Craig vs. Dawkins?

[Lord Emsworth]

Guys, I don't want to get into another debate about this. I have enough of these going on already at Dr. Craig's site, and it is really not worth it especially with the bickering aspect that this one seems to have. I am pretty sure Dr. Craig has responded to all of your objections and I am sure you can find answers on his website if you want them. I wish you all the best,

- Jeff

And there was I, having the impression that you had questions ... Meh.

 

[The Paul]

Dr. Craig is a world renowned philosopher. He is not a sophist. If you watch at least the introduction you can hear the atheist Oxford Philosopher Peter Millican talk about how when he was a student he was assigned some of Dr. Craig's serious philosophical works, and how it was clear that even then Craig was a significant philosopher.

Pft. Just about anybody could find the holes in Craig's arguments. And I mean that literally. And his refutations boil down to "Nu-uh."

He's renowned in spite of that because he's such a bloody talented sophist.

So of course Dawkins won't debate him. He's said on numerous occasions he doesn't want to help provide people like Craig with a venue to set up their smoke and mirrors.

 

[USincognito]

Dr. Craig is a world renowned philosopher.

He is?

What papers has he published lately?
What new ideas has he advanced since his 20 year old rehash of the hundreds of years old Kalaam argument?
What conferences and seminars of philosophers has he been the keynote speaker for?

You're confusing a glib debator and popular apologist with a "world renowned philosopher".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

He is?

What papers has he published lately?
What new ideas has he advanced since his 20 year old rehash of the hundreds of years old Kalaam argument?
What conferences and seminars of philosophers has he been the keynote speaker for?

You're confusing a glib debator and popular apologist with a "world renowned philosopher".

And you're a Republican? Sorry you don't fit my stereotype.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So of course Dawkins won't debate him. He's said on numerous occasions he doesn't want to help provide people like Craig with a venue to set up their smoke and mirrors.

So it was false advertising then (that dawkins was meant to be there)?

 

[variant]

So it was false advertising then (that dawkins was meant to be there)?

He declined the invitation so the man debated his empty chair in a pure fit of sophistry.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is it right that Dawkins recommends his followerds to aggressively persue all theists. The time for toleration, even of "harmless liberals" is over?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Cite?

 

[ranunculus]

I don't think his arguments could prove anything beyond deism. A lot of them are filled with difficult formulations and wording.
Take kalam for instance. It tries to get around the infinite regress problem by switching the wording of the cosmological argument by saying 'everything that begins to exist'. And then categorizing god as not beginning to exist.... this is essentially the same as defining god into existence. And it's question begging, the conclusion is basically stated in the premise.
But even if it was both a valid and sound argument (which it isn't)... What good is an argument for the existence of god if most of the world population isn't smart enough to understand it?
And why would Craig try to find proof & evidence for a god who is supposedly only reachable through faith?
Isn't that having your cake and eating it too?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Is it right that Dawkins recommends his followerds to aggressively persue all theists. The time for toleration, even of "harmless liberals" is over?

I don't know if he recommends that, nor would I really care. And sometimes, sometimes I can really understand it when people say that atheism is just another religion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Cite?

New Atheism is the name given to a movement among some early-21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." wikipedia: New Atheism

 

[The Paul]

I don't think "New Atheism" was coined by atheists. I think it's something theists came up with to describe the movement.

It's oddly civil, but it subtly inserts the idea that questioning religion is some new fad, which it clearly is not.

Anyway, far more things have been attributed to Dawkins by his opponents than he has really said. I read the updated (as of a couple years ago) intro to the God Delusion and his stance is not that "religion should not be tolerated." It's more that it should not be exempt from consideration and criticism.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is it right that Dawkins recommends his followerds to aggressively persue all theists. The time for toleration, even of "harmless liberals" is over?

Cite?

New Atheism is the name given to a movement among some early-21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises." wikipedia: New Atheism

Sorry. You cite doesn't quote Dawkins. Nor does it use the words aggressively or pursue.

As for the wiki-quote, it seems to me that anything that can survive scrutiny might be worth respect. Otherwise the loss of such view due to critical examination is worth little regret.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't think "New Atheism" was coined by atheists. I think it's something theists came up with to describe the movement.

It's oddly civil, but it subtly inserts the idea that questioning religion is some new fad, which it clearly is not.

Anyway, far more things have been attributed to Dawkins by his opponents than he has really said. I read the updated (as of a couple years ago) intro to the God Delusion and his stance is not that "religion should not be tolerated." It's more that it should not be exempt from consideration and criticism.

And this.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorry. You cite doesn't quote Dawkins. Nor does it use the words aggressively or pursue.

Which is why I asked a question ("Does Dawkins?") rather than made a claim ("Dawkins does").

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Is it right that Dawkins recommends ..." is a claim. The starting point of the question is that "Dawkins recommends" and is that right.

 

[variant]

I don't think "New Atheism" was coined by atheists. I think it's something theists came up with to describe the movement.

It's oddly civil, but it subtly inserts the idea that questioning religion is some new fad, which it clearly is not.

There is nothing really "new" about atheism but the atheists themselves are now being more open about their atheism. Which is new I guess.

I think it is just religious people being upset at dealing with Atheists who are not ashamed and even promote their own views (the horror).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Is it right that Dawkins recommends ..." is a claim. The starting point of the question is that "Dawkins recommends" and is that right.

"Is it right that...?" is a question. Just like "Is it right that the universe is expanding?" is a question not a claim. I do not know where you are coming from on this, I am using standard English...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"Is it right that...?" is a question. Just like "Is it right that the universe is expanding?" is a question not a claim. I do not know where you are coming from on this, I am using standard English...

The question can be read two ways. (Can it?) One is "Is it true that X?" and the other is "Is it ok that X?". The latter is a complex question presupposing the veracity of X -- a claim, if you wish.

Now I get it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So does he or not?