I don’t know if any have or have not defended genocide, but that’s not what I’m claiming. What I’m saying is Craig wrote the article in ’08 and Dawkins knew about the article prior to the ’10 debate, yet participated in debate anyway. When asked why he participated in a debate with Craig back in ’10, Dawkins initially said he didn’t know about Craig’s article. He’s subsequently redacted that position and now claims he forgot he knew Craig was a genocide apologist back in ’10.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6...mments?page=11

Richard Dawkins: Obviously I didn't KNOW at the time of the Mexico debate that Craig was a defender of genocide and infanticide.

Comment 290 by Galactor: That doesn't make sense. This link suggests that you already knew back in 2008 what kind of disgusting animal Craig is…

Richard Dawkins: Yes, I'm embarrassed to say that I evidently completely forgot it…

Does his account sound at all unlikely to you?

Maybe he has alzheimers.

No, I believe him. What I don’t find believable is if Dawkins is so repulsed by the notion of Craig being an apologist for genocide, he would have stated that as his primary reason for refusing to debate Craig, say six months or a year ago. Instead, by actually forgeting that he knew Craig is an apologist for genocide, implies it’s not as big a factor in his refusing to debate Craig as he would want us to believe.

Good, because a lot of us have read it as "I like to debate important people" .. the "not on my CV" comment as the driving factor as he described in his statement.

Here's an attendee's report from the debate that night ( from the comments section on Dawkins website) --

So you believe some of what he says (when it supports your preferred interpretation of his actions) but not all of it?

I think that makes it pointless to have any meaningful disagreement with someone. " you're lying!" is apparently impossible to refute - those statements he makes which fit the story you want to tell are true,those which don't fit are false.

Would you at least concede that Dawkins behavior in the matter is highly inconsistent?

Well, at least the attendee you quoted got one thing right: “of course, I did not expect in any way to agree with his arguments.” Of course it would help if he actually understood argumentation:

• If God does not exist, then people holding a belief in God are holding a false belief.
• Holding false beliefs is delusional.
• If God does not exist, then people holding a belief in God are delusional.
• God may or may not exist.
• Therefore, people holding a belief in God may or may not be delusional.

I’m not the one being inconsistent; that would be Dawkins. Firstly, he stated a few months back that the reason he won’t debate Craig is because he doesn’t want to give Craig the stage to spout nonsense. Lastly, he claimed the reason he won't debate Craig is personal repulsion. From firstly to lastly, he's been under some criticism for not debating Craig, and so it appears to me, he came up with another reason to justify his previoius decision to help dodge the criticism.

Don't know what the fact that a person doesn't expect to agree with a flat-earthers arguments is relevant to anything. If he expected to agree he'd likely be a flat-earther already.

You're missing the point.
Craig claimed it was rude, rightly or wrongly, god or no god.
He also has defined delusional as having a false belief.
So, if they are wrong it is ok to call them delusional because that's what he has defined them as. He would call them that, that's how he uses the word.

That he doesn't think they are wrong is a totally different and irrelevant argument.

I'm confident he's inconsistent (we all are).

Highly inconsistent is impossible to judge from such a tiny sampling of his life (particularly as it is filtered through such a political process).

His account for it seems far more reasonable than that he's a liar. I can state with full confidence that there are many views you hold (for example) which I have heard you hold but have now forgotten. If I were to say "I didnt know Stu Pidasso thought that" I wouldnt be lying. It would mean I'd forgotten.

You could be very confident that it was due to forgetfulness when I told you it was due to forgetfulness.

I didnt say you were, I said you were being uncharitable. Doing so is not helpful to any meaningful discussion. Why not just point out to Dawkins that he has given several reasons and ask him which is the correct one? Why not leave open the possibility that there are several reasons and that he only partially answers from time to time?

Why leap to "He's a liar!" unless you want to discredit him? It's a pretty classic ad hominem attack, in my opinion.

Not really. If it weren't for the precise (and unique) writing that RD objected to, I'm pretty sure we would still disagree. Right or wrong, I reserve the right to judge someone based on their previous actions. Not just on what they may be saying now.

Oo good - we can argue again! (Note, I'm not saying we disagree...):


"I reserve the right to judge someone based on their previous actions. Not just on what they may be saying now."

Me too. What I am suggesting is that, if someone's statements contradict their past behaviour it is not right to assume that they are lying. There are a plethora of additional factors which may be weighing into the decision which you are unaware. It would be entirely appropriate to challenge Dawkins and point out that his reason seems to contradict his previous behavior. He could have any number of responses:

"Yeah, I was lying" might be what you and Stu Pidasso think he'd say. However surely he could alternatively have changed his mind. Or perhaps he made a commitment to enter those previous debates without knowing much about who he was debating. Or maybe he'd say "Oh it's not just because he's an immoral creationist. I'm also worried about the PR effect if he ended up winning the debate".

My claim is that we should take people at their word without very good reason not to - otherwise debates end very quickly and degenerate into ridiculous arguments about what the evidence is for or against someone's statements based on their actions - which doesnt help anything.

The confidence with which people make statements about whether Brad Pitt should have chosen Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Aniston is not indicative of their abilities to judge which is best for him - he is a complicated person and what we read and see of him and other celebrities is the barest fraction of their lives. Similarly, we know next to nothing about Dawkins. What we do know about him is popularised by press with an agenda (either pro-atheism or pro-religious) - so how can you be at all confident you have enough data from the snippets which are more or less accurately reported as to what he's done and said in order to form a view as to his integrity?

It all just boils down to what seems reasonable from some specific few facts which have been selected. I bet I could provide you with half a dozen facts which would appear to trap Craig in a contradiction if I were to selectively comb through his life, his speeches and his writings. That's not indicative of a weak moral character - it's indicative of a few data points in a complicated situation being a very poor predictor.

I think if pressed for a reason as to why someone is not doing something, the assumption is he’ll provide you with his most powerful reason “why not,” first. Personally, I consider Dawkins’ “he’s an apologist for genocide and infanticide,” far more powerful of a reason to not debate than his prior reason, “I have no intention of assisting Craig in his relentless drive for self-promotion.” Hence, I’d assume he would have provided the former as his primary reason… back then. Instead, it’s only after he’s been publicly accused of cowardice in the British press that he then amends his primary reason.

I mean he’s basically accusing Craig of being the most morally deplorable person on the planet, and omitting that reason “why not” in his earlier comments seems suspect to me. Again, I believe if he really felt that strongly about Craig, he would have responded with that reason when the criticism first started, not at the eleven o’clock hour.

I haven’t leapt to he’s a liar. My range is disingenuousness to lying.

Maybe I am. I just find it hard to believe that as methodical as Craig is in preparing his arguments that he’d say something to the effect, “even if we’re certain God does not exist, it’s okay to believe God exists anyway.”

We can tell all kinds of stories about public figures. We have no unbiased accounts to help determine which is plausible. Accusing ones opponent of dishonesty doesn't engender a fruitful exchange of ideas.
Better but still unjustified (and unnecessary) in my view.

I don’t know what to say. I find his handling of the entire situation suspect.

Suppose Dawkins authored an article where he justified the Holocaust. Do you really think anyone refusing to debate Dawkins would fail to mention the aforementioned position? Yet, Dawkins claims to be as appalled and repulsed by Craig as we would be of someone trying to morally justify the Holocaust. It just doesn’t add up.

bump

Here's a recent podcast by Craig on Dawkins.

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_vide...Canaanites.mp3

Craig was in England recently and there are two debates posted on his website. I've watched the Millican debate and I think in some ways it's the best one he's done. Millican was actually familiar with Craig's debate content and did a fairly good job of responding and overall it was a very congenial but energetic debate on both sides. Strangely enough, there are yet to be posted any debates with Dawkins.