The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Why Dawkins disappoints

“An atheist is like the lion running for its dinner – victory is desirable but not crucial.”

By Nelson Jones Published 20 May 2011 12:23

Richard Dawkins stands accused of cowardice for refusing to debate with an Amercian theologian, William Lane Craig. He responds that he's too busy and that Craig is nothing but a professional debater.

Naturally, Dawkins is under no obligation to take part in someone else's publicity tour, but the allegation does have some force, not least because Craig has a reputation for eating atheists for breakfast.

Even Christopher Hitchens, it is generally conceded (even by atheists), lost his encounter with Craig on points.

Theatrical debates about the existence of God rarely change minds – least of all those of the protagonists – and William Lane Craig's undoubted skill as a debater may have little to do with the strength of his arguments. Nevertheless, it is regularly claimed that "new atheists" such as Dawkins are not intellectually outstanding. The critic Terry Eagleton, for example, though not a believer, has berated him for, among other failings, not having properly thought through "the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus".

Perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised by Dawkins's lack of philosophical sophistication. He is, after all, a biologist. As such, he is well qualified to rebut the claims of creationists.

But the "argument from design" is only one of the usual proofs of God's existence, and the one most vulnerable to empirical assault.

Religious philosophers, moreover, have had centuries to perfect their arguments for the existence of God. Such arguments might not be successful, in that they don't convince atheists, but then there has never been a really convincing philosophical argument for the non-existence of God. There hasn't needed to be.

The default setting

Perhaps the atheists' collective failure in debates with skilled believers such as Craig is only to be expected. Essentially, they have to try harder.

An atheist is like the lion running for its dinner – victory is desirable but not crucial. Theists need better arguments – like the gazelle running for its life – because they need to, as the default setting of our society is now atheist, or at the very least agnostic.

Whatever the beliefs of individual scientists, science is a fundamentally atheistic endeavour. By which I mean that no single scientific theory – if one ignores the quasi-scientific concept of Intelligent Design – relies on or invokes God. An explanation of science that depended on God would not, in scientific terms, be an explanation at all.

But then no historian, searching for the root causes of significant events, considers divine intervention, either: even the Holocaust, which clearly raises questions for theology, does not raise theological questions for historians.

Trial by jury long since replaced trial by ordeal. It would be considered outrageous for parliament to legislate against adultery, homosexuality or witchcraft. And while American politicians, unlike their British counterparts, are notorious for frequently mentioning God, even they would not respond to – say – the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by praying. Religion, in short, has not so much been disproved as put firmly to one side.

For most of history, in most societies – in ours until a few centuries ago, in many parts of the world even today – religion has permeated the whole of life and the entire culture.

Before the Enlightenment, it would not have seemed strange to explain historical processes, the rise and fall of nations and of individuals, with appeals to divine providence. The belief that species were individually created by God formed the whole basis of biological understanding. Even Newton's physics depended on a philosophical God to set up the cosmic clockwork and keep it ticking over. Moreover, the greatest art, the greatest music, the greatest literature was steeped in biblical themes.

Assume the position

In such a culture, atheism was aberrant; God was simply assumed, incorporated unconsciously into areas of life and thought that we today would regard as wholly secular. Atheism, if it existed at all, was generally a private scepticism rather than a public platform. Even David Hume never claimed to be an atheist.

These days, by contrast, atheism is easy. It requires no special thought – indeed, it requires no thought at all – because it is perfectly possible for anyone to live a normal life without religion, and religion is the only domain in which God maintains any sort of meaningful presence. (Although there are theologians who would evict God even from there.)

Naturally, many people continue to believe in God, and their belief may cause them to advocate certain public positions – obvious examples being opposition to free abortion and support for marriage. Even such campaigners use secular or quasi-secular arguments, however, when trying to make their case.

What they do not say – as in a non-secular culture they might – is that abortion angers God, and that it should be banned because anyone participating in it will go to hell.

To articulate a convincing case for God in a society that functions almost entirely on the assumption of his non-existence is, therefore, no easy proposition. It requires intellectual flexibility, imagination, an ability to look beyond the obvious. As such, we should expect believers to win debates with atheists. Needless to say, it does not mean that they are right.

Nelson Jones runs the Heresy Corner blog. He was shortlisted for the 2011 Orwell Prize for blogging.

Tags: Religion

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

245 comments

Sun, 2012-11-11 13:56 — Alasdair Brooks (not verified)

Regarding "Religious philosophers, moreover, have had centuries to perfect their arguments for the existence of God. Such arguments might not be successful, in that they don't convince atheists ------".
Religious philosophers who attempt to make arguements for the existence of God, expecting these to convince atheists, are presumably not familiar with several biblical references such as
1 Corinthians Ch 1: V 21 (NLT)
"God in His wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom"

Thu, 2012-06-07 18:41 — BawlUnsalvava (not verified)

[url=http://paydayloansbestcredit.com/#bwww.newstatesman.com]payday loans[/url] - payday loans , http://paydayloansbestcredit.com/#swww.newstatesman.com payday loans

Wed, 2011-05-25 01:24 — Daniele1

JohnB:
I love your comment. I have made that point countless times (maybe not in such a funny way) but I never got an answer from the theists.
anyone?

Fri, 2011-05-20 20:19 — Garry K (not verified)

>>All militant atheists are far more aggressive than people who have religion.

Thu, 2011-07-28 17:41 — Rick (not verified)

How can you lose an encounter with an idiot "on points"? Dawkins isn't having a debate with this fool because he's better things to do than argue with a halfwit. The fact that we're still having this debate in 2011 is depressing and fuels my belief that unless we move away from listening to fairy stories we are doomed.

If Craig wants a theological argument send him to me. I'll give the prick a run for his money.

Fri, 2011-05-20 20:21 — Garry K (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-20 20:27 — Garry K (not verified)

The worst are the abortion doctor shooting, suicide bombing and jet plane demolition atheists

Sat, 2011-05-28 13:34 — David (not verified)

I suppose we should just pretend that he has not been published in prestigious philosophy peridicals and journals. You cannot not be a credible scholar and have a book published under Synthese.

Fri, 2011-10-21 22:56 — Keir

It's doubly hard, because faith 'heads' are forever lagging, always chasing up at the rear, in the West, anyway. People don't take notice of 'heads' about anything; they make the agenda for the 'heads' to talk their way around.

It's that independent great majority that is the problem when it comes to science as a tool of atheism, because many theists are also scientists- ironically, often biologists and physicists, found in commercial and government laboratories, hospitals, universities and schools. The lack of progress of atheism may be attributed to this factor, that may go unsuspected because the media have attempted to suppress the existence of believing scientists, hoping to create a false dichotomy, a polarisation of science vs. faith. So atheists should not be surprised at the reluctance of the world to accept their arguments.

Wed, 2011-05-25 02:37 — ludwig (not verified)

All arguments in favor of the existance of god, no matter how good and well constructed they are, no matter how good the debateer is, are also as good for the existance of the FSM, gnomes, faeries, and anything your mind can come. They are also good for fantasist things you didn't even invented yet.

Wed, 2011-05-25 21:08 — Maraden (not verified)

Your article makes somewhat clear why Dawkins is justified in avoiding debates with apologists. You should have added that these debates are useless for determining the truth of claims and all of Craig's arguments have been conclusively disproved individually. Your idea to use a trial setting is worth considering. Giving both sides time to marshall evidence and develop arguments would leave only the "leap of faith" ground for religious beliefs at the end.

Wed, 2011-05-25 02:41 — William R. Dickson (not verified)

"And while American politicians, unlike their British counterparts, are notorious for frequently mentioning God, even they would not respond to – say – the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by praying."

Sadly, this is not true. Sarah Palin and others, to our great embarrassment as a nation, called for prayer to stop the leak.

Wed, 2011-05-25 21:09 — Hey now.. (not verified)

Well, if you can believe in a god then you can believe in a Wm. Lane Craig. They both take unprovable faith. There’s not much evidence that either Craig or Dawkins have convinced anyone that wasn’t already convinced to change their views. Religion is an emotional response, atheism an intellectual one. Craig’s ‘debating’ style appeals to emotion, typical of religion, and Dawkins appeals to intellect, typical of science. So there’s not much to debate. Just to reinforce existing prejudices on both sides. Still, even if you don’t agree with Craig, you have to give some credit to anyone who can spoof the insufferable Christopher Hitchens. Why it is even necessary though “ To articulate a convincing case for God in a society that functions almost entirely on the assumption of his non-existence” is not so obvious. Perhaps it will help to put Biola University on the map, where Craig is something called a Research Professor of Philosophy. Or maybe it will help spur the sales of ‘Reasonable Faith’ tee-shirts and baseball caps on Craig’s website. Anyhow, the wonder is not that Dawkins wouldn’t want to “debate” him (although they both did participate together in a broader discussion in Mexico once) but that some of these others would.

Wed, 2011-05-25 03:07 — qaz

Although I'm an Atheist, I did see some debates of William Craig. Although his arguments lack merit like all theist arguments, his style is good and he is very articulate. One thing I do observe his in debates, is that he keeps ranting and repeating that his opponent has not rebutted his arguments, when they clearly did. And as usual, the religious pricks don't realize it and fall in to the trap thinking that his argument has been not been rebutted.

Wed, 2011-05-25 03:08 — mamba24 (not verified)

Kelly said.."The point is, regardless of whether God exists or not, faith is the only method of finding the truth."

- Way Wrong! Faith is believing in something without evidence or good reason. Why should that be considered a pathway to truth? I could have faith that when I die the invisible gnomes will bury me at the bottom of my garden, and my faith is just as valid as your faith in god. My point is that neither of them are pathways to truth. I require evidence, not wishful thinking, which is what faith is all about. No matter how much you want your beliefs to be true, no matter how sincere your beliefs.... it doesn't make it true. The only way you can justify your position is when there is evidence Kelly. I don't need faith to disbelieve in something for which there isn't any evidence. Do you need faith to not believe that bigfoot exists? Santa claus? In order to show that faith is a pathway to truth, you need to provide evidence......which is completely against what faith is. So sorry Kelly, the concept of faith regarding the existence of something is absurd. It's a made up religious term invented centuries ago to keep the masses under the elite's control, living in fear.

Wed, 2011-05-25 03:18 — Skoal Man (not verified)

It should be no surprise to anyone why Craig typically goes first. If you consider swamping a debate with way too many points to adequately address in the time alloted, them claiming victory because all those points weren't addressed, then Craig is a good debater... or a freakin' shady salesman.

Wed, 2011-05-25 03:28 — develmann (not verified)

I don't like how theists use modern technology that is based on the same science they don't believe in. Here's the other thing, science can admit its wrong. People used to assume that the universe would shrink. Now we know its rapidly expanding. Science is always our current best explanation, until evidence reveals a better one. Its sad people throw away thousands of years of progress on one topic (creation of the universe) while at the same time expecting science to fix all your other problems. Don't like science, fine become amish at least they aren't being hypocritical. Go milk a cow and bask in gods love if you want to, but don't go running to science when you get sick or want to be entertained.

Wed, 2011-05-25 03:46 — Ron (not verified)

These idiots can argue for a god all they want, it's still a ridiculously massive leap to go from the existence of some kind of god, all the way to the existence of "their particular god"....and an even more massive leap to say all the nonsensical scripture has anything to do with relality. Go watch Sam Harris eviscerate Craig on YouTube.

Wed, 2011-05-25 21:15 — Neil Pharr (not verified)

Need we be reminded that Abortion is killing. We don't think about killing a fish or a cow, why should we think of killing a human? Indeed, life requires more that thought - it requires a moral base to progress in any sphere of existence

Wed, 2011-05-25 04:19 — J-F (not verified)

What i find funny is that if it whas an actual debate with evidence based arguments, it would not take long for dawkins to wipe out craig, to believe in good is to refuse logic, no wonder the world is so messed uped, most of it habitents are slaves to an imaginary friend

Wed, 2011-05-25 06:19 — John Salerno (not verified)

The only reason Craig appears to win some of the debates he participates in is because he actually maintains a formal, debate-like presentation. People like Dawkins and Harris, and even Hitchens who has probably done more formal debates than the other two, do not stick to such strict guidelines and language when speaking. Instead, they speak normally, conversationally; they make their points in everyday language without the need to dazzle the audience into thinking they've done a good job by referring to logical fallacies and narrowly defining the terms of the debate as Craig does.

I watched the Harris/Craig debate and was thoroughly unimpressed with Craig. He *appeared* to do well because of his formal presentation and constant mentioning that Harris was not properly responding to his points, but Harris by far made the more coherent argument.

So the accusation that the New Atheists are not sophisticated enough to win these debates is ridiculous. It's because they *don't* try to sound like formal debaters that helps them get their points across easily.

Tue, 2011-05-31 12:26 — Keir

'I would also add, he stayed dead.'

But you can't prove it. What you can prove is that the idea that he had not stayed dead got the whole of Europe, monarchs, statesmen, lawyers, medics, scientists included, believing that he did not stay dead, and making the whole of Western society's framework paying at least lip service to his continued existence.

The fact that you decline to do so, the fact that you deliberately misrepresent the faith of that person with the utterly brainless, shameless lie that he taught that the earth is the centre of the universe, sends a clear message to all and sundry that, if you are sure of anything of your experience, it is that Jesus died for you.

Tim, not nice, but very, very dim, Jesus thanks you.

If he exists, of course. ;)

Fri, 2011-05-20 22:18 — James (not verified)

The US took 10 years to find Bin Laden; Christians have had 2,000 years to find God and I'm pretty sure they've been looking high and low. I'll be honest, it's not looking good. Perhaps if they could remember where they were when they last had him?

Wed, 2011-05-25 06:51 — G.D. (not verified)

Craig beat Hitchens on points?
WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?
HITCHENS WIPED THE FLOOR WITH CRAIG!!!!

Wed, 2011-05-25 21:22 — Keir

'Religion is an emotional response, atheism an intellectual one.'

Intellectual? Did I blink? Russell talked tripe, Grayling talks tripe. Quote anything they wrote, and we'll see about intellectualism.

Anyone who goes a step beyond agnosticism is trespassing.

Wed, 2011-05-25 08:41 — Paul1 (not verified)

I think what's important is that we continue to challenge religion, whether we all challenge religion through organized debates, is not essential. I agree that Craig is not worth debating. He doesn't have any notable influence on public policy, nor is he of any public significance outside the sport of debate. For those who would have a serious debate over religion, reducing such a discussion to mere sport - as Craig does - is insulting. Contrastingly, debating someone like Tony Blair, for example, is worthwhile.

New Atheists are "not intellectually outstanding"? Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, just to name two Steves who have been associated with us. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins... Obviously, Nelson Jones isn't in the same intellectual ballpark.

Wed, 2011-05-25 09:18 — Kenneth (not verified)

Just another example of misrepresentation of facts and vacuous arguments of a religious apologist. Nelson Jones should be ashamed of this nonsense.

Sat, 2011-06-11 12:21 — Robert Stovold (not verified)

"there has never been a really convincing philosophical argument for the non-existence of God."
There doesn't need to be, because the burden of proof is on the one who alleges. We can't disprove the existence of invisible fairies either, but rationalists are hardly going to lose sleep over this.

Wed, 2011-05-25 09:22 — Purbrookian (not verified)

Hitchens has yet to lose a debate with anyone. And as for

'but then there's never been a really convincing philosophical argument for the non-existence of God.'

....for 'God' substitute 'unicorns' or 'fairies' . Utter twaddle.

Wed, 2011-05-25 09:35 — Starfire (not verified)

Secularism is not the default position here across The Pond. Do you think we Americans didn't pray about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? The governor of Louisiana called for a day of prayer. The media were filled with people affected by the spill whose reaction to it contained plenty of references to God. And those Americans who want to ban abortions and marriage equality profess that they are motivated by Biblical injunctions.
Noir is it easy to be an atheist here. If my friends or coworkers knew I was an atheist those who did not shun me would be on my case all the time to assure me they were praying for me and to convince me to see "the error of my ways." For me, the closet is the best option for my personal and professional lives.

Fri, 2011-05-20 23:41 — Ian Kirk (not verified)

Religion is purely belief, and one it's adherents are entitled to follow without hindrance as long as they follow the rule of law.

I would ask that they also give those of us who do not follow a religion the courtesy of allowing us who don't to carry on our lives without their interference / 'evangelising'!

To Dawkins & the new 'atheist' movement, please give it a rest! I don't believe because there is no convincing evidence for a God. However, that doesn't mean I want to be part of an atheist church substitute!

In a modern society surely people who have no religious beliefs can live without having a champion / figurehead?

Mon, 2011-05-30 02:02 — Timbo (not verified)

There was a Church doctrine that held that the earth was the centre of the universe. Lots of people believed it. Lots of people are theists. This demonstrates nothing whatsoever about the truth of the belief.

Not so long ago just about everybody in the West was a theist. Since then, we have a better understanding of our universe, due to scientific endeavour and a better educated public. We also have a much freer society, no thanks to religion, and people are more willing to openly criticise religious authority. The shift towards secularism is telling.

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:22 — Keir

'I don't like how theists use modern technology that is based on the same science they don't believe in.'

As theists pointed out when the internet was new. Things are no so simple. One can be a theist and an antitheist, too. Dawkins and co. have very suspect timing. When the 'net was young, it was flooded by dippy Americans with their absurd fundamentalism. They were steadily, systematically shredded by theists who knew more Hebrew and more science that they did (not difficult, admittedly), and it was at this point that brave Dawkins mounted his charger to tilt at windmills. So the theists who did the work got ignored by the media, and Dawkins and his absurd troops get the media attention. And the world chases the most idiotic red herring imaginable.

Humanity is not insane. It just gives a good impression.

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:24 — Keir

'Hitchens has yet to lose a debate with anyone.'

Let him come here, then.

Tue, 2011-11-15 17:01 — Jackson (not verified)

In my opinion, there has never been a convincing argument that he/it does in fact exist. One believes because he is told he should believe. http://red-tag-deals.com

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:27 — Henning (not verified)

"Religious philosophers, moreover, have had centuries to perfect their arguments for the existence of God."

Maybe they should start publishing these arguments. I have never heard of anything remotely convincing.

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:29 — Mr Kurtz (not verified)

You lost me when you claimed Craig won the debate with Hitchens--when Hitchens demolished him. And who are the atheists who say Hitchens lost?

Lame.

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:33 — Cahal (not verified)

"Even Christopher Hitchens, it is generally conceded (even by atheists), lost his encounter with Craig on points."

I went on youtube after reading this and...what? WLC simply repeats the same arguments that have been refuted, makes appeals to scripture, insists that the resurrection 'actually well happened so nuh nuh'.

He's just like John Lennox - his followers proclaim his victory, but anyone who isn't completely deluded can see that he is basically insane.

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:34 — Keir

'I have never heard of anything remotely convincing.'

Because deity is not proved by such means as formal argument. If deity exists, that must be intentional.

Wed, 2011-06-01 17:53 — Keir

Here's one for animal lovers everywhere.

Two platyhelminths bumped into each other, deep in the innards of a horse. "You won't believe this, Parker, old fellow. Do you know," said Burrows, "I heard someone tell a weird tale of a vast animal with four legs, hooves and a mane?"

"Yes, I heard that!" replied Parker. "Crazy! It's called a horse, I believe."

" Yeaaah! Believe that, you'll believe anything."

Wed, 2011-06-08 19:55 — BK (not verified)

Correct. It does not mean youre right just because you win a debate of this magnitude, but it doesnt necessarily mean youre wrong either.

Tue, 2011-05-31 13:27 — Andyb (not verified)

"Perhaps the atheists' collective failure in debates with skilled believers such as Craig is only to be expected. Essentially, they have to try harder."

Atheists will always fail in debates with this kind of individual simply because guys like Craig are immune to logic and rational thinking. Debating them is a waste of time and effort.

And "Craig eats atheists for breakfast"? You should read what PZ Meyers has to say about Craig. He dismantles Craigs typical arguments piece by piece. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_william_la...)

Generally not a very well thought out opinion piece.

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:36 — Keir

'....for 'God' substitute 'unicorns' or 'fairies' . Utter twaddle.'

Why is the above comment evidence for the existence of a deity?

Sat, 2011-06-11 13:48 — Robert Stovold (not verified)

"you cannot fault Christ's injunction to love, without exception."
Robert Ingersoll had a pretty good go: “Can it be our duty to love anybody? It is our duty to act justly, honestly, but it cannot be our duty
to love. We cannot be under obligation to admire a painting - to be charmed with a poem - or
thrilled with music. Admiration cannot be controlled. Taste and love are not the servants of the
will. Love is, and must be free. It rises from the heart like perfume from a flower.”

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:42 — Mr Kurtz (not verified)

Anyone who thinks Craig has an intellect of ANY standing should read his gymnastic "defense" of biblical god-ordered genocide here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

Anyone who still thinks so AFTER reading this nonsense should have his head examined.

Tue, 2011-05-31 13:38 — Keir

'Atheists will always fail in debates with this kind of individual simply because guys like Craig are immune to logic and rational thinking.'

True, but they always fail anyway. What atheists usually do is debate with people they know represent theism falsely, because they are not actually atheists at all, and much prefer false theism to get publicity rather than, and at the expense of, the real thing. Massive cowardice and mendacity is the characteristic of this modern phenomenon of medieval scandalousness.

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:47 — Graham (not verified)

“Richard Dawkins stands accused of cowardice for refusing to debate with an American theologian, William Lane Craig.” He's already done so once, in Mexico. How many times is he expected to undertake this pointless exercise?

“it is regularly claimed that "new atheists" such as Dawkins are not intellectually outstanding.” You don't need to be intellectually outstanding to demonstrate that a fantasy is a fantasy; whether it be “God”, Zeus, Father Christmas or the fairies at the bottom of my garden. By contrast, Daniel Lane Craig does need to be able to muster a whole armoury or sophisticated (devious?) arguments to make his point. Personally I believe a circle is a circle, and could prove it in a brief paragraph if asked. However, if you believe that circles are in fact squares you'd probably have to develop your arguments over a 200 page paper. You might thus be revered by fellow Squarists as 'intellectually outstanding', but please don't expect me waste my time reading your convoluted arguments nor accuse me of cowardice or lack of intellectual rigour for refusing to engage.

Sat, 2011-05-21 01:04 — Andy Simpson (not verified)

I always find the "first cause" argument for the existence of god perplexing because surely the next question is: What created God?

Usually at this point there's some bluster about God being eternal and uncreated. However, it's logically inconsistent to claim that all objects must have a cause, and then claim that an object can exist without a cause. The argument self-contradicts.

The other thing I find perplexing is that when people try and prove that God exists, they never prove it's their God. Maybe it's some other God! Maybe the God that exists is Zeus. Maybe it's Brahman, or Baal, or an Old Testament/Islamic style Yahweh/Allah rather than a New Testament trinity (an awesome example there of three religions who all nominally believe in the same god but have totally inconsistent ideas about its nature). Maybe it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created life with a touch from his noodly appendage and who we honour with pasta created in his image.

Also, if god does exist, total respect to it, it's done a fantastic job of creating a world that looks like it has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. Not even the faintest hint of a brushstroke, or a scrawled signature.

Wed, 2011-05-25 10:47 — Keir

'Anyone who still thinks so AFTER reading this nonsense should have his head examined.'

So would it be true to say that atheists pick only absurdly soft targets?