Dawkins explains why he wont debate William Lane Craig

[DeistPaladin]

Replying to Tim Stanley's Article

Craig is an excellent speaker

No one disputes this. Craig is an excellent showman, as most con artists are. His "philosophy" doesn't bear any close examination, as many YouTube videos demonstrate.

First video in that series:




Craig, like most successful apologists, is an expert in... razzle dazzle.

Dawkins writes that he is so disgusted with Craig's thesis that he cannot possibly agree to meet him in person.

That and it shows Craig to be so logically inept on even the basic no brainer moral issues and therefore is an unworthy opponent.

Actually, the context is called “Christian apologetics”, and it’s been around for centuries. It's the attempt by scholars to present a rational basis for belief in God.

Translation: You're looking for evidence or, failing that, any rationalization at all to arrive at a desired conclusion. This is fallacious reasoning from the get-go.

Add in that the said desired pre-conceived conclusion that you're attempting to work your way toward is admitted to be a matter of faith by the very adherents and we can see that the entire field of apologetics is more snake-oil salesmanship than scholarship.

Part of that process is running difficult bits of the Bible past the tests of reason and ethics.

There is no "test". The conclusion is already arrived at. What you mean to say is to twist reason and ethics in such a manner that the Bible can still be believed.

our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to violate.

More of this "borrowing from Christianity" drivel. Philosophers have been debating the value of human beings long before Christianity arrived on the scene and many non-Christian societies do and have contained these same values without the teachings of Jesus.

And what Bible did you read that punishments should fit the crime. The very fine print of the Ten Commandments speaks of punishing children unto the 10th generation for the crimes of the parents. Even some of the most basic principles of justice are violated by fundamental teachings of Christianity (see the claim that Jesus took our place on the cross for our sins, a claim that an innocent can be punished in place of the guilty).

these passages of the Bible are difficult for us to read because we are not of the age in which they are written

1. Is the Bible the Word of God or not? If it is, it should be written clearly that we might understand it.
2. Are moral values absolute or are they relative to the time? Make up your mind.

That’s because Christian society has been shaped by the rules of life outlined in the New Testament, not in the section of The Bible in which this massacre occurs.

Is the OT part of the Word of God or not?

New Atheism... approaches metaphor and mysticism as if they were statements of fact to be tested in the laboratory.

The passages in question allegedly regard historical events. They are not parables.

That most Christians living in the 21st century don’t know who the Canaanites were...

...is an indication that most Christians have never read the Bible, a book they oddly regard as "God's Word" but not important enough to read.

...and only go to church because it brings them an intangible inner peace

The point here escapes me. The validity of Christianity as a true understanding of how the universe works shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not it makes people feel good. One can have a comforting delusion and the delusion is still wrong.

They are still welcome to their comforting delusion if they choose that over reality but not if they seek to impose it on others, change laws to suit their delusion, use tax dollars to fund their delusion or teach their delusion in science classrooms. That distinction seems lost on apologists.

In America, evangelicals have to compete in a vibrant, competitive marketplace of different denominations. That breeds the very guile and theatricality that are so sorely lacking among the Anglican clergy.

On that point I agree.

Leave it to us Americans to perfect the razzle dazzle in religion. No wonder we are such an anomaly of faith, bigotry and ignorance among other modern nations.

Another great video explaining the futility of debating apologists or Creationists (different people but same principle applies):