Dawkins takes a stand in only crediting what can be substantiated by the evidence. Unfortunately, socially his priestly perspective is a luxury we don't all enjoy. Out in the real world, outside the lab, there is little to be gained in contradicting the astounding ignorance and irrationality that dominates social discourse and passes for common sense. Dawkins is justified in despising it; but there's a cost to be born by the rest of us if we adopt a similar attitude, be it apostasy or in defying popular binary opinions generally. We become pariah's and can take no refuge or comfort in any celebrity status, such that's conferred on the Dawkins and Greers and Singers of the world. The distinctions they enjoy make their radical opinions easy to maintain, much easier than they are for the rest of us who have no ivory towers from which to lob our bombshells, or collegiality in which to take refuge. No one should underestimate the importance of social acceptance when transcendence fails. Indeed our priests and academics and politicians and celebrities are the eccentrics of this world and they delude themselves to the extent they believe themselves objective or above it, or in their wild intellectualisations. Intellectualism is a posh form of rationalism, and Dawkins's error is in believing he can objectify phenomena. One cannot and should not isolate data, except for specific purposes. Dawkins wants to purge irrationality, as if it can be separated from the social conditions in which it flourishes, as if his clinical perspective is untainted, disinterested, or has any purchase in the real world and its complexities.
I respect Dawkin's speaking out--though I think he's a smug ignoramus and it's more about the demands of his ego and constant recognition than philanthropy or any desire to do good. It's about self-valorisation, amassing cultural capital.
But that's not what I started out wanting say.
Where's the argument from the theist side? What are Craig's devastating points, which presumably would leave Dawkins floundering?
There "are" subtle theological arguments..

It seems the theists are overwhelmingly just as conceited as Dawkins.

Thanks Dan S de Merengue, for articulating so perfectly the circular nature of the theist "argument". By quoting the Bible as if it is some form of authoritative source document, you encapsulate the impossibility of entering into any form of discussion with theism that is intended to enlighten, educate or inform.

No amount of "Or here's another good one: Jesus' own words..." will survive any more than the most cursory analysis, as a solid base for discussion. Only those predisposed to accept that these were, in fact "Jesus' own words", as opposed to literary puppetry performed some decades later, will find them of interest.

Which is why I find this statement of yours so hilariously smug:

>>But if he wants to try and advance the progress of scientists, philosophers, and humanity in general forward in the direction of truth, then he would be more open to discussion and debate in good faith with all significant parties relevant to his field of concern.<<

Dawkins' "field of concern" does not stretch, I would imagine, to discussing such flat-earth concepts as Creationism. He seems - to me, at least - to worry more about the corrosive impact of such beliefs on the individual's sanity, and on society's cohesion.

The facts are not themselves debatable. From your own contribution, Dan S de Merengue, it is clear that the first and last words a theist can offer on the topic of our origins are simply "the Bible says so".

Everything else is a form of retro-fit of reality, carefully distorted to enable it to fit that first premise. At least other theories have a start, a middle, and an end. And as we learn more, each of these might move a little. Which is, of course, their virtue, since they lack a confining narrative that already claims to have all the answers.

I would imagine that a "discussion" with Craig would be as productive and satisfying as arguing with the television.

Hi Pericles,
I don't think you really caught on to what I was trying to say. But I'm willing to elaborate, if that would help clarify.

I quoted the Bible, not because I thought a verse here or there would convince you or any other atheist of the Christian viewpoint, but because I think it helps to establish a basis or starting point for at least discussing what Christianity objectively is about.

For example, the words I quoted were Jesus' words, objectivity speaking, according to St Matthew. And it is these words that the Christian faith is based upon. Realistically they are, of course, not Jesus' exact words, as Matthew wrote his gospel in Greek and Jesus spoke ordinarily in Aramaic.

So the Bible is the (or at least one) standard or objective basis around which Christianity can be discussed.

My comments above were directly aimed at the Madeleine's article. Her article states that Craig is not a creationist. Others in the discussion following have agreed with her that Craig is definitely not a creationist. The point is relevant, as it is a stated reason for why Dawkins is refusing to debate Craig.

However, to this point I bring a different view. Craig must be a creationist to some degree. All Christians are creationists to some degree, if they've ever made it past the first verse of the Christians Scripture – Genesis chapter one, verse one. William Lane Craig (to my understanding) is a Reformed theologian. As such he would take an extremely high view of the Scriptures.

Dawkins field of concern clearly entails engaging with religion, even the Christian religion, as per his 2006 book, 'The God Delusion'. Now if ('if' being the appropriate word) he is going to enter this field of discussion with Craig or anyone else, he may as well deal with an authentic or at least objective version of Christianity.

You say the facts are not debatable. This topic is quite debatable, as the length of this thread demonstrates (and others similar to it). It starts with getting the definitions correct.

At the risk of generating great hilarity from some quarters I wonder if I dare suggest that there may be some truth to the bible after all, albeit with a fair amount of poetic (or imaginative) licence thrown in. As we are evaluating possibilities in an objective and scientific manner, at least in theory, to reject this historical record outright is really rather rash, as well as conveniently and subjectively eliminating a large part of the basis of argument for the positive case.

As all history is necessarily recorded after the event, and regularly after quite some time has elapsed, timeframe should not automatically be cause for dismissal. Also, the limited amount of early physical evidence is not of itself cause for rejection. This leads us to the credentials and mental state of the historians themselves, and here there seems to be a suggestion by the detractors of either conspiracy or mass delusion. Given the extent and detail of the various bible records the latter proposition could surely be viewed as unlikely. This leaves us with the question of the potential validity of Jesus' story, and of the validity of the various miracles recounted.

After eliminating the implausible (such as The Beginning, Adam and Eve, etc) we are left to ponder whether any of the miracles attributed to Jesus could have been real, and if Jesus' teachings have merit.

Personally, I find the story of Jesus both valuable and of considerable merit. I also accept the miracles, with a touch of healthy scepticism.

The extended religion story has Jesus and other supposed prophets, and the question becomes whether any of these teachings have merit, and whether any of the records represents evidence of God. As to merit I see a positive, as for proof of God the jury is still out but the possibility remains unless and until various miracles are explained.

My take: God is exemplified by and in the natural world.
Proposition: Religion may have beeen an effective vehicle for disseminating ethics, but has now gone off the rails and is in need of replacement or reform.

Not sure what made you think that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I don't think you really caught on to what I was trying to say. But I'm willing to elaborate, if that would help clarify.<<

It actually seemed pretty straightforward to me. Even more so, in fact, once you "elaborated".

>>I quoted the Bible... I think it helps to establish a basis or starting point for at least discussing what Christianity objectively is about<<

Maybe it does. But as I said, only for Christians.

Using the Bible as your starting point can only be valid if you have already accepted that the Bible is a valid starting point. Slipping in the word "objectively" merely highlights this fact. As in "I can determine objectively that this person is a Christian, because he believes the bible".

Your proffered example takes it one stage further still.

>>the words I quoted were Jesus' words, objectivity speaking, according to St Matthew. And it is these words that the Christian faith is based upon. Realistically they are, of course, not Jesus' exact words<<

Objectively speaking, it is unlikely that "St Matthew" was the author of these words. Being so far removed from the purported source, both in time, language and their provenance as chinese whispers, rather undermines their importance, wouldn't you think?

Especially as they are according to you the "words that the Christian faith is based upon"

>>So the Bible is the (or at least one) standard or objective basis around which Christianity can be discussed.<<

Only, as I have pointed out, if you are already convinced by the source material. Otherwise, it is not standard or objective, but instead a purely arbitrary and subjective, foundation for religious beliefs.

>>My comments above were directly aimed at the Madeleine's article.<<

This comment, perhaps?

>>That he currently shows more interest in the former than the latter reveals he's not as confident in his stated position as his brashness pretends.<<

You were just taking a free kick, weren't you.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. But it's always better to be honest about these things.

Here's a compilation of articles about this issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100112626/richard-dawkins-is-either-a-fool-or-a-coward-for-refusing-to-debate-william-lane-craig/

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-vallely-god-knows-why-dawkins-wont-show-2374659.html

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/10/he-bravely-ran-away-away.html

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3601936.html

http://analytictheologye4c5.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/why-w-l-craig-wont-debate-dawkins-an-unofficial-official-statement/

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/10/an-evening-without-richard-dawkins.html

Two quotes I'd like to share. Not necessarily because I entirely agree but moreso because they will provoke thought.

From a commenter on ABC The Drum:

"It is entertaining to read how Dawkins’ worshippers go to great lengths to defend his refusal to debate. What seems to escape them is that Craig issued the challenge to Dawkins for the latter to defend his ideas as written in 'The God Delusion'. If Dawkins did not agree, either he is afraid that his ideas in the book will be torn to shreds or he himself does not believe they are worthwhile defending anymore. By defending their high priest’s stance with even more obtuse excuses, some atheists, who are supposed to always think critically, suddenly behave no differently from religious folk who dogmatically defend their faith."

From Peter Hitchens:

"The important thing about this is that what Craig does is simple. He uses philosophical logic, and a considerable knowledge of physics, to expose the shallowness of Dawkins’s arguments. I would imagine that an equally serious Atheist philosopher would be able to give him a run for his money, but Dawkins isn’t that. He would have been embarrassingly out of his depth.

For what Craig achieves is this. He simply retakes an important piece of ground that Christianity lost through laziness and cowardice, rather than because it lacked the weapons to defend it.

He doesn’t (in my view) achieve total victory over the unbelievers. He simply says : ‘In this logic, which you cannot deny, and in this science, which you cannot deny either, it is clear that there is plenty of room for the possibility that God exists and made the universe’. No scientifically literate person, who is informed and can argue logically, can in truth say that he is wrong".

(to be continued)