Dawkins speaks: Why he won’t debate William Lane Craig … Craig advocates genocide

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 20, 2011

Atheism, Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here (The Guardian, October 20, 2011). Craig, he says, advocates genocide. Referencing the Hebrew wars recounted in the Old Testament, he quotes Craig,

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. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.

[See also: Historian: Fool or coward? For Dawkins, that is not an easy choice]

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel’s part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, ‘You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods’ (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?

Hey, wait a minute. If Dawkins did not want to debate Craig because he purportedly advocates genocide, why didn’t he say that up front many months ago?Are we to believe that Dawkins kept this serious accusation under his hat until now?

Surely, it is more likely that he never intended to debate Craig, because he is more used to receiving adulation than critical analysis. And then conveniently someone forwarded him a useful excuse.

Let’s hope Craig’s team offers to debate him on the points he raises, as long as Craig is allowed to raise others later, like the widely doubted plausibility of ultra-Darwinism.

Comments

What atheists object to, ba77, is the alleged condoning and even commanding of "evil in the world" by God. And the weaselly excuse inerrantists give on God's behalf. Not that I think for a moment that God commanded the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites. But the idea that someone should think so, and still think that God worthy of worship, simply defeats me.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

He didn't "concoct a reason". He refused ages ago. I think Craig makes him very angry. I have to say, I found that piece by Craig quite shocking.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Norman Geisler has a excellent response to the atheists objection of evil in the world:
If God, Why Evil? (Norman Geisler) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtOOPaNmJFY
Perhaps the most concise response against the atheist's argument from evil being that the existence of evil itself necessitates the existence of God.,,, Moreover, the atheist who is consistent in his materialism must ultimately try to deny the existence of both good and evil since materialism cannot ground either of them, but when a atheist strays off his consistency towards materialism and tries to claim that materialism can ground morality, then he will run head on into absurdity: First Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism;
Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind
It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, pointed out by Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a stable cause for objective morality;
The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' 'human flourishing' morality – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...” CS Lewis – Mere Christianity
The following interview is almost comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes, at the end of the article, that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that his faculties of reasoning will necessarily correspond to the truth, not even for the truth he is trying to relate in the interview;
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
Related article;
Evolutionary Guru Deceives Himself - October 12, 2011 http://crev.info/content/111012-evolutionary_guru_deceives_himself
,,,But as Norman Geisler had related in response to the Atheist's objection of evil in the world, in the first video I posted, basically it boils down to the fact that God has a much higher purpose for allowing evil that many cannot fully understand right now, in fact I dare say, when in the midst of suffering, no one can fully understand. So in trying times, are even when times are good, are we going to lean on our own fallible reasoning, or on God's infinite wisdom???
2 Corinthians 4:17 For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, Experiencing Jesus Christ – Francis Chan – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4928919 Erasing Hell by Francis Chan - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnrJVTSYLr8 Mandissa - Stronger (Live In The Studio) (Official Music Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFY2Hdh7cvA
bornagain77_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Let Craig defend it himself (from your link): "By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel." This is not genocide. It is about moral judgment. If it were genocide, then God would not later judge Israel. Fail. This is about a coward atheist who wrote a book about God and who then refuses to debate about God, (specifically the arguments he set forth in his book) in a scholarly arena in his own backyard because he does not have a sufficient argument to support his arguments. The same for his minions grayling, and polly t. This is telling. I wonder if it were the Christians hiding under their beds afraid to debate a single atheist, if the propaganda would be the same? Of course it would not be. It would be front page news in London: "Christians afraid to debate enlightened Atheist thinker!" Instead we have the opposite. I feel bad for all those that sold their faith based on Dawkins books. The man should at least have the courtesy to argue on their behalf. Instead, it is like the con-man selling snake oil at the county fair, takes your money then grins and scurries away.junkdnaforlife_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, His quotation is actually not the point of this article. Dawkins has been refusing to debate Craig for years. I saw him once say that he just doesn't debate Creationists because he's too busy. Fine, that's his choice. But this is clearly a new reason he has concocted now that the pressure has been put on him to actually debate Craig. And why not debate someone who has said what Craig said? I don't see the connection. It's only a put down and a distraction.Collin_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: Not at all so. First, you ground the existence of objective morality on evolutionary materialistic grounds as anything beyond emotional manipulation or rhetoric -- as Dawkins has cynically, venomously abused our moral sentiments through in the above -- then we can have a basis to reasonably discuss the rights and wrongs of Craig's reasoning and views. (Onlookers, here is my reason for raising this issue and here is Plato on the same matter, 2350 years ago, in warning against the amoral manipulators who would ground their views in materialism. [For my views on the side-track atmosphere-poisoning issue, onlookers, cf. here. Dr Liddle, TWT et al -- and yes, on this you have some pretty unsavoury company; I refuse to stand in your rhetorical dock for strawmannising, demonising and cynical moralistic rhetoric until you, on your evolutionary materialism, can ground morality as more than manipulation of tastes and feelings to be manipulated at will by power elites, e.g to justify the ongoing abortion holocaust or the attempt to eat out our consciences through promotion of addiction to pornography, and ever so many other cynical propaganda ploys.]) As to the no intention to debate Craig, the precise reason is that Dawkins plainly full well knows he would be publicly spanked, very properly spanked for his many errors and venomous statements against Judaeo-Christian theists over decades. He has simply chosen a particularly nasty smear job to try to escape with decades of slander and venom. Shameless. Dr Liddle, the above is seriously disappointing from you. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Golly, it isn't! http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767 Does anyone here seriously defend Craig's position as expressed in this piece?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

The above — sadly, but tellingly — is a blatant well-poisoning, atmosphere-poisoning distractive fallacy to cover up that Dawkins plainly realises he would be crushed in an open debate with Craig.
There are absolutely no ground for this inference at all. At the beginning of the article Dawkins makes it perfectly clear that he has no intention of debating Craig, and never has had. There is no "cover-up" as you call it. And plenty of reasons other than "cowardice" for his refusal. What spin would you put on: "So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing." Or is this a misquotation from Craig?Elizabeth Liddle_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Poor Dawkins...it's clear he didn't want to debate Craig because he FEARS him. He knows he can't refute Craig's arguments nor can he defend his own. Dawkins is more mouse than lion.Blue_Savannah_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Onlookers: The above -- sadly, but tellingly -- is a blatant well-poisoning, atmosphere-poisoning distractive fallacy to cover up that Dawkins plainly realises he would be crushed in an open debate with Craig. (No great surprise: Craig WRITES quite useful textbooks on philosophy -- let's leave off the professional phil papers for now. Dawkins' pop sci and atheism polemical books are filled with elementary philosophical errors on such matters that happen to be persuasive talking points for those who have not learned better.) Having spewed a poisonous ink-cloud, Dawkins plainly hopes to get away unscathed without having to account for a long string of venomous, ill-founded assertions he has made -- which too many in the media and on the Internet have helped promote. In fact, any number of serious responses have been made to this known false accusation, which is based on twisting what Craig and others have said, to slander decent men as supporters of genocide. As in, your'e a theocratic, Christofascist Nazi would-be mass murderer. Disgusting and shameless. This unworthy tactic clearly removes Dawkins from the pale of civil discussion. It is also utterly, sadly telling on his underlying hostile and contempt-laced, supercilious attitude to those who differ with him. From this time forth, no decent or serious person should take Mr Dawkins or his arguments seriously. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Dawkins won't debate Craig for the same reason he would not debate Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. Dawkins is an intellectual coward. He hurls taunts from columns. That is equivalent to a child acting brave from behind his mommy's dress tail. http://www.insectman.us/testimony/dawkins.htmInsectman_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Born Again....just to expand on your theme from above, please check out the numbers from around the world; check out what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM "169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia" This is, in reality, is probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn't count all the millions of abortions from around the world.van_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Dawkins' recent flatulent rant seems to be a bit contradictory to what he has said in the past, notably.... "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." That's an interesting statement coming from someone who also said "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Dawkins himself does not appear to be too indifferent about issues concerning the existence of God. One wonders why he all of a sudden cares so much for Canaanite children. Maybe we don't live in a Dawkins universe after all? Aside from Dawkin's outbursts, let's hold Darwinism (unguided, purely natural evolutionary processes utilizing natural selection and random mutation) to the same standard of critique. Wouldn't Darwinist evolution be "unjust" in its "callous" indifference to "all suffering", for continually picking off the weak and sickly? Wouldn't Darwinist evolution be an "unforgiving control freak", "megalomaniacal" and "petty" for (as Darwin himself stated).... "...daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations, rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good, silently and insensibly , whenever and wherever opportunity presents itself" Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, Chapter 4, "Natural Selection", pg.91 Wouldn't Darwinist evolution be "sadomasochistic" in it's use of "suffering, destruction and death" as a means to create new forms of life? Wouldn't Darwinist evolution be a "capriciously malevolent bully" in it's callous indifference to such suffering? Wouldn't the apparently grumpy ol' Darwinist evolution be a "bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser", "genocidal" and "racist" in it's continually pitting one species population against another in a constant and severe struggle, specifically struggles among humans taking place between tribes and races throughout human history? Comparing apples to oranges here, it appears that when held to the same standard of critique, Dawkins' own Darwinist faith appears to be substantially more evil than any caricature of the Christian God.Bantay_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Video - Richard Dawkins who allegedly thinks highly of the human race and says Craig 'advocates genocide', apparently thinks we're nothing but chunks of matter.
William Lane Craig comments on Dawkins' horrific view of human life. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmudsZbo32c
And exactly how is Dawkins going to prove to us that we live in a completely meaningless materialistic universe if all his statements on the subject really are meaningingless as he himself holds all things to be???
The Irrational Atheist: Why Christianity Is True http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMtMp8tS2w
further note: If Dawkins hates genocide so much that he takes pot shots at Dr. William Lane Craig away from the debating platform, then perhaps he should take a very close look at his chosen religion of Atheism:
Stalin's Brutal Faith http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Excerpt: Essentially a body count of communism's victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million, non-war related, deaths in the century. (of note: this estimate is viewed as very conservative by many, with some more realistic estimates passing 200 million dead) (Of Note: Atheistic Communism is defined as Dialectic Materialism) http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,,
Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/
paganism certainly shared its own burden of bringing us senseless horror
From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A Was Hitler influenced by Darwin or by Christianity? Some thoughts on posts by Mr 'Godwin' http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/02/was-hitler-influenced-by-darwin-or-by-christianity-some-thoughts-on-posts-by-mr-godwin.html How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
fn: the body count for abortion is over 50 million now in America since it was legalized in 1973:
"180" Movie - Hitler, Holocaust, Abortion - Award winning documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI
Whereas on the other hand:
From Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ cites many examples. Here are just a few: 1. Hospitals 2. Universities 3. Literacy and education for the masses 4. Representative government 5. Separation of political powers 6. Civil liberties 7. Abolition of slavery 8. Modern science 9. The elevation of the common man 10. High regard for human life
bornagain77_{October 20, 2011
October
10
Oct
20
20
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply