American philosopher, debater and Christian apologist William Lane Craig has been getting attention for Richard Dawkins‘ refusal to debate him. Craig’s Oxford debate has been publicised with a bus campaign stating ‘There’s probably no Dawkins‘.
It’s a funny and clever riff on the atheist bus campaign, and good publicity for William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith debate tour. Dawkins is in a bit of a lose-lose situation – Dawkins would be hard-pressed to match Craig in the debate, and such an event would be good publicity for Craig but less so for Dawkins; but by refusing, Dawkins looks weak and Craig still gets lots of publicity.
In response, Dawkins is trying his best to dismiss him as a legitimate intellectual figure, accusing Craig in The Guardian of justifying genocide in the Old Testament. This is a tricky subject, and as such is a good ‘distraction’ for Dawkins to use in diverting attention away from the debate about God’s existence. I think it’s quite telling – the New Atheism is as much an attack on the goodness of God as it is on his existence.
Of course, divinely-sanctioned war in the Old Testament is an important issue in its own right. For an introduction, check out these articles on Bethinking: Old Testament Mass Killings, Is God a Monster?.
But on the basis of an atheistic, naturalistic worldview, so what if the Israelites committed genocide? If we are nothing but molecules in motion, then there’s no more moral import to the movements of some ape-descendants in the Middle East than there is to continental drift or the Northern Lights.
Of course, genocide is always wrong, and we know it’s wrong, but that suggests that there’s more to reality than Dawkins’ atheism allows. Atheists are just as moral as anyone else, but this is inconsistent with their stated beliefs – you can be moral without God, but you cannot justify objective, universal morality from a purely naturalistic philosophy.
Dawkins is also begging the question by accusing Craig of endorsing genocide, because Craig’s argument is to explain why the war described in Judges was not in fact genocide, but was a proportionate, targeted and morally justified war given the full circumstances and context.
As a reason not to debate Craig, it’s a pretty weak one. Dawkins is basically saying he won’t debate with Craig because Craig takes the Bible literally, even the parts that go against modern morals and values. This is an odd reversal: Dawkins devotes most of his attention in The God Delusion on attacking the more extreme versions of religion rather than its more “moderate” forms. But now he’s saying he’ll only debate “moderate” religious figures. A bit inconsistent, surely?
However, I think Craig and those promoting him might need to tone down the rhetoric a bit. There’s a danger of going too far and appearing needy and attention-seeking. Potential debate opponents need to be reassured of a fair fight, rather than being invited to an intellectual ambush. In an interview on BBC Radio 4, an atheist complained about Craig’s “slippery arguments”. On the other hand, this guy seemed to be objecting that Craig uses lines of argument that sound convincing and are hard to refute without a lot of work. It seems that Craig should be ashamed of using such dirty tricks as having strong arguments for believing in God, and use unconvincing arguments that are easily refuted instead!
See the programme for William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith tour to find out where he’s appearing, or check out a recording of his lecture at Imperial College London from earlier this week.
