Posted on 10/21/2011 1:25:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".
Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.
In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another's name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
THE MONEY QUOTE:
_________________________
Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse...
SNIP
You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered...
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST
Fools like Dawkins cannot comprehend the one prime example God has given to us to illustrate why some folks need killin’ ... Ishmael’s children of today, worshipping a lesser moon goddess and a meteorite in a silver wrapping, lusting for the blood of anyone —like the idiot Dawkins— who does not bow to their lesser luna goddess.
“Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. ...None of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either.”
To pseudo-scientist Dawkins, scientific truth must
be built on consensus within the “scientific community.”
Lots of the members of this club purport to have seen
the evidence for Darwinism and global warming; so these
ideas represent the the truth.
Not many in the club have heard of William Lane Craig —
evidence against the possibility that he is a legitimate
philosopher.
If you weaken the Christians. Somthing is going to fill that vacuum. And it won't be good it will be evil...
Idiot Dawkins disregards the Canaanite child sacrifices that were rampant, shocking, bloody, evil and worthy of punishment.
Does Nimrod Dawkins have any outrage for the “genocide” that occurred centuries later when Israel herself was judged by God Himself by the Assyrians and the Babylonians because Israel had so thoroughly mimicked the practices of the Canaanites when Israel started to practice child sacrifice herself?
Hmmm....
\sarc
Dawkins, go read a book on logic.
And then repent, you sick twisted doornail.
Romans 9:20-21 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Or, to paraphrase Job, near the conclusion of his ordeal and bewilderment: God IS the Creator of the Universe and all life. He can do whatever He pleases.
Job 42:1-6 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
Yes, the Canaanites were "debauched and sinful" (involved in bestiality, homosexuality, and child sacrifices). And yes, its also fair to spirtualize these historical events to show how the Canaanites were a picture of sin. We are told to 'kill', and utterly destroy sin. Yet, we 'make deals', and tolerate sin - as the Hebrews did, and they did not utterly destroy the Canaanites. And ultimately these sins become snares. We are led to realize our inability, and to instead realize our absolute reliance on God's Grace, and on our Saviour to wash us from our sins. We repent, and refrain from sin to our best ability ('Be ye Holy as I am Holy'), but our reliance is on our Saviour.
Or maybe there were yet other reasons for God's command.
But all of that aside, the real answer is Job's conclusion.
God IS God, and He can do whatsoever He pleases, and we will know it is Just and Right.
After reading dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker, I can see why he wouldn’t want to stand up in a debate.
For Dawkins to deny knowledges of Dr.Craig is laughable on its face. Craig has published more than 20 books and scores of technical articles in his field of Philosophy. To be compelled to write such a letter about someone which Dawkins says, in essence, is a nobody, is not believable. I would think Dawkins, being on the side of intellectual 'rightness' would welcome destroying someone he considers a pretender to Philosophy. Craig, who holds terminal degrees in Theology as well as Philosophy, and holds a research position at Biola University is well know in philosophical circles....for Dawkins to admit a lack of knowledge of one of the most damning evidences that Dawkins is not even aware of the aguments with which he will meet, should he debate Craig. Or it could mean he is well aware of Craigs expert knowledge and debate skills and is afraid to meet him in the arena of philosophical ideas. Either way, it defines Dawkins as a craven coward...one who can only wish not to meet with Craig in this blind, pitiless, indifferent debate which would put Dawkins on display as the ignorant, feckless, coward he is.
Exactly, and this is what all who share Mr. Dawkins's beliefs choose: a world in which there is no right or wrong, no justice or injustice, simply the random acts of physical processes.
What's their complaint, then? They could choose a worldview in which all are held by a loving, omnipotent (if sometimes inscrutable) Father, but they prefer their version.
I do not know why a man who lives in a purposeless, pitiless, indifferent universe devoid of good or evil would care one way or the other that he would debate someone, anyone, and derisively reference the wouldbe debate opponent as "a man like that", that is to characterize him as a despicable man, an evil man,....what kind of man is he say Craig is....one who offends Dawkins. The inconsistencies are repleat throughout the letter......referencing 'more worthy', pleasure, civilized (this one is particularly interesting knowing Dawkins only believes in the law of tooth and fang), wisely, bullying, bloodlust, horrifying genocide, unfairly ignoring, a call to genocide,.....all refernce a morality of how one ought or ought not belive or conduct oneself. Ought infers an obligation....but to whom is one morally obligated if those opinions are those of men. Why are one mans thoughts above anothers. If molecules are all there is how could actions have nonmaterial properties such as right and wrong. Stones do no deliberate whether they should fall or not fall. Dawkins feigns indignation then avers as if to take a moral highground which he, himself, says does not exist. He is a human pretzel, and too illucid to realize it.
He’s a coward. All atheists are.
They do anything to prevent having to engage with ideas outside of their own kin, to the point of having speech codes and banning opinions that are seen as detestable.
You know, it should be enough to say, ‘Dr.Craig and I do not see eye-to-eye on cosmology and origin of life. We should all strive to understand these magestic questions’, rather than try to heap scorn on others to create the perception of validity of your existence. Or get in the cage and get it on. Dawkins condenscention has often been a source of agrivation for me.
I was on the other side. Dawkins is a coward. I was willing to engage with anybody anytime. And now I find myself on the Christian side of the line. :)
“Let truth and falsehood grapple, whomever knew truth to be the lesser in a free and open encounter.”
How did you get there?
I did it backwards. I was a tireless reader as a kid, I think I had read all of Asimov, all of heinlein by the time I was 17.
I was accustomed to science being the solution for everything. Given enough time, as you said, anything could be discovered.
I went to school to be a physicist and made it through two years, before I had a crisis of faith with Darwin. I’m disabled, you see, and Darwin was here saying that disabled people were less than fully human and that therefore extending them the same rights as others was injurious to the race of mankind.
So it became a choice for me. Is Darwin right? Or is he wrong? That’s when I started to have my blinders taken off. I realised that Darwinian macro evolution did not fulfill the conditions of empiricism, in that it had never been observed, nor could it be replicated anywhere. This meant that all the conclusions that base themselves on Darwinian evolution were in fact wrong.
I had a very bright Christian friend, who started me on two books. One, on the workings of the universe (which gives the argument from the weak anthropic principles), and a history book on the historicity of scripture.
I had to admit that if the bible was untrue, than we had to discard everything else that we know about ancient times. So I guess you can call my faith a true skeptic’s faith. Christianity is simply the most true thing out there. Everything else is secondary.
I ended up switching over to history and now I teach. But my science background comes in handy. I’ve taken a little bit of everything, chem, math, physics, english, philosophy, history, economics. I wanted to have a well-rounded understanding of the world.
Anyways I was a Mennonite when I first came to Christ. I later became a Catholic because I believe that scripture teaches that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail over his Church and thus the Roman Church is the church of Christ. I have no bitterness over my friends that I left behind, they treated me well, and without them I would not be a Christian.
Norman Geisler -not- Gester...............sorry about that misspelling....which reminds me.....MISSPELLERS OF THE WORLD - UNTIE!
Thank you for telling me your story. We are not so dissimilar. I went on to medical school and surgery residency. I always enjoyed my work before I retired. I would commend to you C.S.Lewis who, when asked if he had a soul, he replied, “No I do not have a soul. I am a soul. I have a body.” So you are not disabled...the real you. Thank you again for telling me your story.
Thank you sir, (or is it madam)? It has been some time since someone has asked me. The pleasure is all mine.
Well I prefer Chesterton. :)
“An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered.”
Wasn’t Chesterton brilliant. It was said of him that he almost singlehandedly held back the tide of eugenics in Great Britain in the ‘30’s (on both sides of the pond) until it was revealed the atrocities in Germany (1945). I think he may be the wittiest man I have read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.