Well, I assume you don't think he's also lying about - hmmmm, no I guess you do, because you think that Dawkins SHOULD think that Craig is a worthy opponent. I'm not following how he lost both rights -
i) he is not entitled to a low opinion of Craig.
ii) he's not entitled to pick his opponents, he must let .. uhmmm,...who exactly ... chose his opponents for him.

He can't cherry pick, so, what? he puts the names in hat? Of course he gets to choose who he debates, he's a british citizen and the reflection is on the challenger to establish his worthiness, a task that craig has failed miserably at. ( as an aside, Craig is one of those, like RGTers, who grossly overestimate his standing in this situation). "What, you won't debate ME, I'm the great and wonderful Oz... "

That you disagree that craig is not worth his time is one thing. Your burden is to attempt to establish that Dawkins actually thinks he is but is too busy quivering in fear and lying about it.

You seem to be letting the fact that you would make other choices dictate that Dawkins is a liar and a coward and not just allow he has a different opinion of the man and who it's best for him to debate.

I have to say this whole topic amazes me. This is a common human situation, a version of it starts in grade 3 when you want to be with the 'in' crowd and they are aware of who they let in. It may not be nice, it may not be kissy-kissy, but the little girls aren't liars or cowards either .... they are just doing what people do.

So is Dawkins from what he says. It jibes just fine with what others in positions of prominence do in many guises.

Irrelevant. We could just as well say that Craig is making claims about the physical universe and he's not a cosmologist. Neither has any bearing on whether Dawkins thinks craig is a cretin and whether he feels a need to debate him rather than, say, an archbishop who hasn't revulsed him.

Remember that Dawkins thinks religious upbringing is child abuse. Does that help you get into his head a bit better?

We all make decisions based on emotions, or at least influenced by emotion and I think Dawkins clearly states that is a factor here in the two quotes I gave.

Um, no he doesn't. When has he said this? And don't say, The Selfish Gene, because that was not even close to his thesis.

I've seen this said here a lot, I also see it floating around on the net as a common criticism but you are comparing apples and oranges. You cannot compare a formal debate with a 5 minute cut conversation that he has with x. he only formal debate he has had (which is what we are taking about here) has been with an Oxford professor. Talk about your low hanging fruit!

I find it shocking that someone who claims to be a Christian is willing to defend the morality of genocide. I think it is especially disappointing from Craig, who relies on our intuition that genocide must be wrong regardless of what we think about it in his moral argument for the existence of god.

Frankly, I think it is Christians who should really be upset about this.

So, debating a de facto apologist for child abuse is somehow more worthy of his time than debating an apologist for genocide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sel..._and_selection
Dawkins proposes the idea of the "replicator,"[3] the initial molecule which first managed to reproduce itself and thus gained an advantage over other molecules within the primordial soup.[4] Today, Dawkins postulates, the replicators are the genes within organisms, with each organism's body serving the purpose of a 'survival machine' for its genes.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization--he is speaking specifically on the genetic level, not a conscious level--and discounts all of the times that Dawkins has spoken extensively about the human capacity for altruism and morality. If he were a hard genetic determinist, why would religion bother him? It's clearly been selected for.

Personally I could care less.
The topic in the thread that caught my attention is that because he won't debate who some RGT poster thinks he should and he shouldn't think craig is a douchebag not worth debating that therefore he is lying about the reasons he is giving. Yet, we don't do that with other random people, even some of the flakes that post on here. Unless they have a track record, we assume they are wrong not that they are lying or cowards. That's why we argue with them.
That's the issue .. "he doesn't think like me, he thinks like Luckyme and Gould ... therefore he is a lying coward". amazing, when his action is a common as it gets.

My dog wants to hump my leg, my genes want to... hmmmm., actually I don't give a damn what either of them wants.

There is no embarrassment in not understanding a subject outside ones area of expertise or deeper interest. The embarrassment is only in refusing to try to gain an understanding if one wants to expound on it.

It is worth noting a distinction that religion may not give in and of itself an evolutionary advantage and may not have been selected for, instead being the consequence of other things (such as anthropomorphizing of causes) which do offer an evolutionary advantage.

I have read the terrible arguments in his book. Perhaps you are confused. Your claim was about his knowledge of himself as a 'poor man's philosopher' and your knowledge of why he doesnt want to debate Craig, remember?
I was wondering how on Earth you came to that view given his (pretty obvious, in my opinion) extreme arrogance and over-confidence in his own abilities. "I'm a poor man's philosopher" just doesnt gel with what I know about him.

This thread is not about how good Dawkins is at philosophy. It's about whether he's a liar.

Yes, I do. Let me sum up my position, because you seem to believe him, while I believe his stated reasons for not debating WLC are at least a little disingenuous. FWIW - I don't think it can be established one way or another.

1). Obviously, I don't have any clear cut evidence about what is going on in Dawkins' mind. I just know that he has made a 2nd career out of religion bashing. I think a debate with WLC would draw a respectable amount of attention to his own cause. You seem to disagree.

2). While I do agree (with Dawkins) that he shouldn't debate or give the time of day to nutcases like Ray Comfort for exactly the reasons he states, I do not think WLC falls into this category. By most accounts (even among atheists) WLC is a formidable debater and agree with him or not, is one of the most competent apologists available to make a strong case for the opposition. I guess I do not agree that Craig has failed miserably at this task.

3). I simply don't buy the excuse of not wanting to share a stage with someone he views as morally repugnant. That's just a judgment call on my part. I have no evidence other than the fact he has lent his time to many people with very similar views regarding biblical morality. The difference being that they were not skillful at logically defending their position.

4). Lastly, I am being hard on Dawkins, because I personally would like to see this debate take place! I disagree that WLC is not popular enough for Dawkins to waste his time with. If this were true, he would not feel the need to publish articles and defend his unwillingness to deal with him on his website. The fact is, WLC is one of the best the other side has. Win or lose, I would like to see Dawkins debate him.

I really have nothing more to say about it.

Did you read what Craig wrote?

Craig said:

"These stories offend our moral sensibilities. Ironically, however, our moral sensibilities in the West have been largely, and for many people unconsciously, shaped by our Judaeo-Christian heritage, which has taught us the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime. The Bible itself inculcates the values which these stories seem to violate."

Christianity and Judaism stopped worldwide infanticide.

Craig is well known to the target audience. What if Julia Gillard said she wouldn't debate Tony Abbot because Tony is a dispicable human being and a nobody? I'd say Julia's excuse lacks credibility because even though Tony isn't as well know as Julia, Tony represents a prominent face of the opposition.

It has everything to do with whether or not Craig is a nobody compared to Dawkins.

In any event, I am done with this conversation. It is going no where and Dawkins is not worth spending this much time on and there is absolutely nothing good that can come from continuing this conversation.

His Wiki bio says this about Craig:

Would you say the above statement is probably true or probably not true? Do most professional philosopher not take courses in philosophy of religion?

This pretty well sums up my position. I will add that Dawkins might be more fearful of the damage to the cause of atheism then to damage to his personal reputation...should he lose the debate.

Somewhere in this thread someone linked a video of Dawkins saying something to the effect, "You know we are winning when the otherside has to resort to lieing...". Dawkins has taken on the role of being a champion for the cause of atheism and is trying to destroy religion. WLC has taken on a role of being a champion of God and Christianity and has accumulated quite a following and reputation. For Dawkins to claim Craig is to beneath him to debate is outright silly.

Dawkins being a pussy is simply more believable. An alternative theory I have thought of that is also more believable is that Dawkins is purposely hyping up a debate he knows is inevitable. We've already got almost 500 posts about it in just this thread and if it does happen I bet most of us watch it because now were invested in it.

I don't know whether it is most (although I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were), but at least a significant proportion of professional philosophers have never taken a philosophy of religion course. Furthermore, of those who have, a significant proportion only did so as undergraduates, where they very likely didn't talk about Craig.

Anyway, I am basing my claim on the purely anecdotal experience I've had that when I bring up Craig to my philosopher friends they usually don't know who he is, and that most philosophers I know don't give a crap about philosophy of religion as more than a historical curiosity.

Thanks. I was interested in your anecdotal experience and would have thought that any serious student of philosophy would have taken at least one philosophy of religion course. I am honestly a bit surprised by your experience even though I was suspect of the claim made in Craig's wiki bio.

In your opinion are there any professional philosophers who are Craig's age(62 years old) or younger who are as well known as Dawkins?

I would venture that the 50 most famous philosophers were born much much earlier than the 50 most famous biologists. I would suggest that if Dawkins is indeed more well known then Craig it isn't necessarily because Dawkins is more intelligent or a better thinker but rather a function of the development of the particular field of study they have chosen to engage. I would bet that more people know who St Thomas Aquanis or Jesus Christ is (and recognize them as philosophers) then Richard Dawkins.

Would Dawkins turn down a debate with Jesus Christ if Jesus Christ defended the genocide of the old testimate? I doubt it but now if he is to be consistent....he should.

I would be more curious to know if there are any philosophers that are as well known as Dawkins (that are alive) in OrP's opinion.

Totally irrelevant to the question at hand as usual ( which is whether Dawkins thinks of craig as a relative nobody). Actually, rereading it, it's totally irrelevant to anything.
Oh, don't bet too much on the Aquanis one or I'll be forced to travel.

Do I believe him? I don't have enough ( any?) information to make me not at this stage. I witness and council related cases constantly, I'd say his is the default assumption in them. I'd disbelieve him in an instance if somebody put something on here.
I'm a big fan of his writing ( his scientific ones, I don't read any of his religious ones except necessary excerpts referred to in exchanges on here ) and in the videos ( usually partials) I see of him I don't like watching/listening to him. Too prissy for me, and shouldn't play poker because he lets his emotions take control of exchanges at times, compare to Sam Harris or Dan Dennett.

1) Irrelevant. Even if you are right, Dawkins is allowed to be wrong. According to the theists on here he's wrong a lot, and unintelligent. This isn't about his judgement, it's about his lying and cowardice.

2) See 1.

3) wow. Cripes, I do that in much more mundane situations - avoid putting myself in situations that would lend credence to people I find repugnant. That doesn't mean it can be avoided. Like god, you sometimes must do it for the greater good. Dawkins is pissed off, evidence -- he says about turning the cretin down, " I took pleasure in turning him down again.." - think about what that means.
You've never used the phrase " I don't want to be associated with .."? Try being a famous public figure. Heck, even a hack public figure. People worry about such things. It IS how we judge people, something about birds and feathers.
Again, point 3 is irrelevant because you just want to substitute your judgement for Dawkins -- hey, yours seems very wrong to me in my life. He could have poor judgement but what has that got to do with lying?

4) finally, YOUR real reason for wanting dawkins to be lying :-)) This is rather my point about how Dawkins emotion ( his "pleasure" statement and his "irritating" statement earlier) his perception. He could well be making a big PR mistake here, or missing a great opportunity to advance the cause. It doesn't matter, all that matters is
a) Does he believe craig is a upstart immoral sob.
b) Does he believe the association would be worth the implied acknowledgement of it's legitimacy?
That fact he may be showing poor judgement is easy to understand, especially if you allow, as you have done yourself, that his detesting the scumbag is driving his decisions. That's still not lying, since he believes what he's saying even if we strongly suspect he's reacting emotionally and shouldn't.

Is nobody in this thread going to present one piece of evidence that he's lying or afraid? say, "A group of philosophy profs wrote Dawkins a year ago saying Craig is the greatest religious philosopher on the planet" or "He didn't really come out as an atheist and attack religion in the bible belt, he was forced out, whining." or something.

c) I'm with Bunny on Dawkins arrogance, it's one reason I don't like his clips. The thought that he'd lose to a man promoting a delusional idea along with immoral stances likely hasn't crossed his mind. The fact that my money's on craig doesn't mean Dawkins money is. The price of not knowing your opponent or your own weaknesses.

Unless we can read Dawkin's thoughts...there isn't going to be any tangible evidence. If Dawkins made his excuses under the obsersvation of a polygrapher I would be much more inclined to believe them provided the polygrapher rendered an opinion that he was truthful. However most of us have learned through experience that everyone is a liar and when someone makes an excuse we do not expect them to make we begin to suspect a lie is weaved.

Nonsense.
All you need in evidence that he has been well-informed of craigs prominence in the philosophy world ( something even I don't think would be true and I'm well aware of craig). Some of his coworkers that gave him that advice, a letter/email he wrote acknowledging craig as somebody of note, etc.
Or, that he actually accepts the genocide-is-good-for-the-kids argument, it's not a new one, he's been attacking religion for years, has he ever said anything suggesting he accepts or at least understands that mindset.
Or, show where he was afraid to get out there and take some heat in some other instance.

You are confusing lack of evidence ( and I don't know there isn't any) with the possibility of evidence. No mind reading needed. Well, unless you want to make a claim that you know what's in his mind but don't put any evidence forward.