Why won't Richard Dawkins debate Professor William Lane Craig on the God Delusion book?
Dawkins was invited to debate Craig at Oxford University. Wm Lane Craig came. Richard Dawkins never appeared. Maybe Dawkins is a delusion that doesn't exist. lol Seriously, if he is going to make the wild, arrogant and hateful rants against Judeo- Christian Theism, why won't he even debate a Christian apologist, who is a renowned professor with numerous scholarly published works and many peer reviewed papers, and is highly respected in academic circles. It's easy to rant and rave in a book, but honorable and noble men aren't afraid to defend their ideas in a real debate. Seems only one man was honorable and noble -- Wm Lane Craig.
See "Is God a Delusion; The Debate that Never Was" with Wm Lane Craig and absentee R. Dawkins. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=l...
Wm Lane Craig 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....
Given that there isn't much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists' dialectical arsenal, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and Grayling aren't exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed
SheDevil: I most certainly am not lying. Your youtube video is complete nonsense. Craig is an academic scholar and Dawkins is a academic coward. Sorry. I am surprised you would say somebody is "a worthless Christian" for not sharing your views. You do know of Dawkins' rants against the God of the Bible, therefore I am questioning his reasons for not standing up and answering for his unbelievable vitriolic words. You are very juvenile and so was whoever made that video -- calling Craig names like "slimeball" -- how ridiculous and immature -- and his trashy talk of how in "academia the size of your balls is determined by how many papers". I know my cousin and his wife who are both astronomers, who both have many peer reviewed papers, would NEVER talk in such a ghetto way, but they are Catholic Christians. There are actually some nice atheists that I know and like here; you should try to learn from them.
Bulldog, I didn't know you were an expert on Christian apologetics, which is his field, and what other degree do you think Craig should have for his field of Christian apologetics?. I imagine your ideology is the right one, so you can blatantly insult and demean everybody else. If Dawkins didn't want to waste his time by debating with an undereducated Christian apologist, then why did he debate Wendy Wright - a Christian Conservative head of a women's organization? Because he thought he could make her look like a fool, which he didn't. He carefully chooses only the opponents who he feels very superior to -- no one who is on his level... I still say if he wants to blaspheme the God of the Bible and offend millions of Christian and Jewish believers, then he should stand up and answer for his outrageous vitriolic attack - which the bully will not do.
Lost Soul - That was no debate. I just finished watching it before I asked this question. It was a panel and everyone had a couple of turns to give their views - nothing whatsoever like a real one on one debate, and the moderator spoke Spanish. There were like 8 people giving opinions and their reasoning - even some from the audience. Besides that it was on a different subject about Purpose in Life - not on the god delusion book. Craig only spoke I think twice and even then, he was limited to a very short amount of time.
- Uncle JoeLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
Mr. Dawkins strayed far outside of his area of expertise, Biology, when he attempted his feckless assault against Christianity. I wonder if he even is an expert in Biology, since one feature of expertise is familiarity with the boundaries of one's area of expertise. Mr. Dawkins either does NOT know the limits of his expertise OR he knows those limits, BUT he chooses to wander past them while still asserting himself as an expert.
Mr. Dawkins shows himself to be importantly ignorant about his own purported field of expertise, or he is a fraud and liar. Ignoramuses, frauds and liars all tend to be a bit shy about submitting to the scrutiny of knowledgeable others. Idiots tend not to have such shyness regarding being examined, so I am confident that Mr. Dawkins is more a liar than an idiot, or merely very ignorant about the boundaries of his expert knowledge.
I think there is obvious trouble for anyone who wants to know exactly what one does not know, but it is reasonable to hope to know the limits of that about which one is a true expert. In consideration of his book's title, it would appear that Mr. Dawkins supposes himself to be an expert in, at least, Psychology and Theology. I've heard the man speak, and he strikes me as being an expert only in blowhard arrogance.
His feckless, mostly hollow, attacks against Christianity reveal that Mr. Dawkins likely is an expert in one domain. Mr. Dawkins appears to be an expert in indentifying others who would be capable of revealing whether Mr. Dawkins is an ignoramus, a liar, a fraud, or - much less likely, a mere idiot. As I wrote, I think Mr. Dawkins is more fraud than idiot, but perhaps I am mistaken.
Since Mr. Dawkins appears so steadfastly unwilling to debate serious contenders in public, I think it would be right to trust that he figures himself to be at risk of becoming too well-understood. Mr. Dawkins seems to me to be bright enough, even if only barely, to know that when he is examined by real experts, Mr. Dawkins will become better known as a liar and fraud.
I am Roman Catholic.
Peace be with you.
EDIT: I wrote a poem about Mr. Dawkins. I think it's reasonable.
Big Dick Dawkins wrote a long book.
Rants on delusions got a long look.
Debates Big Dick dodges, his mockery slick.
It seems that he's more of a wee little Dick.
- 4 years ago
I'm not surprised that Richard Dawkins declined, I mean he is a scientist after all, so he probably gets tired of just arguing about the existence of God all of the time. Especially since people put words in his mouth and always try to ridicule him. Whenever I see Richard Dawkins in a debate with a theist or just a creationist, the debate never seems to be quite fair. They constantly cut Richard Dawkins off in mid sentence while he's trying to answer their questions, and they try to make people believe that he despises people who believe in ID.
- The ShihanLv 47 years ago
Now I hear people challenging the evolutionist saying we the earth was seeded by aliens. Those same people are convinced that evolution was not possible because of several factors that were not known during Darwin's time. I guess the atheist are just going to have another direction to point and say; see no God. If you know God you'll never again say no God. If you don't know God you'll look under every nook and cranny to try and find away to convince others there is no god because of fear you may be wrong. You will also try and hide behind the clock of having some kind of superior intellect which is really just an disguise to hide your inferiority behind.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 5 years ago
I was a huge fan of Dawkins ! I have become very sensitive to his huge arrogance to the point I cant watch him ,listen to him any more. His glee at mocking others, ad hominem attacts, plain straight forward self serving screwy logic,,seeming cowardice and a generally naively arrogant man. Sorry Dick, I have swiched off !
- DaneLv 46 years ago
Dawkins will only debate with educated individuals who are willing to accept the most basic of scientific facts, i.e. Evolution. Anyone who is still locked in the mindset that an intangible God managed to break every fundamental law of the universe over a 6 day period as he created the universe out of nothing is NOT going to provide a meaningful rebuttal in a debate
- 3 years ago
Reading the book instead of observing the movie is the ultimate way to see what the writer intended. Reading uses your thoughts, hones your reading skills, and can increase your vocabulary
- Anonymous7 years ago
Simply because Dawkins knows he is right and does NOT want to be proved to be WRONG.
He knows his theories won't hold water when you look at the complex, interdependent life forms we find on this planet today.
.Source(s): Common sense.
- WhoLv 77 years ago
Respected in theology and philosophy maybe, but he knows f//.k all about science so whats the point?
You think science is democratic ? you think facts are determined by a vote?
Well you have got a hellova lot to learn about science and so does lane craig
You can debate as long as you like, you can have as many votes as you lile, it will not change 1 fact or 1 piece of evidence.
And just 1 piece of scientific evidence beats the sh//t out of every debate and every vote you can ever have, even if you had them until the end of time.
"Seems only one man was honorable and noble -- Wm Lane Craig. "
honorable and noble he may be (but I dont think he is either) but stupid he certainly is.
Now if lane craig was to just come up with just 1 piece of scientific evidence then he might be worth listening to, but until he does there is just no point in even talking to him.
Dawkins deals in facts and evidence- Lane craig deals with belief, opinion and argument
And as previously
A book aint a "scholarly work" no matter who writes it
And I personally have not seen ANY peer reviewed papers he has written on his own account after his theses
Does that make you as much a bulsh//ter as he is?
- 7 years ago
No matter who wins the debate, it'll do more good for Lane Craig than Dawkins. LATEST DAWKINS NEWS: HE'S DEBATING THIS GUY YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF. That guy then mooches off Dawkin's popularity, either full on by debating with him, or by getting goons like you to boast around calling him a coward for not debating to try and make himself look good and still mooch off some of that Dawkins hype.
The other problem is that Christians can't be debated with properly because they deny logic in favour of faith, thus the arguments are in two different worlds entirely. One says "faith is wrong, because it's illogical" while the other says "logic is wrong, because it contradicts my faith". No matter how much you try to explain why logic is more important than faith and even how Christians constantly use logic instead of faith every day, they'll say you automatically have a flawed point because you're using logic instead of accepting their faith.
I know of a reasonably well known Christian wanting to debate one of the top Atheist channel owners on Youtube. The guy refused and the Christian made a tonne of videos and posts all over the place calling him a coward. However, the terms of debate were that the Atheist had to debate over a message board that the Christian owned and could mute or kick the Atheist at any time, as he's well known for doing. He challenges popular Atheists and either says they're cowards for declining the debate, or just refuse to accept anything the Atheist says for a few minutes, kick him out of the message board, then boast around saying he won the debate.
Dawkins has had many debates before and has explained in interviews why he no longer accepts all these challenges. Look them up.
- BruceLv 77 years ago
Obviously, Dawkins knew that he could not win in a debate about theology with Craig, a brilliant theologian. It would be like a high school basketball player going one-on-one with Lebron James.
PS: Those who imagined that the debate would have been about science, a field Dawkins actually knows something about, did not read your question very carefully or investigate your link.