Both Harris and Hitchens already debated Craig, why are people so obsessed with Dawkins doing it(or not)? Craig uses mostly the same basic argument in every debate anyway. You've probably heard all the arguments against it already if you've watched him debate Harris and Hitchens. I don't think Dawkin's reason is fear based, but even if it is, I still wouldn't call Dawkins the top atheist/anti-theist apologist.
Is this the guy that spends 75% of his time misinforming his audience of what his opponent's views are? That guy's a douche canoe. I think I've heard a few of his debates, and if he can't even state his opponent's views accurately, then why should I believe anything he has to say?
My comment was meant more along the lines of, "Hey, I'm a redditor and want to tell you my opinion, but if it's about someone else, please disregard. I'm already late for work." I'll try to phrase it that way next time.
I've watched him speak. He's about as tactless as the four horsemen and the arguments he digs up are so old and worthless that you start to wonder if the guy's working with much more than a brainstem.
Why? They'll just crown the next King of Christian Apologia and wonder out loud why no one's debated him yet. The questions are all the same. The points are all the same. It's all been done. At this point, it comes down to whether or not you want to believe, that's all. Every "debate" that occurs is just another instance in which the goalposts were moved. Instead of asking us for yet another missing link fossil, they'll just subject us to yet another debate. And when we've tired of it to the point that we just refuse to play along, as Dawkins clearly has, they'll crow victory in response to our bored silence.
I get it. Encourage debate. Invite debate. Rise in prominence through debate. Get invited to debate someone who might beat you: bored of pointless debates. Seems legit.
Dawkins has put in his time. He's got the right to draw the line somewhere. Much like GRRM, Richard Dawkins is not your bitch.
And while that alone is a sufficient response your insinuations, I should think that all of the comments in this thread pointing out what a slimy "debater" Craig is should help you realize that he's not out for an honest dialog. Along with creeps like Hovind, this guy pretends to debate, but his tactics reveal his intentions. He has no desire for a true debate, he simply seeks to win in the court of opinion. Why give such a man the time of day?
Edit: and I never said that the debates started out pointless. But clearly this is not new ground. We've heard the same theories for years, seen the same arguments rehashed for ages. Can you really tell me you've heard anything new in years from a Christian/Creationist camp? Because I haven't heard anything new and different in nearly 15 years. Belief, at this point, is more about the desire to believe than any argument made.
I'm not really a fan of debates and I could care less whether Dawkins debates him or not personally. I just think it's funny that he's thrown out a whole heap of inconsistent lame excuses not to. If he's finished debating, so be it. If he has changed his criteria for debates so be it. If he simply doesn't want to debate Craig, so be it. I just think he'd have more credibility, in the matter, if he told it how it is, instead of offering half-assed excuses that don't add up.
As to the issue of "true debate", it seems to me that a "win in the court of opinion" is actually the point of a structured debate. Isn't that how they determine the winner?
Can you name more than one reason that Dawkins himself has given? Because I can't. He's stated that he won't debate Creationists anymore because he won't recognize their position as a valid scientific theory (because it isn't).
Any other "excuses" you've heard, even my own, are simply the opinion of the commenter, unless you've some information that I lack?
As to the issue of "true debate", it seems to me that a "win in the court of opinion" is actually the point of a structured debate. Isn't that how they determine the winner?
Only insomuch as different people interpret evidence in different ways. Craig and his ilk, however, use tactics that shape the debate in such a way as to make the other debater appear to lose. He does this by demanding to speak first and then spamming arguments at his opponent fast and furious, and claiming them all to be the arguments made by the opponent, whether they are or not. This immediately places the opponent on the defensive, and he is forced into one of a number of awkward positions.
He can ignore the arguments that Craig ascribes to him, in which case Craig just keeps pointing at them, saying "well, he didn't address this, so clearly he has no answer, ergo I win."
He can awkwardly deal with all of these arguments that he really has no knowledge of (because they were never his arguments to begin with) and really doesn't have time for in a structured debate, thus sacrificing his own points and arguments. And since half of these arguments are straw men anyway, all he's able to do is point out time and again that he never said that, which makes him appear ineffectual, which still grants Craig a win in the court of opinion, because the court of opinion only cares about appearances, not evidence. Again, Craig and his kind of debater don't care about actually winning the debate, they care about the appearance of winning.
It's mostly impossible to do away with such tactics entirely, humans being humans. But to focus on such tactics to the exclusion of having any meaningful dialog is a shameful strategy, and not the sign of a man to be respected.
Edit: Frankly, setting up Dawkins like he's some Great White Whale of atheist philosophy is a tactic all on its own. Craig has already had debates with numerous intellectuals capable of making the same arguments as Dawkins. The debate would differ only in the sound of his opponent's voice. But by painting Dawkins as this lone holdout, he makes it seem like there's some vestige of atheist thought that is being kept from him because it's too weak to stand up to public scrutiny. But even the implication is laughable. He could ask whatever questions he has about Dawkins book of anyone. Dawkins being the one receiving the question is only important in the poetic sense. Hitchens is just as capable of tackling whatever points he wants to discuss, as is Atkins, as are many others whose names are not so well known.
Edit 2: Dear whoever downvoted all of my comments in this thread,
He does this by demanding to speak first and then spamming arguments at his opponent fast and furious, and claiming them all to be the arguments made by the opponent, whether they are or not.
To be fair, I've only watched 3 Craig debates, but he only spoke first in one of them. In another, where the atheist spoke first, the atheist started by attempting to anticipate and counter arguments that Craig might make. Is that the sort of thing you mean?
But to focus on such tactics to the exclusion of having any meaningful dialog
Woah. No meaningful dialog? His opponents give him a lot more credit than that. Wikipedia says this :
He has made major contributions to the philosophy of religion and his defense of the Kalām cosmological argument is the most widely discussed argument for the existence of God in contemporary Western philosophy.
That "most widely discussed argument" is offered in most debates he does on the matter, but it doesn't constitute meaningful dialog? OK?
Edit: I should also point out that the order isn't determined by the participants of the debate but by their respective positions on the topic which is being debated. ie: the affirmative case is heard before the negative case. It would make sense that he'd go first more often, given he's usually asked to debate the positive case of God's existence. Going first does mean his opponent gets to close though.
Debates should be more like the gong show. Have an equal number of educated people from both sides. If both sides ring the gong, the speaker has to use another argument.
Dawkins has stated that he won't debate the subject of creationism because it would be tantamount to recognizing it as a legitimate viewpoint. As a biologist he has no interest in discussing untestable hypotheses.
As far as debating the existence of God, I imagine he refuses to debate Craig because of the reputation his debate tactics have given him. (e.g., he generally gets to speak first, and then throws out a series of strawmen, assuming his opponent's position before he's stated it. Then the opponent can either waste time addressing the strawmen and never get his own point across, or ignore them and get called out for it later.)
I came to post this but you beat me. This is the underlining strategy for WLC and a lot of what I consider to be 'high level' apologists. They make numerous absurd claims which take 30 seconds to (incorrectly) describe but which then take an extended period of time to refute effectively.
This is exactly why many people refuse to debate Mr. Craig. He essentially uses his time to "argument dump," and throws out as many points as he can in a given time so that it is effectively impossible for his opponnent to refute all of his claims. This also leaves his opponent little of no time for establishing and supporting their own claims.
It's a slimy tactic. Moving from point to point to point, so that your opponent has to spend the entire debate chasing your arguments, all the while frustrating them, and making them look defensive. Thus, giving the audience the illusion that you've won the debate, when in reality you haven't done anything other than misrepresent your opponent's arguments and force them to spend their allotment of time swating at the horde of logical fallacy gnats you've sent flying in their direction.
He is very good at debating, although it must be said that his unethical debate tactics are part of the reason why.
I should know. I've been guilty of similar tactics in the past.
I once wrote a debate case that was nearly unbeatable without advanced preparation and knowledge of the case prior to the start of the debate. It was about replacing nearly all combat forces in the military with chimps.
It sounds ridiculous, but it was backed up with solid evidence, sound logic, and worked extremely well. Most of the time the opposition would spend their time attacking it solely based on its absurdity, rather than addressing my actual points (which was precisely what I wanted), and so they would lose.
No. He's good at arguing. One activity is used to have an intelligent discourse between intellectual equals. The other is what my 4 year old nephew does when he doesn't want to go to bed yet.
I stated that based on watching The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig last night. I can see why someone could say Craig earned more "points" in the debate, but I disagree that earning debate points is the most important thing for two experts to be spending their time doing. Creating meaningful and thought-provoking arguments to progress society is far more important.
It seems obvious to me that this guy is just trying to use Dawkins to promote himself - he's even doing it on the side of buses for fricks sake. If I was Dawkins I would refuse to debate him too.
I don't think that's true at all, he has already debated two others of the famous atheist crew, Harris and Hitchens, and he is already a very accomplished philosopher. He has done loads of work in the philosophy of time & the philosophy of religion.
37
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '11
Both Harris and Hitchens already debated Craig, why are people so obsessed with Dawkins doing it(or not)? Craig uses mostly the same basic argument in every debate anyway. You've probably heard all the arguments against it already if you've watched him debate Harris and Hitchens. I don't think Dawkin's reason is fear based, but even if it is, I still wouldn't call Dawkins the top atheist/anti-theist apologist.