Why Richard Dawkins is (not) qualified to debate William Lane Craig

 

(Dr. Craig) the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists." - Sam Harris

Dear Dr. William Lane Craig (and other parties of interest)

I believe I have supplied adequate justification for you to take my comments and objections into consideration. Please consider the following.

As a believer and then atheist (but now believer again) I thought of Dawkins as quite impressive, articulate and seemingly 'rational', certainly handsome and hilarious! (just kidding about that handsome part, sorry dear chap). As a scientist he appears to be beautiful, exquisite, unique and uncanny. However I have determined Dawkins has no business commenting on religion, philosophy or theology. I am not using the same fallacious reasoning here employed by Dawkins: the idea that if one doesn't have sufficient credentials or worthiness then no response is merited, rather I make this assessment based upon the same absurd criterion he utilities in rejecting academic debate with William Lane Craig. 

As you may know, Professor Dawkins decided to publicly parade this attempted vindication (to refuse to debate), he even made a public spectacle writing about this in the Guardian:

"Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine". 

Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury." [1]

Firstly Craig does not parade himself as a philosopher, rather university moderators credit him in their own introductory remarks as a philosopher because Craig is a qualified philosopher. He has written in about two hundred peer-reviewed academic articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science [2]

Craig also happens to be a member of the American Philosophical Association, American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature, Society of Christian Philosophers, Evangelical Theological Society, Evangelical Philosophical Society (Vice President, 1995-96 Vice President 1996-2005), Science and Religion Forum, Philosophy of Time Society (President) [3] Craig has been credited as a philosopher within many legitimate lists of philosophers [4]

Oddly enough in none of these organisations, websites, or peer-reviewed journals has Dawkins accredited as a philosopher, theologian or expert on religion, yet he embarrassingly seems to publish books, make videos, websites about issues he has no academic training in. Sam Harris has a degree in philosophy, (Dennett would also be qualified), but Hitch and Dawkins are completely outside of this field and have entirely no academic credibility here.

A real showman or person parading himself, who has done a fantastically better job of parading over that of Craig, would be Hitchens. He would fit within this category with many of his tours, and even so with academic respect. It is thus irrelevant even if he were to be parading, this is nothing but a rhetorical jab. However similar to Dawkins, Hitchens would not be fully qualified to sell books or debate religion in such vigorous academic environments, but Craig would be fully qualified, yet this fact didn't stop Dawkins from repeatedly endorsing Hitchens in more than one way. Dr. Craig I recommend therefore holding Dawkins responsible to his own standard and refusing to debate this philosophical layman.

In addition, Dr. Craig has debated several colleagues of Dawkins, including Sam Harris [5], Christopher Hitchens(RIP) [6] and Lawrence Krauss [7]

Suspiciously Dawkins asserts none of the professors of philosophy he personally knows have heard of Bill Craig. Now either Dawkins was lying, mistaken or conveniently forgot here, but his friend and colleague Daniel Dennett addressed William Lane Craig at a philosophical conference in 2009 [8]

But why would a professional philosopher like Dennett be addressing a "layman" like Craig who is accordingly not a philosopher according to Dawkins within such an academic context? And why would Alvin Platinga (another philosopher Dennett has lectured/debated with) seeing that he is world-class, hold William Lane Craig in such high regard if Dr. Craig is in fact not a philosopher?

Finally why would an educated elitist like Dawkins make such an abysmal blunder, as to depend or rely upon anecdotal evidence for his evaluation on whether Craig was a professional philosopher? This is despite the fact that he even links to Dr. Craig's website in the Guardian[9], and therefore could have easily checked Dr. Craig's academic credentials, even on the same domain. This all appears highly dubious to me. It its thus unequivocally clear, that all three charges presented by Dr. Dawkins are false:

1. Craig is not parading himself 
2. Craig is qualified
3. Colleagues known by Dawkins have heard of Craig

Dawkins also had no problem sharing the stage with Craig in Mexico in November 2010 when various speakers/debaters addressed the topic:  Does the Universe have a purpose? [10] Dawkins has therefore already indirectly given academic credibility to every presenter on that stage by even interacting or entertaining them. He could have easily refused the stage or given up his presentation instead of producing such misleading thoughts. However perhaps Dawkins is just to malevolent and couldn't even bother avoiding such serious confusion. 

Now if Dawkins claims he made it clear prior to the event that this was not a debate to these speakers in person or other means, then the apparent delusion and/or confusion of Dawkins debating Craig with other theists refutes his own argument against the God of the Bible who also gave advanced notice to the Canaanites and to Israel letting them know he would punish them with delusion and exile. 

What is furtherly hilarious is that Hitchens (RIP), ironically stated the exact opposite to Dawkins and said Craig is taken very seriously by scholars and academia and they even recommended Hitchens stand down:

The unqualified Hitchens however could not resist debating Craig since he loved to parade himself (an act approved by Dawkins) and unfortunately even according to the Atheists, viciously lost this debate [11, 12]

Personally  I am not inconsistent here, I would like to see Dr. Craig several opponents he has declined. I believe Dr. Craig it was charitable of you to debate an unqualified individual like Hitchens (or Richard Carrier) because of his popularity and rhetorical skills, but I must say there are other atheists who equally are absent of qualification , but whom deserve just as much if not more merit than Hitchens, specifically Matt Dillahunty, Jeff Lowder, and one qualified former student of yours John Loftus [13, 14]

Dawkins refers to Professor Craig as a "deplorable apologist for genocide", after having just quoted Craig as saying:

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land..."

Dawkins might not of had his reading glasses at hand at this moment, who knows? However even if Craig were to defend an extreme hyper-literal genocidal reading of the text and the bishops that Dawkins debate assert it to be myth, allegory or metaphor, who would be the more honest opponent to debate? 

Obviously Craig would not be cherry picking the Bible as Dawkins so often alleges about Theists, he wouldn't be selectively basing his own ethics according to his own whim, personally determining which parts were literal and what is poetic but rather trying his best to interpret the Biblical text as accurately and honesty as possible which is a plausible reason to debate such a genuine scholar! In fact two such Christian writers are Paul Copan and Keith Thompson [15]

Dawkins doesn't even attempt to bother explaining why we should take apologists who render the Bible as myth or poetry alone seriously. He doesn't bother arguing that God's divine morality, ought to be identical to 21st century human ethics (and gives no reason to) rather he just asserts one of the most classical logical fallacies a blatant appeal to emotion:

"Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty. 

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well."

What universal human morality could Dawkins even appeal to, to make his audience or fellow colleagues universally leave the building? Perhaps they would leave the building due to a shocking display of destitute ridden snobbishness? But Dawkins can't explain why anyone should behave morally and that's part of the reason he won't debate Craig. Perhaps Dawkins should read some Hume: 

"You cannot get an ought from an is" - David Hume (Scottish Atheist Philosopher)

There is no doubt that Dawkins is the last on a long-list of defeated Atheists [16] who is highly afraid of Craig as described by Nathan Schneider in 2013 who describes a personal tale of his encounter with Dawkins:

"When, during a conversation in a swank hotel lobby in Manhattan, I mentioned to Richard Dawkins that I was working on a story about William Lane Craig, the muscles in his face clenched. 

"Why are you publicizing him?" Dawkins demanded, twice. The best-selling "New Atheist" professor went on to assure me that I shouldn't bother, that he'd met Craig in Mexico—they opposed each other in a prime-time, three-on-three debate staged in a boxing ring—and found him "very unimpressive." [17]

Dawkins can't appear to get his story straight, he clearly suggests that the Mexican fiasco was not a debate nor would he ever debate Craig, but yet has no problem gloating and rendering this as a debate when it suits his agenda. This bumbling hypocrite seems to have more in common with his caricature of the primitive Old Testament Deity than he thinks.

In conclusion here is just some of the reasons why Dr. Craig should not debate Dawkins:

1. Dawkins is not qualified, this is not his field of expertise (this is essential to Craig)
2. He approves of unqualified atheists debating qualified theists (like himself vs Rowan Williams but not himself vs Craig) 
3. He is an an anti-Theist polemicist, a rhetorician, but not a philosopher, theologian, historian or textual critic (Bart Ehrman)
4. He makes common appeals to well known logical fallacies
5. He parades himself in multiple documentaries and book tours attacking religion yet condemns others like Craig (but not Hitchens!) for doing the same.
6. He only debates non-literalists, aka I'm a Christian by name not by belief
7. Most of his colleagues have already debated Craig, Dawkins is however frightened and wants to save face from such an embarrassing defeat

I apologize I don't want to spend all my time thinking about the failure and hypocrisies of Dr. Dawkins, but I think this warrants enough to render him intellectually speechless in the world of philosophy and certainly that of consistency.


Yours sincerely
Mark Bennett


Endnotes:

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/publications

[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_philosophers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_religion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_twentieth_century

[5] Craig debated Harris twice: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+lane+craig+vs+sam+harris&filters=long&lclk=long

[6] http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=christopher+hitchens+vs+william+lane+craig

[7] Craig has debated Krauss about 4 times: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Lawrence+Krauss+vs+william+lane+craig

[8] In Defence of Theistic Arguments"July 2009 - At a philosophical conference, Dennett gives a 15 minute response to Craig's paper titled "In Defence of Theistic Arguments": http://www19.zippyshare.com/v/85071956/file.html

[9] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

[10] This edition is the WLC vs RD edited version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4

[11] http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

[12] http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/william-lane-craig-won-by-landslide.html

[13] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/03/the-hypocrisy-of-william-lane-craigs-refusal-to-debate-jeffery-jay-lowder/

[14] http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4212

[15] http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/05/is-christianity-religion-of-peace.html

[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Debates_and_Dialogues

[17] Nathan Schneider is the author of God in Proof: The Story of a Search From the Ancients to the Internet (University of California Press). http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/