3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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.