Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".
Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury.
In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another's name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.
But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse:
"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"
You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.
"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."
Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:
"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."
So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right.
Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.
And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.
From Forward.com – All
From CNN Belief Blog
Comments
20 October 2011 10:12AM
What a tiresome man William Lane Craig is.
Just leave him for a junior atheist debater to deal with, there are many young people who understand all the arguments and his fallacies.
20 October 2011 10:13AM
Interestingly Stephen Law has recently debated with WLC, he details the arguments he presented on his blog.
The thing about WLC is that he is primarily a rhetorician rather than a philosopher, further a rhetorician whose chief tactic seems to be the Gish Gallop.
20 October 2011 10:14AM
Ignore Craig and his stupid stunts. He is not worth a moment's thought.
20 October 2011 10:15AM
Just like the good old days when an aristocrat would not duel with a lesser mortal.
20 October 2011 10:15AM
Religion is or should be a personal belief.
Religion is about life after death, yes some argue that life today is a preparation for life after death. But ...
20 October 2011 10:15AM
Nicely put, Richard - an eloquent evisceration.
There's an excellent chapter-by-chapter refutation of Craig's book On Guard at Evangelical Realism.
20 October 2011 10:15AM
Bravo Richard, the man is an ass, but more than that he's a dangerous ass.
As a special favour can you also not be in Dublin, Dundee, Humberside the same night - I'm leaving an empty chair at my niece's seventh birthday party so you can not appear there... many thanks we're really honoured
As for Craig, I've heard he has 'suffered witches to live' - so he's for the barbecue on judgement day.
20 October 2011 10:18AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
20 October 2011 10:19AM
Unfortunately you're now giving ammunition to the god-botherers claims that you are intellectually bankrupt...
Better to do the BBC approach to Nick Griffin - engage with the idiot and demolish him in as humiliating a manner as possible.
20 October 2011 10:19AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
20 October 2011 10:20AM
Writing an article such as this is the best way to debate a thoroughly nasty nutter like Craig.
Keep up the good work.
20 October 2011 10:20AM
Anybody who takes the scribblings of a bunch of nomadic scribes seeking to justify their own existence in a collection of writings called The Bible seriously really has slept through the main feature. Man made and self serving the documents that make up the Old and New Testaments are complete rubbish. Some nice stories along the way - walking on water, seas dividing, the sick cured etc.
But the Bible is nothing more than a collection of texts of some historical significance. To base one's life upon such a text is like basing it on a Morris Minor 1000 workshop manual.
As an ex Catholic victim of priestly abuse I approach churchmen with a certain mingling of wariness and sympathy - much as I would a madman or wild dog.
20 October 2011 10:20AM
According to Wikipedia, his great gift to philosophy is to repeat this argument:
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Honestly, Mr Dawkins, I think my kids' pet rabbit would be a more appropriate intellectual sparring partner for him (and, to be fair, its hardly the Einstein of the bunny world).
20 October 2011 10:20AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
20 October 2011 10:23AM
When is Comment is Free going to ask Chomsky to come on and debate Dawkins.
20 October 2011 10:24AM
Richard,
Quite frankly I am surprised you have given this man any sort of prominence. A dignified silence is all that is required.
20 October 2011 10:24AM
I am really disappointed with you Dawkins. In this article, you sound like a ranting, childish armchair CIFer.
20 October 2011 10:25AM
Come on, if God does it, or tells you to do it, how can it be wrong? Are you saying God made a mistake? Sometimes Richard, I don't know why I bother praying for you. It's no different than Dale Farm. If the travelers had left they wouldn't have been there so there would have been no need to evict them. God let the police and bailiffs evict them because Basildon Council were like the Israelis. Bah. Call yourself a philosopher. Everyone knows there's no such thing as a Palestinian. How can there be? They don't even have a country. nyway. Babies don't feel anything. Craig David is my kind of Bible reader.
20 October 2011 10:26AM
I've always wondered whether the Christian view that baptised children are innocent and guaranteed heaven means that the "right" thing to do would be to kill them post baptism.
(Because as the text shows "Thou shalt not kill" always had exceptions)
20 October 2011 10:26AM
ruftontufton
Yep, that too!
20 October 2011 10:27AM
Craig's problem, as he possibly realises but chooses to ignore, is that he insists on seeing the Bible, Old and New testaments alike, as a divine text, literally the word of God, instead of what it so clearly is: an anthology of myth, poetry, history, law, biography, letters and personal recollections rewritten and embellished in order to put over a particular viewpoint. As is well known, you can justify virtually any position by quoting from the Bible, which necessarily leads to the conclusion that Bible is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be accepted as an authority on any position whatsoever. And of course for Christians there is the further problem that the New Testament may be seen as a radical revision of religious thinking in the light of the life and the reported words of Jesus Christ.
Hard for anyone to debate with someone who both claims the Bible as his authority, and then cherry-picks from its contents in order to prove his point. Particularly when the cherries he picks are as unsavoury as these.
20 October 2011 10:27AM
I'm not going to argue with this person!
*proceeds to attack their views and statements in the safe confines of a one-sided article without the other person being able to respond*
20 October 2011 10:27AM
@colinthestoot:
If the 'lesser mortal' insisted on duelling with feather dusters it should be no surprise that their opponent would refuse.
If you're going to propose a debate with a high-profile figure in this field then at least make sure your skills are sharp enough. There are only so many logical fallacies anyone can work with in a debate, presenting repeated unprovable assertions to back up each claim does nothing more than frustrate the people involved and create far more heat than light.
20 October 2011 10:28AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
20 October 2011 10:28AM
Dawkins speaks at length about all sorts of things. I'd love to know what his politics are. Who he voted for.
After all. If you are going to cast moral aspersions then you should present us with your own world view so that moral aspesions can be cast back in response.
Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan. How about a real recent massacre. The invasion of Iraq. Did you support that Dawkins. Never mind the metaphors based on the massacres of three thousand years ago.
What about your thoughts on liberal interventionism.
And what does Craig think of Iraq.
Now that, Mr Dawkins, really would be a test of moral reprehensibility.
And who would win, I wonder.
20 October 2011 10:29AM
So if we consider this fellow to be so totally dimwitted, what's got into Dawkie making it worthwhile to honor him with even the poorly-argued piece published above? (Which see colinthestoot above on aristocracy not dueling with common folk.) One might think having better things to do would suffice; then again when time hangs thus heavy on one's hands...
20 October 2011 10:30AM
There are plenty of lunatics in the world and in religion specially.
Sadly people like Craig exist if only to be rebutted for their insane interpretations of ancient stories. Richard is right to refuse to share a platform with him.
What saddens me is that Craig has succeeded in gaining publicity due to the publication of this article. I can only hope that the adage "Any publicity is good publicity" applies to Richard Dawkins and not this pariah.
20 October 2011 10:31AM
20 October 2011 10:32AM
My only reservation about Dr D's decision not to debate this utterly loathsome little man is that, in writing about it he is giving him the "oxygen of publicity".
On CiF, a column by Richard Dawkins can usually be guaranteed over 500 posts.
20 October 2011 10:33AM
"For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods"
'Other gods?' I thought there was only supposed to be one! Are these buggers admitting the existence of others? In the bible?
I wonder if some of these other gods are worth a punt? Old Yaweh doesn't seem to be doing very well.
20 October 2011 10:33AM
It's good to see Craig David getting the recogntion he deserves. He's not as as good as Sean Connery but he's the equal of Brosnan.
20 October 2011 10:34AM
I have heard of him. He styles himself as a professional Christian debater/apologetic. He really isn't that loathsome in person. He does though work off a very pre-prepared script in his debates. Still isn't THAT convincing, but he's one of the better apologetics.
You're right that he's a true believer, not the sort to disown parts of the Old Testament, but if you ruled that sort out from people you'll debate with, what are you left with?
You might as well be honest and admit the reason you don't want to debate Craig is because his very pre-prepared and sometimes quite cunning rhetoric make him an awkward opponent.
20 October 2011 10:34AM
@Bluecloud
Snap!
20 October 2011 10:34AM
You should debate him and win the debate, and show people on the fence that you are right and he is wrong.
He is odious, but so was Hitler and someone had to stand up to him.
You have set your stall out with great skill and intellect as a great scientist and communicator of our age - don't let people like WLC undermine you.
20 October 2011 10:35AM
Oh, and thanks for all the books and TV series - I have enjoyed every one.
20 October 2011 10:35AM
I'm always amazed to read about people who claim to know what a divine Omnicient, Omnipresent and Omnipowerful being wants and thinks. But reading Craigs words I expect he's just leading up to some hustification for condemnation or assaults on anyone who doesn't agree with him or his ideas, like Gays, Hindus, Muslims the list can go on and on.
20 October 2011 10:37AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
20 October 2011 10:38AM
Saw you last night at the Royal Albert Hall Richard.
Wonderful speech; great book.
Just wondered about during the little chat, when the Times Editor asked you about the 'Unicorn question' ... Was that to start a chat, or was that a genuine question, because I am a loss to understand how someone could become Editor of the Times without having a basic understanding of why the concept of 'disproving a negative' is idiotic.
Anyway, keep up the good work, and by the way, my girlfriend says you have the most beautiful speaking voice!
20 October 2011 10:43AM
Richard Dawkins.
Superstar.
The selfish gene is finally manifesting itself. The age of delusion, i.e. free will, is coming to an end. Molecular chemistry (biology) is the universal truth. Consciousness is but a by-product.
However. Empathy is still a beautiful attribute to be cherished.
It's not about religion, which is absurd. It's about empathy, which makes no sense, but does make sense in the long term.
20 October 2011 10:44AM
He's worried he won't win the debate. Not because Craig's arguments are better, but because he has more experience as a debater.
Dawkins is worried about getting mugged.
Not that I personally mind that he won't debate him.
20 October 2011 10:44AM
@Richard Dawkins
Your knowledge of the bible would put most Christians to shame
20 October 2011 10:44AM
@Nainital
What?
There are so many arguments against this blinkered way of thinking, I really haven't got the time.
Suffice it to say, who you vote for - and what those who got your vote subsequently went on to do - says nothing about you, nor your morality.
20 October 2011 10:44AM
@Nainital, I'm at a loss to understand why you think Dawkins' opinions on "liberal interventionism" and "alternatives to capitalism" have any relevance to his work on creationism and atheism. Is it also relevant to ask what soap operas he watches, or what his favourite colour is?
20 October 2011 10:45AM
@Nainital
Craig is an American 'theologian' and Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist/anthropologist. Neither of them are experts in political philosophy, and I don't think Craig would even know what 'British Liberalism' is.
20 October 2011 10:45AM
In our 21st century Britain, bigotry is still a terrible thing. I am so glad we live in a nation that will print Dawkins rants, just like I am glad we don't totally censor right wing extremist politicians, but Dawkins only shows himself up as the playground bully who picks on the only soft target he can still persuade people is an inferior species.
Dawkins should be allowed to be a bigot, but we should not be lulled into a sense that it is acceptable to be one.
20 October 2011 10:45AM
If I were as sure of myself, my views and philosophical stance as Professor Dawkins appears to be I'd fear no-one in debate and would relish the opportunity to best the finest that the opposition could throw at me.
Only your biggest fans (see above) would claim that you shouldn't dignify your 'loon' opponent by debating him.
Like it or not, your refusal to debate comes across as a genuine fear that you'd lose.
20 October 2011 10:45AM
@Nainital
I thought it was quite clear where both Dawkins and Craig stand.
Personally, I would find their political leanings completely irrelevant.
20 October 2011 10:46AM
Sounds very similar to Abbot Arnaud, Abbot of (I think) Toulouse as he ordered the massacre of the Cathars at Montsegur. When asked by one of his men how to tell the difference between Cathars and Catholics, he is quoted as replying:
which roughly translates as 'Kill 'em all, let God sort them out'.
The logical conclusion of the idea that earthly life of itself has no meaning, but is valuable only as a prelude to 'everlasting life', a sort of dress rehearsal, if you like, or a Formula 1 time trial to decide who gets first place on God's big grid, and who has to bring up the rear, and get a less fluffy cloud, or whatever. All good fun...
Usually, I'm all for the 'Nick Griffin' treatment, ie, have them air their views and let the world see how ludicrous they are, but in this instance, I think you're absolutely right not to debate this individual.
I'll keep an empty chair in my house for you!
20 October 2011 10:46AM
I read that to be an admission that as god is a human invention there can be many. Garibaldi summed it up in a letter:
Dear friends, Man has created God, not God man. Yours ever, Garibaldi
20 October 2011 10:47AM
Whether people your agree with your amature views on world events is not actually a measure of worth. Also, Dawkins probably isn't F5ing this page, so you can stop repeating yourself.