Video debates and Interviews

[betsy]

Dawkins wrote The God Delusion. The debate's supposed to be about the existence of God.

Surely he can stand by and defend his own view?

Edited June 19, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

I know it's tough for you to understand the idea of probability and plausibility, since faith requires you to unreasonably deal with absolutes, but Dawkins won't debate the existence of God because he never claimed that God doesn't exist.

[betsy]

Excerpt of the email sent by Daniel Came to Richard Dawkins.

Daniel Came wrote:

Subject: William Lane Craig

Dear Professor Dawkins, I write as an atheist and in reference to your refusal to participate in a one-to-one debate with the philosopher William Lane Craig

You dismiss Professor Craig as a ‘professional debater’ and state that you are not willing to debate anyone less senior than a bishop. Professor Craig has a PhD in philosophy and a PhD in theology. He is Research Professor in Philosophy at Talbot University. He has published more than thirty books and over a hundred papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

I understand that you have also commented that ‘a debate with Professor Craig might look good on his CV but it would not look good on mine’. On the contrary, the absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

While I have your attention, may I also urge you to take another look at the ontological argument for the existence of God? On the basis of your brief discussion of the argument in The God Delusion, it appears you do not understand the logic of this argument.

More...

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topics/full-text-of-dr-daniel-cames

Richard Dawkins replied to this email. The exchanges between these two atheists can be read through the link provided.

Edited June 19, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

The last time I look, there's nothing there that says you cannot use any of the sources they provide as a tool for argument or rebutt!

You didn't look, and if you did, you didn't understand what you read.

It clearly says (and I cut and paste) "Copyright © 1998-2006 TalkOrigins Archive".

God doesn't like theft. I think he even has a commandment about it.

[betsy]

Toynbee steps in where Grayling & Dawkins fear to tread

New Atheists urged to put their mouths where their money is

President of the British Humanist Association (BHA), Polly Toynbee, has agreed to debate the existence of God with eminent Christian Philosopher, William Lane Craig, when he visits the UK for a tour of speaking engagements in October.

Leading British atheists Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling have both flatly refused to debate with Craig, who was recently described by Sam Harris as “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into my fellow atheists”.

Meanwhile between them, Dawkins and Grayling have produced a litany of excuses for declining to debate.

Fellow Oxford academic and atheist philosopher Dr Daniel Came recently wrote to Dawkins warning him that his refusal of a one-to-one debate with Craig was “apt to be interpreted as cowardice”.

Of Grayling’s flippant refusal to debate the existence of God with Craig, Dr. Came has said:

“Professor Grayling’s attitude is hard to justify philosophically. It is a genuine philosophical problem, and there are few, if any, that are more profound or of greater interest to the general public.”

Furthermore, Grayling has refused to debate the foundations for atheistic morality, which is ironic, following the publication of his mock Bible. Dr Peter May, the Craig UK Tour Director comments, “The basis of morality is a subject of major intellectual importance. I find it quite shocking that Grayling is prepared to lecture the world on atheist morality but is not prepared to justify its grounding. Since the great atheist philosopher, Nietzsche, thought that atheism spelled the death of all morality, why doesn't Grayling?"

Since Dawkins and Grayling have both made significant sums from their books about God, their refusal to defend their writings in public debate is extraordinary. Is it not reasonable to ask them both to publicly put their mouths where their money is?

More...

http://www.bethinking.org/resources.php?ID=866

I guess Sam Harris' description of Craig is correct. Craig seems to have put the fear of God into Dawkins and Grayling.

[betsy]

The viral Youtube video...

William Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair

However—whereas Dr. Craig has accepted the invitation, Dr. Dawkins has refused four invitations sent to him from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and now Premier Radio. This refusal sparked accusations of cowardice in a letter from Oxford philosophy professor (and atheist) Dr. Daniel Came, urging Dr. Dawkins to reconsider debating.

This in turn led to an embarrassing article in the UK Telegraph and this viral YouTube video.

Dr. Craig will show up to the October 25 debate in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford. If Dr. Dawkins does not, then Dr. Craig will give a critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion. There will be a table and chair set up for Dr. Dawkins to the last minute.

Richard Dawkins’ events page shows that he is free in October.

http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/san-francisco-atheists-interested-to-see-dawkins-debate-craig

Edited June 19, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

FFS. This cutting and pasting is getting ridiculous.

[bloodyminded]

FFS. This cutting and pasting is getting ridiculous.

Agreed. Even for the sake of the person doing the cutting and pasting, such carpet bombing is a notoriously ineffective debating method.

[dre]

What's wrong about the cut-and-paste method?

This site isnt supposed to be a clearing house for other peoples articles. You should write substantive opinions of your own and back them up with LINKS to supporting content, instead of lazy hit and run c&P jobs.

[cybercoma]

I thought it was dumb up to this point. Now, it is quite literally the definition of ridiculous. It's almost like betsy is a parody of a creationist. I wouldn't be surprised if she was a fake account of someone's.

[betsy]

This site isnt supposed to be a clearing house for other peoples articles. You should write substantive opinions of your own and back them up with LINKS to supporting content, instead of lazy hit and run c&P jobs.

The Rules and Guidelines sez:

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion.

Obviously, some have to be led to the water dish and given a step-by-step lesson in how to recognize the water....and how to drink the water.

The argument is about Dawkins' repeated refusal to face William Craig, citing hypocritical excuses. The latest pressure being applied to Dawkins to defend his position (his book, The God Delusion) came from a fellow-atheist Philosopher! By the looks of it, even Sam Harris is applying some pressure by describing Lane as the "apologist who put the fear of God into his colleagues," which I presume he meant Dawkins and Grayling.

They even made a mocking video of Dawkins' fear! Talk about incredible pressure. Push comes to shoev, Dawkins cannot deliver!

Everybody is saying Dawkins is chicken! Furthermore, this also supports my assertion that Dawkins - one of the founders of the Church of the Non-Believers - is all just hot air, with no substance!

For those of you who disagree with this assessment, defend your Pope Dawkins!

If you can't, you can't! And by the looks of this, you surely can't....otherwise you wouldn't be wasting time doing your choir whine -a displaced whining at that, about cut-and-paste - in a topic that gives you a large flashing sign of surely loads of cut-and-paste!

Will you read the title of this post. Here, let me do the font-thingy too!

It sez:

VIDEO DEBATES AND INTERVIEWS

What do you think the title means when it sez "video debates?" That Mapleleaf will make a video of us debating one another?

What do you think the title means when it sez "interviews?" That we'll get Pope Dawkins to come here for an interview?

If you guys hate cut-and-paste so much.....you surely picked on the wrong topic to visit!

Edited June 19, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

What is getting ridiculous is the way some posters are passing off just about anything for facts!

The rules and guidelines says:

RESEARCH YOUR POST

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument.

I find it not only disruptively inconsiderate, but also downright deceptive. Since there are a few names here who persistently indulge in unfair insults and deceptive and/or irresponsible ways of "debating," it is only fair therefore to point out those posts that are baloney and/or revealing and ironic.

Edited June 19, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

The rules and guidelines says:

You really don't have a clue what copyright law says though, do you?

It's considered stealing. Really.

And you know what the Lord God does with unrepentant thieves, don't you?

I'm so glad I've been saved. The feelings of self-righteousness are truly glorious.

[betsy]

Going back to Dawkins. How long is he going to resist the pressure to face Craig?

Does he realize that all these pressures - which are turning into outright mockings of him - will make him look stupid? After all, it was him who wrote The God Delusion.

Richard Dawkins is, according to Gary Wolf, from his article in Wired.com,

.....the "leading light of the New Atheism movement.

For the New Atheists, the problem is not any specific doctrine, but religion in general. Or, as Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, "As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers."

The New Atheist insight is that one might start anywhere – with an intellectual argument, with a visceral rejection of Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, with political disgust – and then, by relentless and logical steps, renounce every supernatural crutch.

Topic: Church of the Non-Believers

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18436&st=0

Well, Craig is a reputable Philosopher with a bevy of achievements under his belt. He is a Christian. An Apologeticist. Being a philosopher, he can certainly give an intellectual argument.

And what a better way to take a logical step in renouncing a "supernatural crutch" by indulging in a logical public debate. You get to renounce the supernatural crutch publicly!

As for being relentless, the relentlessness in this scenario comes from the relentless clamor for this one-on-one to happen....matched only by the relentless scurrying away by Dawkins!

The New Atheism movement is supposed to be an in-your-face-offense tactic against religion/faith. Well, practically everyone - including atheists - are pushing Dawkins to get into an in-your-face with Craig....but Dawkins just won't!

Big words. Talking about aggressive offense when he can't even do any defense!

The optics are not good for those fence-sitters, or those who got swayed by Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. This must be a big let-down.

If Dawkins cannot bring himself to stand by his own book, that says a lot about the rubbish that's in that book! It must mean, he knows Craig will easily tear his book apart!

Edited June 20, 2011 by betsy

[cybercoma]

I can cut and paste too!

Dealing with William Lane Craig

By LAWRENCE KRAUSS - RD.NET

Added: Tuesday, 05 April 2011 at 12:01 PM - An RDFRS Original

It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn’t, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals. I suppose this is the purpose of regular Sunday church services, for example, to reinforce the community of belief in between the rest of the week when the real world may show no evidence of God, goodness, fairness, or purpose.

Nevertheless I was not prepared for the self-congratulatory hype that I have seen spouted on the web, and have received in emails, including a typically disingenuous email from Wiliam Lane Craig to his followers regarding a debate I had with him in North Carolina last week. While carrying out the debate in the first place was something that broke my normal rules--as I said during the debate, I far prefer civil conversation and discourse as a way of illuminating knowledge and reality--I will break another rule and write this blog-like note on my own perspectives, in the hope that it may circulate and counter some of the nonsense that has propagated in the fundamentalist and religious blogs of late. Perhaps Craig will post this on his blog and send it out as well.

I believe that if I erred at all, it was in an effort to consider the sensibilities of the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig, and to whom I decided to show undue respect. As I stressed at the time, I did not come to debate the existence of God, but rather to debate about evidence for the existence of God. I also wanted to demonstrate the need for nuance, to explain how these issues are far more complex than Craig, in his simplistic view of the world, makes them out to be. For this reason, as I figured I would change few minds, I decided also to try and illustrate for these young minds the nature of science, with the hope that what they saw might cause them to think. Unfortunately any effort I made to show nuance and actually explain facts was systematically distorted in Craig’s continual effort to demonstrate how high school syllogisms apparently demonstrated definitive evidence for God.

Let me now comment, with the gloves off, on the disingenuous distortions, simplifications, and outright lies that I regard Craig as having spouted. I was very disappointed because I had heard that Craig was more of a philosopher than a proselytizer, but that was not evident the other evening.

Craig began with an attempt to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials by writing a rather meaningless equation on this first slide, which he then argued would be the basis for his ‘evidence’. The equation, in words said that if the probability, given the data, gave one a greater than 50% likelihood for God’s existence, then this was evidence. He even presented this as a pseudo- Bayesian Argument.

The problem is that using mathematical probabilities in this fashion ONLY makes sense if you have a well defined probability measure, and if one can check that the conclusions one draws are not sensitive to one’s priors. He did not explain this at all, nor do I think he understood it when I tried to explain it to him. For the rest of the evening Craig simply proceeded to spout his claimed evidence, and then proceeded to state that each gave him a greater than 50% belief in God. The whole purpose of the mathematical nonsense at the beginning was to give some kind of scientific credibility to a discussion which was anything but. It was disingenuous smoke and mirrors. (Moreover, as I tried to explain, in modern scientific experiments, merely finding an unexpected result, with say only a 20% chance of being wrong, is not sufficient to establish evidence. One needs to go to much higher levels of confidence, especially if the claim being made disagrees with all other evidence. It is hard to think of a grander claim than evidence for a divine being who creates the universe without apparent purpose, dominated by dark matter and dark energy and containing hundreds of billions of galaxies, lets it evolve untouched for billions of years, and then roughly a million years into human evolution decides to intervene at a time before Youtube or any other objective recording and archiving tool was available.)

Next, if one is going to frame the argument scientifically, as I argued is essential when discussing empirical evidence, which Craig later took great pains to disavow, one must point out that in science when one is trying to explain and predict data, one tries to explore all possible physical causes for some effect before resorting to the supernatural. Happily it is precisely this progress in our natural philosophy that ended such religious atrocities as the burning of witches. In each and every case the actual syllogism that one ended up with was:

Craig either doesn’t understand how something could happen, or instead believes that events happened that confirmed his pre-existing belief system.

In the absence of understanding physical causes or exploring alternatives, this implies evidence for the existence of God.

Therefore there is evidence that God exists.

This is what I framed as the “God of the Gaps” argument and I continue to view, upon reflection, most of the claims of Craig as falling in this well-known theological trap.

Let me work backwards through his 5 “arguments”:

The resurrection of Jesus, and that fact that the followers of Jesus were willing to die for their beliefs provides evidence of God: I admit that this claim is so sloppy and fatuous that in an effort to demonstrate some margin of respect for Craig I tried to avoid it for as long as I could. Craig argued that most New Testament scholars believe in the resurrection. Even if this were true, though Craig provided no evidence of this, this of course is simply proof that New Testament scholars have an a priori faith that guides them. It is like claiming that most Islamic scholars may believe that Mohammed actually ascended to heaven on a horse. In the first place, there are no definitive eyewitness accounts of these events, and in the case of the claimed resurrection the scriptures were written decades after the claimed event, and the different accounts are not even consistent. Not only are there serious theologians who doubt the resurrection, there are historians who doubt the historical existence of Jesus himself. Whatever one’s views in this regard, however, one must ask oneself the simple question: Is it more likely that all known physical laws were suspended so God could demonstrate divinity--and moreover demonstrate this in a hackneyed way that recreated previous resurrection myths, down to the number of days before being raised from the dead, of several previous, and now long-gone religious cults—or is it more likely that those who were preaching to convert fabricated a resurrection myth in order to convince those to whom they were preaching of Christ’s divinity? Finally, the remarkable, and completely trite claim that the fact the Christians were willing to die for their beliefs demonstrates the validity of these beliefs would be laughable, if it weren’t so pitiful. Especially, as I indicated during the event, in light of the fact that people were recently willing to fly planes into skyscrapers because of their beliefs in a religious framework that I know Craig has openly disavowed. Throughout history people have been willing to die for their beliefs, and it is often the beliefs one is willing to die for that are most suspect. Did Roman soldiers believe in Romulus and Remus? Did Viking warriers believe in Thor? Did Nazi soldiers believe in the superiority of the Aryan race? I found and still find Craig’s statement not only facile, and not even worthy of a high school debater, but I find the claim offensive.

FineTuning: The appearance of design is one of the most subtle and confusing aspects of our Universe. Charles Darwin, with his Origin of Species, brilliantly and masterfully explained how the modern world, with its remarkable diversity of life forms may have the appearance of design without any design at all. It was one of the greatest and most striking scientific discoveries of all time, and it is the basis of modern biology and medicine, leading to countless other discoveries that have continued to save countless lives. Craig is aware, from his superficial reading of cosmology, of fine tuning problems in Cosmology, which he then immediately argued requires the existence of intelligent life, implying purpose to the universe. Not only does he fall prey to the same fallacy that those who, before Darwin enlightened us, ascribed design in biology fall prey to, he also continually misrepresented the nature of any apparent fine-tuning of quantities that we currently may not understand from first principles. I tried to explain to him that the current entropy of the universe is not fine tuned, nor need the initial entropy be fine tuned, because Inflation provides a mechanism to wipe out initial conditions and produce huge amounts of entropy, without God. I tried to explain to him that the Cosmological Constant, which is perhaps the most confusing finely tuned parameter we know of in the Universe, is fine tuned in a mathematical sense, compared to the naïve value we might expect on the basis of our current understanding of physical theory. While it is also true that if it were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos. Finally, even if some parameters in our currently incomplete model of the universe do appear fine tuned for human life to be possible, (a) we have no idea if other values would allow other non-human-like intelligent life forms to evolve, since we have no understanding of the locus of all possible intelligent life forms. And, beyond this, just as bees are fine tuned to see the colors of flowers which they can pollinate as they go about their business does not indicate design, but rather natural selection, we currently have no idea if the conditions of our universe represent a kind of cosmic natural selection. If there are many universes, for example, as may be the case, and as are predicted in a variety of models, none of which were developed to address God issues, we would certainly expect to find ourselves only in those in which we can live. All of these are subtle and interesting issues worthy of discussion by knowledgeable and honest intellects. I found Craig to be lacking in both of the qualities during his discussion of this issue.

Absolute Morals: Craig argued that the existence of absolute morality gives evidence for God. Once again this is simple minded. Indeed in a meeting we convened at my Origins Project of distinguished philosophers and neuroscientists we debated the subtle issues of morality and human evolution, the possible variants of morality, and a host of other issues, without once ever resorting to God. As I tried to explain to Craig, paraphrasing Steven Pinker, if there were a God, either God would have the choice to determine what is right and wrong or not. But in this case, if God determined that raping and murdering 2 year-olds is morally acceptable would it be so? If not, as reason and experience suggests, then God really has to resort to other considerations, kindness, compassion, etc (except for the Old Testament God!), on which to base God’s decisions. But if that is the case, why not just dispense with the middle-man? Lastly, if there is evidence that God provides absolute Morality, it is missing from the world of our experience, where different religious groups, all of whom claim divine inspiration, have incompatible moral views, often leading to horrendous and violent acts against women and children, for example. Indeed, the Old Testament is full of such acts.

Contingency: Frankly the argument that humans or the universe do not have to exist but they do as providing evidence for God is something I find unfounded, so I will not devote any more words here to this subject. Many ‘contingent’ phenomena occur by natural causes, from earthquakes to snowflakes and I do not have to invoke God’s will to explain them. What applies to earthquakes and snowflakes applies to the Universe. Just because I cannot yet explain the origin of the Universe does not imply the existence of God…again God of the Gaps.

Our Universe had a beginning, therefore God must have created it: Actually the issue of the beginning of the Universe is the only truly interesting question worth discussing here. A host of scientific arguments need to be discussed here, and there is no doubt the question of chicken and egg is a vexing one for cosmologists as well as theologians. However, let me make a few points here: (1) All things that begin may have a cause, even if the cause is rather obscure and purposeless. However, what is important to note is that every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause. There is no reason therefore to assume the same will not be true of our universe itself. (2) There are no arguments that our universe need be unique and not derived from something pre-existing, or even eternal. Indeed, the Ekpyrotic Universe promoted by Turok and Steinhardt, which I don’t find compelling, argues for potentially eternal periods of expansion and contraction. Craig doesn’t understand the physics. (2) I continued to try and explain that quantum gravity may imply that space and time themselves are created at the moment of the big bang. This is a rather remarkable statement if true. But if it is true, in the absence of time itself, how one can ascribe arguments based on causality is unclear at best.

This last point illustrates what I tried hardest to explain. Classical human reason, defined in terms of common sense notions following from our own myopic experience of reality is not sufficient to discern the workings of the Universe. If time begins at the big bang, then we will have to re-explore what we mean by causality, just as the fact that electrons can be in two places at the same time doing two different things at the same time as long as we are not measuring them is completely nonsensical, but true, and has required rethinking what we mean by particles. Similar arguments by the way imply that we often need to rethink what we actually mean by ‘nothing’, from empty space, to the absence of space itself.

What I hoped I could convey to the truly open minded intellects in the audience, of which of course Craig was not one, was that the amazing effort to understand how the universe works reveals wonders far more remarkable than those presented by Bronze age myths, developed before we had any clear understanding of how the universe works. Simply arguing that one doesn’t understand the results, or doesn’t like the results and therefore one has to resort to supernatural explanations, which was the crux of Craig’s rather monotonous repetition of his syllogisms, is indeed intellectually lazy, as I did say at the time.

I have taken great effort to describe our actual understanding of the Universe and its implications for understanding how it might be possible for something to come from nothing, i.e. non-existence, in my new book, which will come out in January of 2012

source: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig

[betsy]

May 2011 Podcast

"William Lane Craig on Lawrence M. Krauss"

Craig responds and gives insights about the debate with Krauss.

[betsy]

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG vs LAWRENCE KRAUSS

Debate Audio

March 30, 2011

NC State

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD?

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss.html

Here is the actual debate that's discussed in the two preceding posts.

Edited June 21, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

The results are in from the exit polls at NC State

for The Great Debate: Is There Evidence for God?

516 cards turned in

286 Dr. Craig made the clearer/better presentation

130 Dr. Krauss made the clearer/better presentation

100 stated it was a draw

http://thegreatdebatencsu.com/

Craig won. By a long shot.

Edited June 21, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

Craig won. By a long shot.

Doesn't seem to be terribly much to brag about.

[betsy]

Doesn't seem to be terribly much to brag about.

No. It's not about bragging.

Considering the date that Krauss wrote his article - April 5 - it makes me wonder if it has anything to do with the outcome of the debate?

If Craig won by a long shot, surely Krauss could tell by the actual reaction of the crowd where he stood in that debate.

Furthermore, it makes me wonder if his article was his way of scrambling to protect his upcoming book - another pop book I suppose - which he plugged in that same article.

Edited June 21, 2011 by betsy

[g_bambino]

If Craig won by a long shot, surely Krauss could tell by the actual reaction of the crowd where he stood in that debate.

Krauss expresses in the article quoted by cybercoma that he was already well aware of where he stood in the minds of the audience before debating even started: "...the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig."

So, Craig was preaching to the converted. Which leads me back again to my statement: the preacher winning purely because the majority of those he was preaching to were already converts isn't, in any way, a surprise, and thus nothing to brag about.

[cybercoma]

Can I just say that I didn't actually read what I posted.

I confess.

And, I'm sorry.

I feel ashamed of myself.

[g_bambino]

Can I just say that I didn't actually read what I posted.

It was a fairly good read.

[GostHacked]

Can I just say that I didn't actually read what I posted.

I confess.

And, I'm sorry.

I feel ashamed of myself.

I glazed over it like I glazed over all of Betsy's post after she put me on the ignore wagon. However the font can go up to 72pt, which she has not broken out yet. But we have seen an increase of larger bolded fonts since she started losing this 'debate'. It's a show of desperation.

[cybercoma]

It was a fairly good read.

You're welcome?

I glazed over it like I glazed over all of Betsy's post after she put me on the ignore wagon. However the font can go up to 72pt, which she has not broken out yet. But we have seen an increase of larger bolded fonts since she started losing this 'debate'. It's a show of desperation.

That's actually one of the things about betsy, although usually annoying as hell, can be quite amusing. You can tell how frustrated she is by the size, bolding and underining of the font and how many :lol: smilies she puts in her posts.