4 ms·

Why not believe his statement that he has no desire to support Mr Craigs self promotion? It just goes to show that the issue won't be resolved by logic (arguin

by Tichy 15y ago

Why not believe his statement that he has no desire to support Mr Craigs self promotion? It just goes to show that the issue won't be resolved by logic (arguing logically about religion, which is the epitome of irrationality, seems doomed from the start anyway). My main gripe with Dawkins has actually always been that he spends too much time arguing with senseless counterarguments. I wish the evolutionary biologists would rather invest more energy into developing more insights, rather than arguing the same old tired arguments of their enemies again and again. Edit: for what it's worth, I would actually be interested in what arguments Mr Craig would like to present. I checked his web site, but an article about "The God Delusion" that I found was behind a paywall (or at least "become a member wall").

hobbes 15y ago
1. It's ironic that you are asking us to invoke belief in a statement that is merely asserted and not demonstrated. 2. I agree that the issue won't be resolved by logic alone. However, based on Craig's previous debates, he will clearly define his terms and premises, and name the principles of logic used to reach a conclusion. To assert that such debate is "the epitome of irrationality" is itself irrational. You may disagree with his premises and definitions, but that is not the same as irrationality. 3. Dawkins has been asked again and again to debate Craig, and has refused again and again. As I've said before, other prominent atheists have criticised Dawkins on this matter. 4. You can download a number of Craig's debates here: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927 http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927
- Tichy 15y ago
  1.) The whole thing is rather stupid, because it shouldn't be about belief. You can get Dawkins book and make up your own mind. Likewise (allegedly) for Craig's writing. In that sense, what is a public celebrity match supposed to achieve? Will people decide according to the merit of the arguments (then why not just read), or according to the better haircut? As for 4), I tried to follow a link to one of the transcripts, but it only lead to the "restricted to members" page again. Can't be bothered with Audio or Video. So if 2.) is true, at least Craig should present an easily digestable resource with his arguments. As for 3) as I said, I think Dawkings is wasting too much time with futile discussions already. I don't think refusing to discuss with anybody is an indicator for the merit of his arguments. Edit: also, since I suppose Craig has published books, name one good reason why I should expect any interesting points in them?
  - hobbes 15y ago
    I'll let you have the last word, but regarding the expectation of interesting points, I would ask that you peruse Craig's publications. Not all of the journals would impress you, but some will: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publications_main http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publ... Craig is a serious philosopher with credible philosophical publications to his name. That is why he is worth reading (perhaps more his journal articles than his "popular" books, indicated by "P" in the above list). That is also the reason why Dawkins should take him on in debate.

by Tichy 15y ago

hobbes 15y ago

1. It's ironic that you are asking us to invoke belief in a statement that is merely asserted and not demonstrated. 2. I agree that the issue won't be resolved by logic alone. However, based on Craig's previous debates, he will clearly define his terms and premises, and name the principles of logic used to reach a conclusion. To assert that such debate is "the epitome of irrationality" is itself irrational. You may disagree with his premises and definitions, but that is not the same as irrationality. 3. Dawkins has been asked again and again to debate Craig, and has refused again and again. As I've said before, other prominent atheists have criticised Dawkins on this matter. 4. You can download a number of Craig's debates here: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927 http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927

Tichy 15y ago
1.) The whole thing is rather stupid, because it shouldn't be about belief. You can get Dawkins book and make up your own mind. Likewise (allegedly) for Craig's writing. In that sense, what is a public celebrity match supposed to achieve? Will people decide according to the merit of the arguments (then why not just read), or according to the better haircut? As for 4), I tried to follow a link to one of the transcripts, but it only lead to the "restricted to members" page again. Can't be bothered with Audio or Video. So if 2.) is true, at least Craig should present an easily digestable resource with his arguments. As for 3) as I said, I think Dawkings is wasting too much time with futile discussions already. I don't think refusing to discuss with anybody is an indicator for the merit of his arguments. Edit: also, since I suppose Craig has published books, name one good reason why I should expect any interesting points in them?
- hobbes 15y ago
  I'll let you have the last word, but regarding the expectation of interesting points, I would ask that you peruse Craig's publications. Not all of the journals would impress you, but some will: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publications_main http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publ... Craig is a serious philosopher with credible philosophical publications to his name. That is why he is worth reading (perhaps more his journal articles than his "popular" books, indicated by "P" in the above list). That is also the reason why Dawkins should take him on in debate.