Second, and more importantly, Deuteronomy is part of the Christian canon and for many a Christian (Craig included) all of scripture is God-breathed and without error. Despite the suggestion in his article, Dawkins is wrong to view Craig as an extremist beyond the pale—his views are consistent with a large cohort of the world's evangelicals, that God really did command the destruction just as Deuteronomy records. In refusing to debate Craig, Dawkins has refused to engage with many (and probably the majority) of the world's Christians. That may be a way to gain plaudits from the more militant atheists but it is not a recipe for changed minds, and being forced to face up to those verses Dawkins highlights is likely to change some minds.
... and the winner is?
Dawkins is not a stupid man and for that reason I do not for a moment believe that his refusal to debate Craig has anything to do with moral outrage over Craig's comments. Craig is an effective debater—he does it for a living—and is well rehearsed and winning debates (which often has no correlation to the strength of the respective arguments). Moreover, Craig's debates come with a slew of promotional material and conservative Christian support and (sometimes) misrepresentation which the more established figures (e.g. Archbishop) simply don't support. If I were Dawkins I might well think it's not worth the effort. As it is, there is no debate, so I guess one has to call it a stalemate, which, since I'm no fan of Dawkins or Craig, is no bad thing.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Theophile
Hi Cdenck,
It seems Richard doesn't think God has the right to judge His own creation.
It's too bad William can't get a debate with Richard, Dawkins sounds pretty feisty when speaking to His followers, and writing children's books.
2 - Joe
Dr. Craig refuses to debate his own former students, like John Luftus,for fear of introducing his own fan base to ex-students.
Dawkins is a biologist, not a theologian or philosopher. Craig needs to debate bible scholars and exchristian theologians, but he will not. Its all about preserving image and followers.
3 - Christopher Rose
So basically you have wasted your time writing an article that argues with Dawkins even though you actually agree with him - "Granted, Craig's exposition (linked in Dawkins' article) is highly problematic and, personally speaking, I believe it amounts to defending the indefensible even if--as in this case--it is God who is the defendant".
No wonder religion gives philosophy a bad name. I just wish one of you superstitious muppets could come up with even one piece of credible evidence that this mystical deity you believe in even exists.
4 - Dillon Mawler
I tried answering this silly article, pointing out as Mr. Rose did, that you actually do agree with Dawkins here. But iit's easier to quote a much smarter man, Dawkins himself:
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
5 - John Orr
Surely you're missing the point (in your last paragraph).
Dawkins may consider the story to be pure fabrication (and I hope with him that it is). But Craig thinks it really happened and is _still_ prepared to defend it.
One up for Dawkins.
6 - Irene Athena
Superstitious Muppets? Z-Zowie!
I won't be a part of a theological nerf-ball fight with Christopher Rose, but I will respond to his:
"I just wish one of you superstitious muppets could come up with even one piece of credible evidence that this mystical deity you believe in even exists."
No, Christopher, I don't believe you do wish, not now. You may wish for it sincerely one day, and then, the evidence will find you.
7 - Irene Athena
As to God's genocide directive, when the (visible) Christian church in the United States watches God miraculously push through the Mississippi River, and then looks on as He brings two great walls of water crashing down on the heads of our enemies (no, not the Muslims, but rather the telegenic wolves in the clothing of Christian pastors)...
...when we see him swoop into a spectacular pillar of fire our measly average three percent "tithe and charity" offerings from the altars of our multi-million dollar mega-churches...
...then we will have the evidence that God is directing His people to act as the Jews did when God was leading them from the hands of their Egyptian oppressors into the Promised Land.
But we haven't, and we won't.
We follow the Prince of Peace now, and we walk by faith and not by sight, and the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but they are mighty to fight spiritual strongholds.
What God commanded in ancient times was for ancient times, and not for the US Christian who has neither the obligation nor the biblical basis to support genocide committed by the modern and SECULAR state of Israel.
(I look forward to more of your articles when I stop by, Cdenk.)
8 - Christopher Rose
Irene, your #7 is one of those non-answer answers that you faithists specialise in.
As I've told you before, I really don't care if there is a supreme being or not; what I care about is that all you superstitious folk believe in it without any credible evidence, which is an insult to humanity everywhere.
Fascinating to see you twist your own belief system so exquisitely if somewhat madly in #8 though.
9 - Irene Athena
#8 was exquisite, if you do say so yourself.
10 - Christopher Rose
Exquisitely twisted and rather mad...
11 - Irene Athena
...in your assessment of my #8, Christopher Rose, you are in agreement with an unfortunately high percentage of the (visible) Christian church in America.
12 - John
Sorry sir but this article containined misinformation. Craig does NOT say that "Something is good becuase God commanded it" he says God's commandements are a reflection of His good nature. The canaanites were terrbily evil, God gave them 400 years of chances to change, which they didn't, then He commanded their death. Did you complain when a certain evil man was killed this year by the navy seals? No, and either did anyone else when the evil canaanites were killed
13 - Dr Dreadful
Oh, please.
So what exactly was it that the Canaanites were supposed to have done that made them such awful people?
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead." (Deuteronomy 18, 10-12, NIV)
Yep, they were the scum of the earth all right. By far the worst things any humans have done ever in the whole history of the planet.
(I might have conceded that first one, which to our modern sensibilities is pretty horrid, were it not that a number of revered OT prophets were more than willing to do the same thing.)
14 - Christopher Rose
Irene, I'm reminded that even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
John, thank you for adding to the huge body of evidence that monotheism is bad for your mental health.
15 - Irene Athena
My question was more specific than yours, Dr. Dreadful.
I asked God what the Canaanite babies had done to deserve being killed, and what the Hebrew men had done to deserve the dreadful order to kill them?
The answer that came to me (from God? or from my own mind thinking itself sane?) was "nothing worse than the things the children on Hiroshima did, and nothing better or worse than the person who flew over them and dropped the bomb on them."
And in that sense, I'm saner than a lot of people who have howled "Why???" and then bitterly flipped the bird at a deaf and dumb Universe.
16 - Dr Dreadful
And in that sense, I'm saner than a lot of people who have howled "Why???" and then bitterly flipped the bird at a deaf and dumb Universe.
Well, you got that bit right at any rate.
It makes no sense to ask that question of a universe that can't hear you or answer back.
17 - Irene Athena
I thought of substituting "your own children" for "children on Hiroshima," and "what you did to deserve burying them" for "the Hebrews who were ordered to kill them" but then I thought better of it. Then, I second-guessed that decision.
The information, perhaps, for SOMEBODY reading, will reinforce the idea that consideration of this passage might make a person MORE sane, not less, as long as he isn't taking it as a general directive for genocide. (See the "exquisitely twisted" #8)
PS, I'm sorry if this comment is too much information. Again, I thought it might help someone, so I said it.
18 - Irene Athena
I have cookies to bake, Dr. Dreadful, and I still don't believe you about the wheelbarrows, unless you can supply a primary source, i.e. someone who was omniscient in Germany during the Weimar Republic.
19 - Dr Dreadful
Irene, no candidates come to mind, and it remains only hearsay about the wheelbarrows; but it is my understanding that suitcases, not barrows, were actually the preferred means of pecuniary portage during the Weimar hyperinflation.
Free cookie with every door hanger? :-)
20 - Irene Athena
A nation full of crackerjack engineers preferred to schlep suitcases when they could push Schubkarren instead? I'll never believe it.
Matter o' fact, I do have a pile of 2012 door-hangers to distribute, but no one would vote for Ron Paul on the basis of anything I'd baked to promote him, my ownership of a Ron Paul Family Christmas Cookbook (signed by CAROL!) notwithstanding.
Casper, Dr. Dreadful can tell you I am very patient with people who don't believe in God, or people like yourself who DO believe in God, but not in every part of the Bible. Pity the poor soul who disses Ron Paul in my presence, though. See how reverently and smilingly he broached the topic of the good doctor? I can say "goodnight, all" in a totally good mood now.
21 - JoeM
I won't pretend to be knowledgable in anything that Craig or Dawkins proclaims, other than parts of the Holy Bible and my own experiences and observations in life.
But, my common sense (something science doesn't really know about) tells me that William Lane Craig has a real argument against what atheist scientists propose in many areas. The debates have already taken place, with exception to one guy who wouldn't show up.
My observation of Dawkins over a period of years has led me to believe that he is no legitimate science guy. He comes across to me as more of a shakespearean drama teacher. Most of what he says is rhetoric and emotional tantrum. Such as the accusation over Craig not being a philosopher. Obviously that is nonsense and is a great example of Dawkins consistent behavior.
My main reason for bringing this up is because I see atheism as being the real cause of such behavior. Children in religious families typical act that way. But they don't know any better. They learn. Eventually, that behavior changes as they grow due to the constraint and understanding that religion gives you. Atheism seems to allow children to simply grow up into larger children. Yes, an adult has a role to play in society. They must look and act the part. And this they do. And they seem to carry the adult prototype with them at all times. Fake intelligence on the outside. Childish nonsense on the inside.
I know this to be a fact through my own observations. You see it in your own family that denies God. You see it on TV. You see it in public. You see it in children at public schools. It isn't easy to pay attention and contrast the difference between Christian kids and Atheist ones. Sure. You can pick out some good atheists. But they are a minority.
Anyone who tells the truth about history knows that religion was at the fabric of American society years ago. The decline came in the 20th century and took a steeper drop in the 1990s+. Therefore, atheism became much more prevalent. This runs parallel to the change in cultural behavior norms. What was once considered bad ettiquette and devlish behavior is now considered normal. Sarcasm was once widely considered childish and something only drunks and idiots did. But now, its become embedded into society everywhere you look.
The way I see it. When you take away GOD, you take away good. The full effect just hasn't happened yet. Atheists and some religious people will deny this fact. Only because the transition isn't complete. But if atheism continues to rise, we will witness even more disturbing changes in the cultures. Empathy will be a thing of the past in the mainstream. Its barely there now. Hypocrisy will have its own class in schools. More people will pass up the homeless guy holding the sign. Goodwill will become subject to jokes, as it often does already on many websites and forums.
Without God, there is no practical working system of beliefs or constraint on a population. And everyone becomes individuals. Dog eat dog. With God however, order is restored, kids are taught limitations, creating a far more balanced culture. It is in our nature to do bad things at least some of the time. That's okay as long as its kept in check. Having God reminds a person of the bad things they have done so as to change it. Without God, people do bad things, then go on living without giving a damn about it. They might feel guilty, since they are human. And to rectify that, they might do a good deed, like sending $10 to help the starving child in Africa. Hypocrite.
I have a gift. I was raised to know what it's like to have God in my life just to later compare it to what happens when God isn't there anymore. It is a disturbing reality to witness. The most tragic part is seeing children born in this generation without a chance of seeing how things used to be. They do not realize they are being raised to poke fun at people as a socially acceptable comedy routine. They might as well be raised as suicide bombers like in Islamic countries. Atheists like to blame religion for the problems. But the Christian religion doesn't follow the ways of evil. It follows morality. Atheism follows freedom from all things. That's the same as death.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Joe, your portrayal of atheism as fundamentally immoral is utterly wrong, although you do a robust job of poisoning the well with the claim that atheists are "childish" and statements like "they must look and act the part", "you can pick out some good atheists. But they are a minority" and "atheists ... will deny this fact".
My favourite is your ludicrous "Dawkins ... is no legitimate science guy". Since Dr Dawkins has published numerous academic papers and books about science, I find this mystifying. Perhaps you would care to inform us of the height at which you have set the bar.
Although he doesn't exactly wear kid gloves, Dawkins' well-known disdain for religion is, I assure you, based very firmly on morals. In fact, I challenge you to find me an atheist who doesn't have a moral code.
You can't. But that won't bother you, because in your mind the atheist who demonstrates morality is simply lying or putting on an act. How convenient.
23 - Veticanii
Atheisma is not immoral; it is amoral. It has to be, since it views human beings as incapable of true morality, apart from that which sustains their short-term desires.
Scientific atheism describes human beings as 'bags of chemical reactions walking around, encased in a tight membrane'. It denies consciousness, and maintains that thoughts are generated by the physical brain alone; ergo, the body, I am afraid, can never be moral, since it has no consciousness, and therefore neither any duty to morality, nor any real knowledge of it. Scientific atheism determines that morality is nothing more than 'comfort rule' - and thus, humanity is amoral.
Dawkins will not debate with Craig because Craig is always going to ask the questions that Dawkins cannot answer. And nobody likes to look like a fool in public.
24 - Christopher Rose
Setting aside the issue that a philosopher of religion is actually a word jumbler of mist and nothingness, the main difference I can see between the arguments of Craig and Dawkins is that Craig, a philosopher, argues from a purely theoretical position of opinion whilst Dawkins, a scientist, argues from a position of actual science or knowledge.
I'm not familiar with Veticanii's concept of "scientific atheism" so it may be something they made up. That said, I can't follow the "logic" they lay out and struggle to accept the assertions. It seems like playing with words rather than actual logic or thought to my mind.
If Dawkins doesn't want to debate with Craig, it is probably because nobody could answer his theories because they aren't based on anything. There is only one person who would look like a fool in that context...
25 - Casper
@ Christopher Rose
I disagree with you there. Craig has written good philosophy (not that i agree) and the Kalam Cosmological arguement is to some extent based on observation and accepted logic (i.e., is not 'mist and nothingness'). Dawkins couldn't answer them because, put simply, he isn't up to it academically (other atheist are - this isn't a point about who is right).
The point remains though is this is an intended show which is to some stage managed - it bears no relation to the merits of the respective positions.