Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig Debate





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Oct 23, 2011

Richard Dawkins TIMES:

William Lane Craig TIMES:

Comments • 42,812

evolution is not a valid argument for this reason: there is no observation or fossil record of Anything changing from one species into another; change within species is observed but is limited to remaining the same. as The Bible states, "each is to produce after it's own kind"; and so it has remained ever since. dogs produce more dogs, apes produce more apes, and humans produce more humans. my favorite "fossil proof"-...ummm, probably Nebraska Man- upon investigation found to be the tooth of a pig, and nothing more but the vivid imagination of 'scientists', whom this "discovery" would assure continued grant money. after all, evolutionists must pay their tithes too.
View all 32 replies
Hide replies
The hell was the point in administrating this event in Spanish but having the speakers speak English? Also, does anyone else feel weird seeing these 'intellectual titans' on such a goofy setting lol?
View all 105 replies
Hide replies
47,000+ Comments all look something like this Creationist view: William Craig owned Dawkins Atheist view: Dawkins pwned Craig That's basically it, it's like watching a sporting event, it doesn't matter what we think...for we are all biased assholes.
View all 123 replies
Hide replies
Marco Polo
After this 2010 symposium Richard Dawkins was challenged several times to a one-on-one debate by William Lane Craig but refused, proffering instead a list of six flimsy reasons for not facing Craig. The real reason is seen in this video where Dawkins is made to look like a buffoon by Craig.   @48:34 Craig, in presenting his summary, says, "I think the most reprehensible position represented in tonight's debate was Richard Dawkins' claim that "why" questions are just silly. These are the deepest existential questions that human beings can ask, and to refuse to ask such "why" questions is to reduce human beings to mere animals; which is, of course, exactly what Professor Dawkins believes. . . [that] we're just animated chunks of matter in motion. . . . Love, questions of meaning, and so forth are all ultimately just spin-offs of the blind, bio-evolutionary process. But if God exists, then clearly these are meaningful questions--these are vital questions for the nature of human existence and destiny. The tragedy would be that if God does exist, and you miss His purpose for your life because you think these are silly questions, and therefore don't need to think about them, [this] would be the ultimate tragedy."   Here are the list of excuses Dawkins maintains: 1. He claims Craig's only claim to fame is that he's a professional debater. FACT: Craig is a highly distinguished academic with doctorates in both Philosophy and Theology. He has published more than thirty books and nearly 200 papers in peer-reviewed, academic journals. 2. He accuses Craig of being a Creationist, a term which usually implies that someone believes in a "young Earth creation," or in a literalistic view of the 6 days of creation as recorded in Genisis. FACT: Craig asserts that the universe had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago. It is therefore wholly inaccurate and misleading to describe him as a creationist in the standard sense of that term. 3. Dawkins says Craig is not a senior churchman and that he will not debate a religious person less senior than a Cardinal or Bishop. FACT: Most senior churchmen are not distinguished academics. Few have done research in secular universities or have gained doctorates, either in science, philosophy or theology. Professor Craig therefore is a much more rigorous opponent. Dawkins has in fact previously debated with other Christian academics, namely John Lennox and Alister McGrath. 4. Dawkins claims it would look good on Craig’s CV but would not look good on his own. FACT: As Oxford University philosopher Dr. Daniel Came has stated, his failure to debate with “the foremost apologist of Christian theism” has become a glaring omission on Dawkins’ own CV (see text of letter below). 5. Dawkins claims he already debated Craig in Mexico in 2010. FACT: Watch the video for yourself. This can hardly be considered a real debate. Both Dawkins and Craig were members of a six man panel, and the unconventional format allowed little scope for a full exchange of views. In addition, there was no allotted time for cross examination or opportunity to question opponents or be questioned by them. Ironically, Dawkins himself said to Craig at the time that he did not consider this to be a debate between them. He can’t have it both ways. Nevertheless, in spite of adverse conditions, Craig effortlessly stretched Dawkins' sphincter which was probably still a little sore from the reaming he'd received from John Lennox a couple years earlier. 6. In Dawkins own words, "I have no interest in this." Really? This is surprising. He's made a fortune from his book, The God Delusion, and continues to promote his agressive style of atheism, but is not interested in exchanging views with a serious academic who wants to challenge his arguments in public?   I submit that none of these reasons are remotely credible.   Following is a letter by one of Dawkins' own atheist colleagues, Dr. Daniel Came, of Oxford University, in which he not only reprimands Dawkins, but also educates him in the use of logic, specifically regarding the ontological argument. . .   Dear Professor Dawkins,   I write as an atheist and in reference to your refusal to participate in a one-to-one debate with the philosopher William Lane Craig.   You dismiss Professor Craig as a ‘professional debater’ and state that you are not willing to debate anyone less senior than a bishop. Professor Craig has a PhD in philosophy and a PhD in theology. He is Research Professor in Philosophy at Talbot University. He has published more than thirty books and over a hundred papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Given your passionate and unconditional commitment to truth [sarcasm, no doubt], I can only think that you were not aware of Professor Craig’s credentials when you made the above reference.   I understand that you have also commented that ‘a debate with Professor Craig might look good on his CV but it would not look good on mine’. On the contrary, the absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.   While I have your attention, may I also urge you to take another look at the ontological argument for the existence of God? On the basis of your brief discussion of the argument in The God Delusion, it appears you do not understand the logic of this argument. The ontological argument moves from the logical possibility of God’s existence to its actuality. Douglas Gasking’s parody of the argument, which you cite, moves from a logical impossibility to actuality and so is not parallel to the argument. In addition, you do not discuss the more sophisticated modal version of the argument advanced by the American philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga. Admittedly, you do say that some philosophers ‘resort to modal logic’ in an attempt to prove the existence of God. But this is a bit like saying ‘some botanists resort to looking at plants’ and so can hardly be said to constitute an objection to the argument.   Yours sincerely,   Dr. Daniel Came, Lecturer in Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford   I think there is ample evidence provided here to argue that Dawkins, albeit a distinguised biologist, is clearly out of his element in arguing against the existence of God. Moreover, it brings to light the obvious reason for his refusal to debate Craig--He is absolutely terrified. Like most new atheists, Dawkins goes only after weaker prey. He does well insulting Christian laypersons in his audience, and making them appear stupid, but runs from worthy opponents... typical new atheist polemic.
View all 46 replies
Hide replies
barry nicholas
I'm sure Dawkins doesn't believe in half of what he says !
View all 70 replies
Hide replies
Right off the bat Dawkins has to demean those who look for purpose. Of course he did. He LOVES to demean people, its what he does. He is a nasty piece of work.
View all 499 replies
Hide replies
Steven Call
only atheist debate and get mad at what they don't believe in
View all 36 replies
Hide replies
As smart and intelligent as Dawkins is, I just don't think he is a very good debater.
View all 35 replies
Hide replies
Be Thou my Vision
how contrite.... Dawkins....we should not be so lazy and say "God did it".....on the other hand, it's fine and dandy to state : "macro-evolution did it" when that's the height of laziness.
View all 153 replies
Hide replies
Half of these people who say WLC is illogical is being illogical themselves without giving reasons as to why he's illogical.
View all 2 replies
Hide replies
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...