Skip to comments.Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God
Posted on 05/17/2011 8:37:33 AM PDT by Bed_Zeppelin
Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church evil and once called the Pope a leering old villain in a frock.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“..a leering old villain in a frock...”
That says all I need to know about Dawkins.
To characterize either of the last two Popes in this matter displays abject ignorance, and a willful denial of any of the factual evidence concerning the lives of these two men.
It is clear that Dawkins is really just ALL about showing off for his fans and generating press and publicity.
The fool is a just an unfunny, pathetic joke, not worth the time of any thinking human being.
Probably has yet to get over his liaison with Mrs. Garrison.
I have never understood why this guy was ever given any credence. I have always thought he talked gibberish.
How he thinks it gives him the moral authority to speak on the non-violent spiritual needs of people is another thing.
Thanks for brining that image back....pass the brain bleach please!
Poll: was this guy better in Hogan’s Heroes or Family Feud ?
Dawkins saw how Craig wiped the floor with Hitchens - no wonder he’s chicken. Dawkins is incredibly weak on meaphysics and even the elementary rules of logic. Virtually none of the conclusions in “The God Delusion” follow from the premeses he uses. When one looks at the most brilliant apologists for atheism, Russel, Hume and Flew it becomes quickly appearant that Dawkins isn’t close to being in their class.
The article states that the two were involved in some sort of six person battle royale in a boxing ring of all places.
Dawkins position is apparently that he took Craig’s measure and, I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion, he said.
I’ll play anyone in tennis, at least once—unless I see them playing first and they suck. I want to play better players, not vice versa.
Occasionally I succumb to taunting and mop him up 6-0, 6-1, 6-0. So then he’s a little better and I’m a little worse. I guess it beats batting the ball against a backboard, unless you have better things to do.
He is like most "atheists"... just another anti-Christian bigot who takes only token swipes at other faiths.
If Dorkins thinks the pope is evil, what the heck does he think of Mookie? The Good Humor Man without his ice cream truck?
Hogan’s Heroes v Family Feud.
Sort of apples and oranges.
He was brilliant in both.
In all seriousness, Hogan’s Heroes is a classic piece of work. I saw an interview recently with Werner Klemperer on Pat Sajack (I love youtube!). What a great gentleman he was. His father, which I did not realize until recently, was the great conductor Otto Klemperer.
In any event. Back to Dawkins.
That man is a genius. His own sort of genius, to be sure. But genius still.
If pressed, I would have to vote for HH over FF, though.
I agree. If he was talking about Alexander Borgia, okay, but John Paul II and Benedict XVI are distinguished and honorable men by any reasonable secular standard. One need not believe in any religious faith to recognize this.
Hogan’s Heroes had clever writing and a terrific cast, but Family Feud required Mr. Dawson to act as if he wasn’t about to ROFLHAO at the “people of Walmart” who appeared on the show. That takes skill!
Robert Clary, who played Louis LeBeau in HH, was (is?) a holocaust survivor. He wrote a book that never shows up in my library, and I always forget to order it.
That, my friend, was Richard DAWSON on Hogan’s Heroes and Family Feud.
How can anyone really be strong on metaphysics? Isn’t it really just someone’s theory? It’s not like anything metaphysical can really be proven, is it? I think one man’s theory about the unknown, is as good as any others.
Definitely at his best in Running Man, where he lampooned the ultimate gameshow host taken to extremes.
Wrong Dawson.. but both are comedians..
No, it's primarily just applied logic. Is the logical law of non-contradiction (a metaphysical doctrine) "just someone's theory"?
The funny part about that is "any reasonable secular standard" in the Western world inevitably is borrowed from Judeo-Christian teachings about what is good and what is not good. :)
Rather ironic that he doesn't believe in god
Does it really apply to metaphysics?
That’s true - excellent point.
Why wouldn't it? If it doesn't than nothing does.
You know, interestingly, Werner Klemperer was also Jewish and his father escaped Vienna just in time.
When you step back and think about the Nazi cost to music for busting up Vienna, it makes you feel really sick. Many like Klemperer escaped. Many didn’t have the foresight, or the guts, or something else.
What a terrible era of history.
So when you think about that, you know, Hogan’s Heroes, is really rather poignant. It was dealing with some very grave matters, but in the form of comedy and this was, after all, only the 1970’s. WWII was still very recent history.
I would highly recommend watching the Klemperer interview on the Pat Sajack show, easily found on youtube.
If you want to see what a dignified, distinguished, intelligent man is like, this is a great resource. Klemperer comes across as a thoroughly decent human being.
And...with all that...your points on Dawson are well taken.
Just how DID he keep from laughing uproariously? Brilliant!!!
s the logical law of non-contradiction (a metaphysical doctrine)”
I believe according to Aquinas, this is the first principle of metaphysical reasoning.....you are quite correct.
Flew really was brilliant. And he was/is anti-socialist, which I always loved.
His atheistic arguments were always really strong. I always thoroughly enjoyed his challenge.
And isn’t it interesting, that he is no longer an atheist? Again, Flew was always honest, truly intellectual, and really, very courageous. He went the way that his intellect told him to go, and he wasn’t afraid to work hard.
I respected him even when he was an atheist; I respect him even more now.
May the Lord bring Flew to full knowledge of him in this life.
You would have to cite examples. I don't think, for the most part, theology makes for persuasive apologetics because it generally begs the question.
Personally, I don’t see how logic can apply to the subject of God. How would you logically talk about resurrection, salvation, virgin birth, forgiveness of sins, original sin, an all-knowing being that knows the future, etc?
I can give one. In that pathetic little essay Russell chastises Jesus for cursing the fig tree. He sees it as gratuitously cruel.
The cursing of the fig tree cannot be understood outside of a thoroughly theological context. But Russell didn’t bother to look beneath the surface of his simplistic, facile reading. He read the Gospel account on HIS terms, rather than on its own terms, and with knowing something of the theological context which is necessary to understand why Jesus cursed the fig tree.
Why couldn't you talk logically about any of those doctrines? None of the things you cite violate any of the elementary rules of logic.
It looks like it's out of print, so I 'd better have my husband order it for me when he gets home. I think I saw him on an A&E "Biography" interview, or something similar.
Didn’t Flew fly the atheist coop and change his mind?
Thanks for the recommendation on the Klemperer interview; I’ll pull it up later. I’ve seen him in various tv episodes over the years, including “Law & Order” a couple of times. An old-school, very skilled actor.
Ivan Dixon, who played Sgt. Kinchloe, went on to be a very successful tv director, including many episodes of “Magnum, P.I.” He died a few years ago - quite old! - here in the Charlotte area.
God knows the future, He knows what you’re free-will choices will be. He creates you knowing you will choose to do something that will send you to hell for eternity. Yet He loves you. Please explain this logically.
Why Richard Dawkins Cannot Stomach the Eucharist
You changed subjects from the existence of God to the accuracy of what the Bible tells us about God. Whether God exists is a different question from what all his attributes are, once we establish he does exist. Particularly when those attributes involve his motives, design and purpose. Since God is, by definition, infinite it is impossible for finite creatures such as us to criticize God on the basis of contradictions. We don't know a fraction of what God knows and thus we can never know all the variables which may explain a seeming inconsistency. It is certainly logical that God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, could have very good reasons for not giving us the information to resolve what appear as contradictions. It is interesting that the seeming contradiction you try to point out, moral accountability versus providence, involve the two variables absolutely necessary to provide objective meaning and ethics in life.
I mentioned a number of metaphysical subjects that I do not think can be logically talked about. You said there’s no reason those things cannot be logically discussed.??? What’s up? Should I have menioned every possible thing?
Why does this seem illogical to you? Aquinas defined "love" as the decision to pursue the authentic good of another. God certainly wills the authentic good of each one of us. Part of that "authentic good" is the freedom of each of us to pursue that which is not authentically good for us, even up to and including the ultimate "un-good" of hell.
You didn’t make a case why these things cannot be logically talked about. You threw out the statement and made no case to back it up. I addressed your comments in 43
Very convenient, thanks
I understand, thanks