Previously I looked briefly at Dawkins’ refusal to debate Christian/religious apologist William Lane Craig. Craig is arguably America’s leading intellectual apologist and defender of religion, and I concluded that Dawkins’ reasons for not debating him struck me as excusatory rather than as legitimate concerns.I briefly wish to revisit the reasons Dawkins provides for not debating Craig in an article Dawkins released on The Guardian in 2011. As the date shows, this is not a recent controversy but it is yet one I wish to comment on. I shall do so over the course of several posts. I should make known my own position. I simply favor formal debates and find it a necessary conduit for imparting knowledge to public consciousness, particularly on those who attend in the audience. I don’t believe religion and atheism should be merely private affairs beyond critical scrutiny. A major way to ensure that this is not always the case is the formal debate. As such, I found it unfortunate that Dawkins, perhaps the world’s most well-known atheist, refused to debate Craig, arguably the world’s most well-known apologist. A debate between Dawkins and Craig would have been a spectacle and therefore one of great public interest. This is why I wish to put a critical eye on Dawkins, for it is he he decided to avoid one. From the beginning of the article Dawkins makes it a clear goal to undermine Craig by way of belittling him,
Richard Dawkins’ Delivers Nasty Low Blows Against William Lane Craig (Revisiting the Controversy) | Bishop’s Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy
Smart Christian.net 