Why won’t Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig?
A headline in The Telegraph (London) reads as follows: “Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God.” After a short introduction about Dawkins’ fierceness, he article continues with these words:
But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.
A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.
In response Dawkins has said merely that such a debate would look better on Craig’s CV than it would on his, though he has been urged by a fellow Oxford academic, Dr. Daniel Came (also, The Telegraph reports, a fellow atheist), to reconsider this refusal. In his letter to Dawkins, Dr. Came says this:
The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.
“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.
Of course, this is the most awful tosh! Dawkins “interviewed” Ted Haggard and Keenan Roberts for the TV series The Root of All Evil?. There is no sign that he would have agreed to “debate” with them. Indeed, there is every sign that he would not. Dawkins is on record as saying that he refuses to debate creationists, and both Haggard and Keenan are undoubtedly that, whatever other nonsense they are hiding under their Christian con exteriors (as Haggard was, at the time he was interviewed, hiding his homosexual tendencies and liaisons). We’ll come back to that.
It is worth noting that the accusation of cowardice has been happily taken up by Christians, determined to make as much mileage as they can out of Dawkins’ refusal to be part of William Lane Craig’s upcoming tour to the UK. Some of their undigested comments can be read here, here, here, here (linked on The Times of India homepage), and here, on the site, Cranmer, where the blogger pretends to be the great Archbishop of Canterbury who oversaw the reformation in England. (The last is a particularly egregious display of religious arrogance.) The suggestion is, according to “Heresy Corner”, that William Lane Craig is unbeatable in debate, and that atheists do not prepare well to respond to Craig’s arguments. Yet last night I deliberately sat down, and – at great personal cost, I might add – listened to the debate between Craig and Lewis Wolpert, and, not only did Craig’s arguments not convince, in the end he showed his creationist hand, and discredited his whole argument. The debate, which argues the motion, “Is God a Delusion?”, can be accessed here. But I will give you a closing clip, where Craig talks about evolution.
As Lewis Wolpert says, “Oh Boy! Are you ignorant!” But notice how Craig simply sloughs it off as if there is no problem with his position. He is impenetrable to genuine criticism. His spiel is apologetics through and through. He speaks like a philosopher, but he acts like a Christian apologist. It’s a con.
This in itself is sufficient reason for Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig, since he is on record as refusing to debate creationists, since to do so would simply dignify the creationist’s delusions. However, there is a deeper reason why people like Dawkins and others should refuse to debate Craig. It is not that his arguments are so good and unanswerable, nor is it that atheists do not prepare adequately to respond to those arguments. The simple reason is that Craig is playing the game of Christian apologetics. In his debate with Lewis Wolpert, he quite casually announced that he hoped that the debate would help searchers amongst his primarily young audience to find the answers to their questions and dilemmas about life. If you listen to his arguments, however — and it is painful to endure the confident arrogance of the man and his display of dialectical pyrotechnics — it is obvious that Craig is an old-time Christian with his ducks all in a row.
Take his use of the Kalam cosmological argument. The argument goes something like this. The physical universe cannot be infinite either in time or in space, because the concept of infinity leads to all sorts of mathematical and logical paradoxes. For example, infinity multiplied by infinity equals infinity, which means, of course, that a subset of infinity is also infinite, and so on. So, Craig concludes, the physical, natural, universe cannot be infinite. Since it came into existence at some time — since it is not infinite — there must have been a cause that brought the universe into being. As Aquinas says, this first cause is what we call god. However, Craig makes a desperate speculative leap here, and suggests that, since the only non-physical thing that we know is mind (is he quite sure of mind’s non-physicality?), the cause of the universe’s existence must be mind, and since minds are also personal, the creator must be personal. You can see how, at each stage of the game, the ante is upped, so that, in the end, we get a caring, personal creator.
Now, this scholasticism is all very nice in its place. It’s the same kind of tricksy dialectics that is used in the so-called ontological argument — which I will spare you. But there are a number of questions we might ask of Craig, the first of which would be why he thinks this kind of dialectical wordplay proves anything. Take the idea that the universe cannot be infinite, since, when we think of infinity we end up with all sorts of paradoxical results. Now, I’m neither a mathematician nor a physicist, but, from my understanding, anyway, quantum theory is highly paradoxical, and yet it is believed to be a correct account, so far as it goes, of the behaviour of very small physical particles. The same thing goes for infinity. Parmenides and Zeno tied early Greek philosophy up in knots with the One and the Many and the paradoxes of infinity. Zeno purported to show that, despite his greater speed and endurance, if you give a tortoise a head start, Achilles could never beat the tortoise to the finish line. Despite this very paradoxical result, we know that Achilles would beat the tortoise every time.
In addition to this, while mind is the only thing we know that has properties which seem to be immaterial — though the immateriality of mind is by no means a settled question, since the identity of mind and brain is too compelling simply to dismiss outright — it does not follow that whatever brought the universe into being must be mind. It could be, as contemporary physicists suggest, nothingness, which is itself, apparently, highly unstable!
The point needs to be made, in other words, that, while Craig is clearly a clever debater, he debates, not really to find out what might truly be the case, or to uncover what is really real, but merely to buttress his Christian faith, which, despite all his wordplay, remains without any adequate or satisfactory evidence. Craig is very much a self-conscious showman, and winning debates is his goal. Winning debates, you might say, is Craig’s ministry. In his letter Dr. Came speaks of Craig as “the foremost apologist for Christian theism.” Well, that might indeed be so, but it’s the characterisation “apologist” that should send up warning flares. Apologists are not impartial advocates of a particular point of view. This point was made very clearly in the Craig-Wolpert debate. Wolpert said that there were things that would cause him to reconsider his views regarding the existence of God. A few undoubted miracles, he suggested, would certainly lead him to revisit religious belief. But Craig offered no such possibility. His response was a simple: “I have more arguments,” grinning with self-satisfaction like a Cheshire Cat. In fact, he grinned so much during the debate that one had the uncanny feeling that, like the Cheshire Cat, he might have disappeared, and left his grin behind.
Craig’s whole purpose is vested in convincing audiences that his arguments are better than those of his opponents. Whether they are good arguments or bad arguments matters little, if members of his audience take away the message that he is the more able debater, and that they should really consider the Christian option more seriously. That’s why, despite the fact that the old scholastic cosmological arguments have been tried over and over again and found wanting, Craig centres his debate strategy around arguments such as this, as well as the old worn out idea that only the existence of a god can provide the basis for objective absolute moral laws. Well, first, whether one accepts this as a viable foundation for ethics or not, Kant’s defence of the categorical imperative shows that this is not true. But, second, there is no reason to think that morality is a list of absolute moral laws. However, Craig will keep on insisting on the idea of moral absolutes, because Christians believe that there are such rules. But there is no reason why anyone should accept this prejudice in favour of moral absolutes.
He succeeds, I am afraid — if this is what you choose to call success – by means of sheer bravado, and by the refusal to consider the arguments of his opponents. He has learned the art of making the weaker argument appear the stronger. To be quite frank, I find listening to the man a genuine struggle. After awhile, I find his voice, his gestures, and his smug assurance very unattractive, and when I was watching I had to resist the temptation – not always successfully — to speed Craig’s parts through, so that I could listen to Lewis Wolpert, who is a genuinely interesting and appealing thinker.
In short, then, there is every reason in the world why Dawkins should refuse to debate this smiling Christian con-man. When evidence is presented, he won’t accept it — viz., his incredibly uninformed criticism of evolutionary biology. On the other hand, when he uses his dialectical techniques, he thinks he is really presenting evidence. The Kalam cosmological argument is pathetically weak, yet he continues to rely on it unreservedly. His belief that the resurrection of Jesus is well supported by evidence is laughable, but that does not prevail upon him to moderate his claims regarding this supposed “event”. The old chestnut about god and morality is truly a waste of time, and yet he goes on using it as though it were the latest thing in apologetics. Craig is an able debater. He is arrogant, confident, and enthusiastic, no doubt. But he is also, it needs to be said, despite this, unconvincing. The main reason for this failure is that he is an evangelist, not a philosopher. He has the old arguments down pat, but he hasn’t come up with anything that is even remotely new or interesting. The fact that he can claim for Christianity a truth that he would not be prepared to accord to Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism — and endlessly more — is completely defeating.
You can see this by considering some of the things that Craig puts up on his blog, Reasonable Faith. There is, of course, the notorious post about the justness of the Israelite slaughter of the Canaanites. Or he has another post, where he writes about his participation in the “La Ciudad de las Ideas” debate on “Does the Universe have a purpose?” (You have to subscribe in order to get on the inside, but once you get there, Craig turns out to be a particularly unwholesome type of person. If you do subscribe, you can find his La Ciudad de las Ideas posting here.) There he met Richard Dawkins, who was invited to participate because someone else had backed out. Here is Craig speaking about meeting Dawkins.
At the reception, Professor Roemer shocked me by telling me that Michio Kaku didn’t want to be part of our debate (he later described himself to me as “a waffler”), and so Richard Dawkins was on the panel instead! I could scarcely believe my ears! It just seemed unbelievable that Dawkins and I were going to finally cross swords in a public forum.
We were then taken by bus to a second reception back at the hotel. As I stood there, talking with other conference presenters, I saw Richard Dawkins come in. When he drew near, I extended my hand and introduced myself. I remarked, “I’m surprised to see that you’re on the panel.”
“And why not?” he replied.
“Well,” I said, “You’ve always refused to debate me.”
His tone suddenly became icy cold. “I don’t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.” At that, he turned away.
“Well, I hope we have a good discussion,” I said.
“I very much doubt it,” he retorted and walked off.
So my first encounter with Richard Dawkins was a pretty chilly one!
And then he describes his and his colleagues’ participation in the debate in these words:
At first the atheist debaters seemed to agree with out [sic] first contention but then switched to saying that we can create purpose for our lives, not noticing the difference between objective purpose and the subjective illusion of purpose. They never disputed the second contention or addressed specifically our arguments for theism. The two arguments for atheism disappeared from the debate as soon as they were answered. So we felt really great about how the debate went. While Doug and I dismantled the atheists’ arguments philosophically, David really connected with the audience emotionally, so our styles beautifully complemented each other.
This is just an empty boast — to anyone who actually listened to the debate — and particularly unattractive. Add to this the fact that William Lane Craig is also a business, where you can buy clothing — including shirts, jackets, trousers, accessories, etc. — not to mention “the master’s” books, as well as a boxed CD set of Craig’s top ten debates, and you begin to get a picture of Craig as religious huckster, selling himself, amongst other extraneous and uninteresting things. Richard Dawkins does well to steer clear of this circus. Good sense alone should convince him of this. The question of courage or cowardice doesn’t even get a look-in, once you see how desperately tacky William Lane Craig turns out to be.
WLC’s primary strength is his rhetorical weaponry. He is remarkably adept at changing the subject and redirecting any threatening topic back into his pet ‘proofs’ such as the almost laughable Kalam cosmological argument.
What he never agrees to discuss is how the supposed ‘historic fact’ of the resurrection of Jesus is based on the flimsiest threads of pious fiction that we call the ‘Gospels’. Neither independent accounts or necessarily coherent sources of data, WLC will nevertheless argue that we are obliged to accept complicated mathematical probability calculations based on these anonymously penned and multiply-redacted fictions. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetically serious. There is a certain desperation in presenting supposed ‘evidence’ for a system of belief that is in actual fact born out of an act of faith or youthful indoctrination. The data is false and so is the pretense of having any interest in the real evidence.
Craig is as genuine as a 3 dollar bill and Dawkins is right in not legitimizing WLC’s medicine show.
Staged debates are really a pretty stupid way of deciding a question, or even of presenting the respective arguments to the public. Both of these guys have set out their positions in writing, both online and on dead trees, at length. I don’t know if they’ve ever critiqued each other’s writings specifically, but lots of other people have, and surely that literature is a more informative venue to learn about the issue and come to an honest conclusion than watching some rhetorical performance.
BTW: I have to challenge your last paragraph. I don’t hang out at RDnet, but don’t they also sell stuff? (ISTR a bit of a scandal a couple of years ago when the guy who was managing the online store turned out to have his fingers somewhat in the till). We can only criticize WLC’s commercialism if there is some significant difference between his and RD’s (which there might be — as I say, I’m not paying attention).
That video clip shows that Craig can also be quite unoriginal. His intelligent design arguments are straight Center for Science and Culture boilerplate, carefully crafted many years ago to best exploit a listener’s ignorance of the evolutionary process.
Interesting article.
But to criticise WLC for being ‘a business’ whilst seeking to defend the arch self-publicist Richard Dawkins is extraordinary!
When Dawkins left his area of academic expertise to write bad books on philosophy of religion it was the end of his intellectual credibility. There are some good books by intellectually credible atheist philosophers out there but God Delusion is just so bad to be painful. It’s like watching the Eurovision Song Contest. You enjoy it because it’s so bad. What makes it even funnier is that Dawkins thinks he’s writing a serious book.
The atheist Terry Eagleton reviewing God Delusion in the London Review of Books put it this way:
‘Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.’
Your article also fails to point out that Dr Peter Atkins of Oxford University is debating WLC later this year. So if WLC is not worthy of the time and attention of Oxford academics no-one has told him (yet!) Maybe you should.
@Eamon: There was indeed trouble, with the guy who looked after Richard’s site fleecing him of a fair wad of cash.
As for them taking money, yes, Richard has a foundation. So I assume that the money is going towards education and “promoting reason” as the website suggests. (I haven’t really looked into it at all, btw, and I don’t want my tone to be read as implying anything underhanded here.) So yeah, they’re selling stuff, but I don’t think it’s necessarily to make RD rich.
I’ve done even less looking into WLC, so if he’s selling stuff, I have no idea where the money’s going. If it’s going into a foundation promoting theism, then I don’t want to support it, but it’s not necessarily a black mark against him.
As for WLC and debates, I tired to watch the debate that PZ posted a few months back with Laurence Krause. I could only last about a minute with each speaker. Craig for reasons similar to what Eric is mentioning, Krause because he was like the quickie mart teenager from The Simpsons (“My Girlfriend’s gonna kill me….”). He was soooo nervous.
Russell Blackford talked about that debate too and posted a link to a blog that reviews debates, I’ll try and find the link. It was interesting enough.
ghah, and I didn’t read your second post, and now I’ve just repeated what you said, Eamon.
Yes, they do. But they don’t have stock like WLC. It’s a booming business, from the look of it. I think there’s enough difference to make it reasonable to comment on it.
The article is not about Peter Atkins. Quite frankly, anyone is welcome to debate with WLC if they wish. And, I acknowledge that Dawkins has done his fair share of self-promotion. I find WLC’s variety particularly repugnant, but perhaps that’s just a personal tick. As for Dawkins having written a bad book on philosophy of religion, I think, if you’ll look at it, it’s not quite as weak in the knees as you suggest. He speeds through the traditional “proofs” in a great hurry, I know, but then, they’re no longer of any particular significance. They’ve been mined quite enough already. But he at least makes a nod in their direction. I think that Dawkins argument that complex apparent design comes from selection of random variations which survive, instead of starting with the designer, is a very powerful one. (It was first used by the atomists, and Lucretius presents a fairly good instance of it.) Perhaps it hasn’t been explored sufficiently yet, but it seems to me that at least he offers something original and creative. If you read some of Carl Sagan’s stuff, you’ll see how he uses the evolutionary argument to explain the evolution of stars, solar systems and galaxies. So this is an argument which still has some milieage in it, I suspect. As for Eagleton’s review, the less said about it the better, I think. And, as for Peter Atkins, he’s already debated WLC. (See the following). I don’t think that debate was particularly enligthtening, but if that turns Dr. Atkins crank, who am I to question his decision?
Apologist is the only valid job title for WLC – theologian/philosopher is not – at least not in public.
Here are some things I found in a debate with Kai Nielsen:
Craig’s moral argument for the existence of god:
Look how callous he is toward animal suffering. I can’t see how anyone could find anything attractive about the man.
i think you mustn’t understand theology because you can fill all the libraries of the world with discussions about fantasy. Theology is worthless. People like craig are sanding the eyes of the naive
who stare at him when they hear words they didn’t understand. Read this : http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/blackford-reads-haught/
Craig is on record as saying god-directed crimes against humanity (genocide, wholesale rape) are just fine and dandy with him.
I would refuse to have anything to do with him on that account. Seriously. The man needs to be shunned for that reason alone.
Yes, I agree. The man is no longer credible as a philosopher. He has followed one too many theological trails, and has ended up in mud. That is why I think someone like Peter Atkins should ignore him rather than giving him the public attention he craves. Of course, Atkins may be doing it for the fun or the money.
The first time I heard of Craig was when he came to Iowa State University several years ago to debate Hector Avalos. I was a devout Christian at the time, but I was involved in a ministry other than Campus Crusade for Christ. We liked to assert our independence, so national Christian celebrities like Craig were not among our pantheon of heroes. I was told in the days leading up to the debate that Craig was the best there was. I was looking forward to him demolishing Avalos. I knew he would, because he was on the side of Truth (with a capitol T). I remember very little about the debate except leaving feeling horribly disappointed in Craig and Campus Crusade. I know Craig officially won in a landslide after the votes were counted (yes, Campus Crusade actually tallies the audience’s votes to determine who won, which is always Craig), but I was in a hurry to forget the debate had ever happened. The next day several members of my ministry were gathered together to talk about how disappointed many of them were in Craig’s arguments. Yet no one could bring themselves to say he had lost the debate or to offer up any better arguments. It was said that our pastors and leaders had superior arguments, but what exactly those arguments were was never mentioned.
If anyone is bold/foolish (I won’t judge which
) enough to debate him, they should hammer him over that piece of moral imbecility. Make the audience see what they’re being offered!
I wish someone would ask him to name one if not all of the supposed objective moral values. Nielsen and other debaters let him get away with just repeating the phrase without any clarification. He doesn’t define evil either – is it only something humans do?
I wonder if Neil Powell would explain why he thinks The God Delusion is so bad, and why he thinks Eagleton’s review (which so far as I remember did little else but offer, among a large pile of woollly guff, some mildly amusing but toothless quips like the one about ornithology, which Powell, like everybody else who thinks in his way, dutifully quotes) is so good.
Diawl! (Welsh for the devil!’) What a disgusting huckster (a good word for him, Eric) Craig is. That little extract from a video tells it all: the effrontery, complacency, and sheer dishonesty (the man has clearly looked at none of the evidence for evolution at all, and merely trots out rote-learned lies) are quite sickening. And to put on a performance like that in front of that very good scientist and delightful man Lewis Wolpert – there is an almost pathological lack of any kind of respect on Craig’s part. I hope Neil Powell, who I hope is not the British poet and critic who writes for PN Review, takes a look at that video, reflects on the kind of mendacity that now passes, in some circles at least, for religious thought and asks himself whether a debate with this deeply immoral man is any way worthwhile.
Apologists, like creationists, are engaged in activity that is deeply and irredeemably intellectually dishonest. Their goal, necessarily, is persuasion by means other than reason and evidence — because reason and evidence does not support their claims. (That’s why faith is required!) The debate format gives a distinct advantage to emotionally manipulative rhetoric, shallow pseudo-reasoning, and willful deception, and it disadvantages honest truth-seeking based on the accumulation of evidence and careful detailed argumentation. That’s why I think every scientist — Dawkins included — should respond to all debate requests from apologists with the same sort of barbed contempt thatNicholas Gottelli displayed so beautifully in his response to Disco Tute debate request a few years back.
Sometimes, some of our worst enemies are fellow atheists. What was Daniel Came thinking when writing such a letter? I do hope he trots out another letter, apologising profusely for making such an hysterical and foolish claim.
Debating WLC would be something like debating a Trekkie who actually believes the world of Star Trek is real, and who steadfastly refuses to accept the possibility that it isn’t.
If such a person was an able rhetorician who consistently avoided evidence, they could do quite well in debates. That doesn’t mean anyone should be compelled to give them legitimacy by agreeing to debate them.
I’ve never understood why any scientist would ever debate a creationist (or any other brand of religious apologist), for the same reasons that a modern astronomer would never debate an astrologist. And thus Dawkins is a coward? Perhaps he was also born under the wrong sign. Sigh . . . .
TPP, I’m not familiar with Gottelli’s response; could you quote it or link to it?
/@
Even if Richard Dawkins were a coward
Even if William Lane Craig wins every debate in the world
Even if there are no atheists in foxholes
Even if Darwin had a deathbed conversion
Still doesn’t prove the existence of God….
(PS: I’m not suggesting that any of the above are true!)
Dennett had a great analogy when he compared debating a creationist to playing a rigged game of tennis.
When the scientist hits the ball, the net is up. As soon as the ball makes it over to the creationist, the net comes down, and since they are trafficking in fiction anyways, there are no rules. Then the scientist needs to respond, and amazingly enough, the net is back up!
You might play a game of tennis like that to soothe a petulant child, if you were the patient type.
Terry Eagleton’s review and others of its ilk which blast Dawkins for not responding to the most abtruse arguments of theologians remind me of the philosophes extolling Marxism(of which Eagleton was (is?) one), who, when asked about the Gulag or the Great Purge or the Prague Spring or the Berlin Wall or the Cultural Rvolution or the Boat People or the Killing Fields, would airily dismiss it:
“Oh, that’s not real Marxism, real Marxism is what two professors at the Sorbonne are having an argument with one philosopher at the University of Bologne about. Why fuss about people like Stalin or Mao when you have Althusser or Jameson’s engagement with hegemony to discuss”
What’s interesting about both the original blog post and all of the pro-Dawkin’s follow-ups is that none of them engage with the Telegraph article and address the question WHY would an Oxford academic who is himself an atheist make this appeal to Dawkins to debate WLC.
If WLC is such a charlatan and a fraud doesn’t the Oxford philosopher lecturer see it?
Maybe it’s because, despite the many dismissive and disparaging remarks made in the post and replies WLC actually has a first rate standing in the field of the Philosophy of Religion.
If he is a fraud then why would Edinbugh University Press invite him to contribute and edit Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide.
If he is not worthy of debate why would Oxford University Press publish a Blackwell reader on Natural Religion which they also invited WLC to contribute and edit.
Why would Quentin Smith, a renowned atheist philosopher, co-author a book entitled Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity.
How has WLC mananged to deceive his fellow philosophers for so long that he has served as Chair of the Philosophy of Time Society since 1999?
How has he managed to get so many articles published in scholarly journals of Philosophy that require peer-review?
Could it be that the reason an Oxford Philosophy atheist academic has written to Dawkins is because at least he sees and understands the fine contribution WLC has made to his field of study over now 30 years.
For more details on WLCs awards, lectures, books and journal articles visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig.
I’m not asking you to agree with WLC but to dismiss him in such disparaging and patronizing ways is an embarrassment to your own cause.
So let’s bring on the debate in the name of intellectual endeavor!
Meh. Why are Christian apologists taken seriously at all? Because of the quality of their contributions to intellectual endeavors?
According to an atheist Oxford Philosopher and Oxford University Press and Edinburgh University Press and atheist Philosophers who have co-authored books with WLC precisely! THEY think he should be taken seriously so why not YOU?
Why else did the Oxford academic write to Dawkins?
Are you seriously saying that an academic philosopher who happens to be a Christian and who debates should NOT be taken seriously? Really??
I’m sorry–I meant to say, “…because of the quality of their contributions to intellectual endeavors besides Christian apologetics?”
I couldn’t care less about Christian apologetics. I have never been any kind of a Christian. And Craig brings nothing else to the table, as far as I can tell.
Hence: why are Christian apologists, as a body, taken seriously at all? I think answers to the general question would shed light on your Craig-specific questions. And I’m pretty sure none of the answers is “because of the quality of their contributions to intellectual endeavors, outside ingenious rearguard defenses of Christianity.”
That’s helpful.
But I think if you read Craig’s work it is far broader than simply defending Christians or Christianity. He is a professional Philosopher. His area of professional expertise goes to the very heart of philosophy including the philosophy of time as well as the philosophy of religion. In his field he regularly interacts with many leading philosophers in this field who are atheists as well as theists.
But can I suggest that whether or not we are interested in his apologetics is not the issue at the heart of the Telegraph newspaper report. The point is that Dawkins IS interested in what Christians believe and in particular he is interested enough to write a book dismissing it.
All WLC wants is the opportunity to respond, in debate, the conclusions of his book. So Dawkins has started a debate (in print) with theists and Christians which he won’t continue in person.
Now that is of course his right. But what is striking is that an Oxford academic, who is an atheist to boot, is effectively saying ‘don’t start debates in print that you are unwilling to defend in public or else you might be called a coward.’
don’t start debates in print that you are unwilling to defend in public or else you might be called a coward
And that is a stupid objection. Print is a perfectly good medium to carry on debate — in fact to my mind it’s far superior to the circus of two talking heads on a stage, thinking on their feet, under a time limit. Philosophy reduced to a sporting event.
Neil. I don’t know what to say in response to this. You seem to be suggesting that, because William Lane Craig is taken seriously by some, even at OUP, that he is therefore someone whose opinions should be taken seriously. Perhaps, as a professional philosopher, he is doing things that he does not bring up in debate. His debating style does not, in my opinion, encourage confidence in his intellectual abilities. Perhaps, out of the limelight, he suddenly turns into a serious thinker whose opinions are to be taken seriously. His debates do not encourage this view.
I also think the contemporary “discipline” of science and religion is highly questionable. It certainly seems to have caught the imaginations of some, and societies and journals have been created which specialise in the “disicpline.” I remain unconvinced, and believe the supposed “discipline” to be a deeply compromised expression of the residual power which the churches still possess in academe. As I say, I am not familiar with Craig’s academic work. His debating style and conclusions deserve, I believe, the disparagement that I accord it. Anyone, after all, who can express undiluted creationist views, as Craig does, deserves a considerable degree of contempt, I think.
Dawkins says that he will not debate creationists. Unaccountably, for a “professional philosopher”, WLC is a creationist. That alone strikes him off Dawkins’ list. Besides, he is also an evangelisting debater. That is his stated purpose. Why should Dawkins give him a pulpit?
I accept that much debating can be a circus.
But again that’s not the point with Dawkins. Dawkins is very willing to debate. He is not dismissive of the medium. He has debated a number of thinkers including John Lennox of Oxford University another leading Christian thinker.
So given that he will debate and often does the Oxford academic atheist is critical of him because of who he seems to be avoiding. That’s where the charge of cowardise is coming from.
Now that all depends what you mean by a creationist.
WLC is not a literal, 7 day creationist if that’s what you mean. He is what is sometimes called a progressive creationist. Which usually means accepting an old age for the earth fully compatible with modern scientific theory but someone suspicious of evolution as THE mechanism through which life came into being.See the wikipedia entry for WLC for more on that.
Dawkins has and does debate progressive creationists such as John Lennox of Oxford. So Dawkins is not being consistent there.
Again I return to the point no one is answering in this series of posts. If WLC is such a religious nutter why would an atheist academic philosopher from Oxford University urge Dawkins to debate. It makes no sense.
If he is such a bad debater (even if a reasonable philosopher) it is surely worth noting that Dr. Peter Atkins of Oxford University is debating him in Manchester later this year and has also debated him BEFORE. Why would Peter Atkins debate him again if he was so unworthy?
And would our Oxford academic who wrote to urge Dawkins to debate be unaware if he were so bad? Hardly.
Because of the publicity? Because he thinks it would be cool to watch? Because it’s an opportunity to differ with Dawkins in print on something? Because people do stuff?
Are you challenging the assessment of Craig as a mere Christian apologist? Or are you challenging the assessment of Christian apologetics as close-minded and disingenuous? Or is there something else going on?
WLC is an academic philosopher of international standing who also debates as a Christian apologist.
Many atheists have debated him and continue to debate him including Dr Peter Atkins from Oxford Univ. who is debating him in the autumn.
I’m certainly challenging, as is our Oxford Univ. atheist academic, that Christian apologetics is close-minded and disingenuous.
And if Christian apologetics is close-minded and disingenous that has never stopped Dawkins debating them in the past. He debates them regularly. Just not this one.
It’s the very fact that everyone else debates WLC and that Dawkins is willing to debate so many others that makes his decision this time round so odd and prompted the letter that started the discussion.
Neil Powell:
“…suspicious of evolution as THE mechanism through which life came into being.”
In that case, either WLC is ain idiot or you don’t know what you are talking about. Evolution has nothing at all to say about the mechanism whereby life came to be.
So, either WLC should stop trying to debate people smarter than him, or you should shut up.
Really?
You say ‘Evolution has nothing at all to say about the mechanism whereby life came to be.’ It most certainly does.
Are you a scientist?
Evolutionary theory has an enormous amount to say about the origins of life!
One review article you might like to look at if this is all new to you is this one
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bch176/Joyce1989.pdf
There are plenty of others. Just Google.
By the way there’s no need to be quite so rude. Debate on this blog is polite and civil. If you want to be abusive and tell people to ‘shut up’ and call people ‘idiots’ there are plenty of other blogs to hang out at.
If?
All I know about William Lane Craig is what I learned watching his debate with Sam Harris last month. Did you see it? If so, did you consider Craig’s part in it to be more than close-minded, disingenuous blather?
(My favorite part was Craig insisting that Harris was wrong to define moral terms in a way other than Craig himself did. Why was Harris wrong and Craig right? I don’t know, he didn’t see fit to say.)
I don’t know much about the debates Dawkins has taken part in, but are you sure you’re using the term “debate” correctly? I ask because in the OP Mr. MacDonald pointed out that Dr. Came cited interviews as though they were the same thing.
Neil —
I’m afraid piero is right and you’re wrong. Evolution is not about the origin of life (abiogenesis or biopoiesis), but about how it subsequently developed.
If it is the case that the first life was RNA based, the RNA evolution is part of the evolution of life. But the origin of life question is not how RNA then evolved, into DNA-based life, but how self-replicating RNA itself came about.
In general, once biopoiesis gives you replicators, life has originated, and you now have evolution.
/@
PS. Are you a scientist? I am.
PPS. I checked your blog, so you don’t need to answer that, Pastor.
/@
One look at the conceited mendacity on display in that brief video posted above of a discussion with Lewis Wolpert should be enough to explain why few people of any integrity would want to debate with Craig. But I suppose that Mr Powell, who also seems to know nothing about evolution, thinks that Craig ia saying something of substance in his blather about micro- and macro-evolution. Well, Mr Powell, what do you think? And this pathetic nonsense about ‘cowardice’ – it is on the level of a schoolyard taunt, designed to brand its object as a ‘coward’ if he doesn’t do what he is being dared to do, and also as a ‘coward’ if he does, since he will have given in to the pressure, which allows his opponent to bask in the adulation (from such as Neil Powell) that accrues from the appearance of a cheap victory. People like Dr Came, who appear not to have grown up, are best ignored.
WLC’s academic credibility in the philosophy of religion and of time has no bearing on his credibility as a public debater on the existence of God.
Just as Newton’s excellent work on opticks and gravity had no bearing on his credibility as an alchemist.
/@
Yes, why did the Oxford academic — Dr. Came — write to Dawkins? And how do we know what he wrote? I’d doubt that Dawkins would reveal the content of private correspondence, so did Came himself reveal it? If so, that is very suggestive that he’s doing it for selfish reasons, for personal self-aggrandisement. Who’d heard of Came before this? Not I. If he honestly cared about Dawkins and his reputation, he’d just have had a quite word in private and left it at that, rather than trying to publicly shame him into having the debate.
/@
Your comment suggests there is no corolation between Craig’s academic work and his debating.
I think that charge could only be made by someone who has not heard him debate.
The content of his debating material draws very heavily for example from his PhD work on the Kalam Cosmological argument.
As someone who has met Craig, heard him lecture academically and heard him debate publicly at the very least some, if not most, of his debating material is drawn from his academic work – albeit shortened and simplified for a general audience. Of course some of his debating material is NOT but most is.
Neil:
I apologize. I did not mean to be so rude.
piero: I think you have no need to apologise. You were absolutely right to say, “Evolution has nothing at all to say about the mechanism whereby life came to be.” As I explained above.
WLC is an idiot (albeit one with a Ph.D.!
) and Pastor Neil doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
/@
Newton’s alchemy would be no more credible if it drew heavily from his work on opticks and gravity.
So, however credible WLC’s philosophy, his debating material is still suspect in toto. (A curate’s egg is still not a good egg!) And his debating technique relies far too heavily on casuistry and rhetoric.
Moreover, among his philosophical work, the Kamal cosmological argument is hardly the best example of credibility. WLC’s premises and development are logically incoherent and inconsistent with physics — as has been argued by several other philosophers and physicists, among them Quentin Smith, WLC’s erstwhile co-editor, as you pointedly observed earlier.
Thus, any debate that relies on this must be doubly suspect.
/@
I can’t understand what could possibly be gained by a debate between Dawkins and Craig. Nothing will be resolved – Craig won’t give up on theism and Dawkins won’t give up atheism.
Why do you think this matters?
I’ve listened to quite a few of Craig’s debates (to try to hear the “best” arguments), and I’ve never been able to understand how he is considered anything but a huckster (for example, see both Luke of Common Sense Atheism and Chris Hallquist of the Uncredible Hallq for two different views – I think Hallq nails it). His style of debate is that of a high school student in a competition. He uses all sorts of logical fallacies, and tricks like the Gish Gallup. When he is corrected on scientific matters, he continues to repeat his canned lines. All smoke and no substance. Add in his support of genocide, and the lack of morals that it shows…why should Dawkins (or anybody else) want to debate this charlatan?
Actually a reply to Pastor Neil – why does anyone do anything? Anyone can debate Craig for any reason they want – why should we care? We aren’t enamored of names or titles, just evidence. Craig fails on that account. If he wants to convince us that his god exists, let’s see the evidence. Plain and simple.
why should anybody else debate WLC?
Maybe you should ask those who do because there are plenty of atheists willing to debate him.
Maybe you could start with Peter Atkins of Oxford Univ. who is debating him AGAIN in the Autumn.
Maybe you should ask atheist Dr. Came of Oxford Univ. why he thinks Dawkins should debate him?
If he is a such a charlatan and every sane and rational person should know it does it not surprise you that after all these years eminent atheists continue to give him the time of day. Curious isn’t it!
I notice there is no response to my points, Mr Powell. Curious, isn’t it? Quite honestly, stop the snidery and the name-dropping and come up with something of your own.
I’m not even attempting to any every point that every contributor to this blog post raises. If you look back I’ve tried to interact with a fair number of people but as the only Christian in the conversation I’ve had a lot of traffic come my way.
I have other business to be about, not least replying to all the traffic on my own blog as well as my family and job!
I will try, if I can not least because I’m genuinely interested in your links and comments.
But I would say this – the whole debate started by the Telegraph report is really a debate not between theists and atheists but WITHIN the atheist community and it centres on this – why do some think it a good idea to debae Craig and others not? That’s the debate that lick-started the comments in this post. So if you like I’ve butted in on your debate (assuming you are an atheist of course).
I’m ONLY name dropping Atkins and Came because they are representatives of those within the atheist community who are both Oxford academics saying the intellectually responsible thing to do is debate Craig whilst Dawkins does not.
Why do you want this debate to take place? What purpose would it serve? Why do you think the position of Atkins and Came is more compelling?
Thank you, Michael.
Piero, Ant Allan and Tim Harris in reply to one of my earlier posts claimed that I clearly did not know anything about evolution because I had suggested that evolution is a scientific theory that considers not only the development of life but its origins too.
Ant wrote ‘Evolution is not about the origin of life (abiogenesis or biopoiesis), but about how it subsequently developed’
Tim commented ‘Mr Powell, who also seems to know nothing about evolution’
I was surprised that Ant, who reminded me that he was a scientist and that I was not, did not seem to be aware of the branch of evolutionary study that looks at ‘chemical evolution’ ie evolution before life.
I had previously attached the following article from the journal Nature which discusses the very theory of chemical evolution http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bch176/Joyce1989.pdf
Even the Wikipedia entry for abigenesis sets forth the theory of John Desmond Bernal that evolution begins somewhere between Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers and Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers.
However having been ‘corrected’ by at three people I thought I would check with a scientific authority. I e-mailed a friend who is Senior Lecturer at Leicester University in Biochemistry. He wrote:
‘People certainly do use the term evolution in the context of discussions of origins not just subsequent refinement – if you want a concrete example Nick Lane’s book “Life Ascending – the ten great inventions of evolution” has the origin of life as it’s (that is evolutions) first invention. Latest theory points to origins at alkaline thermal vents deep below the ocean’
He also thought it might be reassuring to all that ‘Lane’s book won the 2010 Royal Society prize for science.’
In one sense it’s neither here nor there. Except of course it reminds us that we don’t necessarily know all that there is to know and that sometimes we can get things wrong. The value of debate whether in writing or in person is that by exposing our thinking to others we may be those who continue to learn.
Of course, every biologist would be extremely interested in the mechanism that gave rise to replicators. But you cannot have evolution unless you have differential rates of replication. Evolution without replicators is a no-no.
There must have been differential selection of replicators, of course: those able to replicate faster, or to make more accurate copies would overwhelm the rest. But the process needs a replicator to start with. It cannot lift itself by its bootstraps.
So, the important point is this: however loosely you choose to construe evolution, there is a point beyond which it cannot explain anything at all. Since before the appearance of the first replicator there was, by definition, no reproduction, there could have been no differential selection, hence no evolution. Hence, if WLC is dissatisfied with evolution as an explanation for the origins of life, he might as well be dissatisfied with accountancy as an explanation for flatulence.
Here are six reasons to start with
1. Those who are sure Christianity has no reasonable and rationale defence get another public opportunity to demonstrate that. Why not take every opportunity?
2. Dawkin’s is quite willing to debate creationists and has done so in the past (once you understand the sense in which WLC defines his own position). In fact according to that definition all Christians are creationists! So it’s not unreasonable to ask Dawkins to be consistent. If he doesn’t do debates fine.
3. The God Delusion is a bad book (which is not to say that there are not good books by atheists on religion). WLC should be given an opportunity to demonstrate where Dawkins is wrong.
4. At least some atheists are embarrassed that Dawkins won’t debate. See Dr Came.
5. Although we might not think it would change our minds there are many people who simply haven’t made up their minds what they think and would appreciate the opportunity to consider for themselves the arguments put forward by Dawkins and WLC.
6. There’s an opportunity to convert people to atheism by demonstrating the delusion of theism. If belief in god is positively dangerous then you’d think Dawkins would do everything to prevent WLC from having the stage all to himself.
I asked why you wanted it to take place – not why an atheist might want it to take place. What has Craig done to deserve an opportunity to debate Dawkins – you seem to think this is a boxing title match that will actually decide something.
Craig has worked his way through countless atheists and now should get a chance at the title fight, but alas the champion seems to be dodging him. The champ must be scared of this up and coming young pugilist with the strong right hook from objective morality or is it the Kalam uppercut that he fears. Rumors from the champ’s camp are that he has gone to seed – no longer reading, just eating twinkies and watching telenovelas. Is it a lifetime of blows to the head and misrepresentations of his style that have led this? No one is saying…
Have I understood you correctly. You think Dawkins is some kind of champ? Of what exactly?
How does writing one decidedly average paperback on religion make you a champ of anything?
There are some smart atheists out there. Some of them are outstanding philosophers. Dawkins is not one of them.
Oh, come on Neil, don’t be deliberately dim! Michael’s post was clearly a parody of what you are doing, suggesting that WLC deserves a crack at the ???? — champ? At this point, in any event, after having been accused, rather childishly, by Dr. Came, of cowardice, there is no way that Dawkins should change his mind. Either way, now, he loses, no matter what he says.
Quite aside from that, though, is the fact that, as a debater, shrewd as he may be, WLC is a bit of a windbag, and those who debate him play into his more narrow evangelistic purposes. It’s quite clearly not a matter of seeking the truth, as he made very clear in his debate with Wolpert. “I have more arguments,” says he, as though the whole thing is a matter of having a supply of stock arguments. Very nice and sophistical no doubt, in the correct sense, but not a game that anyone who values truth should think it important to indulge in.
Eric, am I really being that dim? I’ve lost count of how many atheists really do think that Dawkins is superior in every way to any Christian debater.
Dawkins is certainly willing to create that impression too.
I find Dawkins a windbag. I find him disingenuous in much of his debating. He is an evangelist too. But I don’t go around saying he is unworthy to be debated! I say simply bring it on!
My grievance is that WLC is being singled out as if Dawkins is doing something different.
I’m glad I could help by reminding you that you’re not a scientist: Had you forgotten?
Let’s start with your last para. This is not neither here nor there. Let’s not be distracted from the crux of the argument by the putative benefits of debate: You haven’t yet demonstrated that you know what you’re talking about.
You’re making a false distinction regarding that paper about RNA evolution, characterising that as evolution before life. The paper itself says, “… there was a time… when life was based entirely on RNA”. Your “chemical evolution” is just evolution. The origin of life-based-entirely-on-RNA is not.
Your friend is, of course, quite right to say, “People certainly do use the term evolution in the context of discussions of origins [of life]” —ID proponents and other religious critics of evolution foremost among them — but from a scientific pov they are being imprecise when they do so.
I’d find your friend’s comments more compelling if (a) he were an evolutionary biologist rather than a biochemist, (b) he hadn’t cited a popular science text book, however good, which uses “evolution” in its title rather elastically, owing to the exigencies of publishing, and (c) he hadn’t called out “alkaline thermal vents” as the latest theory, when (i) it’s only a hypothesis, not a theory, and (ii) it’s not the latest hypothesis; it dates from the 1980s; a rival, “freshwater lagoons” hypothesis was postulated within the last decade (see, e.g., David Attenborough’s First Life by Michael Kaplan).
Of course, I may be wrong, and I’d be happy to be put straight by an evolutionary biologist. But isn’t it telling that neither of the two recent popular science books on evolution written by evolutionary biologists — Jerry Coyne’s why Evolution Is True and Richard Dawkins’s The Greatest Show On Earth — even mentions “abiogenesis” or “origin of life”? Could it be that it’s just not part of the theory of evolution?
‘My grievance is that WLC is being singled out as if Dawkins is doing something different.’
Neil: there are very important differences between these two ‘evangelists’. Dawkins’ position is founded on objective evidence and falsifiable theory. Craig by contrast, arrived at his position through a conversion experience that he candidly admits is not falsifiable by objective evidence. His use of ‘evidence’ to support his position is quite disingenuous as he is only using the ‘evidence’ he puts forward to create the impression that faith is ‘reasonable’. He is an apologist engaged in a fundamentally dishonest activity: pretending that the maintenance of his Christian faith has any connection to objective and falsifiable evidence. He wants respect as a rational thinker when his faith is in reality, ultimately grounded on nothing more than a purely subjective ‘spiritual’ experience of his god. He is dishonest and not worthy of respect from anyone who values the scientific method.
Pastor Neil: “There are some smart atheists out there. Some of them are outstanding philosophers. Dawkins is not one of them.”
If Dawkins is so puny, why is WLC so keen to debate him?!
/@
Neil,
No, what I would like is for you to say why you care so much about Dawkins debating Craig? If Craig wins, do you think atheists will slink off into the shadows never to speak again? Is this what you are banking on? I don’t understand why you think this is so important. Why don’t you just go on the web and splice together Craig and Dawkins – I am sure you can put together something so it will appear Craig wins on every point.
Neil, you were being very dim in not seeing Michael’s point, that’s all. As for this great desire to have WLC debate Dawkins, Dawkins has said no. Not only do I see no reason for not simply leaving it at that, I think there are reasons not to debate him, as I said. Anyone who can with equanimity display the ignorance he displayed on the clip above is beneath contempt, no matter what kudos he has won from academic philosophers of religion, and those who think there is no incompatibility between religion and science. If you can simply make it up as you go along as WLC clearly does, of course there is compatibility. You may think Dawkins a windbag. I do not. Thinking so, of course, is your privilege, but I find WLC so rebarbative that I find it almost impossible to listen to the man. Just on that ground alone I would not consider debating him. I think Dawkins is right to demur.
I am still interested in knowing whether the Reverend Powell thinks that there is any truth in Craig’s remarks about micro- and macro-evolution in the ‘debate’ with Lewis Wolpert, and whether he agrees with Wolpert’s comment, ‘Boy, are you ignorant!’
An addition: I have asked the Reverend Powell whether he thinks Craig’s remarks about micro- and macro-evolution have any substance or value because I have the – I hope wrong – impression that he (Powell) simply does not care that what is spilling out of Craig’s mouth in that conversation with Wolpert is a succession of lies. I recall something about not bearing false witness from my (very long-gone) Christian days.
Criag is a very skilled debater. He rarely ‘loses’ a debate because he is very organised, works riffs off a well-established ‘script’ that he knows inside out, and understands logic well enough to tie most opponents in knots. He may well be a respected philosopher, but the arguments he employs in debates do not stand up to much scrutiny. But they do sound pretty convincing to the vast majority of debate audiences who don’t necessarily take the time to work through them.
Dawkins, on the other hand, is a rational, honest, earnest academic with a certain flair for presenting complicated issues in a simplified, comprehensible format.
In my opinion, a skilled, experienced sophist like Craig would stand a very good chance of wiping the floor with someone like
Dawkins.
Perhaps RD is just careful to choose his battles wisely.
I would love to see Dawkins trounce Craig, but I’m not sure he is capable of tackling Craig’s masterful disingenuity.
disingenousness!
I suggest that Dawkins refusal to recognise the crimes committed in the name of atheism demonstrate an intellectual dishonesty on his part.
http://www.afaithtoliveby.com/2011/03/01/no-one-kills-in-the-name-of-atheism/
See also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1sNfw9-TA&feature=related
for an insiders view on the new atheism.
To Neil:
Hmmm, now there’s an interesting side question.
Which ideological perspective; Christian, Muslim, Atheist etc. breeds the most vicious & grossly effective totalitarian dictators or regimes?
In comparing the Christian inspired versions, say the regimes of Constantine, Mussolini, Hitler or Pinochet vs. the Muslim versions under the Ayatollahs, or Gaddafi, vs. the Atheist versions of Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung or Pol Pot, one can spend a lot of effort in parsing their relative strengths, weaknesses and overall effectiveness in achieving their murderous goals. I would have to agree that there must be a connection between the ideological position of Atheist dictators dedicated to the abolition of religion and their systematic persecution of religious people and their religious institutions.
By the same token though, theocratically inspired despots have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to go to any lengths to kill and commit genocide to further their politico-religious ends. To argue that atheism has a unique ability to inspire this sort of evil is clearly false. Your linked website fails to acknowledge this and presents a very skewed apologetic distortion of this question.
Humans are capable of great evil. Their motives and inspiration can be grounded in a broad variety of ideologies; whether those murderous ideologies are based on the writings of ‘Moses’ (a genocidal character of the first order) or Marx is a moot point.
-evan
Edit: Sorry, but there should be a comma after “Marx” in the last sentence.
-evan
Neil:
“…Dawkins refusal to recognise the crimes committed in the name of atheism…”
Can you name a crime committed in the name of atheism? This may be news to you, but crimes committed in the name of communism do not count. In other words, can you name an atheist equivalent of witch hunts, or the crusades? No? I thought so.
Hi Evan
I’m in no way trying to suggest that atheistic communism is unique in killing in the name of it’s ideology. Although a good case can be made for it being responsible for killing on a scale not previous seen before.
In my article and the final section ‘what is at stake?’ I make the following comment:
‘Once we understand that neither religion nor atheism stand free from accusation the question remains what is at work in men and women that leads them to kill in both the name of religion and non-religion?’
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Neil
Piero
I think you miss my point. Dogmatic atheism is a key tenant of communism as my quotes from Marx and Lenin demonstrate.
I’m not suggesting that atheism makes you want to kill people, any more than Islam makes you a suicide killer. The picture is more complex than that.
But it is without doubt that atheism was incorporated into the worldview of communism and it was central to religious persecution in these countries.
Dawkins evades this logical and necessary conclusion because he wants to single out religion as a cause of evil.
Rev Powell, I shall only say that as a matter of fact I disagree with Dawkins and others that all atheism is somehow lily-white, but I am not going to get drawn into your latest attempt to evade the issue that I brought up.
Neil:
“I’m not suggesting that atheism makes you want to kill people, any more than Islam makes you a suicide killer. The picture is more complex than that.”
I agree. I also agree with Tim’s criticism of Dawkins. I think that neither religion nor atheism are the roots of all evil. Rather, the problem is faith, whether it be in God, the Supreme Leader, the Inexorable March of History, the End of History or the Market.
I would, however, take issue with your characterization of Dawkins as “wanting” to single out religion as the cause of evil. Why would he “want” to do that? Though I disagree with his overarching condemnation of religion, I can understand his frustration. Please name a non-religious institution that:
- gets govenrment funding for establishing and running schools
- gets tax exemptions
- can cry “Blasphemy!” when criticized
- protects child rapists and gets away with it
- mutilates girls and gets away with it
- promotes a devastantingly genocidal campaign against condom use and gets away with it
Tim
But the question I keep getting asked in the thread is WHY do I think the debate should go ahead and that’s the KEY point I’m trying to stick with (although as I still want to try and respond to your issue too. I will try, honestly.)
I’m giving an example of why Dawkins needs to be held to account for a bad book with some bad arguments and some disingenuous ones too.
If, as you seem to agree, Dawkins is unable or unwilling to recognise crimes committed in the name of atheism why shouldn’t he be challenged about that in public debate?
Dawkins in return gets his chance to put WLC’s ideas to the test.
That seems like a good thing all-round to me.
I’m not trying to evade the argument generated by the post but demonstrate why a debate is a good thing.
Neil: I do not think the debate is a good idea, simply on account of the mendacity and the petty tactics Craig displays in the debates he engages in. Once again, do you agree with Craig’s remarks on micro- and macro-revolution or does it worry you that he is presenting falsities?
I should also add that there seems to me to be a fundamental difference between atheism as a simple lack of faith in the existence of a god or gods and a dislike of the influence established religions still have on society on the one hand, and, on the other, atheism as an adjunct of a chiliastic movement like Communism, which set out to create a radically new world and has obvious connexions with the kind of millennial movements that have occurred throughout European history and that have been so well described by Norman Cohn.
Perhaps I should have written ‘religiously inspired millennial movements’.
I find the Ad Hominim arguments against Craig from such an educated group as found above to be indicative of their lack of debate capability and defensible arguments … Stick to the issues and stop whining about Craig’s arrogance and the sound of his voice.
Dawkins, by not entering the debate arena with Craig appears to be simply protecting non-defensible arguments. If he loses, he loses much of his credibility and along with it, the atheist philosophy suffers.
There is a lot of nonsense spouted by some atheists who I can only think are simply afraid of WLC. Dawkins to my mind fits this bill.
Here’s the best atheist website I’ve come across on WLC because
1) the atheist who writes it has a terrific knowledge of WLC and his debates
2) is persuaded that there are many strong counter-arguments to WLC’s arguments
3) but has the decency to treat WLC with respect and regards him as an intelligent, honest philosopher and debater.
Those who seek to discredit the man rather than discredit his arguments (following Dawkins lead) do a disservice to their own cause.
To call him ‘a smiling Christian con man’ etc. is just a bit embarrassing because it’s so palpably false.
So why not take a good look at an excellent overview of WLC’s debates from a thoughtful atheist.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
His introduction sets the tone
‘William Lane Craig is a prolific Christian philosopher, apologist, author, and public debater. He is the best debater – on any topic – that I’ve ever heard. As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. When debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments.
I’m not the only one who thinks Craig has won nearly all his debates. For some atheists, it is rather maddening.’
Golly! I can’t imagine what has kept this thread going. As for Chris’s comment, I see no reason why one should not complain about Craig’s arrogance or the sound of his voice. I find it almost impossible to listen to the man. He sounds so much like evangelists of old that he really is off-putting to listen to.
Combine that with the repetitiveness of his “arguments”, and his blind insistence of going forward at flank speed without attending to the people he is debating with — there’s a curious detachment between Craig and others since he never pays a blind bit of attention to what others say, and yet expects them to answer every one of his “logical” points even though, for most people, this old-style apologetics really takes one nowhere — that there is scarcely anything to be gained by debating with him.
Anyone who can justify the ethnic cleansing fantasised by the writer of Joshua and Judges, by saying that, since it was commanded by God, it must be just and good, and the dead will be rewarded in the hereafter if they are innocent, doesn’t deserve to be accorded the public recognition of debate. Indeed, this particular argument is indicative of the kind of “argument” that Craig regularly indulges in. They are doubtless “arguments”, if, like Richard Wein you think that argument form is all it takes to offer an argument, but they merely reinterate again and again certainties held very often for other reasons. In most cases having to do with the Bible there is a suppressed premise having to do with the reliability of the biblical text because in some sense revealed by god and true.
As for the old turkeys, like the Kalam cosmological argument, or the ontological argument, though no doubt interesting exercises in logic, I have to agree with Dennett that diminishing returns long ago set in on arguments for god’s existence. (see Breaking the Spell, 27) Craig keeps bringing them out as though they are the freshest things in the religious bin, but no one pays any real attention to them, and so Craig goes off crowing that his opponent doesn’t address his argumetns. He always begins something like this: “I’m going to make points a, b and c. If X (his opponent) doesn’t answer those points, and show where I am wrong, then I have defeated him, and the debate goes to me.” But then along comes the opponent, who ignores Craig’s arguments altogether as irrelevant to the real questions that are raised by the existence of religion, and Craig spends an hour or so showing that he has not been defeated, since his points a, b and c still stand undefeated.
Losing or winning in these public debates is really irrelevant. The audiences are usually skewed towards one side or another, in any case, and Craig makes no secret of the fact that he looks on his debating as a form of evangelism. The real questions that people raise are often not even mentioned. Dawkins would gain nothing by debating with this guileful peacock.
There is a very unpleasant aggressive streak that underlies and informs Neil Powell’s superficially polite and ingenuous comments, and a curious refusal to engage with points that are raised despite a professes eagerness to engage with them (‘I still want to try and respond to your issue. I will try honestly’). Regarding the claim that Craig regularly beats atheists in debate, Craig certainly didn’t win the debate with Sam Harris, except perhaps in his own fantasies. There his tactic was to attempt to close true debate down from the very start by narrowly fencing in the grounds on which he was prepared to argue, which allowed him to complain that his opponent wasn’t addressing the issues he had raised. Sam Harris had the good sense not to play his game. Once again, does the Reverend Powell agree with the stream of falsities about micro- and macro-evolution that poured from Craig’s lips in the exchange with Wolpert? He certainly did not ‘beat’ Wolpert – except perhaps again in Craig’s – and the Reverend Powell’s? – fantasies. Come on, Neil, be a man; show some courage and respomd honestly to what I asked you.
professed… respond…
Hi Eric
Sorry to say I seem largely to blame for keeping this all going!
I just get frustrated with the unreasonableness of some atheists who are determined to dismiss WLC by belittling him. I think it’s very unfair and doesn’t serve the atheist community in any way.
That what is SO helpful about the author of commonsenseatheism.
In contrast to many blogs
1) he’s familiar with ALL of WLCs debates and summarises them well.
2) he recongises WLC’s ability as a Logician and Philosopher. Going so far to describe him as the best debater he had seen in action in ANY field.
3) He is as generous as he can to those who hold different views from himself.
I guess he sees what Dawkins and the new theists are unwilling to see.
On the point of diminishing returns. What is striking is that these arguments for God continue to persuade.
The conversion of Anthony Flew to theism from atheism, the world’s most famous atheist before the rise of the new atheists, was entirely due to the fact that modern science seemed to confirm the validity of these arguments.
Thank you for being a voice of reason in the midst of all this.
Hi Tim
On whether or not WLC wins his debates that’s an issue for you and the author of commonsenseatheism
It’s interesting to note that he’s not alone in recognising WLC’s ability. Nelson Jones in the New Statesman wrote just a few days ago in an article entitled ‘Why Dawkins disappoints’
“Richard Dawkins stands accused of cowardice for refusing to debate with an Amercian theologian, William Lane Craig. He responds that he’s too busy and that Craig is nothing but a professional debater.
Naturally, Dawkins is under no obligation to take part in someone else’s publicity tour, but the allegation does have some force, not least because Craig has a reputation for eating atheists for breakfast.
Even Christopher Hitchens, it is generally conceded (even by atheists), lost his encounter with Craig on points.”
Forgive me for pointing out the many non-theists who still think WLC wins his debates and ‘has a reputation for eating atheists for breakfast.’
I said I would try to answer your points on micro vs macro evolution and I will. I’m not sure I demonstrated any eagerness in fact I thought I’d said the opposite in my comments – but there you go.
I hope your continued patience is rewarded but I want to spend a little more time working out exactly what WLC’s position, as well as setting in the context of other theist and non-theist views on evolution, in more detail.
I’m also in no particular rush because it is not at the heart of the issue as to whether he and Dawkins should debate.
Theists could equally well make ‘excuses’ as to why they won’t debate Dawkins because of his demonstrably false arguments in God Delusion but we’d rather expose wrong thinking in debate than use it as an excuse to avoid debate.
If, Reverend Neil, you could deign to answer points that you say you will answer but never do, If you would genuinely engage with Eric MacDonald’s arguments, and if you would give examples of those ‘demonstrably false arguments’ of Dawkins instead of proceeding by unbacked assertion and uncritical quoting from the reviews of such as Eagleton and from various blogs and journalistic articles – if, in short, you would speak and answer for yourself, then it might be possible to feel some respect for you. As it is, I find it very difficult.
Another matter, Reverend Powell, is that you are very naive indeed if you think ‘wrong thinking’ is necessarily ‘exposed’ in that theatrical form, the debate. Craig can get away with his dishonest pretence that he is in a position to pontificate about ‘micro-’ and ‘macro-’ evolution because he knows damned well that most of the people in the audience do not know enough to recognise that it is a pretence. That is why writing is a far better way of presenting genuine arguments than the format of a debate. Eric MacDonald has been providing over the past week or so searching and meticulously argued accounts of why he thinks the critics of Dawkins have not made their case. If you think that those critics are right and that Eric MacDonald is wrong, then surely the responsible and honest thing to is to counter ED’s arguments with good arguments of your own, showing why the critics are right and why ED is wrong, instead of trying to use this issue of debate as an easy weapon with which to attack or goad those with whom you disagree.
Neil says : The conversion of Anthony Flew to theism from atheism, the world’s most famous atheist before the rise of the new atheists, was entirely due to the fact that modern science seemed to confirm the validity of these arguments.
Since we are speculating on the reasons for Flew’s ‘conversion’ from atheism to what is bettered described a soft Deism, we might also point out that it happened at the same time that he was slipping into the twilight of dementia. Having an evangelical apologist ghostwriter penning his last ‘writings’ doesn’t dispel the suspicion that Flew’s new position is a little less than authentic and that his new receptivity to the idea of a deist god is simply a unfortunate mark of his cognitive decline.
- evan
I don’t think anyone is speculating about Flew’s reasons at all.
Here he is in his own words – no ghost writing here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbyTwmaJArU
The determination of atheists to slur the man as having ‘dementia’ is distressing indeed. Where is your evidence for that?
Flew himself is on record as saying of the book:
I have rebutted these criticisms in the following statement: “My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking.”
Flew’s own review of God Delusion is damning of Dawkins methodology and in particular Dawkins attempt to slur Flew’s reputation. Flew writes:
‘On page 82 of The God Delusion is a remarkable note. It reads ‘We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicised tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the Internet).’
What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed – I believe – eventually to reply to every letter.)
This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means. That would itself constitute sufficient reason for suspecting that the whole enterprise of The God Delusion was not, as it at least pretended to be, an attempt to discover and spread knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God but rather an attempt – an extremely successful one – to spread the author’s own convictions in this area.’
Time and again atheists hurl abuse at men like WLC but given Dawkins own underhand attacks on Flew one wonders why they are so quick to attack WLC and so ready to defend Dawkins.
Luke @ CSA is honest enough to link to someone who disagrees with him, here.
So, any of us can cite others who support our respective positions.
Along the lines of Tim’s comments, it would be far more telling if you could address directly the criticisms of WLC and his skill as a debater that Eric and others have raised.
There are a lot of points you raise that Tim, I and others have rebutted and you’ve left dangling, without either admitting your error or demonstrating ours. Your tactic just seems to be to introduce new tendencious points, such as Anthony Flew’s conversion, to distract us from the paucity or simple absense of your own arguments.
And, by the way, to characterise Flew as “the world’s most famous atheist before the rise of the new atheists” seems quite fanciful: I doubt that the number of people who have heard of him is even a tenth of those who have heard of, say, Bertrand Russell. His fame seems to have been inflated by the notoriety of his conversion.
/@
“stop whining”?
So it’s OK for you to criticse folks’ tone, but not for folks to criticise “Craig’s arrogance and the sound of his voice.”
Huh!
/@
PS. Anyone else smell a sock-puppet?
That should of course have been ‘EM’ not ‘ED’ – it was late and I was tired is my excuse.
I agree that Dawkins is right to demur. After his Puebla encounter with Craig, the latter was interviewed on Premier Christian Radio (a UK digital radio channel) and said this:
(About 22 minutes into the mp3 audio podcast.)
Of course we didn’t hear what Dawkins actually said, that Craig disliked so much, nor was anyone available to counter Craig’s accusations.
It never stops does it, Reverend Powll? If it’s not one thing, it’s another, and then another, as you sweep along avoiding the issues that people have raised. I watched the video of the interview with Anthony Flew, which I found, I must say, very, very sad and rather disturbing. I also watched the next YouTube video, a thoroughly unpleasant Christian one, that came up with it, which presented, beneath a lot of saccharine pictures and some ugly and irritating music the voice of Richard Dawkins explaining why Flew had accepted theism (it was because of his acceptance of Intelligent Design), and why Dawkins felt that this showed that the intellectual powers of a person who Dawkins described as a once-great philosopher had declined. Dawkins’ words and tone were sober, courteous and sad. His remarks were not underhand at all, and though the note in The God Delusion is sharp, again it is not underhand.
Exactly!
/@
PS. I agree with your sentiments on the Flew video, Tim. I’m not sure about Flew’s “dementia”, but it is clear that his reasoning is impaired – or, at least, he’s not showing much philosophical rigor regarding the attributes the interviewer suggests for Flew’s “Intelligence”.
I agree Tim. The video clip of Flew was quite disturbing. He was, at the time, clearly in decline, and I am afraid, despite his claims that the views in “his” ghostwritten book are his own, that this cannot be taken seriously as the view of the author of God and Philosophy. the concluding two sentences of that book, by the way, show why:
The so-called fine-tuning argument gives us no reason to look outside the world for the source of those principles.
There are two other points rolled into one, both of them mistakes, one made by the many Christians who seem to think of Flew as a Christian in waiting, and the other by Flew, who misunderstood Einstein’s religion. Flew did not convert to “theism” but at most to “deism”. There is a good reason for saying this. Although Einstein did not, as Flew suggests, hold that there must be an intelligence behind the universe, it is this deistic belief that Flew apparently accepted. His new introduction to the Prometheus edition of God and Philosophy makes this very clear.
Doubtless the old man liked the attention. It dismays me, however, that Christians have shamelessly exploited him for their own purposes. Flew was certainly not a theist, and definitely not a Christian. But the video is fairly clear evidence of Flew’s sadly declining powers, the exploitation of which by others should not be permitted to sully the reputation of a fine philosopher. No one who knows God and Philosophy would bother to read the one written by someone else in his name, no matter what the old man said.
Actually, Chris, a number of very serious issues have been raised, that have to do with far more things than Craig’s arrogance and tone. Perhaps you might re-read the original post as well as the comments.
???!!!
The truth or falsity of any god’s existence doesn’t rest on Anthony Flew’s beliefs at the end of his life. If William Lane Craig became an atheist, would that change the evidence? The evidence is what it is regardless of who accepts or denies it. The evidence is what it is regardless of whether Dawkins wrote a bad book or whether he wins or loses a debate with Craig.
If Flew became a deist based on the design argument, then he was sorely mistaken. He obviously misunderstood the science available to him. Craig, in his current guise as an apologist, willfully misunderstands the evidence. He has a philosophy PhD and should know better, but like his intelligent design buddies (see Jonathan Wells – UC Berkeley Biology PhD, Moonie and Discovery Institute hack) he uses his degree, not as a pathway to knowledge, but to give artificial credence to his wants and desires. You can’t serve two masters.
Neil,
In watching this heavily edited clip of Dr. Flew, I do believe that it demonstrates that he is indeed suffering from some form of cognitive slowing and impairment. The interviewer here seemed quite intent on making statements designed to gain evidence of Flew’s assent to these statements and then move on to a more committed confessional statement. I felt a little sorry for him here as it looks like he is being exploited as a poster child by his theist handlers. I am not clear as to how much his opinions are truly his own as opposed to those suggested or even superimposed by his handlers.
OTOH, he does seem to have his own opinions around the Deist position and can articulate that well enough. He has clearly been convinced to modify his beliefs by the Intelligent Design and fine-tuning arguments he has considered but he seems at a loss to elaborate much on the reasons why. (He also, BTW, seems to have misunderstood Einstein’s position.)
I am not party to the timing of his cognitive difficulties and the role it played in his change of position; so you are right in calling me on that. It may well be that Flew has not been misrepresented by Varghese & company after all and that he may be of sound enough mind to understand what he is doing; so I must apologize for stating my opinion as a fact when all I have is a hunch and hearsay to back it up.
-evan
Thanks Eric,
I just read your response to Neil after I posted my response. You make many of the same points but much more clearly and articulately.
I should have just left the response to you…
-evan
Craig is one who believes that faith must triumph every time. This means that however much he may appear to be doing philosophy the underlying agenda that belief comes first is the one that he must support at every turn. So dishonesty is necessarily built into his whole approach. The biggest problem, though, is that Christians like him believe, on no evidence except personal “feeling”, that their approach is right and good. No wonder their whole moral world is distorted. Dawkins has always said that he doesn’t debate creationists. He is right. They are by their own will as incapable of listening as they are incapable of honesty.
One of the arguments Craig often makes is that so called “objective moral values” are evidence that god exists. Craig asserts two things 1) that objective moral values exists and 2) that they would only exist if god exists. Sam Harris, I think, has argued for the former ( I am not sure I agree with him), but against the latter. I am interested to know what methodology Craig has used to 1) objectively determine moral values and 2) what those moral values are. Powell keeps telling us Craig is more than an apologist and really is a serious academic. Given this, I am sure Craig has done the research and written the papers on how one determines moral values and what those values are. Am I correct, Neil?
I agree that this is an issue in Craig’s debates, because he asserts much and provides no evidence for those assertions. It is odd that those debating him don’t bring this up. I am curious what moral values are that can be objectively determined- just like I was curious what traditional family values were in the 80s and 90s. The religious right in the US were trumpeting TFVs, but would never say exactly what they were – most likely because had they actually articulated what they meant, few would actually agree.
Could these values be the ten commandments? A list that the supposedly Christian kings, prime ministers, presidents, legislators, etc. of countries like the US and England have systematically ignored for centuries. They have coveted, stolen and killed to get what they want. They have worked on sabbaths to increase their profits. Can you help me out?
Michael:
“I am sure Craig has done the research and written the papers on how one determines moral values and what those values are.”
Fat chance! Whenever Craig is asked that question, he plays his trump card:
“That’s an epistemological problem, and my argument addresses the ontological problem. I win, I win, I win!”
Good to back after a brief holiday.
I notice that none of you respond at all to Flew’s own writing about Dawkins ‘monsterous footnote?’
I’ll post it again in case any still think there is a defense to be made.
Flew in his own words – no ghostwriting.
‘On page 82 of The God Delusion is a remarkable note. It reads ‘We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicised tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the Internet).’
What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed – I believe – eventually to reply to every letter.)
This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means. That would itself constitute sufficient reason for suspecting that the whole enterprise of The God Delusion was not, as it at least pretended to be, an attempt to discover and spread knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God but rather an attempt – an extremely successful one – to spread the author’s own convictions in this area.’
My response on William Lane Craig’s views on evolution i know has been much anticipated.
Thank you for you patience.
Because it’s approx. 2000 words rather than add it here I’ve posted it as a blog.
http://www.afaithtoliveby.com/2011/06/01/is-it-reasonable-to-doubt-evolution/
Just to say that I have posted th following comment comment on Neil Powell’s blog, where it awaits ‘moderation’. I hope he is not one of those people who moderates critical comments out of existence.
‘Instead of dredging up quotations that seem to support your position, why don’t you actually do a bit of work and look into things yourself? Mere intellectual laziness, ignorance (your, and Craig’s rubbish about micro- and macro-evolution!) and the irresponsible trotting out of tired arguments that you have found on anti-evolution websites and that have been addressed again and again do not make a case. I have also re-read Flew’s over the top response to Dawkins’ footnote, and it is just that: over the top in the light of what the footnote actually says.’
dunno what happened in that first line…
Neil, since it would be foolish to assume that the words of “his” new book are his own, what confidence have we that these are Flew’s words? The words that lead me to think they are not Flew’s are these:
If those had been Flew’s words, the question would be one about seeking truth, not about spreading knowledge about the existence of God. This is someone else’s agenda, not Flew’s. He’s being exploited, quite shamelessly, by those who want all the press they can get which will discredit an old man’s earlier conclusions. Shame of them, and on you for falling into their trap, whether you are a cleric or not.
See my comment Tim, where I suggest that, on internal evidence, the response is not Flew’s, but someone else writing in his name. He was being managed for nefarious reasons having to do with Christians who always seek to capitalise on the supposed “conversions” of lifetime atheists.
Tim
I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make? It doesn’t seem to answer my post in any way. The question I’m addressing is whether to have doubts about evolution makes you an ignorant person as Wolpert maintains. In other words I’m investigating William Lane Craig’s position not my own. (I will also add that you don’t even know my position because I’ve never offered it. Christians hold a whole range of positions, including evolutionary ones, as my post is careful to point out).
My concern is to demonstrate from a variety and range of sources, most of whom are atheists or agnostic, that there are plenty of scientists who share William Lane Craig’s scepticism based on scientific investigation. My views are utterly irrelevant to the question I’m addressing. I could be a full-blown evolutionist like Francis Collins and it wouldn’t alter my argument one jot!
You may think the arguments are tired, far enough, I don’t take issue with you because such a statement doesn’t challenge my thesis at all.
The thesis is simple and straight-forward; MANY scientists are still sceptical about the theory of evolution and if that makes Lane Craig ‘ignorant’ he is ignorant alongside many non-theist scientists! Neo-Darwinians may dislike that fact but it remains a fact.
Just a cursory look at a list of over 700 scientists who decent from the theory of Neo-Darwinian evolution should be enough to persuade any reasonable person of that reality.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Eric
The statement that ‘ the response is not Flew’s, but someone else writing in his name’ is a very serious charge indeed to make.
To suggest that someone has fraudulently impersonated Flew in this way without any evidence at all is the most disturbing thing I have read on this blog or any other atheist blog I have read in a while. It’s what I would expect from a conspiracy theory blog.
You write very persuasively on many issues and no doubt have an intellect sharper than my own but you statement is troubling indeed.
So that we can all be absolutely clear that this is Flew I think it important that you hear him in his own words on Dawkins. It’s even stronger than in the written statement (you can listen in from around 5 minutes but need to listen through to the end of part 1)
http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/habermas-flew-wright_2008_pt1.wmv
For the source of Flew’s comments on Dawkins
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3348563/Richard-Dawkins-branded-secularist-bigot-by-veteran-philosopher.html
I hope once you have had an opportunity to watch the video that you will retract your accusation.
@ Neil
Well, of course they should be skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life!
But are they honestly suggesting that evolutionary biologists do not carefully consider the evidence for evolutionary theory? (You should note that their assertion is about “Darwinian theory” rather than “neo-Darwinian theory” as you claim above. There’s a telling difference.)
That is how science proceeds: By continuously being skeptical, considering the evidence, and testing hypotheses against it.
Which is why, final point, modern “neo-Darwinian” evolutionary theory also takes into account — as well as mutation and natural selection — genetic drift and gene flow. Because that’s where skepticism, evidence and testing hypotheses led.
So, really, what these 700 scientists “decent” [sic] from is a very naïve — and, yes, ignorant — view of evolution. And by citing it you show similar traits.
/@
PS. If your thesis is simply that many scientists are still sceptical about the theory of evolution, it fails from the start. That’s the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum or an appeal to popularity.
/@
Well, how to respond to that?
I’m tempted just to echo Wolpert’s rseponse to WLC. But, given the effort that you made here, that might be considered disrespectful, even strident.
As I said in an earlier reply, your claimed thesis – “many scientists are still sceptical about the theory of evolution and if that makes Lane Craig ‘ignorant’ he is ignorant alongside many non-theist scientists!” – seems to be little more than an appeal to popularity.
But let’s look at your post more carefully.
You say, “The question I want to address in this post is simply this, is it reasonable for an intelligent mind to doubt the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution or MUST doubt over the theory be regarded as a display of culpable ignorance?” Yet much of your post is at best tangential or wholly irrelevant to that question.
Part A is wholly irrelevant. The question makes no statement about atheism or theism nor about the separation (or otherwise) of science and religion.
Part B is at least tangential. The question makes no statement about WLC in particular, just an “intelligent mind” in general.
Part C is where you start to get to grips with the question proper, but there’s still a lot of cruft.
1. 1 in 11 atheists in the US are sceptical of evolution
So frakking what? It wouldn’t change a thing if 10 in 11 atheists were. Not all atheists are atheists because they’re naturalists, or skeptics, or rationalists; and atheists can be just as ignorant as anyone else. Irrelevant.
2. Why can’t evolutionary biologists agree amongst themselves as to the mechanism of evolution if the evidence is that strong?
The mechanisms of evolution – natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow – are well understood, well supported by strong evidence, and widely accepted, even though there are uncertainties about their relative importance). The dispute between Dawkins and Gould (and others on both sides) is at a different level altogether: It’s akin to an argument between musicians over a piece being played legato or staccato: The melody is still the same.
I can hardly believe you allowed yourself that gratuitous quote mining from Darwin! Of course he said that – but he was anticipating others’ objections! He went on to say:
In fact, the whole of that chapter, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record” rebuts those objections in some detail.
The geological record remains imperfect, although it’s certainly better than in Darwin’s day. The evolution of many classes of animals – horses, elephants, whales, birds, Homo sapiens, to name but a few – is now pretty clear from the fossil record. What’s more, we’ve been able to predict the appearance and location in time of “transitional fossils”; a favourite example, for me, is the prediction of the intermediate form, the ur-ant, between wasps and ants.
But as Dawkins points out, in The Greatest Show on Earth, “we don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure, even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized.”
3.Why are a number of leading writers on science questioning the scientific consensus if the evidence is overwhelming?
(a) It’s telling that you say “leading writers on science” rather than “leading scientists”. No scientist would say, as Denton does, “My primary intellectual aim has always been to show that the findings of science support the traditional teleological and anthropocentric view of the world.” That’s just not how science works!
(b) What Darwin Got Wrong is, according to at least one evolutionary biologist, “a profoundly misguided critique of natural selection,” and “as biologically uninformed as it is strident.” Michael Ruse (no friend of gnu atheists!), Philip Kitcher & Ned Block, and Massimo Pigliucci have also written critical reviews. You do yourself no favours by quoting from it here.
Midgley notoriously misconstrued Dawkins’s notion of the selfish gene, so she’s hardly a reliable critic.
(c) There’s really no such thing as “Darwinian ‘gradualism’”: In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin himself wrote that “the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.”
(d) Srsly? You quote an anonymous Amazon reviewer rather than Milton himself? But just because there are (unspecified) unanswered questions is no reason to reject the whole construct. As previously noted, natural selection and mutation alone provided an incomplete theory of evolution, leading to evolutionary biologists’ refining the theory by the addition of genetic drift and, more recently, gene flow – not by rejecting natural selection and mutation altogether. It takes more than unanswered questions to undermine a theory as well established as evolution. (And this is another hallmark of science, “being prepared to live without certainty,” in the words of A.C. Grayling.)
4. Why have over 500 scientists expressed their concerns over the evidence for neo-Darwinian theories of evolution?
Ah, this is your “many scientists” thesis (although you’re inconsistent about the exact number), which I’ve already discussed and dismissed as logically fallacious and thus irrelevant on two counts: (i) that these scientists are dissenting from a naïve view of evolutionary theory, lacking genetic drift and gene flow, which is then essentially a straw man; and (ii) that it is an appeal to popularity.
So, I can see nothing in your post that answers the question in favor of the claim that it’s reasonable for an intelligent mind to doubt the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
As you’re so fond of quotations, I’ll leave the final word to Daniel Dennett, from Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:
/@
Nonsense! It’s not a serious charge at all. I have explained already that I think that Flew was being managed. The garyhabermas video, for example, with that dreadful man Tom Wright, is a classic instance of management. There is the old man surrounded by his religious puppeteers! It’s ludicrous.
At most Flew “converted” to deism, nothing more. To be shown with a bunch of clerics is a deliberate act of stage management, and I find it troubling. Christians and other religious have told stories about atheists who have died, and converted on their deathbeds. Such a story was told about Darwin, apparently. And Boswell obviously wanted to check Hume out, but had the grace at least to be honest.
However, Flew’s deism, such as it was — and it is still clear to me that Flew’s powers were sadly diminished — is merely an acknowledgement of what he considered an argument for an intelligence behind the fine-tuning of the physical constants. This is a far cry from a religious god. Such a god, like Aristotle’s, might be, in Joyce’s phrase, indifferent, paring his fingernails. It is pathetic to see smarmy Christians smothering Flew with their attentions, when there is nothing in Flew’s conclusions which would even remotely approach a theistic version of a religious god who creates and cares.
And the sign that Flew is being managed is in those words regarding The God Delusion not being “an attempt to discover and spread knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God — an extremely successful one — [but instead an attempt] to spread the author’s own convictions in this area.” But of course Dawkins was trying to convince others that his convictions were true. It’s the idea of “spreading” that is suspiciously Christian. That’s what Christians do. They spread the gospel. Non-religious people, like Flew, try to discern the truth by means of reason. The use that Flew was put to by the religious was a shameful act of management, as though Flew were all but a Christian, when he wasn’t. That’s what concerns me, and that’s also what shows me that he was being managed. As I said, perhaps he was flattered by the attention, but to suggest that what Flew had to say after receiving all that religious attention was unalloyed Flew is simply nonsense.
The suggestion that MANY scientists are sceptical about evolution is rubbish. How many biologists are sceptical? How many biologists doubt that life evolved from primitive beginnings? How many biologists doubt — it’s not doubtable, based on DNA evidence — that we share a common ancestor with sponges? Craig is ignorant, and shows himself to be so when he maunders on about micro- and macro-evolution. This is irrelevant to the issue of common ancestry, which can be demonstrated by DNA sequences.
PS. My apologies: I overlooked your conclusions.
1. There are. So what?
2. It is. So what?
3. No, it’s not.
4. No, there doesn’t.
And your post-script.
Here, I agree with you. And, as noted above, the theory of evolution has been modified in the light of new evidence. And, undoubtedly, it will continue to be refined. But there such a flood of evidence for evolution and the theory has so much explanatory power that it is just not reasonable to suppose that it will have to give way to a completely new theory.
— Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”, American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
/@
*But there is such a flood…
Evolution: life on Earth is one big extended family
/@
PS. I hope this HTML works! If not, here’s the link
Ah. It didn’t. Pls follow the link. — @
Thank you, Ant, for doing all the dirty work. Hope you’re not too tired!
I have posted this on Neil Powell’s website:
Can I suggest that those who who want to criticise the theory of evolution, or to pretend that people like Craig are in any position at all to criticise it, should have the simple integrity and sense of responsibility to actually learn something about it. They might start with Jerry Coyne’s excellent and illuminating ‘Why Evolution is True’, Jonathan Weiner’s ‘The Beak of the Finch’ (about the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant with the finches of the Galapagos Islands) and Neil Shubin’s ‘Your Inner Fish’, a book which lays to rest the kind of nonsense spouted by Craig, and seemingly seconded by Neil Powell, about ‘micro-’ and ‘macro-’ evolution. Quite honestly, until you yourselves make the effort to understand something, you are simply not in a position to criticise it, and until you yourselves make the effort to genuinely understand what is at issue, there can be no fruitful discussion. I should add here that over on Eric MacDonald’s blog, ‘Choice in Dying’, Ant Allan has eviscerated such arguments as Neil Powell thinks he is presenting.
Yes, Eric, that’s very perceptive of you to spot the strongly Christian tinge of the phrases about Dawkins spreading the ‘atheist’ word. That is a typically Christian ploy, I find: assert that being an atheist depends just as much on an arbitrary (though this never explicitly stated) act of faith as Christianity so that all atheistical arguments can at once be dismissed as propaganda activity, just as Christian proselytising is (though, again, that is never explicitly stated, and probably not consciously recognised), and consequently not be addressed. It is the extraordinary lack of intellectual honesty and integrity that offends me most about many religiously-minded people.
Of the 700 on the list, very few are biologists and almost none of the actual biologists are either at secular colleges/universities or have studied in fields related to evolution or are retired. It is overwhelmingly a list of engineers, chemists and medical doctors – hardly impressive.
One of their favorites on the list is one Phi Skell, a chemist and member of the National Academies of Science. He is a organic chemist and knows next to nothing about biology. I was briefly in email contact with him after him writing to the Kansas State Board of Education encouraging the teaching of intelligent design.
“The question I’m addressing is whether to have doubts about evolution makes you an ignorant person as Wolpert maintains.”
The answer is yes, it does. It means you just haven’t tried to honestly evaluate the evidence. Pulling a bunch of quotes out of context is not an argument and should never be a reason for doubt. The funny thing is Darwin’s evidence in 1859, was sufficient to show evolution is true, but the amount of evidence produced since then is insurmountable. Go read Darwin with an open mind, then find out about genetics, molecular biology and development. All you have to lose is your ignorance.
Eric
There is the world of difference between suggesting that Flew was being ‘managed’ which I still wholly dispute for lack of any evidence (why does appearing on stage with Professor Tom Wright mean you are being manipulated?) and your earlier claim that a statement purported to have been made by Flew was in fact a fraudulent one. That is a very serious charge to make. It is that statement which in light of the video you must retract (surely?) if you are to maintain integrity in the debate.
I would also like to point out that Gary Habermas knew Anthony Flew for a period of 25 years. That means about 20 years during which Flew was a convinced atheist. He was in no way jumping on a band-wagon.
I’m sorry to have to say it again but once again people on this blog seem to be attempting to conflate my personal views, which I have never offered, and the answer I am presenting to the question I’m addressing which is ‘must EVERY scientist be a full-blown evolutionist?’
My blog-post highlights the fact that the obvious answer is clearly not. Many scientists and brilliant ones at that are atheists who have concerns over the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. That may frustrate many but its a simple and straight-forward fact.
For the record again I have no problem with Christians (or anyone else) passionately advocating evolution.
I have now watched this second video of Flew, and found it even more disturbing than the first. Very sad.
And do you, Reverend Powell, have any problems with anyone, Christian or no, passionately advocating uninformed views that are opposed to the theory of evolution? Originally, anyway, the point of your response was this:
‘I said I would try to answer your points on micro vs macro evolution and I will.’ (your own words)
Which then became ‘this’:
‘I’m investigating William Lane Craig’s position not my own.’ (your own words again)
It was never until your latest comment that what you say you are doing is this:
‘… the question I’m addressing … is “must EVERY scientist be a full-blown evolutionist…”‘. (your own words yet again)
Merely listing various quotations culled from the internet is neither addressing the points I raised in connexion with ‘micro-’ and ‘micro’ evolution, nor investigating William Lane Craig’s position. You are merely dancing arbitrarily and evasively about, changing ground whenever you are challenged. Michael Fugate has effectively responded to your last stated intention by pointing out that there are very few biologists among the ‘scientists’ you speak of, most of them being engineers or medical doctors. He did not, as you claim, attempt to ‘conflate (your) personal views… and the answer I am presenting, etc, etc’; and he calls you on yet another of your various professed intentions for writing your defence, to wit:
“The question I’m addressing is whether to have doubts about evolution makes you an ignorant person as Wolpert maintains.”
I would only add to this that unless you are willing to put in at least a modicum of effort in order to acquaint yourself with the arguments for evolution and to address those arguments, then what you are doing is perfectly trivial, and, I am sorry to say this, irresponsible and dishonest. Darwin’s ‘Origin’ is one great argument, and what I find so impressive and salutary about his work is that he goes out of his way to address every objection to his theory that he can think of, as in the case of the objection from ‘Origin’ that you quoted, and that you presented, I suspect not maliciously (you probably found it on one of those thoroughly dishonest anti-evolution websites), as an admission, when, as Ant Allan points out, he goes on to deal with the objection.
And I should add that in the final paragraph the ‘you’ is a general one (I should written ‘one’ instead), and covers anybody who behaves in this way, including William Lane Craig.
@ Tim
Not too tired. And I learned stuff.
Mmm… eviscerated…
/@
Oops… that should’ve appeared below. (See, I am tired!) — @
@ Tim
Not too tired. And I learned stuff.
Mmm… eviscerated…
/@
(Reposted in the right place!)
@ Neil
Oh, look, you’re being inconsistent again! Quelle suprise!
You say the question you’re addressing is, “must every scientist be a full-blown evolutionist?”
Well, the answer to that is clearly, “no.” As long as evolutionary biology doesn’t impinge on a scientist’s own field they don’t have to have any opinion, one way or the other, on evolution. (Although not having an opinion becomes less and less credible the closer their field approaches evolutionary biology.)
However, that is not the question you stated you were addressing earlier, not is it equivalent to it. That question was, “is it reasonable for an intelligent mind to doubt the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution?”
And, as Daniel Dennett and Tim and Michael and I have pointed out, the answer to that is very clearly “no.” The evidence is overwhelming.
If any scientist wants to state an opinion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is anything other than substantially correct then:
a. They must make sure the are criticising the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. (Which is what the 500 or 700 scientists in your list did not do.)
b. They must have evidence that clearly falsifies the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. (Note that unanswered questions do not constitute such evidence.)
c. They must have an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all the evidence that has validated the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution as well as their putative evidence that falsifies it.
Having doubts that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is somehow incomplete is not unreasonable – after all, this attitude is what motivates further research and is what led to, for example, the ideas of genetic drift and gene flow that, inter alia, differentiate neo-Darwinism from Darwinism.
But, in general, in the words of evolutionary psychologist Marc D. Hauser, “incredulity doesn’t count as an alternative position or critique.”
/@
*nor is it equivalent to it
(i) If you wish. It’s a serious charge. So what? The only reason I suggested that it wasn’t serious was to diminish responsibility, to give the religious vultures the benefit of the doubt, but if you think that management is more or less dissimulation, fine. Being on stage with a bunch of clerics makes the whole thing ludicrous, it makes it a staged affair, as though Flew had said something religiously significant, which he didn’t.
(ii) Habermas knowing Flew for 25 years doesn’t change a thing. In fact, it makes this worse, because for a friend to exploit a friend like this is really reprehensible.
Indeed: I heard Flew on the CBC, at the time when this little affair came down, and he made it clear that his “conversion” was to a sort of Aristotelian deism, not to anything like Judeo-Christian style theism (How about that — I managed to use the term “Judeo-Christian” legitimately!). It’s a bit disingenuous (at the least) for Habermas etc to try to parlay that into support for religious views of much wider scope.
“must EVERY scientist be a full-blown evolutionist?”
The answer of course is no, but the person who doesn’t accept evolution is ignorant because he or she has not studied evolution in enough detail to understand it. We are all ignorant of many things, but to doubt evolution when one hasn’t even tried to understand the evidence is arguing from ignorance.
Yes, that.
“Ignorant” is often seen as pejorative – and that’s certainly how Wolpert meant it – but it’s really neutral. It would not bother me in the least if a theoretical particle physicist were ignorant of evolutionary biology.
But, absolutely, it’s unreasonable to criticise evolution from that position of ignorance. But, as I noted, that’s exactly what those 500-700 scientists did.
As I said to Neil (@afaithtoliveby) on Twitter, their ignorance of evolutionary biology doesn’t necessarily reflect badly on them – depending on the degree to which such ignorance impacts their own work, of course! – but that they chose to criticise something that they are clearly ignorant (more kindly, naïve) about, well, that demonstrates poor judgement.
/@
Oops. Posted in the wrong place again. The above was in reply to Michael’s post on 2 June 2011 at 10:09. — @
Where does Habermas EVER suggest that Flew adopted anything other than a deist position. In the first section of the video he is as clear as he could possibly be that Flew’s position is not ‘Judeo-Christian’.
Where is Habermas ‘disingenuous’?
If they want to share a stage together why do some atheists have to declare one of them senile and the other disingenuous!
Flew has time and again through-out his career shared platforms with theists. Until his dying die he didn’t agree with them but was always happy to discuss philosophy of religion.
Another thing you have claimed is that Craig is agnostic on evolution. If that is so, then he should follow the aphorism attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Of course, the answer to your question – “must EVERY scientist be a full-blown evolutionist?” – is no, but if you have not taken the time to understand the evidence for evolution, then you shouldn’t claim you have doubts about its veracity.
Craig and those (especially scientists) not sufficiently versed in evolution shouldn’t be arguing from ignorance. The problem with the signatories of the Discovery Institute list is that the overwhelming majority start with the premise – if Christianity is true, then evolution cannot be true. The doubts are not scientific, but theological. I am ignorant of many of the signatories fields, but, then again, I haven’t signed any statements about the validity of those field either.
But let us return to Craig’s supposed evolution agnoticism. Craig is a full-time affliated faculty member in the philosophy department at Biola University. Here is are parts of Biola’s doctrinal statement:
And from the Biological Sciences Department page:
Agnostic on evolution – still holding to that claim?
It’s got nothing at all to do with what is said, and I’ve never suggested anything else. It’s the whole dog and pony show over the whole thing that is so distasteful.
One man decides that an argument may be compelling — as once Bertrand Russell suddenly thought to himself, “The Ontological Argument is True!” — and suddenly he is being cossetted by a bunch of bishops, theologians and vicars! And you know as well as I do the kinds of headlines that there have been over this supposed “conversion”.
It wasn’t a conversion. It was acceptance by a philosopher, very late in life, of the possibility that an argument for the existence of a very rarified transcendent intelligence might be true. It had no reasonable implications as to how we should live our lives, or how we should see the world.
The only reason it caught people’s attention is that Flew had once been widely known as an atheist, and before long he was being treated as an honorary Christian. That was using him, even if the attention gave the old man a fillip.
Sorry Eric my words were really in response to Eamon’s comment;
‘It’s a bit disingenuous (at the least) for Habermas etc to try to parlay that into support for religious views of much wider scope.’
The best way to show the relationship is to go back to the last Reply button before the comment you wish to reply to. That will put yours in the same stack. As it stood the relationships were not clear.
However, in relation to Eamon’s remark:
Isn’t that right? It is, isn’t it? That’s what the dog and pony show is all about, and I find it a bit troubling.
So, when Flew says something (in the video with Tom Wright et al) entirely unconnected about something showed him by people at Biola University — which advertises “Biblically Centred Education” — about random letter sequences and occurrences of short English words, and that biologists should take account of that, it is clear that Flew is beginning to lose his marbles, and has no idea the kind of people who are courting him because of his apparent “change” of mind.
Does Flew really share the concerns with biblical literalism that underlay the demonstration with random letter sequences? Does he really question the basic premises of modern evolutionary biology? Just talking about fine-tuning won’t get you that far. So, something else is going on, and I suggest it lies in the plain indication, in his bearing and in his inability to form plain English sentences to make clear statements, that Flew’s mental powers were then in steep decline, and the shameless use that Tom Wright and Flew’s pal Gary Habermas were making of him is deeply discreditable to both men.
Tom Wright is an evangelical Anglican without an intellectual conscience in my estimation, and Habermas’ intellectual bona fides should be subject to suspicion as well. Anyone who could teach “philosophy and apologetics” (isn’t that an oxymoron?) at Liberty University needs his head examined. That Flew was being herded about by people like that does not assure me that his mind was still his own.
I’d rather see him debate a real apologist like Lee Strobel (yes, he is now more of a faith-based practitioner, but he can argue as an apologist) or Dr. Habermas. After all, with some of the controversy surrounding the Habermas-Flew debate, I’d think a Dawkins-Habermas debate would be refreshing. I doubt Dawkins would let Habermas dominate the debate and vice-verca.
Eric I can understand if Richard Dawkins genuinely is too busy to debate Craig.
Can I suggest you stand in for Dr D? With what you’ve written here you’d surely expose WLC for what you say he is.