Atheism Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Philosophy Religion

Why won’t Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig?

Spread the love

In January of 2019, Dr. Craig was invited to sit down with Erik Thoennes of Grace Evangelical Free Church in La Mirada, California for a casual conversation. This candid interview is full of stories, insights, and commentary, including an engaging question and answer session at the end. In this short clip, Dr. Craig answers a question about Richard Dawkin’s repeated refusals to debate him.

The new atheist project appears to be failing anyway. It might help Dawkins’s numbers if he did debate. But not our business, of course.

See also: How did new atheism become the godlessness that failed?

12 Replies to “Why won’t Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Public debates are a form of entertainment rather than academic inquiry. They favor the skilled debater and Craig is, if nothing else, a very skilled and experienced debater. If anyone actually wants to see Craig given a run for his money they should look up his debates with Christopher Hitchens on YouTube.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Yes, seversky, it would be very entertaining watching Dawkins get caught in lie after lie. Hitchens wasn’t any good, either. He definitely never presented any science or evidence to support his position.

  3. 3
    Axel says:

    Dawkins was truly laughable. He seemed to think Mother Teresa, a woman who slept 4 hours a night on a wooden table and lived on a handful or rice a day, was a satanist or some such, was some kind of hell’s angel, swanning off to Biarritz with her biker-gang at the drop of a hat, and generally living the high life !

    What’s more he was so thick, (as thick as two short planks) that he thought her order of nuns would be better employed as a sort of short-stay recovery centre, so they could go out again and find the work they evidently couldn’t fnd before, and start to starve to death again !

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    Never mind that they were often already crawling with maggots, when taken to the loving refuge and basic nursing services provided by her nuns.

  5. 5
    groovamos says:

    Craig is, if nothing else, a very skilled and experienced debater.

    Actually a generous admission: a skilled debater is a skilled thinker. Which the typical a-mat would never admit about Christian Darwin skeptics.

  6. 6
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    The scientific community settled on written debate a long time ago. There’s a reason for that.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Then it is very telling that there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. It is very telling that no one can say how to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. And it is very telling that peer-review is devoid of anything written that would support it.

  8. 8
    Axel says:

    Dawkins puts me in mind of that wonderfully-perceptive insight of the Victorian novelist, Ouida, which I first read in the context of Nixon and the Watergate saga :

    ‘To vice, innocence must always seem only a superior kind of chicanery.’
    —————-
    PS: In view of ET’s post #7, are you going to revise your reason, now, Jim ?

  9. 9
    tommy hall says:

    I’d rather see a debate between Dawkins and Behe.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Or Dawkins vs Berlinski

  11. 11
    Truthfreedom says:

    The problem with dawkins is that he does not understand basic logic.

    He should stick to his science fiction books. (Blind Watchmaker and related crap).

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    Sorry, folks. my post #3, should have been aimed at Hitchens, not Dawkins, for all his atheist madness. It was Hitch, I believe who cast St (Mother) Teresa as a hell’s angel.

    And likewise in my post #8, re the belief that vice was only a superior form of chicanery, I could imagine him thinking to himself, what’s that wicked, old mare’s game, eh ? What’s she up to ? What’s her angle ? What’s in it for her ? Trousering charitable donations to the order for her ‘fast and loose,’ sybaritic life-style, surely.

    Never mind that the reality was that she was known to decline substantial gifts of money to the order and insisted that their vehicles should not be new ones! Or, I suspect, even ‘nearly new’, new-looking ones, if it comes to that. The hoouse that she and some of her nuns lived in, in Kilburn, was a little old terraced house – not like the grand palaces of some of our more princely prelates and more prestigious contemplative orders.

Leave a Reply