IS GOD A DELUSION? The Debate That Never Was

[betsy]

Here is the debate that Dawkins refused to engage....abandoning his book to be ripped apart by William Lane Craig.

Edited March 3, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Great another Kent Hovind.

[GostHacked]

Clip from a video I posted under your No Intelligence Allowed thread ..

[DogOnPorch]

God is a concept by which we measure our pain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yUSGvm4BXA

[Guest]

He has some good ideas...

[waldo]

Here is the debate that Dawkins refused to engage....abandoning his book to be ripped apart by William Lane Craig.

oh yes, the 'empty chair' bravado... a well-worn trumped up routine of AGW/CC charlatan deniers calling out legitimate scientists to engage in debate. Of course, examples of these debates invariably bring forward the "Gish Gallop" routine where deniers drown out scientists in a flurry of straw-man arguments, lies, fabrications and half-truths, to the point its impossible to counter the torrent of falsehoods in the debate forum/time. Is it a coincidence that the "Gish Gallop" debating technique is named after creationist, 'Duane Gish'... I think not!

in any case, are you suggesting Dawkins is afraid to engage in debate? That's certainly not the case throughout his history. Perhaps you might consider Dawkins own words:

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig - This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him

Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. 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". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".

Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.

In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another's name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly.

.

.

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.

.

[Michael Hardner]

I saw a counter strategy to this approach - which is to challenge creationists to prove their version based on facts, then turn the tables.

[Moonlight Graham]

I saw a counter strategy to this approach - which is to challenge creationists to prove their version based on facts, then turn the tables.

Haha yes that would be effective. You mean let them put all their cards on the table, and then turn around and completely show their version is historically/scientifically inaccurate? God vs no God is one thing, a debate that none can truly answer, but many historical facts from the Bible are flat-out not true. Most Christians don't understand the history of the how the Bible was written and edited. I'll bet most Christians don't even know that gospels of ie: John and Matthew weren't even written by those apostles it is often attributed, and were written generations after Jesus' death by those who likely never witnessed the accounts or ever met Jesus.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[GostHacked]

This guy is a lot of fun.

[Wayward Son]

I agree with Dawkins not debating William Lane Craig. Interestingly for Craig bellyaching about Dawkins has refused to debate him, he has refused to debate John Loftus (his excuse is that he will not debate a former student) or Matt Dillahunty. I don't know how Loftus would do, but I suspect that Dillahunty would crush Craig. To me the reason why Craig would want to debate people like Dawkins and not people people like Dillahunty is due to debating styles.

Craig is about rhetoric not actual good arguments. Debating him is like punching a cloud because what he says is completely nonsensical and when he talks about things like evolution it is clear to those who understand the topic that he has absolutely zero idea what he is talking about, but to those who understand little of the topic they see someone who is talking confidently and using big words. They don't understand what he is talking about and therefore assume that he must really know his stuff, when the reality is the opposite. Dawkins is used to debating actual evidence and therefore in a debate with Craig he would try to punch the cloud. Dillahunty is used to countering nonsense arguments and exposing them for what they are, and in a debate with Craig he would expose the cloud, expose that there is no substance to what Craig is actually saying, expose the ridiculous debating style of Craig for what it is.

When you are debating WLC, you are not debating the chosen topic, you are debating a stream of logical fallacies, arguments from authority, strawmen, extreme quote mining, appeals to emotion, gish gallops and so on.

[GostHacked]

I agree with Dawkins not debating William Lane Craig. Interestingly for Craig bellyaching about Dawkins has refused to debate him, he has refused to debate John Loftus (his excuse is that he will not debate a former student) or Matt Dillahunty. I don't know how Loftus would do, but I suspect that Dillahunty would crush Craig. To me the reason why Craig would want to debate people like Dawkins and not people people like Dillahunty is due to debating styles.

Craig is about rhetoric not actual good arguments. Debating him is like punching a cloud because what he says is completely nonsensical and when he talks about things like evolution it is clear to those who understand the topic that he has absolutely zero idea what he is talking about, but to those who understand little of the topic they see someone who is talking confidently and using big words. They don't understand what he is talking about and therefore assume that he must really know his stuff, when the reality is the opposite. Dawkins is used to debating actual evidence and therefore in a debate with Craig he would try to punch the cloud. Dillahunty is used to countering nonsense arguments and exposing them for what they are, and in a debate with Craig he would expose the cloud, expose that there is no substance to what Craig is actually saying, expose the ridiculous debating style of Craig for what it is.

When you are debating WLC, you are not debating the chosen topic, you are debating a stream of logical fallacies, arguments from authority, strawmen, extreme quote mining, appeals to emotion, gish gallops and so on.

I did watch another video last night, a debate at a Christian college/university with Hitchens and Graig. Quite entertaining. Craig reminds me a lot of Kent Hovind, but uses much more fancy words.

There were obvious differences in the deliveries. Craig talks to the crowd like they are children, trying to convince them with fancy long words that his view is correct. Hitchens talked to the crowd like they were adults and with respect. I'll find that link and post it. The debate was 2.5 hours long (listened to it while I did chores yesterday), so it was entertaining for the most part.

It is in the end a philosophical debate and not a scientific one. So I guess for this thread we can simply deal with the philosophies of each stance.

[Mighty AC]

I agree with Dawkins not debating William Lane Craig. Interestingly for Craig bellyaching about Dawkins has refused to debate him, he has refused to debate John Loftus (his excuse is that he will not debate a former student) or Matt Dillahunty. I don't know how Loftus would do, but I suspect that Dillahunty would crush Craig. To me the reason why Craig would want to debate people like Dawkins and not people people like Dillahunty is due to debating styles.

Craig wants the publicity from a Dawkins debate. He has nothing to gain from hurling fallacies at guys less famous than himself.

I would love to see a conversational style debate between Craig and any prominent atheist, like Harris, Dillahunty, Dawkins, etc. Traditional debates with guys like WLC are essentially useless. He spouts off fallacies during his talk time and the opponent is required to debunk a massive list of falsehoods. A conversational style debate forces the participants to stay on point. Fallacies can be challenged as they arise which often leads to a more useful discussion.

[GostHacked]

I don't agree with O'Reiley on many things. But he makes a good point here.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2196413605001/a-strong-belief-system-is-a-very-powerful-thing/?intcmp=obnetwork

Edited March 4, 2013 by GostHacked

[Mighty AC]

Wow, O'Reilly let a little more of himself shine through the shtick. Good points for his audience, in particular, to hear hear.

[GostHacked]

Wow, O'Reilly let a little more of himself shine through the shtick. Good points for his audience, in particular, to hear hear.

Come to think of it, it's hypocritical of him too. He loves to push his own agenda on others. He is a pinhead!

[betsy]

oh yes, the 'empty chair' bravado... a well-worn trumped up routine of AGW/CC charlatan deniers calling out legitimate scientists to engage in debate. Of course, examples of these debates invariably bring forward the "Gish Gallop" routine where deniers drown out scientists in a flurry of straw-man arguments, lies, fabrications and half-truths, to the point its impossible to counter the torrent of falsehoods in the debate forum/time. Is it a coincidence that the "Gish Gallop" debating technique is named after creationist, 'Duane Gish'... I think not!

in any case, are you suggesting Dawkins is afraid to engage in debate? That's certainly not the case throughout his history. Perhaps you might consider Dawkins own words:

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig - This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him

.

Call it bravado or whatever, the bottomline: Dawkins could not defend his own book. Even though his colleagues - which included Hitchens - were prodding and pushing him to square off with Craig....oh no, Dawkins really hightailed it!

Yeah, easy for dawkins to give lame reasons why he didn't want to. At first he belittled the credentials of Craig....and then he said he only debtae with bishops etc.., And now he's spouting a different tune!

He made ridiculous claims in that book and when someone challenged him for what he wrote, the ball is definitely in his court to defend his claims!

The only reason he refused to debate Craig is because he knew he cannot defend the b***shit he wrote in his book! Even atheist philosophers blasted his book, and called him ignorant!

Edited March 4, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Michael Ruse,

2 November 2009

Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute

There's a schism alright, and I seem to find myself on the unfashionable side of it

Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery. Dawkins was indignant when, on the grounds that inanimate objects cannot have emotions, philosophers like Mary Midgley criticised his metaphorical notion of a selfish gene. Sauce for the biological goose is sauce for the atheist gander. There are a lot of very bright and well informed Christian theologians. We atheists should demand no less.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse Edited March 5, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

EXCERPT FROM...

LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS

Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Terry Eagleton

(The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins)

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they dont believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be.

What, one wonders, are Dawkinss views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case? Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right.

A molehill of instances out of a mountain of them will have to suffice. Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (Where, given that he invites us at one point to question everything, is Dawkinss own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like?) Reason, to be sure, doesnt go all the way down for believers, but it doesnt for most sensitive, civilised non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason.

Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do.

Dawkins, who is as obsessed with the mechanics of Creation as his Creationist opponents, understands nothing of these traditional doctrines.

Nor does he understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us. Dawkinss God, by contrast, is Satanic. Satan (accuser in Hebrew) is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and Dawkinss God is precisely such a repulsive superego. This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge. Dawkinss Supreme Being is the God of those who seek to avert divine wrath by sacrificing animals, being choosy in their diet and being impeccably well behaved. They cannot accept the scandal that God loves them just as they are, in all their moral shabbiness. This is one reason St Paul remarks that the law is cursed. Dawkins sees Christianity in terms of a narrowly legalistic notion of atonement of a brutally vindictive God sacrificing his own child in recompense for being offended and describes the belief as vicious and obnoxious. Its a safe bet that the Archbishop of Canterbury couldnt agree more. It was the imperial Roman state, not God, that murdered Jesus.

Dawkins thinks it odd that Christians dont look eagerly forward to death, given that they will thereby be ushered into paradise. He does not see that Christianity, like most religious faiths, values human life deeply, which is why the martyr differs from the suicide. The suicide abandons life because it has become worthless; the martyr surrenders his or her most precious possession for the ultimate well-being of others.

Such is Dawkinss unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false. MORE....

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

[betsy]

EXCERPT FROM...

LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS

Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Terry Eagleton

(The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins)

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they dont believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be.

What, one wonders, are Dawkinss views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case? Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right.

A molehill of instances out of a mountain of them will have to suffice. Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (Where, given that he invites us at one point to question everything, is Dawkinss own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like?) Reason, to be sure, doesnt go all the way down for believers, but it doesnt for most sensitive, civilised non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason.

Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do.

Dawkins, who is as obsessed with the mechanics of Creation as his Creationist opponents, understands nothing of these traditional doctrines.

Nor does he understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us. Dawkinss God, by contrast, is Satanic. Satan (accuser in Hebrew) is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and Dawkinss God is precisely such a repulsive superego. This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge. Dawkinss Supreme Being is the God of those who seek to avert divine wrath by sacrificing animals, being choosy in their diet and being impeccably well behaved. They cannot accept the scandal that God loves them just as they are, in all their moral shabbiness. This is one reason St Paul remarks that the law is cursed. Dawkins sees Christianity in terms of a narrowly legalistic notion of atonement of a brutally vindictive God sacrificing his own child in recompense for being offended and describes the belief as vicious and obnoxious. Its a safe bet that the Archbishop of Canterbury couldnt agree more. It was the imperial Roman state, not God, that murdered Jesus.

Dawkins thinks it odd that Christians dont look eagerly forward to death, given that they will thereby be ushered into paradise. He does not see that Christianity, like most religious faiths, values human life deeply, which is why the martyr differs from the suicide. The suicide abandons life because it has become worthless; the martyr surrenders his or her most precious possession for the ultimate well-being of others.

Such is Dawkinss unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false. MORE....

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

[DogOnPorch]

The only reason he refused to debate Craig is because he knew he cannot defend the b***shit he wrote in his book! Even atheist philosophers blasted his book, and called him ignorant!

But Richard was happy to debate Dr John Lennox. Was he not defending his 'BS' then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-OBokk5TbU

[Wayward Son]

From Terry Eagleton's ridiculous review:

What, one wonders, are Dawkinss views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?

When one is discussing whether gods exist there is absolutely zero requirement to have an opinion or knowledge on any of that nonsense Eagleton spouts, just as there is no requirement to have detailed knowledge on the recipes of witch's brews to discuss whether there is evidence that witchcraft exists, or the requirement to know the names of all the fairies to discuss whether there is evidence that fairies exist. I don't need to go to homeopathy school and spend a lifetime dedicated to understanding the finer aspects of that insanity to reject homeopathy based purely on its lack of evidence and being contrary to known physical laws.

What Eagleton spouts is pure nonsense and probably the stupidest argument that could be made against Dawkins' book, and in that review what Eagleton really attempts to do is shield himself and others from outside criticism in areas where they feel they are authorities. If you can't criticize or reject religion unless you have devoted yourself fully to the craziness then you also say, can't criticism marxism unless you are a marxist and understand Marx as well as Eagleton does - and yes Eagleton pulls the same crap with his fervent defense of marxism. That review along with a couple similarly stupid reviews resulted in Myers writing the Courtier's Reply:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor’s taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

[Wayward Son]

Even though his colleagues - which included Hitchens - were prodding and pushing him to square off wit Even atheist philosophers blasted his book, and called him ignorant!

I can be pretty sure that you can't find a prominent Christian author/philosopher/theologian who has not been criticized by other christian authors/philosophers/theologians (and that includes William Lane Craig, who has been criticized by many). So, according to your "logic", that allows me to dismiss the whole bunch for that reason alone.

[GostHacked]

Here is that video where Hitchens debates Craig.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Another thread of Besty's thrown to the floor.

Edited March 5, 2013 by GostHacked

[BubberMiley]

... he knew he cannot defend the b***shit he wrote in his book!

You though the "bull" was the vulgar part of that word that needed to be bleeped out?

[GostHacked]

You though the "bull" was the vulgar part of that word that needed to be bleeped out?

Good catch!!!!!