conversationpc wrote:I was just watching a video about Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I find it interesting that he'll agree to debate intellectual lightweights like Kirk Cameron and then make fun of him when he doesn't show up but he's refusing to show up at all against someone who everyone agrees is intellectually challenging. Heck, even other atheists have spoken up and said that they're bothered by Dawkins' refusal to show up.
I've thought about this, and believe Dawkins is right (and would think the same if the shoes were reversed). Nobody should be called a coward for refusing to debate someone based on a principal. I've watched several Craig debates, and don't really care for the guy myself. Dawkins is right - he's a PROFESSIONAL DEBATER -- that's his main claim to fame right now. The guy never misses a step, has a ready answer for anything, and knows every trick in the book. More annoying, he rather immodestly always seems to claim victory (based mainly on the fact that his own points aren't addressed to his satisfaction), and even belittles his opponents afterwards - an example below in his ridiculous jabs scattered thru the video about Christopher Hitchens:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYyKmOCMBSs
Craig doesn't do much to prove Christianity at all, and tries to defang his opponents early by reminding the audience that the topic of the debate doesn't include things like Biblical inerrancy, the problem of evil, etc. He most often seems to handle topics like the existence of God (an easy one to debate forever since there is no firm disproving either side of the argument), or that belief in god provides an objective moral foundation. He sets out a number of points in his opening statement that he says must be answered in order to disprove his premise. The problem is, they are usually highly scholarly, complicated, and way above the average audience-goers head -- and in my opinion, completely subjectively irrelevant. Many of his opponents choose not to fall for that trap, and make their own arguments instead which Craig almost
never addresses -- he instead refers the audience to a book on the subject (probably knowing most won't ever read it), then returns to his message, reminding the audience that his points haven't been addressed. After the debate, he claims victory based on this. It's really a sham - he's no doubt quite talented, but there is little meat in what he says. He's a philosopher, and doesn't appeal to the subjective aspects very much at all. Some of the crap he assumes is just ridiculous... "If it's possible to believe in God, then it follows that God exists." "The fact that there is evil is proof that God exists."
I don't think Craig would ever admit to losing a debate, but one of the best I can think of is The God Debate II vs. Sam Harris. Craig was off in the clouds as always, not connecting with the audience subjectively, and Sam just kept bringing it straight home with good common sense logical arguments. I honestly think Craig's strategy is to confuse people into believing in God. His supporters will think, "Whew -- that guys's smart! Can't relate to a word he said, but I trust him!"
So I don't think Dawkins should be forced to debate someone who plays this way. He's right - it would be a notch on Craig's resume', but not on Dawkins'.
And again, I try to be as objective as possible -- not just watching these with confirmation bias. I thought James White (though an arrogant asshole) cleaned Dan Barker's clock, mainly because he knew the historical subjects so well he was able to pick apart much of what Barker said, as well as his sources. It was embarrassing. And I thought Daniel Dennett totally wilted in his debate (at his own university) with Dinesh D'Souza. I couldn't have been more disappointed... Dinesh is a very articulate and charismatic speaker who rarely seems caught off guard, and Dennett seems short of breath and stammering. Maybe his health had something to do with it - I know he's has some cardiac issues, who knows? All I know is I've seen him really do quite well, and he's also an outstanding speaker.
I did want to comment on the first Dawkins/Lennox debate, because I finally ordered it on DVD and watched it a few weeks ago. I don't think Lennox beat Dawkins at all - it was probably a draw, but I found the format to be as I'd heard -- stacked against Dawkins. They gave him the opening and closing word, but for the main part of the debate, they addressed six topics from his book, after which Dawkins could expound on them, and Lennox closed with a counter on each point. Sure, Dawkins did evidence frustration a few times, but mainly with the non-conversational format of the debate, or some of Lennox's misinterpretations. It wasn't any type of frustration indicating he was getting his ass kicked -- that didn't happen, and luckily, they eventually relaxed and gave more leeway on the structure to let the conversation breathe a little bit. I'm guessing that's why the 2nd debate was very conversational -- had to be at Dawkins' request. By the way, the moderator in the first debate, Judge Bill Pryor, looked so much like Stephen Colbert I had a hard time taking him seriously, lol.
John Lennox was extremely articulate, and sincere. He's in a totally different class than William Lane Craig, who I honestly find to be nothing more than a showman.
