opinion equates to "fabricating lies" in your worldview.
  
  It's pretty strange how anyone who has a differing opinion than YOURS is a lie fabricator.
  
  Do we all work at the same lie fabricating factory? I don't think so. I suppose Emile could be working the day shift while I work nights.....
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Fabricating lies is fabricating lies and opinions are opinions. However, some believers opinions here are little more than fabrications, like your post here, for example.
  
  There are most definitely some honest believers here who share their opinions without the need to fabricate lies. They have been acknowledged as such by every single non-believer on these forums, including me. The fact that you and Emile have decided not to be one of them has nothing to do with anyone but yourselves.
  report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Please point to one lie that I have fabricated.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  He can't, and knows it. To review the exchange would force him to review the lies he has fabricated. He likes to ignore them.
  report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. I've noticed he simply does not have the ability to answer a question directly as well.
  
  It doesn't bother me at all if someone thinks my opinions and beliefs are strange, but I do have issues with being called a LIAR for expressing them.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Here's another one...
  
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for proving my point and janesix's. All either of us have done is offered opinions. You attempt to pervert them in order to validate a false assumption, on your part. Neither quote you used constitutes a lie.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And yet, another one...
  
  You two should cut your loses.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I just did.
  
  Here's another one...
  
  "I've noticed he simply does not have the ability to answer a question directly as well."
  report
  61
  janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You just did?
  
  Where?
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Your delusional belief that I am fabricating lies is your problem to ponder and resolve. I'm laughing at your inability to allow for a difference of opinIon, in the interim. Unlike others who might be willing to sacrifice their integrity in order to garner some semblance of courtesy from you, I have no intention of being dishonest in order to placate you. All I have done is offer an honest opinion. As usual, you have offered nothing but derision in response. Since you have nothing of value to share, I'll leave you to your petulance at this point.
  report
58
A Troubled Manposted 10 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"
reply report
1. 61
  bBereanposted 10 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
61
bBereanposted 10 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. "
reply report
1. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

William Lane Craig vs Richard Dawkins

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies