Why won’t Dawkins stop the spread of Craig’s virulent memes?
I hope this is my last word on the topic of Dawkins’ immoral cowardice in refusing to debate William Lane Craig. But I think it is really important to hammer home the degree to which Dawkins is shirking the responsibility that lies on his shoulders to deal with Craig once and for all.
Dawkins has described religion as a “mind virus”. If it is a mind virus then the strain that Craig is spreading when he defends Old Testament genocide is particularly virulent. And Dawkins, as the enlightened atheist, is presumably the one who is fit to deal with Craig. If Dawkins really could defeat Craig in a debate then it is his moral obligation to do so. After all, such a victory would be equivalent to providing innoculations to tens of thousands of individuals and an antitode to tens of thousands of others already infected with Craig’s memes.
Think about that for a moment. Dawkins’ argument is that he will not debate Craig because Craig has been particularly active and successful at spreading his virulent religious memes in the wider community. What kind of reasoning is that? If ever Dawkins has a moral obligation to counteract the spread of a mind virus it is in this situation.
And so we have yet another illustration to bring into striking broad relief the height, depth and breadth of Dawkins’ immoral cowardice.
Tags: debate, meme, mind virus, religion, Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig
21 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Steve says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 3:59pm
Heck, why won’t, as another example, Loftus quit going on about Craig?
I mean, he has ridden Craigs coatails for years…that his main claim to fame, “I studied under William Lane Craig”.
By the way, Johnny is trashing you over at his blog today.
Tell me again why you are helping this piece of garbage get more publicity?
(The New Book sounds superficial by the way, I don’t see Loftus having anything new to say.)
randal says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 4:30pm
“By the way, Johnny is trashing you over at his blog today.”
Sure, he’s talking trash just like boxers do before the big fight. That’s precisely what he should be doing.
“Tell me again why you are helping this piece of garbage get more publicity?”
I don’t think you ought to refer to human persons that God loves as pieces of garbage.
Jouras says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 10:05pm
Thanks for letting me know what I should do. How liberal.
Now, as I was asking, why are you helping that piece of garbage get more publicity?
randal says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 10:59pm
So Jouras is Steve? Do you suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder?
Walter says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 4:34pm
I get what you are saying, Randal, but do live debates really ever change anyone’s mind? If live debates are the equivalent of verbal boxing matches, should Dawkins still be considered “immoral” for eschewing a live debate with Craig, since such debates are perceived as an ineffective vehicle for change?
randal says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 4:46pm
“do live debates really ever change anyone’s mind?”
They do change some people’s minds. I mentioned one Craig debate yesterday in the blog which resulted in 47 people making a first conversion to Christianity. But even if they do not change the minds of most people they are instrumental in many more people changing their minds. A debate performance can place the first seeds of doubt in a person’s mind which leads to a conversion down the line. The debate may not ultimately get the credit it deserves in that long process but it was definitely one step in a long process of (de)conversion.
The bottom line is this: if Dawkins really is right that Craig’s religious views are these toxic memes and if he really believes he could beat Craig in a debate, then he should do whatever he can to stop or slow or reverse the spread of these memes. Right now he’s doing nothing and that is, under the circumstances, simply inexcusable.
CarolJean says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 8:14pm
How can you pin a moral obligation upon an atheist?
Jouras says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 10:07pm
He can do it because atheists have moral obligations.
Pretending that they don’t won’t save them from ending up in the Ultimate Trash Heap, with the rest of the Garbage.
Walter says:
Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 10:32pm
I can just feel the love of Christ when you comment.
randal says:
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 1:11am
What do you mean by that?
CarolJean says:
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 4:22am
I think you are replying to me but I’m not sure.
I personally think the moral argument for the existence of God is convincing enough to an open mind. Irregardless, I just don’t see how using a moral impetus is going to goad an atheist into doing anything since their moral code is relative. Watching weak minds fall to the pacification of the age old lure of the existence of a Creator through the wiles of Craig may not be enough of a prick to Dawkins heart as you think it should be.
randal says:
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 2:21pm
I know many atheists who don’t have a relative moral code. That is, they deny that moral values and obligations are relative to human individuals, societies or species. You might want to argue that they should hold a relative moral code if they are consistent, but that’s very different from asserting that they do in fact have a relative moral code.
Ray Ingles says:
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 12:23am
Might Dawkins have more effect pursuing other avenues? Maybe writing articles and books, running his website, doing interviews, etc.?
Maybe he’d do better working on improved inoculations rather than administering them himself?
randal says:
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 1:15am
“Might Dawkins have more effect pursuing other avenues?”
He regularly engages in debates with non-academics. But I agree. He wisely recognizes that this is indeed where he can have the most impact, in debating church administrators rather than philosophy professors.
Ray Ingles says:
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 4:23pm
People whose job is to exhort and evangelize, yes?
randal says:
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 1:32am
Your right (although their job is also to raise money and administer institutions). This is like Craig’s debate with Frank Zindler about fifteen years ago. Zindler is a non-academic who embarassed himself. Fortunately Craig also is willing to debate the best intellects of the contrary position. Dawkins, apparently not so.
1981cudd says:
Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 4:49pm
religion is a mind virus.The main mental conditions synonymous with religion is Delusion If you have evidence for something in front of you and you deny its existence you’re delusional. Delusion is a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason and confrontation with actual fact’s another mental conditions associated with religion is neurosis a functional disorder feeling’s of anxiety obsessional thought’s and compulsive act’s.
randal says:
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 12:41pm
Cudd, what is “religion”? And what do you mean by “mind virus”? And do you recognize that Dawkins’ attempt to marginalize different views by appealing to memes is self-defeating? And does any of this even matter to you?
1981cudd says:
Monday, October 24, 2011 at 8:58pm
randal one at a time please, for big question’s I will be as brief as I can. “what is religion?” wishful thinking, a sort of psychological prop.
Delusion is a mind virus, A moderate Christian is someone with a mild affliction. A fundamentalist Christian or Muslim is someone with a Severe affliction.
Memes self-defeating? no not at all. Does it matter to me? yes a great deal, my motivation is to protect children from ignorance and fear.
I don’t believe in the concept of sin but if I did, number one on my list would be the physical and mental abuse of a child. If you tell a child that unless you believe what I believe, you are going to burn in hell forever – that’s abuse.
When I was 13 a priest at school gave me a reading list, I read everything and I went back to him with a question: how can you really believe in this stuff? I ask you this same question.
randal says:
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 1:40am
Cudd, your view of religion is, er, wanting. As I argued in “On the Myth of Religious Violence” secularists commonly define religion in an ad hoc and question-begging way simply to marginalize whatever views it is they happen not to like. That’s what you’re doing here.
The idea of a “mind virus” is a metaphor. It is a metaphor for indoctrinational thinking. As I argued in You’re not as crazy as I Think the new atheists are among the worst offenders of indoctrinational thinking.
1981cudd says:
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 8:32pm
ndoctrinational is not a word?