By Madeleine Kirk
October 19th, 2011
via OnLine Opinion
Buses around the university town of Oxford are currently emblazed with the slogan “There’s Probably No Dawkins. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre” to herald a controversial public address on Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.
Organisers have invited Dr William Lane Craig, a leading Christian apologist to critique the book by Dawkins who is an Oxford Don and leading proponent of the New Atheism. They have also invited Dawkins to defend his work. However it is unlikely that he will appear.
The above advertisement mimics the earlier Atheist Bus Campaign which read “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Life”. It cleverly takes a swipe at Dawkins’ consistent refusal to debate Craig on this and many previous occasions.
This is just one minor skirmish in the ongoing intellectual rivalry between theist and atheist thinkers which is gaining more and more profile in mainstream media.
As a young Australian who has an interest in both science and intelligent debate over the existence of God, I find these invigorating times to be alive and thinking. I would very much like to see more public debate on the existence of God in Australia, such as the debate between John Lennox and Peter Singer earlier this year.
The infamous Dr Dawkins will be coming to Australia next year for the 2012 Global Atheist Convention. He originally became famous for his book ‘The Selfish Gene’, and has written numerous other books in the area of biology. In 2006 he published ‘The God Delusion’ in which he launched a lengthy attack upon the credibility of religious belief. The book gained huge popularity and Dawkins became a major spokesperson for the ‘New Atheist’ movement.
Despite his standing as a champion of The New Atheism, Dawkins has dodged multiple invitations from independent groups to debate Dr William Lane Craig, a Research Professor of Philosophy and arguably the most articulate defender of theism today.
When asked to justify his evasive behaviour Dawkins replied “I don’t take on creationists and I don’t take on people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. They’ve got to have more than that.”
The statement was surprisingly disingenuous. Even the most a superficial survey of Craig’s work reveals that he is not a creationist. It’s on the record that he believes the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. He doesn’t belong to the ‘Creation Science’ camp at all. He is a philosopher who offers arguments for the existence of God which are consistent with mainstream science.
As for Craig’s worthiness as an opponent – surely the fact that he is regarded, by those whose views Dawkins ridicules, as the best advocate of their world view, should be enough for Dawkins to welcome a platform to enlighten them. But given that Craig has double PhDs in Theology and Philosophy from two European Universities, over 30 published books to his name and holds a professorship, one wonders how much ‘more than that’ Dawkins requires.
The truth is Dawkins has debated less credentialed and presumably therefore less threatening opponents than Craig.
Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig has worried some of his atheist colleagues who are well aware of Craig’s clout in the God Debates. Dr Daniel Came, a lecturer in Philosophy at Oxford University wrote to Dawkins about Craig, warning that “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.”
Similarly Sam Harris, one of the ‘Four Horsemen’ of the New Atheism, upon entering a debate with Craig remarked, ‘I’m very happy to be debating Dr Craig, the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.’ Craig has also debated Australian atheist Dr Peter Slezakand Christopher Hitchens among many others.
Craig’s address at The Sheldonian Theatre is part of his Reasonable Faith Tour of the UK. The stage will be set up with an empty chair for Dawkins, so that, should he choose to turn up, he can debate Craig. But because “there’s probably no Dawkins”, a panel of atheist, agnostic and Christian philosophers will be there to respond to Dr Craig’s critique of The God Delusion. There will also be a question and answer time between Craig and the audience. (For more information go to www.bethinking.org )
Frankly, by avoiding debate with Craig I believe Dawkins is doing a disservice to atheism. At least from the perspective of this sixteen year old, it looks very much like Dawkins is afraid to take on Craig, and is more interested maintaining his pop star status among New Atheists than engaging in rigorous debate.
My recent reading of Dawkins’ The God Delusion was also something of a disappointment. I had hoped to find some intellectually stimulating arguments for atheism. What I found however was not much more than an expression of Dawkins’ personal disdain for religion.
It is interesting to note that what Dawkins calls ‘The Central Argument of My Book’ is little more than him informing his audience that he hopes the future of physics will explain away ‘the appearance of design’ in the universe and therefore, God ‘almost certainly’ does not exist.
However it is the vituperative style which Dawkins employs which I find most distasteful and counterproductive when it comes to what should be an intelligent discussion of an important topic.
The 2012 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne is being promoted as ‘A Celebration of Reason’. Let’s hope that Dawkins doesn’t represent the pinnacle of what the conference has to offer.
Dawkins’ reason for not debating theists is as stated that the ‘faith’ they exhibit prevents them giving logic and reason a fair hearing. Never mind all the verbose justifications and fancy terminology, it is as Voltaire said- “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”. And even devout christians cannot deny that the bible is chock full of absurdities… not to mention cruelty and megalomania. If god exists, he is the most vicious, unpleasant character and deserving of contempt.
Dawkins has explained why he won’t debate Craig: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
As an unbeliever, I am amused by this endless dance. However, it does not seem designed to persuade anyone of anything, but only to rally the troops.
Dawkins, among others, takes a very literal reading of carefully chosen biblical passages and then insists that all Christians must believe in every word in its most literal sense. It is as if only the most crudely fundamentalist Christianity was available to any religious believers anywhere. Does he debate with Buddhists?
He used to try to force liberal and scholarly Anglicans into this narrow category, until they got bored with being talked past and insulted. Are they responsible for what events were said by the authors of Old Testament books to have happened long before their time? The genocides about which Dawkins makes such a fuss did not actually happen, as scholarly Christians are well aware. Moreover, it was religious leaders who were most prominent in opposing the invasion of Iraq. Compared with their loud denunciations, that of Dawkins was a squeak.
He thus plays into the hands of the most intolerant or stubborn Christians, because only they are willing to occupy this invidious position. They can rally their followers by proclaiming that the least deviation from total literalism can only lead to Dawkins, or bestiality, or communism, or whatever.
In all those countries where a large majority claims to believe, action to help the poor or save the natural environment can only happen through alliance with liberal believers. Even the most conservative Christians care about the poor a great deal more than secular conservatives do. Insulting them, by not even listening to them or trying to understand their moral principles, is counterproductive.
But then, I don’t recall Dawkins talking seriously about the Iraq War, except to blame it in Bush’s religiosity, as though that explained the policies of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. I don’t recall him talking about the poor, except to claim that the Bible doesn’t offer any solution to poverty.
It’s as though only one thing matters to Dawkins. Replacing the traditional faith of ordinary people in the existence of a just and merciful God with a blind belief in a universe devoid of meaning, the physics of which they can no more understand than Dawkins does.
We can all spend our time being angry about some terrible past events or present beliefs, although Dawkins doesn’t seem concerned about the many millions killed by the forces of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. We can all bother about what seem to us to be false beliefs, although Dawkins doesn’t seem bothered by the economic theories and beliefs that are destroying countless lives and the planet as a whole.
There are many very pressing practical problems in the world, and religion is not the main obstacle, even though some kinds of religion aren’t helping. For Dawkins, it sometimes seems that Osama bin Laden is all of Islam, and the death of the Amalekites is all of Judaism, and the militarism of Bush is all of Christianity. The world isn’t like that, and it’s only gross ignorance that makes it look that way.
“Dawkins, among others, takes a very literal reading of carefully chosen biblical passages and then insists that all Christians must believe in every word in its most literal sense.”
No – that’s not it. Really. I keep hearing this and it is such a blatant straw-man.
There are of course as many versions of “God” as there are believers – and that is not the fault of unbelievers – so if Dawkins wrote about 60 variations of “God” addressing each one you could always come up with 30 variations that he didn’t fully address.
No finite being can ever address and dismiss every possible variation on the theme if he lived a thousand years.
However if you *don’t* believe in Unicorns and carefully explain why – then is it really such a devastating critique to point out that you didn’t address purple unicorns with a feather sticking out their ass?
Also the God of eminently reasonable people is so vague and innocuous that there is very little little point in putting in the effort of opposing it.
The existence or non existence of the “unmoved mover” makes no possible difference to almost any sphere of human endeavor or thought.
The completely vague and abstract God of deism doesn’t matter to atheists largely because it doesn’t matter to the 100′s of millions of believers *either*.
Who worships the God of Spinoza?
Anyone?
Enough people to form a cricket team?
The planet is in trouble from people who believe in exactly the kind of God Dawkins goes after – the authoritarian capricious nasty God of traditional monotheism.
If rabidly violent followers of Spinoza, Bishop Spong or Paul Tillich start threatening to kill the unbelievers then probably their Gods would come in for some attention.
But that is never going to happen is it?
No one is going to attempt to oppress and control their fellow human beings because of the dictates of the vague philosophers God “The ground of all being” ” the ultimate oneness of being” etc – because these vague philosophers Gods don’t write infallible books of rules or speak directly to the minds of the prophets to instruct their followers how best to slaughter the infidel and ensure the Chasity of their women.
I believe Atheists generally don’t believe in the wishy washy vague versions of God either but I really can’t see any of them being bothered disbelieving in them with any passion.
These beliefs neither “bloody my nose nor pick my pocket” to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.
And even believers cant really get excited about there existence – its just an intellectual exercise at the periphery of the main game.
Brampton’s comments clarify why it is pointless for a scientist like Dawkins to waste his energy debating a proponent of superstition like Craig. The description of The God Delusion obviously refers to a different book to the one I read in which the scientific explanations of the development of the universe, the solar system and life as we know it are elegantly laid out.
You only have to look at You Tube to see clips where an articulate atheist eviscerates the weary old apologia of a Craig or similar, only to be labelled ‘atheist gets his comeuppance’ or some such. The human capacity to see what we want to see is never more evident than when it comes to debating religion. The argument that a life without faith is a life without meaning is also addressed, as is that tedious old canard about the worst atrocities being committed by atheists. Brampton might need to revisit the book with an open mind.
I fail to see what Professor Dawkins could achieve by debating Craig. I’ve heard Craig debate and basically his one argument is “if there is not God then why are we here” – which he uses to dance around any questions regarding the inconsistencies/moral vulgarities of the Bible. It wouldn’t be a debate about the scientific validity of Christianity (nil) it would be a philosophical debate much better suited for the likes of the Hitch and his razor sharp logic, than a scientist like Dawkins. People forget he is not a professional public speaker, first and foremost he is a scientist, a respected scientist who should not be forced into debating every theologian who wants to wax lyrical on philosophy. Dawkins doesn’t have to “defend” his work – it’s science. The evidence defends itself.
Richard Dawkins is a scientist, William Craig Lane is a philosopher. What could they debate about?
Lane defends the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is about ‘First Cause’.
We may NEVER know what caused the ‘Big Bang’ or how it came about. So what? There is no need for us, today, to believe the fiction that the God of the Bible (and Koran) caused it. If people actually read the Bible they would realize that it condones slavery and ‘ethnic cleansing’ (and a whole lot of unsavory things too).
It’s no use people who defend the concept of the actual existence of the Hebrew God saying that they only believe in the literal translation of ‘certain parts’. For this leads to the question of ‘what parts’ and then everyone has their own theory. The whole concept of the Bible being the ‘Word of God’ becomes quite ridiculous!
When will people realize that the Bible (and Koran) were written by men, for men, for some men to rule other men?
Craig is motivated to be an apologetic by faith not reason, but that has nothing to do with the validity of his arguments. He is a philosopher, but also trained in scientific inquiry; he is without doubt far more knowledgeable in physics than any of the new atheists. Hope these comments don’t turn into thoughtless dawkins praise, this article was great and I totally agree with you Madeleine
I’m in the odd position where dawkins was more influential than anyone else in me becoming an atheist, but I know he would probably lose soundly in a debate with craig. I hope that dawkins is able to swallow his pride and do so, showing us that he cares more about honest and open debate than the possible cost to his reputation by losing
Charo, it’s not about honest and open debate. Debate is simply decided on who puts forward the best argument on the day and that can be incorrect, misinformation, non-evidenced, emotively biased you name it.
Reality is not decided by who is the better debater. Debating is a skill that WLC is really good at and trains at. Dawkins is a scientist.
There is no debate. WLC has no evidence at all for his claims, they are simply wild-flung hypothesis in which I could equally state the universe was made by an army of super-leprechauns and be on the same footing as him.
I don’t see Dawkins taking up a debate about leprechauns either.
It may look good on Craigs resume, not so good on Dawkins. It’s Craig that simply wants to put himself out there as some sort of equal opposite side to reality.
I cannot agree with the foregoing post by M Kirk. Arguing over something that doesn’t exist is ridiculous. What’s more, Dawkins does a hell of a lot more in his book than simply raise his voice against ‘religion’ per se – despite the fact that the sooner people get it into their heads that religion per se IS in fact, ridiculous and despicable. He proffers scientific proof, without going into intricate detail (as if he should have to) that the universe and all that that means, is explainable as far as we can ever explain anything, via scientific evidence. This whole religious ‘debate’ stuff is insufferable. Why should anyone with half a brain lower themselves to the level of a person of ‘faith’ to argue any point. Better to equip the younger generation with the ability to think for themselves and question everything. Dawkins holds his own qualifications and they are, in my view, much more worthy qualifications than philosophy – let alone Theology (!!!! geez) and ‘professorship’ as a position requires much more investigation – there are plenty that hold that title that should not attract the slightest admiration or intellectual respect. Books published? Again, not a worthy qualification – Mills and Boon writers publish hundreds over their lifetimes. It comes back to the same thing – why would we criticise a well-read and educated scientist – Dawkins – for not wanting to drop a few brain cells to argue against the idea of a God who created the universe, when this is a man-made idea from the stone age and is not deserving of such time… debating these people almost lends credence to the fact that they might be right, it is ridiculous. Atheists should stop criticising fellow atheists because they don’t ‘agree’ on the way they ‘deliver’ their atheism… Dawkins has done more than enough for humanity than have to deflect criticism from his ‘own’ camp. Does atheism a disservice and in my opinion, shows more cowardice in truth by succumbing to the theists ideas of what people have to do to ‘win’ the argument. It is cowardly to agree to their terms and attack fellow atheists for not ‘towing’ the theist line. Dawkins is no coward. He is wonderful and has many many more years of study than most of his critics.
Mate you’ve got to be kidding. Did you REALLY read The God Delusion? The whole book is filled with evidence for atheism and against the supernatural. It was brutally honest and passionate. How can you say it was just a stab at religion? Seriously…
Honestly, I don’t think Dawkins has enough knowledge of christianity to debate it. He was never a christian, so he doesn’t know the ins and outs. It shows sometimes in his responses to christian questions.
Also, in some of the appearances I’ve seen of him publicly debating christianity, he has also been somewhat under-prepared, as though he felt he could just rock up and blitz the scene. So when they fire off doctrinal questions and christian specifics, he can only give vague “there is no god” answers, which simply do not impress the christian crowd.
I think these experiences made him shy away from debating christians.
To debate or argue if “god”exist or not is like to debate if the “magic stone” can really cure all sickness or if it can lay golden egg. and while we are distracted on that , The “stone” sellers have already made the sale and laughing themselve to the bank. …it is the second issue that is why we make noise…
Effecftively, they are using a dead and an imagine thing called god to provide subscribers a mean to evade committment, a commitment to this world which they share and take.. . so they can kill a choke for a meal then go thank their imaginative friend for such a provision.. likewise they can use a public toilet then pledge to fush the one in their own home. and call this their freedom of choice..
if this is the order of the day, then we can also go round gang raping women then go thanks the victims’ long-gone great grand parents for gave birth to them … and feel loved and blessed.. ( is the victims get any redress for our such indulgent ?? )
starbuck does not sell coffee but a life style, likewise some religion does not really preach god but provide a mean to evade commitment. A commitment to the world they share and take.
…..
@Natalie
Dawkins has done more than enough for humanity….
What has Dawkins done for humanity?
I realise that he is one of your idols and every group needs a figurehead and he has assisted atheists be heard. But this aiding of a small group doesn’t count as having done anything for humanity.
Though, admittedly I’ve not personally indulged in Dawkins, his actions are logical. Arguing with believers often entails strutting back and forth in fantastical argumentations about religious mythology. So whilst one might prescribe to the faculty of reason, he might find himself locking horns in a nonsensical discussion about angels and demons. And of course the strong-point of mythology lies in the fact that it’s meant to be factual, but relatively factual.
Moreover, the God debate is very obscure. Even those who claim to believe in a god or the so-called god cannot agree on a universal and logical explanation on who he, she or it might be. So in essence only a fool would waste his time even thinking about engaging in such endless discussions…
Ugh, the common atheist vs the common theist.
What an endlessly boring debate. As atheists, please remind yourselves that debating against the religious is like trying to make a baby with a boulder. There’s just no possible way you can impregnate science into a petrified mind.
So for God sakes my fellow atheists, less forehead grating debating with the crazies and more leading by example. Liberalism, freedom, acceptance, altruism, philanthropy are words that come to mind. Lets all come to the realisation that we must live and let live, for otherwise we are as bad as the Jehova’s witnesses we so quickly turn on our garden sprinklers for.
There is no debate with the religious at the convention, this is a celebration of reason for those without faith. If the religious did not demand rights above and beyond others, did not involve themselves in distorting science, did not have our children legally not allowed to be taught in our public schools whilst their children are taught scripture, did not have tax exemptions outside of charity work based simply on a belief, then I don’t think anyone would have any need to organise, and would live and let live.
Unfortunately religion permeates our decision making processes, equal rights and scientific enquiry.
I don’t see atheists demanding tax exemptions and the right to discriminate in our law, nor knocking on peoples doors saying that they are doomed if they don’t believe. Your analogy is kinda wonky on many levels.
I think a debate would be pointless — what would it consist of? We’ve seen Dawkins debate scads and scads of “faithful”. The debate always boils down to the same thing: they feel around for the tiniest edges of scientific exploration and then pounce and say “ah ha! this proves that God must exist!!” — until six months later when the next scientific paper explains away that particular question mark. Alternately, they’re frighteningly superstitious and insist that the Bible is verbatim truth (you can’t debate with them any more than you can, or should even want to, debate a 3-year-old about the existence of the Tooth Fairy), and frame the debate around ludicrous straw men like “religion is the only source of morality”.
Who’s demanding a debate? Not me. I’m going to be flying down from the U.S. to indulge in a few days of sane, secular humanism and a nice smattering of science — a well-deserved vacation from the fundamentalist dark ages that has eclipsed U.S. politics since Reagan.
And on a personal note: ten points to “davo”, above : where’s MY tax break? Why on earth should my tax dollars subsidize foolish (or worse) preachers and the undermining the U.S. Constitution? The Pilgrims were profoundly, and violently, religiously intolerant — and they were and should REMAIN America’s last foray into state-sponsored religion.
Interesting that Dawkins said this in his tribute to Chris Hitchens: “The finest orator of our time, fellow horseman, valiant fighter against all tyrants including God”….I thought God didn’t exist? How can he be a tyrant and not exist at the same time?
That said, Christopher Hitchens was unique and will be missed. Even though I didn’t agree with him on God I can still appreciate how gifted he was. Certainly a fascinating person. I would have been interested to hear what his thoughts on life were as he got into his 80′s and 90′s…sadly that won’t happen now.
It’s interesting that you take it that way and actually would say that regarding a comment from a person that has just had a good friend die.
Every person I know understands him talking of the god concept in a literary way .. it seems as if you feel you can score jesus points via someone’s death, maybe lack of conversion left you with not much else to have a snide comment about?
Either you have no idea at all what he was saying and it went totally over your head in your ignorance of the non-believers position, or as I was saying, you are leveraging someone’s death in a rather sad way.
Maybe next funeral I go to I will but in if the priest says something like “Such a tragic loss of life makes you question the very foundations of a god” and try and make something out of it, or would that kinda be rude?
“The literal mind does not understand the ironic mind, and sees it always as a source of danger.” -Hitchens
try putting the whole qoute and not the edited one for twitter, next time