T,bate or not t’bate. William Lane Craig (Oxford) and Dawkins

Today I’m going to see the William Lane Craig talk at the Sheldonian in Oxford. This will be the second time I have been to that venue this year, previously in April I saw Sam Harris discuss his book ‘The Moral Landscape’ with Richard Dawkins. This was rather interesting as he had just come off the back off a debate in the US with William Lane Craig.

There has been some interesting and amusing discussion regarding Dawkins’ reluctance to debate Craig, and in fact, from all sides of the argument. Plenty of atheists, agnostics and Christians alike have chastised Dawkins for refusing the invitation. Likening it to shutting off the argument and being antithetical to his own supposed regard for free thought and inquiry.

This is all well and good, and in principal I do agree that it is better to not settle an argument having discussed it, than to settle it without discussing it, or however it is that old saying goes. But in practise, with these two imposing characters, I really don’t think it is that simple.

Let me be clear, I am pretty much a 6.5 on the The God Delusions scale of unbelief, and I do not think they should debate.

However the reasons are not down fear of ‘my precious Dawkins’ losing (he is not), or because because he will be cast in a cowardly light for refusing. I have no personal investment in Dawkins, winning a debate. I either agree with the views he puts forward or not, and this is not an exclusive arrangement. I respect him as a scientist, a writer and a populariser of secularism. He has certainly made it somewhat mainstream to “come out” so to speak as someone who does not subscribe to the supernatural. He is human however, and I don’t believe something to be the case just because he uttered it.

The reason I believe he should not debate Craig is because it would be utterly pointless. It would amount to nothing more than posturing on both sides, and a serious case of talking past one another. Both Craig and Dawkins are at such vast extremes on the spectrum of belief, they bring to the stage presuppositions that render any debate on the existence of God moot before they begin.

For example, Dawkins entire outlook is based upon evolution being true. This is his jumping on point. If you do not except that evolution by natural selection is a factual account of the origins of life, then nothing Dawkins could possibly say on the existence of God is going to sway you.

Craig has always skirted around the issue of evolution, creationism and intelligent design. His position is deliberately murky. Now, If ground rules were set that they both agree on the fact of evolution and the topic of debate was on the existence of a deistic god, or even a theistic god that ‘works through’ evolution, I would imagine Dawkins may not be so reluctant. I believe in ‘debate format’ he would indeed still lose due to a lack of debate experience and little training in philosophy.

I really don’t see how Craig would agree to the above ground rules though, because it would explicitly undermine his biblical worldview. He would fall off of the tightrope he walks between a scholarly liberal/agnostic world where he is respected (feared), and the literalist believers that make up his fan base.

The only topic other than this, or the topic that must be settled before any other can begin, is whether or not evolution is indeed a factual account of the origins of life. However when we drift onto this, well, of course…there is no debate. Craig is massively out of his depth and even with all his style and rhetorical skill, could not present evidence or argument to the contrary that convinces anyone that doesn’t already disbelieve in evolution on theological grounds.

So why am I going to hear him speak? Well because I want to hear Craig himself. I want his arguments unconstrained from the battle of beating an opponent. I genuinely want to hear his arguments and ideas outside of the ring. I am prepared to set evolution to one side for a moment to hear his philosophical objections to The God Delusion.

I hope that every atheist and agnostic criticising Dawkins for not debating is attending one of Craig’s talks, and yes I said talks, not debates.

This is more interesting to me than a debate between two enormous ego’s to find myself sitting in the Dawkins camp rooting for him to win an argument they are not even having.

There is nothing worse to blunt the mind than to only ever surround yourself with people and ideas you already agree with.