goddamntoothbrush:

ryanphelps:

“What is new is the belittling posture toward religious believers and the fury of the polemics. The New Atheism is certainly a far cry from the model of civilised interlocution between ‘old atheist’ Bertrand Russell and Father Copleston that took place and was broadcast on BBC Radio in 1948. The New Atheists could learn a lot from the likes of Russell, whose altogether more powerful approach was at once respectful and a model of philosophical precision.

[…]

“As a sceptic, I tend to agree with Dawkins’s conclusion regarding the falsehood of theism, but the tactics deployed by him and the other New Atheists, it seems to me, are fundamentally ignoble and potentially harmful to public intellectual life. For there is something cynical, ominously patronising, and anti-intellectualist in their modus operandi, with its implicit assumption that hurling insults is an effective way to influence people’s beliefs about religion. The presumption is that their largely non-academic readership doesn’t care about, or is incapable of, thinking things through; that passion prevails over reason. On the contrary, people’s attitudes towards religious belief can and should be shaped by reason, not bile and invective. By ignoring this, the New Atheists seek to replace one form of irrationality with another.”

I take it you’re not all that familiar with William Lane Craig’s brand of debate. WLC is an intellectual coward who plays to the crowd. He doesn’t actually debate, per se. He merely strawmans the opponent’s argument and caps it with God.

Thanks for the reblog, and the comment!  Good topic to discuss, it seems.

Notice that the argument you raise for why Dawkins should not debate Craig is not actually raised by either Dawkins himself or Daniel Came.  So while your assertion may in fact be correct, it has no relevance to the quote you reblogged.  The issue in question is whether or not it is ethical, or even worthwhile, to debate someone who takes Craig’s position on God and genocide.

But on the issue you raised, I see this quite a bit on comment boards, and it seems too simple a dismissal.  Of course I could be wrong—mainly because I am biased insofar as I am a Christian theist—but Craig, in my estimation, offers up solid, logically sound argumentation.  One can disagree with his formulations and conclusions, but to say that he “strawmans the opponent’s argument and caps it with God” seems far too simple and strikes me, at least, as unfounded.  One would have to point to specific examples where he has done what you say.

Thanks again for your reblog and comment!