Here’s a riddle for you…

Q – What does the lippy smart-alec kid who mouths everyone off but only survives because he’s a fast runner do when he grows up?

A – Keeps his conduct but changes his delivery.

Richard Dawkins is, once again, shooting his colossal mouth off.  Apparently he won’t debate William Lane Craig, whom he claims he’s never heard of (yeah right…), but he will take enough time out to write an article and throw it in The Guardian to justify himself…curious indeed.

He won’t engage in public dialogue, but he will engage in throwing stones at William Lane Craig from the safety of a newspaper.  Stones in the form of “God is a god of genocide and I cannot associate with men who speak for such a deplorable deity”.  Give me a break.  Mr. “I left my second wife for an actress” Richard Dawkins is refusing to appear in public with William Lane Craig on the grounds of moral disgust?

*I’m getting a headache*

Dawkins has seen his other comrades fare poorly against William Lane Craig and he’s not about to get shown up by someone who’s more than up to the task.  William Lane Craig has entered the ring with everyone the atheists have to offer and he’s clearly come out on top almost every time.  I mean, just recently Sam Harris didn’t even know what was happening when he debated William Lane Craig.  Victor Stegner fared no better.

It’s an interesting experience for me to read more of the new atheists, to see them in debate, and to hear what they have to say…which is almost nothing.

Well, nothing but “God is a jerk and I hate him“, “I don’t understand that stupid Bible” and “Nobody has the right to tell anyone what to do except me“, in various rhetorical make-up.

Here’s my prediction: Christians will eventually get increasingly sidelined by society on the premise of the homosexual agenda, hate-speech laws will be passed and we’ll eventually be jailed and then executed because the atheists cannot survive public dialogue.  They simply want us to shut up, go away and leave them to wallow in their own desires; doing whatever they please with no consequences or correction (but with legal protection until such a time as those desires change or even reverse).

We’ll see if I’m right.

If I am not, I’ll gladly eat my words and admit I’m wrong.

If I’m right, I’m apparently a prophet and will have to publically renounce my cessationism.

It’s a win win scenario for all my opponents!  Hooray!

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Here’s a riddle for you…

  1. “Dawkins has seen his other comrades fare poorly against William Lane Craig”

    One of the problems of debates, at least when done in the standard debate format, is that both sides will very often claim victory. Not the participants, necessarily, but the people who agree with each side will say how it’s clearly obvious that so-and-so trounced that-fellow, and the other side will say the reverse.

    So, while to you William Lane Craig may be one of the greatest Christian minds and finest debaters out there, the fact is that he is looked on with disdain and pity by the vast majority of atheists.

    I’m not necessarily trying to start an debate about Craig’s points here, but they do not at all look impressive or convincing to the atheist side. So while you may think that he clearly wins all his debates, I suggest that it may be because you already agree with him. (And I do not suggest that this phenomena is unique to just one side of any issue.)

    • What?

      What in the world do you think constitutes “success” in debate? It’s not some sort of “I liked what he said” kind of subjective evaluation.

      I could care less whether or not “he is looked on with disdain and pity by the vast majority of atheists”. A vast majority of atheists are about as good at engaging in logical argument as a vast majority of Christians…

      …namely almost useless.

      William Lane Craig consistently presents his cases and his opponents consistently ignore his case and spout off about unrelated issues, ignoring his arguments while he consistently responds to theirs.

      When you address your opponents arguments and present coherent responses, but they don’t do the same to your arguments, that’s called objectively winning a debate.

      • Isn’t funny that NAS states, “One of the problems of debates, at least when done in the standard debate format, is that both sides will very often claim victory. Not the participants, necessarily, but the people who agree with each side will say how it’s clearly obvious that so-and-so trounced that-fellow, and the other side will say the reverse,” which undermine his own point that “So, while to you William Lane Craig may be one of the greatest Christian minds and finest debaters out there, the fact is that he is looked on with disdain and pity by the vast majority of atheists.”

        NAS’s obversation is nothing profound (that one view favorably one side), and if you look at how he does these hit and run comments throughout wordpress such as demonstrated here without actually engaging the content of your post and Craig’s arguments, it’s funny to think that an atheist plays the “rational” card even if they fail to give a proper interaction while giving the bald assertion that your view might not be the case.

        Thanks Mennoknight for this post.
        =)

      • No prob JL.

        Thanks for the comments.

        You may want to go over and check out NAS’ blog. I’ve tracked him back to see exactly how much he actually wants interaction or just plain hits.

  2. I’d probably find Dawkin’s poor logical propositions entertaining if they weren’t so popular. Evening moving past the ad hominem fallacies-which, to Dawkins credit, he is a master of- he essentially seems to be saying “I don’t want to debate WLC because I find his belief system immoral.” Yet, on what basis can he assert any system of morality?

    By the way, on the Guardian website, I found a real gem of a quote by Dawkins, “Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist if he had known what we know today.” I wish he would give such profound insights on the person of Jesus more often!

    Thanks Lyndon!

  3. I’m afraid I have to side with Not a Scientist on this one. Certainly Craig’s arguments are fine logically. So are David Lewis’s possible worlds. That doesn’t make them true. When a guy like Sam Harris writes a book – whether one likes the book or not, I’m not sold on it, but I like its attempts – that tries to make moral philosophy a 21st century issue, and is then asked to engage medieval arguments, it seems clear why he ignores some of Craig’s points. I know to all of the people who find Craig to be some kind of apologetics ninja, he was the clear winner. I actually lilked the way Harris went about it. I think it’s a bit naive, to put it politely, to suggest that a Stanford trained philosopher and neuro-scientist didn’t know what was going on. I think he was proceeding with points that are relevant to reality, not some logically coherent set of propositions that are as unscientific as young Earth.

    I will also say concerning your point above, I am disappointed that Dawkins wrote that stupid thing in the Guardian. Had he just shut up and let Craig’s camp do all this promotional stuff they’re doing, it would have been a much more effective statement concerning Dawkin’s own position. Anyway, I am sure I just kicked a hornet’s nest with this one. 🙂 Also, I am not committing a hit and run just for hits on my own sight. If I wanted people there, I might actually post more than once every three months!

    • Thanks for the thoughts Dusto. I appreciate passionate engagement! Allow me to riposte!

      I am months and months removed from this now, so I’ll agree that I overstepped the case when I said that Harris “didn’t know what was going on”. I would edit it out, but I don’t remove embarrassing statements from this blog. For the sake of some semblance of integrity, I retract them with comments like this.

      I would suggest that Harris ignored WLC’s arguments and went on his own rambling tangent about how the Bible is stupid, God is immoral, and Christians are idiots. I would also suggest that WLC directly addressed Harris’ arguments and responded to them.

      I would finally suggest that when 1 side responds to the arguments presented by an opponent and 1 side ignores the arguments presented by an opponent, the responding side is debating while the non-responding side is pontificating.

      I’d also suggest that it’s pretty high and mighty to say that Craig’s arguments are “medieval” (i.e. ancient and easily/thoroughly refuted) and thereby inconsequential. If they’re “medieval”, they should be easily trounced, right? Where was the trouncing? Where was the engagement, even at a basic level?

      And one thing: I don’t really think WLC is an apologetics ninja, but he is a very competent theistic philosopher. I like WLC, but we would go about doing the apologetic task quite differently.

  4. Lyndon,

    And thank you in return for your response.

    I only have two quasi-rejoinders (quasi because they’re not really a response to your points–more like pontifications regarding the points made 🙂 ). First, I agree that the Harris/Craig ‘debate’ was a bit of a debacle. While they were discussing the same topic, they were talking past each other because neither explicitly (especially Harris) laid out their presuppositions. I think a lot of the posturing from the respective camps’ claims to victory could have been cleared away with a clear statement of the contenders’ presuppositions.

    Secondly, and at the risk of undermining my own discipline, I think that a lot of philosophers lose their relevance because of the seduction of logical consistency. The mere logical consistency of a proposition does not make the proposition ontologically true. I see this occur often in things like possible world semantics, referred to above. Certainly such talk enables counterfactuals, but to then conclude that these are actual worlds is taking an ‘ontic leap’ (sounds like a great name for a TV show!). This is how I see the medieval arguments like Craig’s persisting as long as they have; and he thing about philosophy is that it doesn’t progress very fast when all one needs is ingenuity in argumentation and not real world applicability. (This last statement, of course, tips my cards concerning my own current presuppositions–for better or worse.)

    I should acknowledge, however, that there could be other good reasons for why these arguments – like Craig’s – won’t go away: they’re right. And although I am not convinced at present, I must recognize that this could be the case.

    Thanks again for your response; I was beginning to worry that you were kicking the Dusto from your feet. Wow, that was horrible.

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s