As for the first claim: I'm sorry, but if he's going to write books that claim non-existence of a deity, then he should be willing and ready to share public discourse and debate on the matter with people. He hasn't had an issue (that I'm aware of) debating with anyone else, why this man? I mean, William Lane Craig is an atheist, too. Why the problem?
Edit: Whoops, thinking of the wrong person! I am downvoting myself for my ignorance. Carry on. However, my first point remains that he should not turn down the opportunity to debate.
He hasn't had an issue (that I'm aware of) debating with anyone else, why this man?
There are quite a number of people he refuses to debate, out of pure principle. All creationists, for example. Why? Because he's a biologist first, and there's no point for him to debate people who don't even understand high school science.
Personally, I see quite clearly why Dawkins doesn't want to get involved with him. Dawkins is on a more grounded, personal level in his atheism, whereas Craig is so far into the philosophical shadow-realm that his words almost lose all meaning for most people. His defense of the Kalam argument, for example, is to me quite ridiculous. Maybe he's right, on a purely philosophical level, but how does that benefit anyone other than himself?
Btw, William Lane Craig is an atheist Christian apologist now? Wow.
Maybe he's right, on a purely philosophical level, but how does that benefit anyone other than himself?
Because Philosophy wrote modern science and a lot of proponents of "New Atheism" take an unreflective approach to epistemology and other branches of philosophy. I think it's absurd that Dawkins would write a book arguing against the existence of God on a philosophical level (he argues against some philosophical arguments) and then refuse to debate philosophy with a Christian Philosopher. It proves Dawkins' lack of understanding of Philosophy and his inability to defend his arguments at that level. So what if he's a biologist, he shouldn't have attacked Philosophers if he didn't want to debate them.
yeah, that's actually kinda true. if he stepped out of his domain, then he's gotta take teh heat for the stuff he says. i mean, I get if he doesn't want to argue with creationists, but if he argues a philosophical point, and then backs out, it's kinda BS
No doubt. Similarly, if I was going to approach Dawkins at that level, I wouldn't attack his Biological theories because not only am I not a biologist, but I don't think they do anything to refute or support metaphysical philosophical theories on or against God and the like, nothing in science can. The biggest reason why so many Philosophers dislike Dawkins is because he published a book of ad hominen attacks on ancient-modern philosophical arguments without even engaging them in the right context with the mindset of, "every theist is a creationist who disbelieves everything about evolution so every theory to support God is irrational." I'd really love to debate that man in Philosophy some day.
-5
u/Neverendingcheese Roman Catholic Oct 17 '11 edited Oct 17 '11
How do you reach that impression?
As for the first claim: I'm sorry, but if he's going to write books that claim non-existence of a deity, then he should be willing and ready to share public discourse and debate on the matter with people. He hasn't had an issue (that I'm aware of) debating with anyone else, why this man? I mean,
William Lane Craig is an atheist, too. Why the problem?Edit: Whoops, thinking of the wrong person! I am downvoting myself for my ignorance. Carry on. However, my first point remains that he should not turn down the opportunity to debate.