Craig, one of the nation's leading Christian apologists, has debated many atheists on the rationality of faith and the existence of God including Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman and Richard Taylor. His upcoming United Kingdom tour has evidently intimidated Richard Dawkins as he has continually refused to debate Craig when he visits his home turf this October.
Recently, Polly Toynbee, president of the British Humanist Association, also pulled out of a scheduled debate with Craig on the existence of God. A war of words has broken out between Dawkins and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic as a sign that he may be losing his nerve.
Famous atheist Sam Harris once described Craig as "the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."
Dawkins has already shot WLC down:
I agree completely not just about WLC, but about the average believer: it's an emotional cause for them, not rational at all and therefore, not subject to debate or rational discourse of any kind. They appeal to emotion at every turn. In essence they believe because it fulfills an emotional need for them, and they don't want people saying their fairy tales are false.
I first heard of WLC at the blog of Randall Rauser, who has an advanced degree in
About debates... apparently you can win or lose debates based on parrying and thrusts of a verbal sort, kind of. So if you throw out a bunch of thrusts and your opponent only handles a few of them and sidesteps the rest in the interest of time, that is apparently a "victory." Waving your sword in air and never actually nicking or stabbing your opponent somehow makes points.
Dawkins going to an evangelical college to debate during an evangelical convention against their biggest idol would indeed be a waste of time due to cognitive dissonance. The audience would be packed with people who have made it their life's work to bullshit themselves into believing that believing is good (forget whether it's true). Cognitive dissonance goes like this: I invested a helluva lot into this Christianity thing, so it has to be true, or else I've wasted my life.
|I squish them to|
give them a
Christians, on the other hand, have been arrogant in believing their selfish theology is correct, so they might come back as cockroaches or tsetse flies.
Back to the "properly basic" idea. WLC says that belief in a god is "properly basic," which in philosophical terms basically means it gets a pass. These beliefs don't need evidence, but they do. And they're valid unless they're not. Grab some dramamine and check out his podcast on "properly basic" crap: