Perhaps what Richard Dawkins says, as he did yesterday, might be relevant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Besides, it ought not be about the personalities; it ought to be about the arguments around premises, without fallacious 'appeals to authority', "strawman red-herrings" that WL Craig espouses, etc.

Note the comments below Dawkin's piece. Especially the reference to Craig's debating style - in the 2nd comment - the "Gish Gallop"
('epeeists' link to Stephen Law's blog about Law's recent debate with WL Craig does not work - the link is below*)

"The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised. ...[snip] ...

"The gallop is often used as an indirect 'argument-from-authority', as it appears to paint the "galloper" as an expert in a broad range of subjects and the opponent as an incompetent bumbler who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop . Some bloggers use the Gish Gallop, and there is evidence on this thread.

* Stephen Law's argument v Craig sketch -http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/10/brief-sketch-of-my-overall-argument-in.html
from his blog http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/
.

Thanks for that McReal,

I'd never heard of William Lane Craig until this article....and judging by the quotes that Dawkins has included from Lane, I wouldn't want to share a stage with him either.

It's very sweet of you to be so defensive on the author's behalf, Martin Ibn Warriq. I'm sure she is very appreciative of your support, coming as it does from such a balanced, neutral point of view.

>>Madeleine chose to invest her time thinking about a question of historically universal human significance - the question of God - a question that our 'culture' anxiously avoids posing.<<

From the evidence of this forum alone, I'd suggest that our "culture" - far from anxiously avoiding the topic - actively and enthusiastically embraces it, every time it raises its head. The problem with that, of course, is that spending our lives debating the existence of something that can never be objectively defined, is a pretty pointless waste of time.

If that were the only problem, nothing would be gained or lost except a few brain cells destroyed in the process of banging themselves against a wall. Unfortunately - as Dawkins points out - the damage done to our world by religious adherents is tangible, and measured in the destruction of minds and bodies, over many centuries.

The case that Dawkins primarily makes - the carnage effect, if you will - is inevitably supported by a string of "how can you possibly believe in such nonsense" points. It is these points that the religionist refutes by saying "well, we do believe, so suck on that". Providing very little material for anyone not of the faith to argue with in any cogent fashion.

>>If you define independence as narrowly as you do then you have never had an independent thought and Eistein drawing from the pre-Socratics didn't either<<

Evidence of independent thinking does not exclude reference to previous ideas and concepts. But the lack of it here is glaringly exposed by the complete absence of balance - a weighing up, if you will, of the material you uncover, as opposed to the slavish regurgitation of someone else's predigested info-gobbets.

I respectfully suggest that "Eistein" did a little more than copy out someone else's views.

Wow. Dawkin's latest article....

That's not just bad, that's really bad.

Someone needs to give Dawkins some PR help and tell him that he would be well advised to lay low until Craig has left the UK and much of the furore has died down. This latest article has just continued his downward spiral. If he has any credibility whatsoever left, it has surely now shrunken to the point of being unrecognisable.

Making a completely nonsense and laughable statement yet again that it would "look good on Craig's resume but not mine", followed by an entire article based on a red herring and questioning Craig's character. Anyone with half a brain can see that Dawkins is running scared.

Trav,

It's more likely that Dawkins is reluctant to provide Craig with an ounce of credibility by appearing on the stage beside him.

"Anyone with half a brain can see that Dawkins is running scared."

Yes, but those of us with a whole brain can spot a publicity-seeking opportunist when we see one.