Is the high priest of atheism a COWARD?

[Danno 1,228]

Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”.

But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.

A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

An emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, Prof Dawkins last year supported a plan to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests.

Prof Craig is a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, in California, and the author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles on Christianity.

He has debated with leading thinkers including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.

Prof Craig is due to visit Britain in October this year. Four invitations to take part in public debates were sent to Prof Dawkins from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and Premier Radio.

Prof Dawkins declined them all. He told The Daily Telegraph that he had recently debated Prof Craig, in a boxing ring, in Mexico, and claimed he was not impressed by his opponent. His critics say this event was a six-person discussion, not a rigorous debate, but Prof Dawkins disagrees.

“I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion,” he said.

Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “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.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.”

Prof Craig, however, remains willing to debate with Prof Dawkins. “I am keeping the opportunity open for him to change his mind and debate with me in the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford” in October, he said.

Prof Craig will be using his UK tour to analyse The God Delusion and to present his own “strong rational grounds” for belief in God.

His tour will include a London conference on the defence of Christianity and a debate in Manchester with the atheist, Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, on the existence of God.

Prof Dawkins made his name as an evolutionary biologist with his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene.

He has gained world-wide attention for his outspoken criticism of organised religion, and argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States showed that a harder line must be taken with believers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Newsflash Danno! There are NO "strong rational grounds" for believing in God. If there were, belief would not require faith. Faith being the very definition of the opposite of rational.

None of the above denies you your right to have faith.

[Danno 1,228]

Newsflash Danno! There are NO "strong rational grounds" for believing in God. If there were, belief would not require faith. Faith being the very definition of the opposite of rational.

None of the above denies you your right to have faith.

- What does that have to do with a spokesman avoiding a debate?

-Many people who have no real or specific "faith".... do see enough evidence of the world around us to believe in "God" in some sense,.... though not a specific faith.

Many people (and I am one) think it take more faith NOT to believe in some higher power, by the mere fact that, no one has been everywhere to "check" to see if he exists or not.

Who can say without a doubt that within all the universes, no other higher forms of life exists?

Unless we have explored and settled the question, it takes "faith" to proclaim , none exists.

[웃 910]

The best argument for God is "well then, how did something come from nothing".....just about everything else favors common sense logic (i.e. atheism)

[scandal 951]

- What does that have to do with a spokesman avoiding a debate?

Actually, I think he provides the answer to this question right in your OP:

“I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion,” he said.

Seems like a good enough reason to me. He's under no obligation to give credence to someone just because you want him to.

Who can say without a doubt that within all the universes, no other higher forms of life exists?

That there may be, and quite probably is, other life out there - is not controversial, and pretty much universally agreed. But, tell me, what defines "higher form of life"? More evolved? More intelligent? More technologically advanced? And anyway, what does that have to do with God or Creation? Let's take it as granted that there's "higher form of life" out there, evolved on their own planet. How does that impinge on the topic of where life on Earth came from? I'm not following your reasoning here at all.

[^_^ 5,021]

What if we encountered more intelligent form of life with better weaponry but smaller penises and a disdain for American football?

I think we'd pretty much have to go to war.

[scandal 951]

What if we encountered more intelligent form of life with better weaponry but smaller penises and a disdain for American football?

I think we'd pretty much have to go to war.

Yes, if they have no regard for football I agree this is prima facie casus belli.

[Danno 1,228]

Actually, I think he provides the answer to this question right in your OP:

Seems like a good enough reason to me. He's under no obligation to give credence to someone just because you want him to.

I think he is under an obligation since he has put himself out there and others agree with me on this point.

<<<Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “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.>>>

That there may be, and quite probably is, other life out there - is not controversial, and pretty much universally agreed. But, tell me, what defines "higher form of life"? More evolved? More intelligent? More technologically advanced? And anyway, what does that have to do with God or Creation? Let's take it as granted that there's "higher form of life" out there, evolved on their own planet. How does that impinge on the topic of where life on Earth came from? I'm not following your reasoning here at all.

When I used the term higher life form, I simply meant something more meaningful than pond scum on some mucky planet.

I brought that point up to (try to) show, if we are not even sure about life within the distance the eye can see, how can one reach such a firm conclusion that god in some form does not exists.

At best it's a reasoned guess.

[웃 910]

When I used the term higher life form, I simply meant something more meaningful than pond scum on some mucky planet.

I brought that point up to (try to) show, if we are not even sure about life within the distance the eye can see, how can one reach such a firm conclusion that god in some form does not exists.

At best it's a reasoned guess.

You must have missed this (in regards to life outside of our microscopic planet):

That there may be, and quite probably is, other life out there - is not controversial, and pretty much universally agreed.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

What if we encountered more intelligent form of life with better weaponry but smaller penises and a disdain for American football?

I think we'd pretty much have to go to war.

If this wasn't the religion forum I'd have thought you were talking about the Chinese.

[^_^ 5,021]

If this wasn't the religion forum I'd have thought you were talking about the Chinese.

Proud of your gigantic gringo #######, are ya?

[Danno 1,228]

You must have missed this (in regards to life outside of our microscopic planet):

All those incidentals aside, don't you think a debate with the professor would be interesting?

[Ban Hammer 13,490]

Proud of your gigantic gringo #######, are ya?

who knows, even you might be a god over there.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

All those incidentals aside, don't you think a debate with the professor would be interesting?

It is logically impossible to debate faith with those who confuse faith with logic so my answer would be no, it wouldn't be very interesting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

All those incidentals aside, don't you think a debate with the professor would be interesting?

Only if Dawkins had never debated the issue with anyone before... if you're interested you could look up video clips and transcripts for old debates

Edited May 22, 2011 by fishdude