Monday, October 24, 2011

On Ducking Debates: Is Dawkins really chickening out?

I don't normally comment on charges that the-fact-that-someone-won't-debate-someone-else-so-he-must-be-scared. You might not want to debate someone for a lot of reasons. But the recent dust-up over Richard Dawkin's refusal to debate Christian philosopher William Lane Craig just begs for comment. 


Dawkins said in the Guardian recently that he won't debate Craig despite Craig's challenge to meet him this month at Oxford. Dawkins gives several reasons for avoiding Craig, and none of them seem very convincing. And putting them all together doesn't add up to much either. 


Here is philosopher Victor Reppert, commenting on what indeed seems like Dawkins avoiding a debate because he's scared (and someone with Dawkin's lack of knowledge of philosophy ought to be):
Dawkins makes the claim that the theist is delusional, by which I take it he means that the case against theism is overwhelming. Yet he doesn't, in any serious way, engage any of the arguments in natural theology, and he seems to imply that it is beneath him to engage leading defenders of belief in the existence of God, and their arguments. I don't care whether he does it in a debate format or some other format, but somewhere, somehow, he needs to show that he knows how the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Thomistic Cosmological Argument restrict the class of what needs a cause, so that a simplistic "Who made God" can't refute them in any direct way.
Craig is a leading defender of arguments for the existence of God. Regardless of whether some of his statements are morally repugnant, Dawkins needs to come to terms with him and those like him if he is to have any credibility with respect to his delusion charges. Putting his nose in the air with the "Courtier's Reply" does not replace confronting the actual relevant arguments.
Read the rest here.

10 comments:

Singring said...

Anyone who is familiar with Craig's formulaic and downright dishonest debate tactic's needs no more than a few minutes to publicly humiliate the man.

However - and this is a criticism of Dawkins, Hitchens et al. that I will freely make - very few atheist debaters have much interest in thoroughly preparing for such debates. This is probably primarily because Dawkins and his fellows actually have more important things to do with their time and do not get paid for coming up with excuses for believeing in God (as Craig does). may have a number of reasons (which I'm not going to get into here), but it is one of the reasons why people like Dawkins might hesitate to debate a polished snake-oil salesman like Craig. A great example of how this can go horribly wrong is the recent debate between Lawrence Krauss and Craig. Craig - in completely predictable fashion - gave his usual repertoire of half-truths, lies and quote-mines and Krauss - being an expert in at least one of teh areas Craig usually addresses (origin of teh universe) gave a rambling, partially incoherent and obviously completely unprepared talk in response that barely touches on most of what Craig says. So of course, Craig 'wins' the debate - not on the strength of his arguments, but on the merits of his polished and rehearsed delivery.

To get an example of how easy it is to publicly embarass Craig as the deceptive ignoramus that he is, look no further than the debate (or should I say 'massacre') between British philosopher Ahmed Arif and Craig at Cambridge:

http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/AllMedia.aspx?speaker=Arif%20Ahmed,%20William%20Lane%20Craig

Five minutes into Ahmed's opening statement it is clear that he came prepared and therefore had no problem in dismantling Craig's nonsense down to its very foundations.

Even better is the debate between Habermas and Ahmed, in which Craig's number one ressurrection-apologist pal is reduced to a stuttering mess.

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/habermas-ahmed-debate.mp3

There are plenty other atheist denaters who do their homework and roundly defeat apologists. Dawkins, Hitchens and especially Sam Harris are excellent debaters - but they need more of a discussion format - they are simply not prepared for the structured and formulaic approach Craig takes and are tehrefore, for thsi and maybe many otehr reasons, hesitant to debate him.

Does that mean we should take the ramblings of genocide-excusing Craig any more seriously?

I don't think so.

Lee said...

> Anyone who is familiar with Craig's formulaic and downright dishonest debate tactic's needs no more than a few minutes to publicly humiliate the man.

What is wrong with Craig's argument?

Lee said...

> This is probably primarily because Dawkins and his fellows actually have more important things to do with their time and do not get paid for coming up with excuses for believeing in God (as Craig does).

They obviously don't have more important things to do than to write books denouncing religion -- they seem to make time for that, and to relish it.

But they do have more important things to do than to state their objections in a philosophically coherent manner, in a venue where their statements can be directly challenged and a response to those challenges solicited.

Is that what you're saying?

Singring said...

'But they do have more important things to do than to state their objections in a philosophically coherent manner, in a venue where their statements can be directly challenged and a response to those challenges solicited.'

Lee, have you ever heard a debate by William Lane Craig? A debate with Craig is much more about performance than actual debate. Craig is so trained and polished, it takes some preparation to engage with his nonsense. As I have said, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al. all are very comfortable appearing with philosophers, theologians and anyone else in an open, discussion-style forum. What they are not interested in is the highly structured - some would say rigged - debate format that Craig is trained in.

As to Craig's 'arguments' (he always uses the same five - well, actually four). Note that all but one of them do not even support the notion of a Christian God, but just some sort of 'creator' or 'cause':

1.) The Kalam argument for a cause to the universe. You can find an eloquent rebuttal for this argument here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

2.) The argument from fine tuning.

This is rebutted extensively here, for example:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument

3.) The argument from objective moral values. This fails from teh outset because all Craig offers in supprt of his premise that objective moral values exist is 'because deep down we know it'. If that kind of statement convinces you, I really don't know what to say.

4.) The argument from the ressurrection. To see hopw sound that argument is, listen to teh debate between Habermas (Craig's number one source) and Arif Ahmed I have linked to one or two posts above.

5.) The argument from personal revelation.
Craig himself admits that this isn't even an argument.

To hear an eloquent and devastating response to all of these staple arguments, listen to the debate between Arif Ahmed and Craig at Cambridge that I have also linked to above.

I'd be happy to discuss any one of those arguments with you if you think they are convincing.

Lee said...

> Lee, have you ever heard a debate by William Lane Craig?

Never heard of the guy, until now.

> Craig is so trained and polished, it takes some preparation to engage with his nonsense.

Whereas neither Dawkins nor Hitchens would ever take advantage of their particularly formidable, but logically irrelevant, strengths (e.g., Dawkin's haughty posture of superior academic authority, Hitchens' rhetorical brilliance) to unfairly influence public opinion?

> To hear an eloquent and devastating response to all of these staple arguments, listen to the debate between Arif Ahmed and Craig at Cambridge that I have also linked to above.

Could you paraphrase that argument here and state how it refutes Craig?

Singring said...

'Whereas neither Dawkins nor Hitchens would ever take advantage of their particularly formidable, but logically irrelevant, strengths (e.g., Dawkin's haughty posture of superior academic authority, Hitchens' rhetorical brilliance) to unfairly influence public opinion?'

It is up for the audience to decide whether or not this is the case, no? I mean, if someone is swayed purely by rhetorical prowess, then that is unfortunate, but hardly the fault of the orator. The same applies to Craig, of course - he's perfectly free to present is arguments as predictably and slickly as he likes and I respect his ability to present complete nonsense as if it made sense. I am simply trying to explain why someone like Dawkins, who has plenty of high-profile avenues to promote atheism and skepticism, has very little interest in preparing for a round of kabuki theater with someone like Craig.

Hitchens has debated Craig, as have Dennett and Harris, by the way. But if you watch those debates you will find that they are not very illuminating because Craig insists on sticking to his rigid and rehearsed game plan of philosophical sophistry and word games, whereas Hitchens, for example, much prefers to go straight for the actual, societal issues and consequences of religion. You end up with two people on stage who completely talk past each other. I fear that something similar would happen between Dawkins and Craig and I have no interest in seeing a 'debate' like that, particularly because Craig's arguments have all been soundly refuted long ago anyway.

'Could you paraphrase that argument here and state how it refutes Craig?'

Which of the five? I'll gladly explain, but be aware that Arif Ahmed very effectively addresses all of the arguments in his debate with Craig. So I suggest you listen to it (its less than two hours).

KyCobb said...

I think in general Dawkins doesn't like to give people like Craig credibility by appearing with them. I would appreciate it if a theist such as Lee or Martin could explain on what basis it is possible to philosophically conclude that the uncaused cause is self aware and has emotions and reasons for doing things.

Lee said...

> I think in general Dawkins doesn't like to give people like Craig credibility by appearing with them.

That's a plausible explanation. But one way to give credibility to someone who disagrees with you is to lose an argument.

Anonymous said...

Firstly if Dawkins believes he is right then why not, he loses much more acting scared than facing the challenge. Actions speak louder than words....

Craig never issued any of these challenges they have always come from other institutions that want the debate.

I have watched a few of Craigs debates, including one with Hitchens who pulls some dishonest tactics- stalling for time with long winded answers that don't address the point, playing with a perfectly fine microphone, saying that people may be getting bored and that he shouldn't answer (WTF!!). Craig absolutely demolished Hitchens, there was no contest.

Of all the debates I have seen, (as well as interviews), no atheist gives actual evidence that there is no God, rather they resort to arguments from ignorance. But as Craig says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

The fact that Craig debates to a format should make it easy for his opponents since they know what is coming and can prepare. What is dishonest about his debate format? As far as I have seen it is logical and honest to the letter. (or is this a case of saying bad stuff about a person with no evidence of such makes a person's claim stronger? lol)

Anyway, Dawkins has much more to lose by staying away.. Philosophers of all stripes (even atheists) are laughing at him and his book. But then again, if he does debate it may be the final nail exposing how intellectually shallow his God Delusion book was...

Anonymous said...

Arif Ahmed ripped Craig a new asshole. If you want to see a good debate look him up. On the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is in no way a good argument for God. A person can do that for Santa claus, the loch ness monster and even to the belief that Jesus was nothing more than a sorcerer. Imagine someone asks how do you know Jesus was not a sorcerer? The ancient Egyptians apparently had supernatural powers to turn water into blood so how do you know Jesus wasn't simply a troll? Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Anyway the kalam argument was responded to by Ahmed so look it up.