|
Post by sandwiches on Jun 16, 2011 21:16:33 GMT
www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/polly-toynbee-steps-in-where-grayling-dawkins-fear-to-tread.htmToynbee steps in where Grayling & Dawkins fear to tread New Atheists urged to put their mouths where their money is
President of the British Humanist Association (BHA), Polly Toynbee, has agreed to debate the existence of God with eminent Christian Philosopher, William Lane Craig, when he visits the UK for a tour of speaking engagements in October. Leading British atheists Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling have both flatly refused to debate with Craig, who was recently described by Sam Harris as “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into my fellow atheists”. Accepting the invitation Toynbee, whose award-winning journalism is frequently critical of religion, has said she would be “glad to debate” with Craig. Their debate, which will take place in London, is expected to attract a capacity audience. Meanwhile between them, Dawkins and Grayling have produced a litany of excuses for declining to debate. Dawkins now claims that he has “no interest” in the subject, despite putting the question of the existence of God firmly into the public domain in his best-selling book, The God Delusion. Fellow Oxford academic and atheist philosopher Dr Daniel Came recently wrote to Dawkins warning him that his refusal of a one-to-one debate with Craig was “apt to be interpreted as cowardice” This refusal sits uncomfortably alongside Grayling’s “gold standard” aspirations for the students of his New College of Humanities. The predominantly atheistic team of academics he has drawn together will, he says, teach their students “to think and ask extremely good questions … about the human condition and human experience.”.
|
|
|
Post by mojorising on Jun 18, 2011 5:13:08 GMT
Dawkins recently posted some insulting comments about Dr Craig on his website: "I can't think why some people say Craig is a skilled debater. It is true that he seems to do nothing else with his life EXCEPT travel around debating, so he has had plenty of practice at debating against people who have better things to do. But the only time I have been in a debate with him (in Mexico) I found him pedantic and surprisingly unimpressive. He seemed to think he had scored points of logic when, to anyone of any intelligence, he obviously had done nothing of the kind." richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craigIf he's so unimpressive he should be able to easily destroy him in a debate. But he refuses to debate. Clearly he's afraid of being made to look silly by Craig. If he failed to understand the straightforward logic of Craig's arguments in the Mexico "debate" he'd have no chance in a longer one-on-one debate with Craig. Dawkins may be a good scientist, but as he has shown in his embarrassingly bad arguments in The God Delusion, he's not a philosopher's arsehole.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jun 18, 2011 5:19:27 GMT
Hi Mojorising. True, he's definitely being evasive, but on this forum we try to avoid terms like "a philosopher's arsehole." We try to respect other's positions and opinions, even when they don't extend the same respect. For example, I often refer to writers whom I disagree with as "our good friend..."
|
|
|
Post by mojorising on Jun 18, 2011 5:35:13 GMT
Thanks noons, I'll moderate my tone for future posting, new to the forum and all that. Perhaps it would have been more diplomatic to say Dawkins is not a very good philosopher or logician. Disappointing to see Dawkins' refuse to publicly debate Craig and then retreat to the safe confines of his website and throw ad hominems around. Only compounds the impression that Dawkins (the world's most prominent advocate for atheism) is afraid to debate Craig, who is the worlds most prominent advocate of Christianity. Instead we get to see Craig go up against a journalist.
|
|
|
Post by mojorising on Jun 18, 2011 6:01:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jun 18, 2011 13:51:00 GMT
Hi Mojorising. True, he's definitely being evasive, but on this forum we try to avoid terms like "a philosopher's arsehole." We try to respect other's positions and opinions, even when they don't extend the same respect. For example, I often refer to writers whom I disagree with as "our good friend..." Hi Mojorising. The Administrator/ Moderator has a post on the forum guidelines and correct way to conduct discussion here at this link. jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=feedback&action=display&thread=832
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jun 19, 2011 19:17:08 GMT
I watched the link from mojorising. There s something very unhealthy about the hero-worship that some atheists invest in Dawkins. Anyway, I hope to go to see WLC as one of his debates will be in Manchester. Re the article by Dawkins: richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn’t, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals.He has no sense of irony does he? Melanie Phillips is not to everyone's taste but I think she does see right through Dawkins - he rather famously had to apologise to her once- www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dawkins-preaches-to-the-deluded-against-the-divine/story-e6frg6zo-1225841086925LIKE revivalists from an alternative universe, 2500 hardcore believers in the absence of religion packed into the Global Atheists Convention in Melbourne last weekend to give a hero's welcome to the high priest of belief in unbelief, Richard Dawkins.... For someone who has made a career out of telling everyone how much more tolerant the world would be if only religion were obliterated from the human psyche, Dawkins manages to appear remarkably intolerant towards anyone who disagrees with him The fact is, however, the shine has come off Dawkins. For sure, he remains a superstar for the legions who loathe religion. But, nevertheless, a strong feeling has developed in less credulous quarters that he has gone too far.
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Jun 19, 2011 21:27:05 GMT
It sometimes surprises me, although it shouldn’t, how religious devotees feel the need to regularly reinforce their own convictions in groups of like-minded individuals.Yes, there was a convention last year, and the like minded individuals will be gathering again next year. www.atheistconvention.org.au/
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Jun 19, 2011 21:56:41 GMT
Yes, I gather there was just one in Ireland. What a chance to meet one's worshippers, sell shirts, signed books etc etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2011 8:24:11 GMT
Since when is Dawkins a good biologist? He hasn't done serious biology since the eighties. His current work is writing on subjects outside his expertise and profesional atheism.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jun 29, 2011 16:30:33 GMT
Well, Dawkins is an accomplished biologist, that is undisputed. It is also not necessarily a problem when he speaks outside his field of expertise, because people do that all the time. The problem begins when one conflates one's own expertise with personal opinion, and dismissing other fields of research as being without merit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2011 18:39:20 GMT
Well, Dawkins is an accomplished biologist, that is undisputed. I hear this left and right in the popular press and internet forums, but no one can explain what did this guy do. His name doesn't appear in the ISI Highly Cited database, he published two rarely cited articles in Nature and Science. In the seventies. He got his professorship because of a handsome financial donation by one of his admirers. Being a pop-science writer isn't anything negative; however, inflating this to false proportions of having a lofty scientific stature is misleading and uninformed. People ought not to do that all the time. Well, Dawkins is a leading authority in this one! ;D
|
|
|
Post by mojorising on Aug 14, 2011 10:49:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2011 11:41:59 GMT
Not that a debating spot is vacant, Dawkins has a genuine chance to prove he isn't a coward. ;D
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Aug 14, 2011 13:37:31 GMT
To be fair, I think it's perfectly reasonable for atheists to choose their battles. Regardless of the merits of their position, I'm sure many of them are aware that a public debate with a highly experienced debater is not the best platform for their case. If I were in their position I'd avoid such encounters.
|
|