Dawkins vs Craig Debate Petition
To this point, Richard Dawkins has flatly refused to enter into a formal debate with noted Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig.
Craig, as a non-scientist, has a fantastic grip on modern cosmology and biology, combined with his brilliant philosophical mind.
In his typical arrogant manner, Dawkins has wriggled his way out of this confrontation to date by dismissing Craig as a nobody and claiming that such a debate would look good on Craig’s CV, but would not advance Dawkins’ own CV.
Truth be know, many believe that Dawkins realises that he would be totally out-gunned in a debate with Craig, and the Craig would basically pull down Dawkins’ pants and spank his naughty backside in any such debate. Dawkins would be shown up as the bag of hot gas that he really is.
If you would like to see Dawkins step up to the plate and debate Craig, sign this e-petition.
Tom Burrus
on August 7th, 2009
Bring it on, Dawkins! If you dare…
Jeffery Graff
on August 7th, 2009
As Army attorney Joseph Welch asked Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” I must ask, have you no sense of courage, Dr. Dawkins? Do you not have sufficient courage of your convictions to put them to an honest test? It is appalling that you put out a documentary like, “Root of All Evil” which is, by far, the most contemptable piece of hateful, bigoted trash as I have ever seen and cower before a true intellect like Craig.
rogermorris
on August 7th, 2009
Never a truer word spoken. I expect Dawkins realises that Craig’s grasp of the philosophy of science and general philosophy will make Dawkins look like a turkey.
smijer
on August 8th, 2009
I’ve noticed that scientific types generally shy away from parlor games of this sort. If Craig wishes to be taken seriously, he should suggest some more useful interaction than the College Debate Team format.
Rhetorical skill is a great one to have – and Craig and Dawkins each have it in spades. But a chest-beating competition on the basis of rhetorical skill is worse than useless for learning anything.
tosh77
on August 11th, 2009
Smijer, to be consistent you must not hold the view that neither Dawkins or Hitchens can be taken seriously then either?
For a scientific type Dawkins book the God Delusion was not terribly scientific, more a rant and scientific and philosopy of science atheist types have condemned him for it.
Hitchens is brillian rhetorically, probably the best oof either sides of the debate…but this is all he has, so he can’t be taken seriously either right?
smijer
on August 16th, 2009
Tosh – I’m not a fan of Dickens or Hitchens. In fact Hitchens is, in my eyes, nothing more than a curmudgeon. He certainly isn’t what I would term a “scientific type”.
Dawkins is a scientist and a popularizer, and generally speaking his popular works are educational. His God Delusion, as you say, wasn’t a terribly scientific piece. It certainly isn’t what I would have written. But – at least he put it in writing so that it was preserved for posterior and for possible later challenges. And at least he developed his thoughts at book length, rather than throwing out sound bites on a carnival stage.
Usually debates over the existence of God do not center on primarily scientific criteria – rather philosophical ones. It just happens that I find scientifically informed debates far more meaningful than philosophically informed ones. I think philosophy is fine for boot-strapping science, but it is eventually, in itself, a poor intellectual cousin.
I think Dawkins does the discussion a disservice by trying to couch what are ultimately philosophical objections in purely scientific terms.
Then again, Craig does the discussion a disservice by taking an apologetic approach. Putting one’s intellectual faculties in service of apologetic defense rather than in service of critical examination is a crime against the intellect. In this regard, Craig is by far the worst criminal of the three.
H
on January 4th, 2010
“Then again, Craig does the discussion a disservice by taking an apologetic approach. Putting one’s intellectual faculties in service of apologetic defense rather than in service of critical examination is a crime against the intellect. In this regard, Craig is by far the worst criminal of the three.”
This assumes that Craig is opting out of critical examination of his beliefs, in favor of trying to justify them without looking at evidence that may probelmatize or falsify these beliefs.
Craig isn’t avoiding a critical examination of his beliefs, he is defending his beliefs posterior to such critical analyses.That is what an apologetic is, smijer.
rogermorris
on January 4th, 2010
Like Richard Dawkins isn’t an apologist for his own particular weltenschauung !!
rogermorris
on January 4th, 2010
When a Christian philosopher defends his worldview, he’s an ‘apologist’.
When an atheist does the same, he’s a ‘critical thinker’.
Now there’s a double standard if ever there was one!!
i have no name
on February 23rd, 2010
as an atheist, i think Craig would make Dawkins look like a fool. Dawkins has little to no real grasp on philosophy, many of his ideas are flawed and they would be picked apart by Craig very easily.
Sproket
on February 27th, 2011
Well well, looks like Dawkins didnt do too badly after all.
rogermorris, “apologist” is the term they take for themselves.
Vince
on March 6th, 2011
Philosophy = Thoughts
Science= Thoughs>Facts
Theres a difference…
Craig has 5 bullets, each impotent
rogermorris
on March 7th, 2011
Vince, in fairness to Dr Craig, please elaborate.
modsynth
on March 8th, 2011
Craig and Dawkins were on different panels in a debate, which isn’t one on one but it’s still a debate. You can see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8
It’s in mexico, so there are spanish sections, but Shermer, Craig, and Dawkins are in English. In an Unbelievable? podcast (a favorite of mind), Craig shared some stories of this exchange:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/unbelievable/id267142101
Episode January 8, 2011
Agent72
on October 26th, 2011
Richard I’m a fan, but this is all so embarrassing.
The faith-heads think we are cowards.
WLC’s arguments are baseless – why doesn’t Richard get up and blow him away?
So what if he has a sick interpretation of certain whack passages in the bible – even the more to get up and shove the embarrassment in his face.
All these “excuses” for not destroying his arguments are getting me down. I’m not interested in name calling; I’m interested in his arguments being destroyed in public debate. Each premise being logically defeated.
Hat’s off to Stephen Law, Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris – come on Richard get some balls.