Richard Dawkins tells us that we should allow our thinking to be based solely on rational facts.
If, on the other hand, you let a little emotion in, then this link might lead you to feel a bit of pity for the famed misotheist: http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/10/richard-dawkins-for-prime-minister/
It’s a model demolition job, on the ex-prof’s latest excuses.
Dawkins apparently still has a loyal fan-base who believe that their master is a serious philosopher. Seeing a live conversation with an actual philosopher would be a bit of a shattering experience for many of those fans. So Dawkins has to keep coming up with the excuses to maintain their loyalty.
It’s a bit pathetic really – all the public efforts to explain why he won’t publicly debate Lane Craig are in themselves a public debate. They are the handing of publicity to the one that Dawkins claims he refuses to hand publicity to. The pretence is hypocritical. If Lane Craig isn’t worth spending time on, then why is Dawkins spending so much time on him? If he’s unworthy to notice, why spend time writing for the Guardian’s readership about him?
To ask the question is to answer it – he is worth spending time on, but actual debate would end up badly for Dawkins, so he’s investing time in the pseudo-debate-about-the-debate instead. The Internet-atheist fan base needs to wake up and choose a more worthy champion of their position.