Home » Atheism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design » Richard Dawkins called a “coward” – and not by Uncommon Descent

Richard Dawkins called a “coward” – and not by Uncommon Descent

Richard Dawkins won't debate

... William Lane Craig

but by Oxford “philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist” Daniel Came:

… for refusing to debate William Lane Craig, who has debated many “new atheists”.

Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.

[ ... ]

Prof Craig is a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, in California, and the author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles on Christianity.

He has debated with leading thinkers including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.

[]

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “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 ….”

- Tim Ross, “Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God,” The Telegraph (14 May 2011)

Toldjah. When Dawkins was riding high, he could get away with this. Not any more:

Dawkins’ 2003 views here: “The question of who would ‘win’such a debate is not at issue. Winning is not what these people realistically aspire to.The coup they seek is simply the recognition of being allowed to share a platform with a real scientist in the first place. This will suggest to innocent bystanders that there must be material here that is genuinely worth debating, on something like equal terms.” Richard Dawkins, “Creating such a fuss about nothing,” Times 2 (January 28, 2003).

- By Design or by Chance?, p. 286.

Hat tip: Wintery Knight

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

9 Responses to Richard Dawkins called a “coward” – and not by Uncommon Descent

  1. Craig outclasses Dawkins by orders of magnitude in every category of science, biology, philosophy, mathematics, theology, logic, information theory, computation, and physics.

    Dawkins is stuck in the ignorance of the 19th century, so it’s no wonder he won’t debate Craig.

  2. Ol’ tricky Dicky Dawk…come on man. Think of the endorsement deals. Red Bull, Snickers…the money, man, the sweet green.
    and seriously Richie… “debating” Keenan of Colorado’s Hell House? Thats like Craig doing battle with Penn Jillete….or Teller for that matter.

  3. Does Richard Dawkins know that he’ll be out of his depth if he attempts to take on ID in a public debate?

  4. test comment

  5. The last time Dawkins got anywhere near Craig, it was not pretty;

    Richard Dawkins Lies About William Lane Craig AND Logic! – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1cfqV2tuOI

  6. Purhaps a good time for the debate as we Aussie taxpayers will be picking up part of the tab!

    THE world’s most prominent atheists are bound for Australia – and the Victorian government will pick up part of the bill.
    The Global Atheist Convention, whose theme is A Celebration of Reason, will host authors Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. Funding was approved last year by the former Labor government.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national.....z1MSz3udNl

  7. Rob Ward, of the Australian Christian Lobby, said people were free to gather but the debate should be civil.
    ”Sometimes Dawkins and co have been a tad impolite.”

    Man, I hope that’s purposeful understatement.

  8. “a celebration of reason!”
    Yes…
    reasons to take the Australian people’s money.
    Reasons to pat eachother on the back.
    Reasons to avoid debating Craig.

  9. Interestingly enough, Dawkins’ most well-known fanboy and apologist PZ Myers does, in fact, recognize the principle that refusal to debate is indicative of nothing good, as evidenced in an important science-related post he made today.

Leave a Reply