Richard Dawkins is a Coward
Richard Dawkins (possibly without his prior knowledge) finally found himself up against Christian philosopher William Lane Craig in a public forum in Mexico in late 2010. This after steadfastly refusing to debate Craig in a one-on-one debate for several years. Dawkins has always come up with disparaging excuses why he would not publically engage Bill Craig in a debate, but we all know it is simply because Dawkins knows full well that he would receive a resounding paddling from Bill Craig in such a forum.
You can here Bill Craig’s assessment of the Mexican public forum here.
Craig’s recollection of the icy reception he received from Dawkins when they met prior to the forum confirms in the minds of many that Richard Dawkins is a pompous git.
The fact that Dawkins still refuses to engage William Lane Craig in a one-on-one, toe-to-toe public debate on the subject of his choosing shows that, while Dawkins is capable of delivering vitriolic rhetoric against religion and, in particular, Christian theism, he is at heart a complete coward.
The fact that his philosophically-naive rhetoric appeals to so many village atheists and anti-theists, says as much about these people as it does about Dawkins.
AgeOf ReasonXXI
on January 20th, 2011
WLC:
“The witness of the Holy Spirit trumps ALL argumenst and evidence”
“If somehow through my studies reason is to turn against Christianity, then so much the worst for reason!”
Why should Dawkins debate this hack?
You should also read Dawkins’s comment of Craig’s defense of genocide in the Bible.
So NO, Dawkins is not a coward for refusing to debate a fundamentalist who has committed an intellectual suicide with his Holy Spirit epistemology and a genocide apologists who thinks the only victims of the slaughter of the Canaanites are the soldired who carried it out!
rogermorris
on January 21st, 2011
Like Dawkins, you make the mistake of dismissing a strawman. You deliberately and prejudicially misrepresent William Lane Craig as an “irrational fundamentalist” as an excuse for not engaging his sophisticated and detailed philosophical arguments for Christian theism. That would be like Mike Tyson refusing to even get in the ring with a challenging opponent by dismissing his opponent’s boxing ability out of hand. Like Tyson refusing to fight another professional boxer could (and would) be construed as cowardice (no matter how dismissive Tyson was of this potential opponent), Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig (a professional academic and philosopher) can also be construed as cowardice. If Dawkins’ scientism and naturalistic epistemology is so superior to Craig’s Christian theism, then debating Craig should be for Dawkins like shooting ducks in a barrel. And yet, Dawkins won’t even give it a go. Smells like cowardice to me.
You also fall into the same sloppy intellectual thinking that Dawkins displays by begging the question in favour of your particular brand of scientific rationalism. You presuppose that your chosen type of epistemology is default and that any form of epistemology that falls outside your narrow spectrum is not even worthy of engaging with. This is anti-intellectual hand-waving and is not more than a thought-blocking psychological defence mechanism.
Why won’t Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig? « Choice in Dying
on May 17th, 2011
[...] Lane Craig’s upcoming tour to the UK. Some of their undigested comments can be read here, here, here, and here (linked on The Times of India homepage). The suggestion is, according to [...]
johnathan
on January 5th, 2012
AgeOf ReasonXXI YOU are obviously a fundamentalist atheist. I see absolutely no evidence of critical thought in your statement here or on the other websites I’ve tracked you trolling in. You truly are a sad little man.