Richard Dawkins talks about William Lane Craig (possible debate?)
Richard Dawkins has spoken about William Lane Craig in the following terms.
'One of our commenters on another thread, stevencarrwork, posted a link to this article by the American theologian and Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I read it and found it so dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful that I wanted to post it again. It is a stunning example of the theological mind at work. And remember, this is NOT an 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', 'picking on the worst case' example. My understanding is that William Lane Craig is a widely respected apologist for the Christian religion.
Read his article and rub your eyes to make sure you are not having a bad dream.'
I don't think those are the words of somebody hoping to debate Craig any time soon.
'One of our commenters on another thread, stevencarrwork, posted a link to this article by the American theologian and Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I read it and found it so dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful that I wanted to post it again. It is a stunning example of the theological mind at work. And remember, this is NOT an 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', 'picking on the worst case' example. My understanding is that William Lane Craig is a widely respected apologist for the Christian religion.
Read his article and rub your eyes to make sure you are not having a bad dream.'
I don't think those are the words of somebody hoping to debate Craig any time soon.
posted by Steven Carr at 12:49 AM
10 Comments:
Considering Dawkins' habit of well poisoning and ad homenim rather than actually taking down the arguments, I am not surprised that Dawkins is scared of having to fight somebody with substance in a serious debate. Because, when the day's over, his empty rhetoric (as is used to "debunk" Craig's argument in the forum post) will die, and he'll either need some substance or have to admit he's a fraud.
Dawkins has clarified his position on a debate with Craig:
'The grounds on which I now refuse the deluge of invitations I receive from Craig and his admirers (he really seems desperate), and the grounds on which I did so on this occasion are: "I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion". This will continue to be my position. I am happy to debate with distinguished apologists for religion ...'
CRAIG is the one on a "relentless drive for self-promotion?" Who is Dawkins trying to kid. HE's the one on the ego trip, and is just evading the debate to stop himself from being called out as unsubstantiated and making a fool of himself... not that he hasn't already.
Good to see that believers think that people who defend genocide are people they support.
You don't often get people brave enough to admit that in public, but put a Christian label on somebody and he can write articles saying men, women and children should be killed, and Christians will regard him as a hero.
Steven, you (and/or Dawkins) pulled that claim totally out of the blue. If you read that article for any reason other than to attack Christians ad homenim you would realize the entire point of the article was that the killing of them is NOT "genocide", but rather a just action on God's part. Maybe instead of quoting an atheist whose only ground against the argument is that it is "dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful", you actually write or find a refutation of the argument. Unless you're happy sitting in the corner of the blogosphere, spewing personnal attacks and thoughtless quotes nobody will ever pay mind to.
More Christians defending genocide and claiming it is not murder if their alleged god orders people to be killed.
They sound just like Osama bin Laden claiming it is not murder, but a justified killing by Allah.
No wonder Dawkins is scared of Craig.
Who would not be scared of people who advocate mass murder and call it justified?
I'm taking this comment as a way of saying you are unable to refute the article from an academic perspective. Your repeated appeals to emotion, ad homenims, and loaded questions demonstrate that your worldview is not founded on reason but is rather simply your opinion. I think I'll stop commenting on this blog for now, you seem to only enjoy taking cheap shots at Christians and not actually engaging.
Well said, Gio. Carr's and Dawkins' rhetoric and closed-eared repetition does nothing to address the arguments.
It amounts, ironically, to "I don't like it, therefore it's not true". Doesn't Dawkins protest that kind of reasoning?
The article itself specifically refutes that it is genocide, and was an exceptional event in trying circumstances of the days before Jesus' grace was deployed. Yet, Carr still keeps to his broken record.
Lastly, don't forget that if Craig is mistaken it doesn't do anything to affect his other arguments, much less the (in)validity of Dawkins' own.
And, if you just want to play the "it's revolting" card then that is emotion and ad hominem - the antithesis of reason and intellectualism that the "Brights" are supposed to stand for.
Odd that Dawkins should be upset in this way too, given that he believes morality just evolves with the zeitgeist (so their "zeitgeist" should make it okay) and that he thinks rape isn't really wrong, but an arbitrary product of evolution. Even moving over to Sam Harris' abysmal, logically IMPOSSIBLE moral theory does him no favors.
...all this just to avoid a religious person who, by definition, shouldn't have a single decent argument anyway? I hear chickens clucking :-)
More Christians boasting of Craig's ability to justify genocide , with his only qualms being the effects on the soldiers of being told to kill women and children ...
'Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.'
Don't Christians realise it is not good PR to write articles wondering about the effects of soldiers of having do do their imaginary god's orders and kill women and children?
Those poor Nazis, having to gas all those Jewish children. Craig would shed tears for them. He's been there, at least in spirit. He can imagine what it must have been like for them...
Dr William Craig, normally brilliant when at his best, strongly compromises himself and his arguments with his illogical tendency to cling to the odd notion of biblical inerrancy.
The fact is that the Bible - as is the case with other purported holy scriptures - comes to us through the hands of imperfect human beings. However pure the source of its contents, it is bound to be compromised to some degree by those hands. Therefore to base one's thinking and faith solely on it is quite wrong. And what is the need for this anyway?
Logic tell us clearly that a command to commit genocide could NEVER come from a good - never mind Perfect - Being. Indeed, having given us free will, why would God wish to command us to do ANYTHING AT ALL? He DOES NOT! God, through His many servants and other channels in Creation only ADVISES us, out of love, to do what is in our interests - so that we may take advantage of the unceasing, relentless, irresistible, machinery of Creation driven by His Perfect Will. To stand in the path of the working of this machinery spells doom for all those who so offend - whether they do so out of stubborness or inadvertently. Is it not the same when even an infant puts its hand in fire? The laws are not suspended on account of the infancy of the offender. As with human law, so it is also with Divine Law - indeed even more so, since Divine Law is infinitely purer: Ignorance of the law does not protect ANYONE from the consequences of acts governed by it.
What need has God to intervene specially in Creation when His Laws therein dispense Justice with Infallible Perfection? And that coupled with the Guiding Message of Love radiating to every part of Creation that is open to receive It, passed on everywhere by His servants, from the Highest Heights to the Deepest Depths.
Craig is a brilliant logician. He does not need the Bible to guide him in his quest for Truth. It can at best serve as an adjunct to this quest. The dangers associated with relying too heavily on are perfectly demonstrated by the difficulties someone like Craig runs into here as he tries to take on the impossible task of trying to explain away genocide - simply because he sees a story in the Bible which claims that God ordered it. That is nonsense of course. Just as is the claim that Jesus rose PHYSICALLY from the dead. If so, one then has the great difficulty of explaining, for instance, why His apostles didn't recognise Him even after being in His company for an extended period on the journey to Emmaus. This would be IMPOSSIBLE unless the figure they saw before them was RADICALLY different from how Jesus looked when He was incarnated in the flesh. Was there ANY sort of resemblance, they should have recognised Him IMMEDIATELY!
Post a Comment
<< Home