Dawkins vs. Craig in book form
As you know, I’ve had my “issues” with Steve Hays at Triablogue. But if the guy has a good idea then I’ll happily give credit where credit is due. And this is a really good idea. Steve observed that Dawkins has repeatedly refused to debate William Lane Craig. Although Dawkins says it is merely because Craig is not worth it, that clearly isn’t true since Craig is widely recognized as the world’s leading Christian debater. So it is more likely that Dawkins is wise enough to know that there is a good chance it wouldn’t turn out that well for him. He saw the bruises Craig left on his fellow new atheists and he hardly wants the same to happen to his fair Anglo features.
Fair enough. So Steve suggested a compromise: a joint writing project. (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/10/debating-dawkins.html) As he recognizes, Dawkins is a “superb writer” so this would be a level playing field. (Craig, while a good writer, is not superb.)
I suggest a book. Craig has done a number of these kinds of debate books before, and this one would be a guaranteed strong seller which is the only thing that publishers care about and one of the big things that authors care about. Of course authors also care about the dissemination of their own ideas and that would clearly happen as well.
So I agree with Steve. Let’s give up on pressing Dawkins for a debate and go instead for a book. I’ll be the first in line to order.
Tags: debate, Richard Dawkins, Steve Hays, William Lane Craig
30 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Walter says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 11:56am
Sounds like a great idea. I really enjoyed this book:
God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint (Oxford Paperback)) by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
Written debates are so much better than live ones.
randal says:
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 7:19pm
“Written debates are so much better than live ones.”
They’re certainly more informative, but not necessarily more entertaining, especially if one debater lands a real zinger. Remember Lloyd Bentsen’s “You’re no Jack Kennedy” line? That would have never been half as entertaining in a book. Poor Dan Quayle…
The Atheist Missionary says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 12:33pm
I’d be much more interested to see Graham Oppy embark on such a project with Craig than Dawkins.
Robert says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 2:25pm
Me too, but that wouldn’t sell.
Robert says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 2:31pm
Related, Scott Clifton holds his own against Craig. It seems that Scott defeated Craig, but I am not qualified to make the call.
clamat says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 4:04pm
Thirded. Even though attendance wouldn’t match a Dawkins/Craig debate, I’m still somewhat surprised Oppy/Craig hasn’t happened. Do either of you know whether anyone has ever tried to set this up, or if Oppy has expressed any interest?
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 12:36am
The arguments would be better with Oppy, no doubt. But Dawkins would be more engaging to read.
Ray Ingles says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 5:24pm
I’m down with it. I’ve never understood why people put any stock in a verbal debate. They are limited in time and scope, don’t allow chances to look up or evaluate sources, don’t give either side a chance to think of their best arguments, don’t allow anyone to study and evaluate their opponent’s responses in any depth, etc.
As entertainment, verbal debates are awesome. In terms of seriously deciding anything, not so much.
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 1:18am
Your assessment is right on. In their best light live debates are an invitation to audiences to start reading the literature on the topic.
Ray Ingles says:
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 1:45pm
Well, Dawkins has actually explained why he won’t have anything to do with Craig, and I gotta say, he makes a pretty good case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig?INTCMP=SRCH
1981cudd says:
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 7:09pm
“a deplorable apologist for genocide,” Yep that sums craig up.
Dan Wilkinson says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 5:55pm
Speaking of written debates, what’s the status of the book you were writing with John Loftus?
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 1:38am
In process. Baker is looking at it right now. If that doesn’t work out we will probably look at Prometheus Press. Either way, we’ll see it through to publication.
1981cudd says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 5:58pm
Craig is more of a proselytizer than a philosopher. Craig’s attempt’s to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials is no more than smoke and mirrors.
Craig employs high school debating tricks to mislead the audience, for example, he insisted upon speaking first.
He falsely summarizes what his opponent has said, he falsely claims that certain points have been conceded and he falsely charges his opponent’s with having wandered from the agreed upon topic.
The fact that such tricks often work is a real weakness of the debate format. Watch his debates and look out for these tricks.
Dawkins is right to turn Craig down. Craig is a showman with nothing of substance to say.
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 1:40am
“Craig’s attempt’s to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials is no more than smoke and mirrors.”
Cudd, Craig has published numerous papers and books in the world’s leading peer-reviewed philosophy journals and university presses. For you to suggest that his credentialing, and by implication the content of his arguments, is “smoke and mirrors” means you are impugning the intelligence of the peer reviewers for the world’s leading philosophy journals and university presses.
And that, my friend, just makes you look silly.
1981cudd says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 1:35pm
Craig is a philosopher and theologian, he has NO scientific or mathematical credentials.
Craig i would have to agree is educated but he’s sill an idiot. Truly open minded intellectuals like Dawkins, which of course Craig is not, make amazing effort to understand how the universe works. They reveal wonders far more remarkable than those presented by Craigs Bronze age myths, developed before we had any clear understanding of how the universe works. Simply arguing that one doesn’t understand the results, or doesn’t like the results and therefore one has to resort to supernatural explanations, which is the crux of Craigs rather monotonous repetition, is intellectually lazy.
In short Craig is a first year freshman compared to Dawkins.
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 2:07pm
“Craig is a philosopher and theologian, he has NO scientific or mathematical credentials.”
He doesn’t write in the area of science. He writes in the area of philosophy of science. There’s a big difference. Stephen Hawking is as inept in the philosophy of science as Craig is in physics. For example, Hawking’s infamous “What place then for a creator?” quip ignores, among other things, the fact that a universe without boundary would still be metaphysicaly contingent and in need of a sufficient explanation for its existence.
1981cudd says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 7:45pm
“universe without boundary would still be metaphysically contingent and in need of a sufficient explanation for its existence”
This is the “God of the Gaps” argument. Upon reflection, most of the claims of Craig fall into this well-known theological trap.
Craig either doesn’t understand how something could happen, or instead believes that events happened that confirmed his pre-existing belief system.
In the absence of understanding physical causes or exploring alternatives, this implies evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore there is evidence that God exists.
If your going to frame the argument scientifically, you must point out that in science when your trying to explain and predict data, you try to explore all possible physical causes for some effect before resorting to the supernatural. Happily it is precisely this progress in our natural philosophy that ended such religious atrocities as the burning of witches
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 8:52pm
“This is the “God of the Gaps” argument.”
No it isn’t because a God of the Gaps argument is one which attributes to divine action something which could, in principle, be explained through natural causes. But you cannot argue for the metaphysical necessity of the universe by appealing to natural causes since the very existence of “nature” is what is at issue.
1981cudd says:
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 7:33pm
Yes it is a God of the Gaps argument. metaphysical contingent = Intelligent design = biological cosmological ID.ID is an explanation that requires a metaphysical designer which means the designer is responsible. God of the gap’s argument.
randal says:
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 7:53pm
Okay, I admit that it is a free country and I can’t stop you from inventing new meanings for terms. But the traditional meaning of god-of-the-gaps relates to something which could, in principle, be explained by science.
Mike says:
Friday, October 7, 2011 at 6:50pm
I agree that a written format may help Dawkins and that it has a better chance than a public debate. But i don’t think it will happen since Dawkins probably has a good hunch that his arguments would look weak in a written exchange too.
Perhaps 1981cudd can fill in for Dawkins; he sure seems to have the goods on Craig.
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 1:44am
Nicely put.
Ed Babinski says:
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 12:02am
Dawkins knows evolution. Craig seems to concede that evolution has taken place, or at least does not wish to debate that topic. Craig wants to debate cosmology. Yet even there he twists the words of cosmologists to try and make it seem like there is some firm opinion that the beginning of this cosmos is God’s doing. But no cosmologist knows that, nor can they prove that. There could be other cosmoses before or after ours just as there could be life on other planets in our galaxy or in some distant galaxies, perhaps not “intelligent” life in most cases. But it would be nice to wait till humanity has at least crawled off the “cradle planet” and done a bit more investigating of this galaxy and other galaxies (over a hundred billion other galaxies), before we go on about how wonderfully designed the cosmos is for life. Is humanity even all that intelligent compared to what we might find? Will silicone brains replace our carbon ones? Are mass extinctions wonderfully designed on this planet? How about on other planets? We don’t even know the history of other planets. Or, if there are intelligent life forms, what their religion sare like. Is it a wonderful design that life is only known to exist on a single planet out of several in our own system? Or that most life can only exist on this planet within a thin crustal layer such that moving five miles up or down you would freeze or burn to death? Or that the simple moving of stars in space and explosions of nearby stars, or colliding of bits of matter in space with other bits can eliminate life just like “that?” Our planet is flying through a cosmic shooting gallery of dangers. Even its surface isn’t stable, nor its wind and water. But enough about the Designer, or as the evidence for evolution portrays Him more accurately, Tinkerer. (Perhaps the Designer tinkered with cosmoes as well as with “mass extinctions” on earth?)
So why not a book in which experts on each of Craig’s debate topics like cosmology, or like the resurrection, writes a chapter on that individual topic contra Craig?
Or a better book, let a group of Evangelical apologists choose their experts, and let humanists/agnostics/atheists choose their experts, and debate individual topics expertly in print.
Could be part of a monthly journal or magazine, since none of the topics and conclusion are likely to be covered to the point of unanimity of opinion, not in Craig’s or Dawkin’s lifetimes anyway.
My question is with the fact that so many religionists still imagine that beliefs as to what lay behind the metaphysical curtain must be lined up in a neat little orthodox row, or one is hellbound. Really? Doesn’t “God” know how short life is, how difficult it can be simply to live on this planet, how time for study is limited, how education and experience is limited, how difficult communication can be, that people don’t all love the same people, the same stories, the same music, let alone the same religions and denominations (plenty of those), how emotional, irrational and unsettling a surge of hormones during adolescence can be (and not just during adolescence)? But the choice of metaphysical belief and which god(s) to love is going to determine where one “spends eternity?” This imperfect confusing world is more like a place in which to catch souls/minds to tease or torture with hellish confusion than a place to get to know “the one true god or religion.”
And think of all the intelligent upright hominids who died during the period of humanity’s evolution, even modern species of human go back over a million years. They didn’t have Gospels then.
Think of all the “people” who were conceived in the womb over all the time humans have been on earth, yet who perished young, either soon after conception or during birth, or from a multitude of childhood diseases that the Designer must have some great use for since there’s so many of them–and since children seem to be their prime target.
As many as half of all human conceptions end in death during the first month of pregnancy (most women throughout history didn’t even know they were pregnant, let alone that death on such a massive scale was happening). Even a pro-life doctor has admitted the accuracy of such figures for spontaneous loss of life during early pregnancies. Furthermore, as many as half of all children never reach the age of eight years old, according to the early scientist and mathematician, Buffon (who lived during the 1700s).
Also, the world remains far from being fully “Evangelized.” In fact the world popluation doubled from 3 to 6 billion in just forty years from 1960-2000. Many people may have heard a religious radio or TV program, but is that really all it takes to “evangelize?” Most people are raised in the religion of their parents or culture and influenced by that for decades.
To sum up, “heaven” will be filled mainly with zygotes, fetuses, and very young children (unless you believe hell is for unbaptized children). And it probably also its fair share of odd looking hominids (one Christian philosopher in Britain even suggests that apes have eternal souls). And perhaps it’s also filled with billions more who near really had a chance to fully encounter the “Gospel,” so never became Christians while on earth (unless you believe they go to hell too).
Conversely, maybe heaven is filled only with true believers, a close tight-knit group who passed through the narrow gate together, though I bet such groups still continue to split up amongst themselves in heaven, knowing how even individual Protestant church congregations have split with one another.
Landon Hedrick says:
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 4:40am
A debate book between Dawkins and Craig would be worse than a live debate between them. I think we all know this.
That said, I like Ed’s idea more. Get some experts on each of Craig’s topics to contribute to a contra-Craig anthology, and have Craig respond.
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 1:48am
Craig’s probably old enough for a festschrift composed of essays from his main interlocutors over the years.
Landon Hedrick says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 9:36pm
He probably is. I suspect he’ll eventually have one, but maybe in a decade or so when he’s published a lot more of his recent work in metaphysics.
Robert Gressis says:
Saturday, October 8, 2011 at 2:06pm
Hi Randal,
Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, but here goes anyway:
Let’s say there’s good evidence to believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. Personally, I find that plausible. But what about the other miracles? There doesn’t seem to be equally good evidence that he walked on water; so is this the sort of miracle that we shouldn’t believe actually happened? (Not saying we should disbelieve it, either, but rather that perhaps we should suspend judgment on it.)
At any rate, if you think we should believe that Jesus literally walked on water, what are the evidential reasons for believing that? I can think of a couple:
(1) The Apostles said it happened, and they’re trustworthy.
(2) If you believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, then your credence in the claim that he walked on water should be very high.
So what do you think?
randal says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 1:52am
Well now isn’t that nice. You went and answered your own question. Sure I agree with (1) and (2). (Okay, not exactly (2). Maybe the credence for the claim that Jesus walked on water could be high if you believed in the resurrection but maybe not. At the very least it could be.)
Of course if you were a Plantingan in such matters you could also appeal to the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit for knowledge of the truth of the narratives in question, assuming there are no strong defeaters to their truth.
Mark says:
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 4:54am
How about a dual collaboration? Dawkins and Hitchens vs Craig and McGrath?
I would be keen as mustard to read that one.