Oct 21, 2011

Richard Dawkins doesn’t want you to know he’s debated William Lane Craig before

So Richard Dawkins has already given his excuses as to why he doesn’t want to defend his arguments in the God Delusion in Oxford against William Lane Craig.  In his misleading article in the Guardian he writes;

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.’

That’s a remarkable statement, and a totally misleading one, from a man who shared a platform with Lane Craig less than a year ago in a panel debate in Mexico. Has Dawkins forgotten? Or maybe he thinks it was all a delusion?

Mind you AC Grayling also tried the same trick of denying he had ever debated Lane Craig until his ‘error‘ was exposed.

Good on Sam Harris and Christopher Htichens and others for standing up for their beliefs in recent debates with Lane Craig shame on Dawkins for being unwilling to defend his beliefs even on his own doorstep. Maybe Mexico paid better?



  • Ah, so he’s (conveniently) miffed about the fact that Lane Craig won’t call “the god of the old testament” a monster? Well that didn’t stop him debating Pastor Ted Haggard and countless other mentalists who hold some seriously dodgy positions.

    *sigh* How have people not seen through this guy yet?

  • I believe Craig is now claiming that no children would have been killed if they had toddled away really quickly from the soldiers sent to kill them.

    I bet a 2 year old can toddle real fast, if he knows Yahweh has sent soldiers to kill him if he does not flee.

    Here is Craig , channeling Osama bin Laden, claiming that murder is morally obligatory if his god commands it, and it is not even murder then.


    Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.

    The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

    On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.


    Craig’s views are now being picked up by some Muslims.

    “In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,
    I write this letter to inform you that I departed for the land of the jihad.
    To dispel the unbelievers, and to help establish the Islamic state.
    I do not do this because I like fighting, but because the Almighty has commanded this ‘Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you may not’”


    How does Craig’s claim that murder is morally obligatory if his god commands it differ from a jihadist claim that fighting is obligatory if his god commands it?

Leave a comment

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed