Maddie - excellent analysis and very well articulated.

Formersnag
"Attention Atheists, none of you have even attempted to answer the issue of "atheists" destroying religions like christianity for the specific purpose of replacing it with another "new/old" religion."

Christianty sowed the seeds of its own destruction. Once the Protestants took the power away from the clergy and gave it over to the people it was all over for Christianity. If you want people to be compliant, then don't teach them how to read and interpret the bible for themselves (as this is essentially what Protestantism did). Strict compliance relies on either ignorance, apathy, or force. Catholicism had the first and last achieved well.

Martin Ibn Warriq
"Kagan's lack of fluency in theology was telling - philosophical debates on the tension between free will and Grace is thousands of years old. It goes to the prejudice in modern philosophy against Aristotle and Scholasticism and how divorce from God leads it into incoherence (eliminative materialism) and irrelevancy."

Free will can easily be argued when you frame it in highly abstract metaphysical terms, however, when you bring it down to earth, like modern day materialists do, it becomes a highly complex issue, one where you have to try and use empirical means - observation, experiment - to try and see if it exists or not. Abstract metaphysics just claims it exists by presupposing we are fully conscious of our actions at all times, and that we are completely free to choose what course of action we ought to take in every moment of the day. Work into the unconscious by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Freud have put the free will debate to bed.
To say modern philosophy "divorce[d] from God leads it into incoherence (eliminative materialism) and irrelevancy" is ignorant at best. In fact, philosophy today is much harder because we no longer possess the naivety to use god as a "stop-gap" solution when problems cannot be reasoned out. Instead, we must suspend judgment until further evidence arrives.

The second line of my last post should have said "philosophers" were "materialists" are. As many modern day philosophers are not strictly materialists.

AJ Phillips, I have no idea what you are talking about, nor I suspect do you. Instead of link spamming us with YouTube videos why don't you take up the arguments that are in them and tell us what Craig says, and why he is wrong, and what your favoured authorities say, and why they are right?

From what I have seen of Craig, and I've only just come across him, he uses fairly traditional theological arguments and deductions. They are not snake oil, and if Dawkins wants to take on Christianity, as he says he does, then he should take them on, rather than concentrating on theological arguments that he invents.

If he is prepared to argue against versions that he invents, then he has no excuse for refusing to argue against someone who has a more sophisticated version and which are accepted as being within the ambit of what does constitute Christianity.

BTW, I'm not sure where anyone got the idea Craig is a creationist. He's not. So let's take that away as one reason for not debating him.

To do justice to Madeleine's piece I fear much commentary has concentrated on Craig v Dawkins rather than exploration of atheism v theism, which I perceived as the thrust of her article and her interest.

I also feel it essential to avoid reference to any particular religion or belief system, or to any consideration of the mechanisms of the human psyche, to conduct any fruitful analysis.

Neither scientific analysis nor historical texts can give us a "proof", but the question is should this then be an end to the discussion, or are there means to evaluate the probabilities?

For many, only a new "burning bush" could constitute "evidence". For others, canonisations for puportedly proven "miracles" (mostly medical) can provide sufficient "confirmation". It may be that the power of suggestion, combined with an amazing physiology, can account for such "miracles" - but may also be a proof of the efficacy of "faith". Faith in such circumstances appears to be a powerful vehicle. Is there room to allow that there may be more to faith than merely willpower?

Random evolution, intricate cosmological componentry and intricate operating physical bases, all from a measured beginning, not from nothing (as some have suggested) but from a balanced amorphism. Chance is marvellous, but is it truly compelling? We of course must accept the possibility, but there remains the question of how such an amazing "miracle" has occured, through the imponderable mechanisms of the beginning and the pre-beginning (and with the possibility that this may not be the first time around).

Our solar system is destined to eventually descend into chaos, and us with it - unless either the current science is wrong, or a radical change occurs - via an unforseeable "miracle".

"Proof" may be a long time coming. "Faith" is comforting, suggests order and purpose to the universe and our existence within it, and may be beneficial to our health (when not taken in too heavy a dosage). Reasons enough for many; whilst doubt and disbelief may only remain "cold comfort" for others.