Why Richard Dawkins Won’t Debate Craig: “I’m Busy”
Author: Jason is one of the editors at TM and is currently undertaking a BA in philosophy. Read more from himRichard Dawkins responds to the question at the recent Intelligence Squared debate at Wellington College in Berkshire, over his refusal to engage with prominent philosopher of religion, William Lane Craig.
HT: Gil S at the new Rational Thoughts blog
Update:
Wintery Knight has some good analysis here:
Dawkins’ reasons in point form (with Wintery Knight’s commentary):
- Dawkins claims that he is willing to debate high-ranking clergymen (but Craig is a scholar, not a clergyman)
- Dawkins claims that Craig is a creationist (but Craig supports his kalam cosmological argument with the Big Bang)
- Dawkins claims that Craig’s only claim to fame is that he is a professional debater (but see Craig’s CV and publications below, which is far more prestigious than Dawkins’)
- Dawkins claims that he’s too busy.
What are the real reasons why he won’t debate Craig?
I can think of three reasons why Dawkins would avoid a debate with Craig:
- He doesn’t know how to defend atheism and disprove theism in public
- He doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to understand logic and study evidence
- He doesn’t want to debate a real scholar and be humiliated in public, like Hitchens and Dennett
My opinion is that he is guilty of all 3 of these.
Jason Engwer at Triablogue quotes ChristianJR4, who posted the clip:
“To me, it sounded like Dawkins was saying he wouldn’t debate Craig because he doesn’t have any other claim to fame besides him being a really good debater. Of course that’s patently false. Craig’s academic credentials and fame far outstrip any of Dawkin’s past debate opponents against theists… It’s quite amusing, to say the least, that after 2 full years of hearing about him, Dr. Dawkins still doesn’t have a clue about who Dr. Craig is. He doesn’t know, for example, that Craig is a world renowned philosopher of Religion (indeed he’s considered to be at the top of his field). He doesn’t know that Craig is a ‘leading philosopher of space and time’ (Quentin Smith quote). He doesn’t know that Craig’s claim to fame is actually on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, not his debating.”
Related posts:
That is pathetic. “Too busy” amounts to “unwilling” when he could pick the date and it would be on. Unwilling to defend his book and views by actually engaging with the strongest arguments from their leading proponents, his ideas can remain unchecked and his mind unchallenged. If he is to have a glimmer of intellectual respectability when it comes to atheism or theism, he needs to front up. Of course, avoiding something he will surely loose is also a good tactic.
On Dawkin’s writing I like the comment my history professor best, “Me thinks he doth protest too much.”
“Unwilling to defend his book and views by actually engaging with the strongest arguments from their leading proponents, his ideas can remain unchecked and his mind unchallenged.”
Dawkins has debated so many religious leaders that it is absurd to say that he is avoiding being questioned.
Creationists and evangelists wants to debate Dawkins because that would boost their ratings and it would look good on their cv. You can’t blame Dawkins for not wanting to help them with this. It doesn’t look good on his cv. It is also a very strange complaint to make during a debate where he is answering the very criticism you accuse him of avoiding. You can’t expect the man to debate every faithhead who has a problem with him.
And what are these strongest arguments anyway?
It’s meaningless to argue faith against fact. Creationist have a “God given” ability to ignore any scientific fact presented to them.
Why even ask for comments if you will only publish your side. Talk about “preaching to the choir”!
Hello Alfred TUbble,
Ignorance of the arguments for theism fits the Dawkins profile. And ignorance of William Lane Craig is inexcusable if Dawkins want to consider himself an authority in Philosophy of Religion.
It would actually be the opposite. If a Dawkins /Craig debate were to take place this would be a boon to Dawkins CV, and look bad on Craig – who is, unlike Dawkins, a serious thinker when it comes to Philosophy of Religion and the God question.
Alfred seems to be unaware of Craig’s profile and record as a cosmologist and philosopher in the public sphere, of which Dawkins would be very much aware. Dawkins would have to to very well prepared indeed, and on his best behaviour, to come out unscathed.
And if he debates Christians he already debates creationists, so even his answer is confused on the issue. To be fair, Dawkins might be construing a “Creationists” to mean, is commonly done, a Young-earther, but then Craig is not on of those.
Ken thinks faith and fact are mutually exclusive categories… an erroneous belief.
At first I want to ask, “What scientific fact negates what article of faith?” and “How does science refute God’s existence?” And then I reflect on Ken’s previous sentence (quoted first) and wonder at the inconsistency there.
Then I want to say, “Atheist’s (at least the popular level proponents of Atheism) have a God-given ability to ignore – or at least refuse to engage seriously with – the strongest theistic arguments.”
John Maynard Keynes said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”
I think this quote aptly fits both Young Earth Creationists and diehard Atheists when it comes to their refusal to consider evidence which opposes their own pet paradigm.
I think a debate between these two would be fruitless. Both Dawkins and Craig merely turn up to debates with their favourite arguments, and then they’d sort of talk past each other.
I don’t think thats a valid observation at all. Craig always takes care to address his opponents arguments.
And I think seeing Dawkins utterly debunked would be quite satisfying.
Well I suppose they do counter each others’ arguments, but it is always by way of reference back to their own arguments/poionts. Which are…..not tired and old so much as it’s just that we all know their views already.
I find this simpleton comment disappointing. I would like to know, Stuart, whether you posess the sophistocation to realise that if such a debate happened, an atheist might watch the very same debate as you and conclude that Craig was ‘utterly’ debunked. If so, what do you make of this? And can you bear to admit that there are good arguments against your worldview?
No, I don’t think there are good arguments against Christian theism. I can bear the fact that there are arguments, but none I think are successful. Plus it would be quite an impressive accomplishment, not only to strip down all the arguments of Natural Theology but also to erect successful arguments for atheism.
I can understand someone else, say an atheist, seeing a debate where I thought the Christian won the debate, and the atheist attendee thought their champion won the day. That’s understandable. But I try to be as objective and reasonable as possible when I see debates, and in all I’ve seen and heard, which is a great many, I’ve honestly never thought Craig has lost. There have been a couple of closer call, where it hasn’t been so obvious, but Craig’s victories are most often very clear. Debates come down to who has the better arguments and counter-arguments and, to put it simply and clearly, Theism has the better arguments and counter-arguments, and atheism does not.
Plus I don’t think Dawkins has sufficiently been slammed for his atrociously poor arguments.
Likewise I don’t think there are successful arguments for theism, but that’s only because I’ve already decided on where I want to see evidence. And I’ve decided on where I want to see evidence based on my worldview. So the deck’s already stacked. I think it’d be the same for you. For instance, I don’t find many of Dawkins’ arguments “atrociously poor” because they are in the realm/area in which I want answers from theism. I have to say I quite like Craig and I think many of his arguments entirely valid. I just don’t feel at all threatened by them because they are all so distant from my focus which is the scientific method, really.
Similarly, I guess, you don’t find it a compelling argument that there is no scientific evidence of god, while I do.
Other Simon,
First, the frank admission that you think the arguments for theism are unsuccessful only because you’ve already decided on where you want to see evidence is welcome. It shows you are blinkered by your worldview. You may accuse of me of the same, but then it comes down to the reasonableness of the arguments for and against, doesn’t it?
Second, if you think Craig’s arguments valid, and the premises are true or at least more probable than their contradictories, then you’re rationally obliged to believe in the conclusions, whether you feel like it or not.
Third, why should the idea that there is no scientific evidence for God matter to you? Do you expect there to be, given the concept of God?
Fourth, why should scientific evidence for God’s existence be a requirement for rationally believing in God, when you think that many of Craig’s arguments that use scientific evidence and arguments in the premises (especially the Kalam Cosmological Argument which employs the best cosmogonical model, and the Teleological Argument which uses the fine-tuning of the cosmos for life), are valid in their entirety?
Stuart,
Yes I would accuse you of the same. But I think you are wrong that it “comes down to the reasonableness of the argument”. Because how reasonable we think an argument is depends on where we want to see evidence. For instance, I don’t think the argument [for god] from morality is very reasonable because I want to see direct empirical, falsifiable evidence for god, not just an argument. But you, I assume, think that the argument from morality is a good argument and you are not so concerned with the lack of scientific/falsifiable evidence.
In this way, you and I don’t even agree on the reasonableness of an argument, wouldn’t you agree? (Or do you disagree with the reasonableness of this argument! Lol.)
I do expect there to be scientific evidence for god because that is the benchmark; the standard we use for everything else. Nothing is off limits to science except crazy and contrived situations like “we were all made yesterday with implanted memories” or “god purposefully avoids being visible to science”.
In any case I think that there are many arguments for god which make sense and are good arguments. Certainly I think I can rationally counter most of them, but they are still arguments with some merit. For instance, the Kalam argument has merit if you are happy with a first cause or a self-extant being. The design argument has merit because things are so complicated. Admittedly it has lost its edge with evolution, but it still has merit. The moral argument for god is far simpler than a natural argument and that is a plus. And the grounding of knowledge is a far simpler affair using a god to base it upon.
All of these arguments have merit and I am quite happy to admit that even while, of course, I can find problems with them. In fact I’m sure I have explicated my non black-and-white stance before. But I do not see this from you Stuart. I think you are afraid of acknowledging even the slightest validity in areas which you see as a potential threat. And, well, I think that a worldview which is so fearful is heading in the wrong direction. I think that the worldviews most worthy of respect are not ones that are nervously guarding their logical justifications, but ones which are free of fear enough to acknowledge validity wherever it lies – even if in opposing worldviews.
Other Simon,
While “reasonableness” can reasonably be construed as a person-relative notion, that is not how I use the term. The MAJOR problem with your response then is, that reasonableness – or that which accords to the rules of inference, and is thus right-thinking – is not subject to personal interpretations. They are universal truths and apply even if you don’t want them to or your worldview prevents you from accepting the conclusions.
Stuart,
Okay, so how about scientific evidence for god? That is something I think we disagree on. I think God should be visible to science, and I assume you think otherwise. We both have reasons. Now. How can it be decided, using reasonableness, which viewpoint is ‘correct’?
Other Simon,
Is this really your argument?
(1) Empirical science is the standard of knowledge used for everything.
(2) God is not visible to science.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.
or (3`) Therefore, We cannot know God.
Yes, that would be one.
Empiricism (empirical science) is just a process not a world view.
http://atheism-analyzed.net/First%20Principles.htm
Empiricism, Naturalism and Materialism
Because the “ought imperative” of Principle 4a is the necessary and sufficient principle upon which Naturalism and Materialism are based, it is easily shown that the transcendent nature of the underlying foundation of these concepts produces a contradiction that violates the anti-transcendent worldviews themselves.
In other words, Naturalism and Materialism declare that intuition and other transcendences cannot exist, yet the basis for Naturalism and Materialism is itself necessarily intuitive and transcendent.
So Naturalism and Materialism deny their own foundational validity, and thus are paradoxical (violate the Principle of Non-Contradiction), and so are neither coherent nor valid.
This paradox is fatal, rationally speaking, for Naturalism and Materialism, but not for Empiricism, because Empiricism has voluntarily chosen to limit its range of investigation, and, in theory any way, does not say anything at all about transcendences or about value systems, except that they are out of the range of the testability and verification constraints placed upon Empirical processes. (Empiricism is a process, not a worldview or value system).
In this manner Empiricism retains its validity as a process for obtaining information about physical reality. Naturalism and Materialism are seen to be invalid, non-coherent worldviews, spun off from Empiricism, but no longer identical to it.
—
So there you go, don’t confuse yourself between those three anymore.
Hi Bob,
You’ll find that it is Others Simon who extrapolates Naturalism from Empiricism. This is evident as he uses the label “Empiricism” to justify Naturalism. Witness comment # 17 December 2009 at 7:25 pm.
Bob,
Empiricism is my worldview.
Who says that naturalism and materialism declare that intuition cannot exist? I think that we can arrive at naturalsim while fully observing our intuition in operation.
A little harsh perhaps Jas – Dawkins has after all publically debated Lennox and in the past (I think in 1986) even debated two creationists whose names I can’t remember. From what I’ve seen, he was hardly humiliated in either situation, though Craig would be a tougher nut to crack, or more accurately, try and hold his ground against. It’s a pity that there are few lergy people really qualified in debating him. Perhaps Alister McGrath could be a good one, but maybe he’s not ‘important’ enough.
Craig’s main sin I suppose would be being a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, hence associated with evolution doubters, which for Dawkins means he is beyond the pale – for the moment anyway. I’d love to see them face up against each other tho!
On another note, I’m dubious w.r.t. Bob’s claim that Empiricism is a process – linguistically I don’t see how that fits the usual “ism” pattern, but whatevs really; I’m no fan of dragged out posting wars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuYoU_IFQz8&feature=PlayList&p=9697B9FCC0507346&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=82
Stuart. This video shows what I mean by their ‘old favourite arguments’.
I just had an idea. I think that the appropriate match is Daniel Dennett vs. Lane Craig. People here seem to think that Craig demolishes Dawkins, but this is because Dawkins is not arguing at the philosophical level (NOT that I advocate that the philosophical level is somehow better.). Craig is, and so I think Dennett is the appropriate adversary, as he is a philosopher.
Other Simon
It seems to me that my observation still stands – that Craig always takes care to address his opponents arguments. The video does not disprove that observation, or even contradict it. I’m at a loss to think what the video link you provided does prove and why you would offer it. In any case, quasi mud-slinging such as this just doesn’t pull any weight with me as what matters is the arguments themselves – not how many times the arguments are presented. Its the same level as argumentation as “I agree with you because you have a British accent.” If you have a counter-argument to anything, then make it. If you don’t, accept that atheism is less rational than theism, or if not that then at least that Theism is rational.
Craig does demolish what Dawkins calls the “central argument” of his book. See here.
“The philosophical level?” What do you mean by this? Richard Dawkins’ is discoursing on philosophical matters, with philosophers, using philosophy.
The first thing that sprang to mind is Dennett has debated Craig. But as far a I can tell Craig has only responded in a 45 min talk to a dialogue between McGrath and Dennett in 2007, and Dennett responded to Craig in ten minutes. This I have listened to and the response of Dennett was admittedly brief and woefully dismissive. An overview and “snarky” response can be found here. Apropos Dennett in debate; he has taken on Plantinga where I hear he was demolished quite thoroughly. See here.
I don’t think debaters’ counter each others arguments much. I just think they argue for their story making more sense. I think that video shows this exactly. But I’m not claiming that only Craig does it; they all do, I think.
I smile at your thinking that what matters to you are the arguments themselves. Do you really think you’re that impartial? Do you really think that your worldview doesn’t lean you towards pre-conclusions? I don’t think I am, and so I do not have the faith in ‘logic’ as you do.
I just don’t know how to show you how to step outside of your own skin, Stuart. This is defensive language; language of fear.
The funny thing is, though, that I’m sure you’d agree at the end of the day that you wouldn’t be a Christian if it weren’t for certain emotional experiences. I think you are afraid to engage with this fact. I think you are embarrased by it. Because it means that your position is not so ‘logically’ sound. This constant barrage of one-sided ‘logic’ is there to avoid the inevitable conclusion: that one’s views on so-called ‘logical’ arguments is almost entirely dependent upon personal experience.
Coming to terms with this dependence on personal experience would at once mean that you would have to drop the act – that all this ‘logic’ is one-sided and that everyone must bow down to a god or be illogical!
Do you not see that religion is there precisely so that you don’t have hide behind coldness and ‘logic’. Spirituality is firstly – or only even – about emotional health and openness; emancipation and redemption. And an emotionally open and healthy person does not go round with their fingers in their ears, insisting that there is one logic, it leads to god, and everyone who thinks otherwise is ‘illogical’.
So, I put it to you that you would (i) not be a Christian if it were not for key emotional, experiential reasons, and (ii) Yours (and mine, and everyone’s) views on what is ‘logical’ is very dependant on these emotional experiences. And that, therefore, logic is not so sound at all.
I’m sorry Other Simon, but psycho-analysing me in the stead of an argument is simply not persuasive and – beside bordering on ridiculous – pretty rude.
Why do you put the word logic in inverted commas?
No I don’t think that I am not pre-disposed toward certain conclusions – I am. But I also think that you are pre-disposed towards conclusions as well – conclusions that happen to be opposing to the beliefs I hold. So what we need is something to arbitrate. And that thing is logic. And what I mean by logic is the well-established rules of right reasoning. For some of those rules visit here
Also, presumably you think you are arguing with sound reason. But you equivocate on the word ‘logic’ in your syllogism. What I think plausible in light of my emotional state or experiences is no cause to question logic itself and its rules of right reasoning. Also, you would do well to consider that any view which disposes of logic does nothing to persuade others to take it seriously, nor is it cause to have confidence in itself.
Sorry I don’t mean to be rude. I think this stuff extremely pertinent. I am trying to get at my point which is that logic doesn’t help, well, at all really. Because there are arguments for god, and there are arguments against god. Even if the rules of logic are sound and undisputable, whether we accept the premises is entirely constructed upon our worldview, our upbringing, our emotions etc.
For instance I don’t accept the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument, and you don’t accept my premise that everything is empirically verifiable. We accept these premises as human beings; biased ones. How much of our opinions on these premises are biases from our constructed worldvies? Probably quite a lot. Logic does not help us in deciding whether to accept these premises, we do not accept premises using logic.
Now I do agree with you that logic is very important. You are correct that we should only listen to coherency and sound logic. But – and this is why I put logic in inverted commas – it can not be used, as you seem to think it can, to arbitrate on absolutely everything. If you think it can, well, this would be a stunning naivete.
Reminds me of a quip from someone around Hume’s time that goes something like…
A little bit of philosophy will make one an atheist, a lot will make one a theist.
Simon,
I rather think it should be “A little bit of philosophy will make you an atheist, a little bit of theism will make a lot of philosophy” Lol.
For where else does one turn when justifying largely non-existent ‘phenomenon’!
First, whether you accept or reject a premise in an argument on the basis of prior commitments to a worldview, or emotional reasons, or due to upbringing is no indictment of logic itself, or on the efficacy of logic to arbitrate between divergent beliefs.
Second, logic also arbitrates on your reasons for accepting and rejecting premises. While we do accept premises for a variety of reasons other than logical ones, logic can be used to arbitrate on those reasons and straighten out poor thinking.
I find it very convenient that you think logic’s applicability can legitimately be curtailed. This follows the pattern of other discussion we have had. You are happy to use logic so far as it goes, but whenever your view runs amok you are quick to eject sound logic and coherency leaving incoherence in its place. For instance you will shrug off criticisms such as “self-refuting” as necessary rather than necessarily false. Such selectivity is as hoc at best.
Stuart,
Yes, I agree, we can use logic in investigating premises. But one can not investigate forever. The cascades of reasoning that go into investigating a premise are easily overtaken by subjectivity. In fact, I think that subjectivity is alredy taking place at the logical argument level – before even looking into the premises – followed by after-the-fact justifications. I think this is trivially true, don’t you? I think that any thinking person can see this.
I think that logic is useful, yes. Unlike you I seem to be able to admit that there are valid arguments on most sides for most topics. Perhaps this also reflects our differing worldviews. You seem to think that since the world is as you believe it to be, that logic must necessarily be on your side, and you are very sensitive to this. I, on the other hand, think that there is a world out there, but that our understanding of it is fuzzy. Which is exactly why there are conflicting logical arguments out there! My worldview – empiricism – allows me to be free to acknowledge opposing arguments. I think it is a pity that you can’t do the same.
I often end up arguing the opposing side not because I ardently believe that it is the only valid view out there, but because you, with nowhere to go with your all-or-nothing worldview, must necessarily claim that it is “demolished” or “woeful”. It is not that I think your arguments are invalid; it is your belief that things are all one-sided that is wrong. You would command a great deal more respect – and converts – if you were able to just state things as they are (NOT one-sided).
As for my beliefs. Have a look at this; this is interesting, too! You say “For instance you will shrug off criticisms such as “self-refuting” as necessary”
Because it is my view that the world out there is genuinely unknown. Unknown in the sense that virtually none of our knowledge of the world is absolute; and this has been shown throughout history, we make models of the world and we improve on them. It is not true that empiricism is self-refuting*, because it is recognised that empiricism is but a model of the world, too. As is the previous statement! And I can be cognisant of this even while stating it. What you percieve as self-refutation is really the acknowledgment of the limits of our knowledge, but at the same time a recognition that our knowledge has validity.
Besides, the only reason that your epistemology is not recursive, too, is that you have a cheat card; just claim that god zapped things such that they are the way they are.
At any rate, you do not agree with me that knowledge is a gradual, tentative and empirical process. You want there to be absolutes. If there are absolutes you can prove that Christianity is true. And I find it interesting that this is almost the antithesis of the way it actually works. Virtually no one, if anyone at all, becomes a Christian because of logic. Not because Christianity is not logically defendable, but because logic does not serve Christianity any more than most other worldviews.
*Or rather it is self-refuting if you can’t apply empiricism to the concept of empiricism itself. But you can.
Other Simon, have you got some sort of contact details you wouldn’t mind posting here?
Recent Comments
The Thinking Matters Bloggers
Dominic Bnonn Tennant, Editor
bnonn@thinkingmatters.org.nz
Jason Kumar, Editor
jason@thinkingmatters.org.nz.
Stuart McEwing, Writer
mcewing.stuart@gmail.com
Rob Ward, Writer
rob.ward@thinkingmatters.org.nz
Questions, suggestions, and other comments are more than welcome.
NZ Apologetic Groups
NZ Christian Blogs
Apologetics
Philosophy
Creation & Evolution
Magazines and Journals
Stats
Popular Tags
Most Commented
Popular Posts