Does Dawkins Fear Philosophy?

[Erxomai]

I've seen this video clip used for other rants (like a coach losing a football game). Came upon this one when I was reading up on the big drama surrounding Professor Dawkins' unwillingness to debate the Xian Philosopher William Lane Craig.

Let the hilarity ensue:

---

Oops! I just found this thread. I should have just posted there.

The William Lane Craig vs. Richard Dawkins debate that never was.

[Starcrash]

This clip has been extremely overused Still funny, though.

[Erxomai]

(12-12-2011 12:23 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  This clip has been extremely overused Still funny, though.

I confess that I giggle like a schoolgirl every time I happen upon it.

Here's a pretty good one:

---

Damn those Birthers!

[houseofcantor]

Take one WLC, stir in Preach's siggy; shake and bake. Can't stand that guy. He's got the sheep all mesmerized because he published 50 books of manure to slick his passage. Harris smacked him up. Dawkins would just get heated and look like an arrogant asshole... you know, cause he is. I mean, I like the guy, but he ain't always likable.

[Clint Barnett]

(12-12-2011 01:34 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Take one WLC, stir in Preach's siggy; shake and bake. Can't stand that guy. He's got the sheep all mesmerized because he published 50 books of manure to slick his passage. Harris smacked him up. Dawkins would just get heated and look like an arrogant asshole... you know, cause he is. I mean, I like the guy, but he ain't always likable.

I agree with this fully.

To the question of the post topic. I'm not sure if he fears philosophy. I have heard most of the WLC debates. He poisons the well like a champ during all his debates. He uses the same content even though he is corrected constantly. This is probably because he is following his notes without ever editing. Just going on the attitude I have seen Dawkins to have, I'd say he didn't want to talk to a wall. WLC reminds me of a wall or fence post. No matter how much you tell him something he refuses to absorb any of it (like most theists). He still uses out dated scientific data to back some of his claims (like nearly all theists). I would have to walk away from WLC too he annoys me more so than most theists.

[Chas]

As I said in that other thread:

The reason Dawkins won't debate Craig is that you cannot have a meaningful debate with someone who believes:
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." Yes, that is what Wm. L. Craig said.

Debating someone who does not believe in argument and evidence is pointless.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and just annoys the pig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Erxomai]

(12-12-2011 08:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  As I said in that other thread:

The reason Dawkins won't debate Craig is that you cannot have a meaningful debate with someone who believes:
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." Yes, that is what Wm. L. Craig said.

Debating someone who does not believe in argument and evidence is pointless.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and just annoys the pig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I wish I had seen that other thread first.

Chas, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I truly want to know, how is this different from every other debate with every other theist? That other thread shows a discussion he had with some stupid blonde lady about evolution. There's another one with Ted Haggard. They're pretty dumb, but they're also not going to agree with his approach to argument and evidence. From the outside, it looks like he's fine debating dumb people, but reluctant to debate someone with a little more brain power. If Mitt Romney only had to debate Rick Perry, he'd look brilliant too.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand the basis for your point and how it applies to his other debates.

[Chas]

(12-12-2011 08:59 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 08:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  As I said in that other thread:

The reason Dawkins won't debate Craig is that you cannot have a meaningful debate with someone who believes:
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." Yes, that is what Wm. L. Craig said.

Debating someone who does not believe in argument and evidence is pointless.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and just annoys the pig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I wish I had seen that other thread first.

Chas, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I truly want to know, how is this different from every other debate with every other theist? That other thread shows a discussion he had with some stupid blonde lady about evolution. There's another one with Ted Haggard. They're pretty dumb, but they're also not going to agree with his approach to argument and evidence. From the outside, it looks like he's fine debating dumb people, but reluctant to debate someone with a little more brain power. If Mitt Romney only had to debate Rick Perry, he'd look brilliant too.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand the basis for your point and how it applies to his other debates.

He has debated other theists, including Engish Archbishops, who are reasonably rational and willing to have an intelligent discussion, unlike WLC.

The discussion with the dumb blonde was an ambush, but her attitude is just like Craig's: ignore the things you don't want to hear.

[Erxomai]

(12-12-2011 09:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  He has debated other theists, including Engish Archbishops, who are reasonably rational and willing to have an intelligent discussion, unlike WLC.

The discussion with the dumb blonde was an ambush, but her attitude is just like Craig's: ignore the things you don't want to hear.

I think I've discovered my problem. He's debated English Archbishops. From the Church of England. As an Evangelical, I would have had zero interest in the outcome of such a debate. A True Believer looks at that and sees a lesser devil losing to a bigger devil. Big deal. Anglicans, in general, do not believe in the authority of scripture, and in some cases do not even believe in God. I could debate an English Archbishop or a dumb blonde woman and come out looking good.

I understand where you're coming from, Chas, but declining to debate someone who really, truly believes in God and who really, truly believes in the Bible leaves me feeling disappointed.

[Chas]

(12-12-2011 09:12 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 09:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  He has debated other theists, including Engish Archbishops, who are reasonably rational and willing to have an intelligent discussion, unlike WLC.

The discussion with the dumb blonde was an ambush, but her attitude is just like Craig's: ignore the things you don't want to hear.

I think I've discovered my problem. He's debated English Archbishops. From the Church of England. As an Evangelical, I would have had zero interest in the outcome of such a debate. A True Believer looks at that and sees a lesser devil losing to a bigger devil. Big deal. Anglicans, in general, do not believe in the authority of scripture, and in some cases do not even believe in God. I could debate an English Archbishop or a dumb blonde woman and come out looking good.

I understand where you're coming from, Chas, but declining to debate someone who really, truly believes in God and who really, truly believes in the Bible leaves me feeling disappointed.

I suggest you re-read this carefully:

Quote:"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." - Wm. L. Craig

Debating someone who does not believe in argument and evidence is pointless.