Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Richard Dawkins on William Lane Craig

Richard Dawkins' explaining why he refuses to debate with William Lane Craig.

Interesting as much for Dawkins' reasons as the revolting WLC quotes where he attempts to justify genocide and child murder. One can almost hear Adolf Hitler saying "I wish I'd said that!" (Tweet this)

It speaks volumes of certain branches of modern Christianity that William Lane Craig is highly regarded as a leading exponent of the faith. Other leading Christians have been noticeable by their reticence to come forward and publicly dissociate themselves from William Lane Craig's repugnant views.

They may, of course, avail themselves of the comment section of this blog should they wish to purge themselves of that sin of omission.


  1. I was looking forward to reading your article on this.

    But. Is. That. IT?

    Read the Telegraph article?

    Why don't you rebuff that, hm?

  2. Doppleganger.

    Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid I don't feel qualified to speak for Richard Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter.

    Noticeably, you felt unable or unwilling to comment upon the substance of the article, upon the points I raised in my blog, or upon William Lane Craig's advocacy of genocide and child murder based on Christian principles.

    Maybe you just feel safer heckling from the side-lines.

  3. WLC is an apologist for genocide. All debate should start and end there.

    I can see no justification for it and people who hold those views are fruitcakes.

    Apologists for WLC simply promote a platform for those views and give him an air of respectability he does not deserve.

  4. I think if I had an intellectual array of armaments to hand, as Dawkins does, it would be cruel to cross swords with someone that only had a pin!

  5. "R", Richard "Papa Bear" Dawkins can speak for himself (as you said) and the article does a good job of stating his intentions and feelings.

    Say and feel what you (or any of Team Atheist) will about WL Craig...he does win most of the debates (and I know debating is a game to be played, it's important and then again it's not, anything else, whatevah, etc...).

    Of course I have not seen or heard all of them, but I thought that Robert Price, Bart Erhmann and Hector Avalos won their debates.As opposed to all the others, most, that did not win the game of debating. I forget how Hitchens did, and I'm not sure it was a real debate (I 4get).

    Any who...Papa Bear, The RichMan, Richard would he do. I think it's comparing apples to's just not the same. I do believe that Dawkins is a good and great debater...I just dunno what they would debate. what would the topic be. I read on a diff. blog earlier that, the commentator thought, it would be cool if they debated "is evolution true". That would be good, better than debating their territory, like Christian theology/philosophy.scriptures, yuck...super yuck.

    OK I'm rambling. Out Awesomeness.


  6. I agree with Kriss; debating evolution would be something more interesting and right up the alley of someone like Dawkins who is not a professional theologian.

    Let's put it this way, if the question was "Is the unicorn evidence of the magical realm" and one person was an expert of unicorn theory with degrees behind their name in that field, how much success would someone have in debating this person?

    Theology is a field of apologetics for religion. Theology does not prove any particular god. In fact, the ontological argument would only ever serve the purpose of demonstrating "something" behind a puppet show. Whether that's the costume maker, set designer or puppet master.

    It still says nothing about the wants, needs, desires of any particular being. Theology exists as another way to make money out of religious thought. Debates between WLC and other theolgians would be interesting to watch of course and I'm not able, right now, to find out that information.

    But herein lies the problem of an evolutionary biologist debating a theologian. It's nearly impossible to win on the questions and ground set by WLC (who won't debate unless he sets the question, topic, debating style).

    However, WLC does come up against people who make his ontological argument look weak. Shelley Kagan for example ripped apart WLC's morality tale quite easily and left WLC lost for words. It was quite impressive and people debating WLC in the future could do well to learn from it.

    But WLC is a guy arguing from professional theology; can anyone name a single thing useful that he argues? If theologians were wiped out tomorrow, we wouldn't miss anything. Not a single thing. Wipe out science and we are back in the stone age.

  7. 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".

    Apparently WLC earned a doctorate from Birmingham University. Not Oxbridge - but a good British University. I would have thought that was a good place to start with. Who else to ask then the place the man got his doctorate from?

    Given that WLC in the past has debated Hitchens with whom Dawkins is well aware of ...

    ... His above comment is a somewhat dishonest. People have heard of him. No matter what you opinion of him is.

    Personally I think his use of Kalam cosmology is wrong and false. That was dead and buried in the middle ages.


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics