Wednesday, 26 September 2012

• 7 Reasons why Dawkins' Excuses for not Debating Craig are Illogical

   

  

  (09/26/12) I've touched upon this subject in earlier posts, but a recent comment by an atheist at my blog has underscored why this subject needs to be specifically addressed and plainly spelled out for people who continue to deny it. In no uncertain terms, Dawkins' excuses for not debating William Lane Craig are illogical when taken in the context of history and Dawkins' publicized comments.

  
  If someone was challenged to a debate and replied, "No, I refuse because your hair is short." This would seem to be an illogical response. However, if we were talking about The Long Hair Debate Club, then it would be a logical reply. Context is important. If a person was uncivilized and has had a habit of swearing and vituperating outbursts of unsubstantiated slander, then this would be a valid reason not to accept a debate offer. It would conceivably be a waste of time to attempt a civilized and rational discourse with such a person. But, what if an atheist were to state, "You believe the Bible is literally true, therefore I won't debate the existence of God with you." This would not be a logical or valid reply if the conditions of the debate and the truth values were not based on the Bible alone. This is because a vast multitude of Christians and theists over the ages have believed the scriptures are true and have also used reason and logic to defend theism. This has been the historical context of such debates. This is one of the many reasons why Dawkins' excuses not to debate William Lane Craig are illogical and disingenuous.
  
  1. Dawkins wrote a book claiming that belief in God is delusional.
  2. William Lane Craig outlined why Dawkins' book is illogical.
  3. Instead of defending his book with logic and reason in debate, Dawkins offered tangential and illogical excuses.
  4. There are at least seven reasons why Dawkins' excuses are illogical.
  
  It's quite easy to write a book and pretend that it holds philosophical value. However, when the same book has been dismantled in a civilized manner and the author refuses to debate with the same critic, one is likely to find that the excuses for not debating are illogical as well. Such is the case with Richard Dawkins and his God Delusion. William Lane Craig had basically dismantled the quasi-reasoning of The God Delusion in Craig's 2010 book On Guard:
  
  "No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises..."Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" does not follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified... At most, all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quite compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence."[1]
  
  Let's consider Dawkins' published response to Craig's challenges to debate from October 20, 2011, "Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig" - Here, Dawkins summarized his primary excuse:
  
  "This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him."[2]
  
  According to his summary quote, Dawkins has refused to debate the existence of God with William Lane Craig because Craig is a biblical literalist with regard to the historical attack on Canaan. Craig is one who does not consider extraordinary and controversial themes in the Bible to be ipso-facto metaphorical. Instead of debating the truth or falsehood of belief in God, Dawkins presumes to know enough about scripture and history to use this biblical account as an excuse for claiming moral superiority. Craig has outlined the correct historical and biblical interpretation of the Canaan attack, however, Dawkins is apparently interested in finding any excuse he can to avoid debate, no matter how illogical.[3] There are at least seven reasons why Dawkins' responses are illogical.
  
  1. Dawkins' refusal to debate Craig as a biblical lieralist is illogical and invalid in considering the context of history.
  
  In the context of history, a vast multitude of theists have believed the Bible is literally true. To refuse to debate a theist because he is not following a postmodern relativist trend is illogical and invalid. Yet this is what Dawkins claims: "Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament." A literal view of the Bible underscores that God both ordered the attack and that the attack was justified, as per Genesis 15.16, Ezekiel 33.11 and Revelation 15.3.
  
  Jesus himself supported the Old Testament accounts of Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, as well as Jonah's account.[4] Dawkins would apparently claim moral superiority over Jesus Christ because Christ is known to have been a biblical literalist who believed, no doubt, the attack on Canaan was justified. Had he lived in Jesus' day, Dawkins would have perhaps shunned Jesus as a moral wretch for supporting the attacks on Canaan. However, this would not have disproved Christ's truth claims. And neither does shunning Craig disprove his claims. Strike one for Dawkins.
  
  2. Dawkins' use of a biblical account as an excuse for not debating is basically an appeal to consequences.
  
  In his reply, Dawkins shifts focus away from the underlying philosophical question at hand, "Does God exist?" - towards a specific event and a question of moral justification. Dawkins has in no way demonstrated how the attack on Canaan thousands of years ago has a direct bearing on the truth or falsehood of God's existence. In his reply and excuse he is committing the logical fallacy known as an appeal to consequences. A basic description of this appeal to consequences helps to outline why it is not a valid logical response:
  
  "This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise."
  
  If the Bible is true and to be taken literally, then in Dawkins' eyes the biblical God is reprehensible and biblical Christians must supposedly be shunned. In focusing on a tangential and 'consequential' issue, Dawkins is not challenging the underlying question of God's existence, but is simply offering up the consequence of biblical God's existence as some kind of excuse to dismiss deeper philosophical questions. Strike two for Dawkins.
  
  3. Dawkins' Canaan excuse is basically an ad hominem attack.
  
  In addition to an appeal to consequences, Dawkins' Canaan excuse for not debating William Lane Craig is basically an ad hominem attack dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. Dawkins basically told Craig, 'I consider you to be a bad person, therefore, I won't debate the truth or falsehood of foundational beliefs.' Similar to the previous logical fallacy, using illogical and unsubstantiated smears in an attempt to avoid philosophical debate does not count as a valid response. Strike three.
  
  4. Dawkins had previously confessed that he has no objective moral standard with which to judge others.
  
  Dawkins had claimed that William Land Craig is immoral for his support of the historic Canaan attacks, however, Dawkins' own quotes help to outline why his understanding of his own beliefs disqualify him for the task of passing moral judgment on others. In an interview Dawkins had stated, "There is no logical connection between what is and what ought."[5] How is it that a person who confesses that he has no objective basis for discerning what is right and wrong will use a moral reason as an excuse not to debate God's existence? It's not logical. Strike four.
  
  5. Dawkins' form of "reasoning" is not based on logic, but on rhetorical devices.

  

  How is it that a man so widely admired in the atheist community could hold such incredibly faulty reasoning? His excuse offers insight. Instead of using logical arguments, Dawkins relies on various rhetorical props in order to try to make himself look good, and, for the most part, the atheist community tends to buy it.
  
  Dawkins' website claims that he is "for reason", however, he consistently demonstrates a form a reasoning that is void of logical principles. There are basically three types of rhetoric used in attempting to form a convincing argument: ethos based, pathos based and logos based rhetoric. The first is based on a person's reputation and academic authority. The second is based on an appeal to emotions. And the third is based on time-tested principles of logic. In forming his excuse not to debate Craig, Dawkins' first sentence is an appeal to ethos-based rhetoric. He attempts to diminish Craig's academic status: "Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig."[6] And then Dawkins attempts to bolster his own status in the context of considering a debate, "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine."[7] The fact of the matter is, however, that Dawkins excuse here, as poor as it is, fails miserably as well. Craig holds two earned doctorate degrees, while Dawkins holds only one. Dr. Craig has 47 books listed as published at Amazon, while Dawkins has 12 published books to date.  Strike five, chalk up another illogical tactical blunder for Dawkins.
  
  6. Dawkins' excuse of self-promotion displays extreme hypocrisy and is thus invalid.

  

  In a Daily Telegraph article, Dawkins’ is quoted as saying, “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion”[8] This is an illogical criticism because Dawkins is consistently more active in self promotion than Craig could ever be considered to be. Dawkins arranges international book tours in order to promote himself and his books and so his criticism is a logical self contradiction. William Lane Craig does not promote himself in such a manner.  A video clip of Dawkins' book promotion at Barnes and Noble in New York City is a classic example.[9] As noted by Dr. Craig, “Being accused of being self-promoting by Richard Dawkins is, as Sam Harris remarks, sort of like being accused of bad taste by Lady Gaga.”[10] Strike six.
  
  7. Dawkins' brand of anti-religious atheism may easily be used to justify worse forms of racism and genocide.
  
  For an atheist Buddhist racism and genocide would not be logical, because killing innocent people would produce some pretty bad karma. But when all religious implications are stripped away and militant atheism is adopted, then nothing is held sacred and the worst humanitarian crimes may be justified using pragmatism and utilitarianism. Joseph Stalin founded "The League of Militant Atheists" - the same brand of atheism Richard Dawkins embraces.[11] And simple logical syllogisms outline the manner in which Dawkins' brand of atheism has been used, and may be used today, to justify racism and the genocide of innocent people on massive levels.[12] Because Dawkins' brand of atheism may be used to justify racism and genocide, therefore, Dawkins' Canaan excuse for not debating the truth of God's existence is hypocritical and illogical.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Proper and effective logical reasong includes the use of something called logical conseqeunce, wherein premises are organized into a logical syntax in order to produce a logical conclusion. In the case of Richard Dawkins, we find neither the use of logical principles nor an understanding of logical consequence, neither in his books, nor in his excuses. If anything, a closer look at Dawkins' poor excuses helps to shine the light on Richard Dawkins as the New Atheism emperor with no clothes. As noted at the New Atheism website, New Atheists such as Dawkins are not interested in debating the truth of ideas, they are interested in promoting "intolerance" and marginalizing religious people. Craig's criticisms of The God Delusion remain valid and unchallenged, it's an illogical book written by an illogical atheist apparently bent on prejudice and deception. As the most widely promoted apologist for atheism today, Richard Dawkins, including all his fallacious reasoning and excuses, is perhaps the best argument there is for theism today.
  
  References
  
  [1] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO,  p.121, see online, Reasonable Faith Forum, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493
  [2] Guardian, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
  [3] Reasonable Faith, Slaughter of the Canaanites, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites
  [4] CARM, What did Jesus teach about the Old Testament?, http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/what-did-jesus-teach-about-old-testament
  [5] Dr. Richard Dawkins interviewed by Nick Pollard at New College, published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition (vol 18 no. 3) February 28th, 1995, http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=102
  [6] Guardian, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
  [7] Ibid.
  [8] Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God, The Daily Telegraph, May 14, 2011 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html)
  [9] YouTube, Richard Dawkins Book Tour in NYC, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqpN4nq70Rs
  [10] YouTube, Richard Dawkins Suffers from Projection while Evading William Lane Craig, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5zp76Yj7bo
  [11] Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine,
  http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
  [12] Templestream, How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide,
  http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/dawkins-evolution-justifies-racism-and.html
  
  (updated 09/27/12)
  
  Tags: Dawkins' excuses for not debating Craig, reasons why Dawkins refuses to debate, Richard Dawkins' self contradictions, Richard Dawkins' self promotion, Dawkins shuns biblical literalists, New Atheism is not about promoting truth but demanding censorship, proof Dawkins is disingenuous

  • 1:45 PM
  • 213 Views
  • 4 eProps
  • 4 Comments