Posted: Dec 11, 2011 10:52 pm
Mick wrote: There's a lot of pressure on Dawkins to debate Craig. The motivating sentiment behind this pressure is this: People want to see Dawkins put his money where his mouth is by debating one of Christianity's most skilled debaters, Craig. If Dawkins avoids engagement with Christianity's finest(1), and instead blithely parades the "delusion" of Christians on an international basis, then I would call that intellectual cowardice. If Christianity is so intellectually bankrupt(2), then he needs to tackle our best to show it.
If (1) is the case, then Craig's very existence demonstrates (2). Craig has publicly stated that no evidence or argument could convince him that Christianity is wrong. This makes his position fundamentally non-rational and therefore renders pointless any discussion one might attempt to have with him.
As if this were not bad enough, Craig routinely uses dishonest tactics in his oratory (note that I haven't used the term "debate" to describe what he does). Chief among these is the tactic of making multiple simple assertions that can only be addressed at length. It takes only a second for Craig to assert the existence of Christ's empty tomb. It takes a significant amount of his opponents' time to refute this claim. As the "debate" progresses, Craig's opponent simply runs out of time to address the growing mountain of unproven assertions that Craig glibly throws out as if they were accepted fact. At the end of the appointed time, there are inevitably points raised by Craig that have not been refuted. Craig at this point claims victory.
Now consider your scenario: You are calling on Craig. Yet, Craig rountinely debates far better atheologicans than any common poster here. Indeed, he publicly debates intellectual atheism on an international basis. He also debates them within the scholarly journals. Understanding this, where's the shame of him not debating the likes of this forum? Where's the cowardice? It's hilarious to think that he's being cowardly despite the fact that he rountinely faces bigger challenges.
And Dawkins regularly discusses this topic with people who at least pretend to abide by the rules of honest and rational discussion. If your objection as to why Craig should not discuss things here is valid, then surely Dawkins is allowed to use the same excuse to not debate a complete waste of oxygen like Craig?
Comedy.
Indeed. Just not in the way you think.