Video: 12 Ways To Duck Debating: Richard Dawkins’ Smoke-Filled Article Against William Lane Craig
Kindly sent in by Tim and follows on nicely from my blog post: Millitant atheists are coming out; except of course Dawkins, who’s staying in and hiding behind the sofa.
By the way, one of my fav bloggers David – Anglican Samizdat – is referenced in the Vid, how cool is that?
Tags: Atheism Secularism Humanism, Christianity, Theology Doctrine Philosophy
October 30th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Oh dear, here we go again, desparate scrabbling for tidbits of gratification instead of addressing the more important issues that Dawkins raises. Sounds like a distinctly Creationist production.
Do you really think that Dawkins won’t debate Craig because he thinks Craig has the better arguments? Dream on…
You don’t have to be an academic philosopher or theologian to spot the glaring mistakes in Craig’s arguments — he frequently makes logical errors an undergraduate would be ashamed of. He is a showman who spouts the same sophistry every time, and I don’t blame Dawkins one bit for choosing not to share the stage with him. Those who have, such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have shown Craig up for what he is.
If I were a believer, I’d be embarrassed to have Craig in my camp.
October 31st, 2011 at 8:02 am
Homo Erectus, every night I go to an Italian restaurant and complain about the food there. I don’t like Italian food, never have done, but every night I do the same thing. They keep throwing me out. Can’t think why.
Homo Erectus seems to have this wild fantasy that despite the fact, and it is a fact, that some of the best minds in the world have failed to defeat Dr Craig, he alone is going to get up on that podium and completely crush Dr Craig’s arguments to the most wild applause and plaudits from around the world. That is the only dream I can see around here.
For the record, Hitchens did not ‘show Craig up’, quite the opposite as even other atheist bloggers have admitted.
Sam Harris did not ‘show Dr Craig up’, again as other atheist bloggers have admitted.
Atheist bloggers are asking Dawkins to shut up and go away as he is nothing more than an embarrassment. THAT is an indisputable fact.
Prof Anthony Flew called Dawkins a ‘secularist bigot’. That is a fact.
I guess you also missed the clip of Dawkins endorsing infanticide.
The man has been shown, time and again, to be a liar and a hypocrite. Would you please try getting your head around this fact.
Your lack of knowledge about Dr Craig is also showing you up, if anyone is being shown up.
Try watching this video, and try opening your mind even just for 5 minutes and 14 seconds. (Pay attention to the section about the Sheldonian debate.) It should be short enough for you to get your attention span around: William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Full Sheldonian
Now, I must get back to that Italian restaurant. Cannot stand Italian food.
October 31st, 2011 at 10:06 am
Tim
“Facts” that are opinions, “doctors agree…” type arguments, and personal attacks on me do nothing for your cause. The ever more desparate attempts to score brownie points over unimportant events just serve as a distraction from the real arguments. I would be happy to debate with you, or anyone else, any of the issues Dawkins raises in his book. But not in person — I think you may fulfill your earlier threat to throw me through the window ;¬)
October 31st, 2011 at 10:29 am
lol.. nice strawman from Homo Errectus. Especially in the light of his first post, which was pure ad hom.
October 31st, 2011 at 10:34 am
Stuart, I should just stick “Homo erectus” in your kill file. That isn’t a comment, that’s just heckling.
October 31st, 2011 at 11:05 am
Phoebs:
Re “ad hom”, I refer you to
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
October 31st, 2011 at 11:34 am
Hi Homo,
Well done, good to see that you can ‘google’.
Although might I suggest perusing the linked article and then your own first post.
ad hom = “the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.”
Re the video, you said “sounds like a Creationist production to me”
Way to go! That really addresses the arguments presented in the video.
Re; Craig you said: “you don’t have to be an academic philosopher or theologian to spot the glaring mistakes in Craig’s arguments — he frequently makes logical errors an undergraduate would be ashamed of. He is a showman who spouts the same sophistry every time”
Pure brilliance! that totally destroys and debunks all of Craig’s arguments!….lol.
October 31st, 2011 at 11:58 am
Phoebs
At the risk of prolonging yet another diversion from the main issues: at no time did I personally attack the poster rather than his arguments. I attacked the methods used by Creationists, and others seduced by the distraction of cheap point scoring, and then Craig’s poor grasp of logic — both directly to the point. On the latter, I would be happy to give concrete examples.
At the risk of a genuine ad hom, I had to smile when reading the first paragraph of the linked article :¬)
October 31st, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Doesn’t this continual argument about who has the better debater on their side rather detract from the arguments themselves?
It really does not matter what we think of Prof Dawkins or Dr Lane Craig as individuals, but Youtube is full of cheap attacks on each of them. Let’s assume for a moment, rightly or wrongly, that Dawkins is a coward for not debating WLC. Does that alter the arguments one jot? It does not.
Dawkins has the distinction of being one of the first of the recent advocates of atheism in the UK to put his head above the parapet and declare his views loudly and often. That does not mean is a particularly good advocate. Indeed, I would share many fellow atheists’ embarrassment at some of the things he says, and the way in which he expresses them. There are far better advocates, but they tend not to make headlines, partly because their approach is less sensationalist. My bookshelf is full of their work. But would I like to stand up and debate these ideas with WLC? No. He is undoubtedly the better orator, and would most likely tear me to shreds in front of an audience. But ideas should not be judged by the effectiveness of the orator, but in themselves.
October 31st, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Roger Pearse:
I’m sorry you feel bloggers here can’t stand some robust arguments with which they don’t agree. Is that what you mean by heckling? On the same grounds, you may well want to assign other contributors to the “kill file”.
October 31st, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Personal attacks on you? Because I called you out as being erroneous and for your failing to address the glaring falsehoods of your accusations? Sure, if that’s the way you want to see it then suit yourself.
But I have a much better way for you. Stop throwing your toys out of the pram and go and address Dr Craig personally rather than subjecting us, on a Christian website, to your nonsense here –
http://www.reasonablefaith.org
Of course if you’d rather not do that, for whatever reason you can think of, then we are free to draw our own conclusions.
October 31st, 2011 at 2:46 pm
To my fellow commenters:
This is a religious blog. (The clue is in the title… )
It seems to me that most commenters come here for one of three reasons:1) They wish to lend their support to the argument, and align themselves with the views of the blog author; 2) They wish to engage in constructive criticism, and thereby to learn, and maybe to pass on ther own wisdom; or 3) They wish to heckle, and are are not interested in constructive dialogue. They ‘know’ that those who oppose their view are just plain wrong, and they have no need to try to understand the others’ point of view.
Which one of these are you?
October 31st, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Simian
By your definition I am a reluctant heckler. Reluctant because I would dearly love to have learned something from this blog that wasn’t ultimately profoundly depressing. Something to lift my gloom from the fact that over half the citizens of the world’s most powerful nation believe that the world was made in 6 days by an omnipotent being who then had to rest on the 7th day.
Anyway, I’ll leave you all to it. Roger Pearse — fear not, you won’t have to invoke the Inquisition to kill me off after all. You Creationists — keep up the Gish Galloping, very entertaining. And Tim — keep taking your meds.
You only live once, so I’m off to become a Buddhist. Peace.
October 31st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Oh dear, perhaps Simian’s post touched a nerve.
Seems that HE implies we are all ‘red necked Young Earth Creationists’.
Yet, I must admit the “you only live once, so I’m off to become a Buddhist” was very funny, so perhaps the whole of HE’s post was rather tongue in cheek.
October 31st, 2011 at 5:35 pm
H.E. That comment was not just directed at you, but if the cap fits… Actually I was just as perturbed by Tim’s declaring opinions to be facts…
It may surprise you that I am what is sometimes termed a ‘hard’ atheist, in that I have concluded there is no justification or necessity for God.
And yet that does not mean that I think all believers are stupid. Very far from it. In as much as nothing can be certain, I cannot know that I am right and they are wrong. I cannot prove I am right, any more than they can. I may be totally wrong – It’s not one of those concepts about which one can be half right or half wrong.
But isn’t it better to engage constructively those with whom you do not agree? I learn things all the time from believers, who have given a great deal of careful thought to many fundamental concepts. Sometimes it changes my views. Sometimes it hardens my views. But it’s almost always productive, and I hugely appreciate many of their ideas.
You really ought to visit William Lane Craig’s website and listen to some of his lectures – as opposed to debates, where too much testosterone seems to fly about on both sides. I think you’ll find it interesting if you approach it with an open mind. I would agree that the Ontological, Cosmological, etc. arguments have all been countered, but then we are not dealing with truths or facts such as 2+2=4 in Newtonian terms. We are dealing in balance of probability, and trying to understand the nature of the unknowable, or currently unknown.
I disagree with WLC’s conclusions, but given that religion has provided the status quo for so long, isn’t it up to those of us who do not agree to find better ways to articulate why we disagree? Being rude or arrogant to people tends to make them reject you out of hand, as you’ve experienced.
November 1st, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Surely if Richard Dawkins does not want to debate with WLC, and he has given his reasons, isn’t that an end to it? Homo Erectus defended his right and reaped the whirlwind – an ugly mixture of invective, nit-picking, and condescension. Simian’s final overview could be well described by Dr Johnson: “Advice, as it always gives a temporary appearance of superiority, can never be very grateful…when nothing is necessary to elevation but detection of the follies or faults of others, no man is so insensible to the voice of fame to linger on the ground”
November 1st, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Hocus Pocus:
If we were fully rational beings I might agree, but we are not – none of us are.
Looking around at many of the reactions to RD’s various statements on the topic I am left with the impression that there remains a significant gap between perception and reality, and I think for all our sakes he should articulate his position more effectively to those who gleefully leap at any apparent evidence of the weakness of his position. Of course, he is under no obligation whatsoever to do so, but I think it would be helpful for us all. I cannot get away from the impression that, however fundamentally flawed his arguments may appear to some of us, William Lane Craig remains a charismatic and articulate apologist; and he should surely be taken seriously.
If my advice came across as condescending that was not my intention. It’s so much harder to debate without the benefit of face to face contact or of knowing the first thing about one’s fellow contributors, so I try to make very few assumptions about them. And if subtlety does not appear to work I tend to be a little more direct. If Dr Johnson’s words apply to me then so be it. All I’m trying to do is to be helpful. I may fail, but I think it’s better to try than to sit on the fence and do nothing. After all, isn’t that part of the point of blogs – to experiment, and to learn, in a relatively safe virtual environment? I did not feel that Homo Erectus contributed anything particularly useful to the debate, or which had not been already said many times before, but that’s just my opinion.
If you put the boot on the other foot and consider what often happens to a believer who comments contemptuously on an openly atheist blog, then the reaction here is perhaps not so surprising. Some comments are just not that helpful or enlightening to anybody else in the context of the blog.
November 1st, 2011 at 7:37 pm
To Simian and HE, I wasn’t declaring opinions as facts. I was stating that it was a fact those statements had been made. This is the problem with Internet discussions, and one of the reasons why I dislike them so much. Take some of HE’s comments, I cannot tell if he is smiling (tongue in cheek) whilst he makes them or is being serious, and vice versa.
What I noticed about the Sheldonian debate was the fact that everyone there, regardless of personal opinions about the subject, showed a lot of respect and smiles towards each other. In fact, I saw an interview with Dr Craig about that debate and he said just how much he enjoyed the experience and it was a wonderful time for him. This is possible face to face, but so difficult online like this because we cannot see each other.
The final paragraph in your last comment was spot on Simian. I deliberately avoid atheist websites because it is their territory, their space, and they do not want the likes of me hanging around. I appreciate it when they show the same consideration.
My aversion to atheism is not the reason for my dislike of Dawkins. My dislike of Dawkins is that he is a sorry example for his belief system and he has been enormously rude, and downright nasty towards Dr Craig, a man that has done him no harm whatsoever other than challenge his claims which is something that Dawkins claimed he wanted people to do. Then again as John Barrow said to him:
“You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you’re not really a scientist. You’re a biologist.”
But compare and contrast Dawkins attitude towards Craig with the attitude of those academics that did debate him, especially Peter Millican.
And HE, don’t worry. I won’t stop taking the meds without my doctors approval in future.
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:59 am
I have a low opinion of debates. Artful and winning debaters are not necessarily right. When I was growing up I read a number of debates by ministers from my heritage, the Churches of Christ, and it seemed to me at the time that they won in their efforts to “prove” that instrumental music in church is wrong, and a number of other issues I won’t go into. They were effective enough for a few decades to attract thousands to that persuasion. From my perspective now, they may have won those debates but they were wrong.
November 2nd, 2011 at 6:39 am
@ Steve:
I tend to agree Steve, but there are exceptions. I went to a debate between A.C. Grayling and the Archbishop of Canterbury in front of a relatively small and well mannered audience, and it was a fascinating exchange of ideas. They did not agree, but they lucidly articulated their perspectives on specific topics, and I think they got most of us to think more broadly about things and to accept that alternative views were plausible, even if we did not agree. A debate such as this can be very useful. (You may not share my regard for either of the protagonists above, but that’s not my point…)
@Tim:
Are you saying that we should all stick to blogs that accord with our beliefs? If you are then I beg to differ. We can learn so much by being challenged, and be far surer of our beliefs (or reject some of them) as a result.
I think you’d find that many atheist blogs would not give you a hard time at all, provided you didn’t feel you had to proselytise. Debating open ended questions without overly declaring your own hand can be very educational to all concerned. so, for example, if one was discussing abortion, you could perhaps argue a ‘pro-life’ position from a non-religious perspective.
It’s an interesting, if challenging, exercise and I’d recommend it. Amongst other things I find it teaches me patience!
November 2nd, 2011 at 6:57 am
“Amongst other things I find it teaches me patience!”
Right well there you have lost me then, lol! Patience is not one of my virtues, especially when it comes to discussing logic and reason. It can be extremely frustrating being me at times. But I’d rather go to sites where people can post things without abuse being hurled back, which means it might have to be non-committal either way. I have seen and experienced far too much abusive behaviour to ever trust a site that is not properly moderated. For the most part, it seems to me, many commenters simply want to make smart-arsed comments or haven’t a clue what they are actually talking about.
On the subject of debates I agree that they can be very useful. Not forgetting of course the fact that open debates are a vital part of a functioning democracy and the free and open exchange of ideas in education.
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:22 am
Tim,
I agree that there is a lot of abusive and nasty behaviour on the web – and it’s not confined to any particular type of blog. It’s the nature of this disembodied means of communication, where people can hide behind virtual anonymity.
But deciding what constitutes ‘properly moderated‘ is really tricky. On the whole I am against moderating out comments unless they are gratuitously nasty or abusive. Earlier in this thread we had Roger Pearce suggesting that the webmaster ‘kill’ Homo Erectus’s comments. I think the webmaster took exactly the right decision in allowing them, as it gave us the opportunity to challenge his position, and therby maybe we all gained something. Certainly his comments were no threat to any of us, even if we profoundly disagreed.
So I think we have to accept that some comments will challenge our patience and we may find them offensive. Personally, I have found that if I stick to a rational and calm response to each point, the antagonist is often denied the satisfaction of riling me and others, and slinks away to pick an argument elsewhere. Sometimes they may even moderate their views! I like to think so anyway… That’s part of the fascination of blogging and commenting.
It may seem strange that an atheist should often support a religious blogger, but you know – if you take out belief in God and religion specific dogma – a Humanist can be just about inditinguishable from a Christian in the way they lead their lives. We support and oppose very similar things; and many of us are united against extremism, of all vareties.
November 3rd, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Nice friendly discussion yes, makes a nice change from what I am used to, lol. The trouble is it takes so long, everywhere on the Internet. Whereas, a discussion like this face to face it would have taken about ten minutes.
Yes, simply disagreeing with people is not reason to boot someone off. And if someone has a bad argument then they must be prepared to have an answer to their detractors. But patience is not one of my virtues unfortunately, and what do you do about the antagonist that refuses to take the hint, keeps pushing into other peoples discussions, claims to want to learn but when something is patiently explained to them which they didn’t understand previously, responds with “Well I couldn’t give a rat’s arse about that.” because in their mind their opinion was all that mattered, uses obscenely bad ad hominem attacks on you in order to try and prevent anyone reading your comments…and all the while the blog admin sits there and does nothing at all – and all of that is just for starters
– what do you do then?
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:12 pm
I don’t think it’s happened to me Tim, but if it did, and it was clear that this person was not capable of reasoned responses, then I would just move on. I would agree that life’s too short to get involved in a pointless argument with someone who doesn’t care enough to try to see another point of view, or is simply incapable of doing so.
You got me thinking though. I was tempted by the idea of creating a religious alter ego and posting reasonable but challenging comments on an Atheist blog, to see what it’s like to be on the receiving end of this kind of behaviour – if it happens. I was a fairly conscientious Christian for a number of years, so perhaps that’s the approach I would take.
But, now I think about it, I’m not sure I can go through with it. Itjust feels so wrong somehow.
November 4th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
I’ve been thinking about your idea but am not too sure one way or the other whether it would be the right thing to do. On the one hand you would be deliberately deceiving others, on the other hand it could be an interesting experiment to further the cause of mutual understanding. The downside though, from your perspective, might be that your were so good at debating for theism you reconvert yourself
November 8th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
William Lane Craig refuses to debate his old pupil John Loftus. I find his reasons for refusing less convincing than Dawkins’ reasons for not debating WLC. Does this make Craig a coward?
WLC debates in a particular way that – to me – has more to do with wrong-footing the opponent than it does arriving at the truth. His arguments are like MC Escher drawings that appear to depict perpetual motion devices. It’s quite tricky to look at these etchings and spot exactly where the ‘trick’ takes place. To debate WLC one needs to be skilled at spotting the tricks he uses. Dawkins is not one of these people – his normal debating partners are Bishops and such like, who are more interested in an exchange of ideas. In a normal debate one does not have to justify why, say, murdering someone is wrong. WLC will shrug and ask you to explain your principles, whereas most people are used to such ideas being taken as read, and any debate proceeds with that being an unspoken ‘base point’.
The only people I’m interesting in seeing WLC debate are other professional debaters and counter-apologists such as Loftus, the Reasonable Doubts crew and Matt Dilahunty. All have offered to debate WLC, all have been turned down.
November 8th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Andrew, without trying to prompt a debate on this subject (I am not), you might be better advised having a discussion with someone else that has tried to debate John Loftus. Such an exchange might be very enlightening for you:
Say Hello To My Little Friend
November 8th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Although WLC’s arguments are flawed (the Kalam stuff relies on intuitive reasoning — if you want it to be true it is true), he is no doubt a master debater. But I find his methods are very much like the Gish Galloping favoured by the Creationists (I think referred to in earlier posts, but see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop), which are very irritating and not designed to further understanding. There are plenty of internet articles out there on how to defeat WLC in debates, but I guess Dawkins is better at round-table discussions than formal debates. There is also a large amount of chaff out there in the form of attacks on people who won’t debate other people, designed I suspect to divert attention from their messages.
November 8th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Tim, some people refuse to debate WLC, he refuses to debate Loftus, and there are people that Loftus doesn’t want to debate. Where does any of that get us?
I stand by my last post, and agree with everything Jay says above too.
November 8th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“The only people I’m interesting in seeing WLC debate are other professional debaters and counter-apologists such as Loftus, the Reasonable Doubts crew and Matt Dilahunty. All have offered to debate WLC, all have been turned down.”
The implications of that last sentence are obvious. But then you say:
“Tim, some people refuse to debate WLC, he refuses to debate Loftus, and there are people that Loftus doesn’t want to debate. Where does any of that get us? I stand by my last post…”
*sigh*
I recently read an exchange between two people, one an atheist and the other a Christian, in which the atheist accused the Christian of having not even an undergrads knowledge of Cosmology and making things up. The Christian replied that he had simply copied and pasted his Cosmological arguments from a (specified) University website’s article about the subject. The question then was, who was making things up now?
This is why I won’t debate online and tend to ignore others self-promotion as to how easily they can defeat *insert philosopher’s/scientists name here* easily in any debate. Money where mouth is. Go and do it then, to the scientist or philosopher concerned. Don’t waste time with me as I am simply not going to listen. I have come across too many people claiming degrees and knowledge which further discussion revealed to be fiction. One was actually an international author, later exposed the the international press as a liar and a fraud. Call me a cynic or a coward or whatever you like, I really don’t care.
November 8th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Tim, you’ve completely lost me. What implications are you talking about? The only point I was making was that one cannot draw conclusions from who refuses to debate WLC unless you’re equally willing to draw conclusions from who he refuses to debate. My own view is that no-one is obligated to debate anyone else. Both WLC and Dawkins have people they obviously view as being not worth their time to debate.
As for your last para, again you’ve lost me: I’ve not claimed that I can beat WLC. I’ve not claimed that anyone else can either. I’ve not claimed to have any degrees or knowledge.
My point was really very concise and simple – you appear to be reacting to something else completely.
November 8th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
I think Andrew Ryan has hit the nail on the head. WLC is the master of the debate, and adept at wrong-footing his opponents with guile. We simply don’t appear to have a debater skilled or practiced enough to counter this. (And please not Loftus. As an Atheist myself, I don’t find him at all impressive in debate. To my mind, he too often comes across as ill prepared and dismissive. Not the best way to win an argument.
How much do Atheists worry? Not as much as many might think. It’s relatively easy to effectively counter his arguments away from the heat of the debating chamber. As I’ve written previously, these debates are more about flinging about testosterone than encouraging deeper understanding; about generating more heat than light.
The thing that I find sad about this kind of pitching ‘Champions’ against each other is that it tends to polarise arguments, and encourage each side to put up higher ramparts against anything the opposition might throw at them, instead of trying to understand the others’ point of view as fellow humans.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Well Andrew, you did state that you stand by everything Jay says. And as for not understanding what I wrote? That’s a problem I frequently encounter with atheists. Particularly the words I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE ANY OF YOU FOR AFOREMENTIONED REASONS. Perhaps if I shout it out loud enough it might finally strike home.
And I do most humbly apologise if my having a Christian world-view and commenting from a Christian perspective on a Christian website offends all of you atheists sensibilities. How dare I? How could I be so thoughtless? Well duh.
And Simian, I refuse to discuss anything with someone that thinks he’s an archbishop with all the authority of the church behind him. OK that was a joke, which I had better explain before someone misinterprets it. A simian is a primate, lol.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Again Tim, absolutely baffling post.
“And I do most humbly apologise if my having a Christian world-view and commenting from a Christian perspective on a Christian website offends all of you atheists sensibilities”
That’s lovely, but I’ve not claimed to be offended. I didn’t understand what you wrote because it didn’t appear to follow at all from my post. Figuring that it might have been my fault, I clarified my meaning, in case you had misunderstood me; without you doing the same in return, I continue to be baffled.
And I’ve not actually asked you to debate me. I posted a simple point. You’re welcome not be interested in engaging with what I actually wrote. But it seems a waste of your time to react to stuff I haven’t even said.
Cheerio.
November 8th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Perhaps we should all take a break….
The choice of the name ‘Simian’ is of course intentional, as you have noticed Tim – and refers to Darwin and all that…. But I must admit I hadn’t thought of the alternative!
November 9th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Re-reading some of the postings above, one cannot but wonder if there is a subtext to Jay’s comment about WLC being a “master debater”. If so, it does little to advance the discussion.