For a little while now I've been seeing these bus ads around Oxford:
"There's probably no Dawkins. So stop worrying and enjoy Oct. 25th at the Sheldonian. www.premier.org.uk/craig"
I finally got a chance to read the small print on one of those ads, and realized what it was talking about: William Lane Craig is coming to Oxford to give a lecture on the fallacies in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins's best-selling book. A little research online turned up the full story behind the ad.
Apparently, Craig offered Dawkins the chance to make a debate of the event, but Dawkins declined. Repeatedly. Even after being encouraged to debate Craig by several other people including a philosopher (and atheist) at Oxford, and after being made familiar with Craig's credentials (two PhD's, in philosophy and theology, and a reputation as one of the foremost modern Christian apologists). The tour website says that the invitation is still open for Dawkins if he should decide to make an appearance - and that if he doesn't, an empty chair will be left standing on the stage for him.
What is most delightful about the bus ad, though, is that it's a parody of a atheist bus ad from 2009: "There's probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life." The ad would have been cheeky enough on its own, but the story behind it is so much more entertaining...
Another interesting point that I came across: Dr. Daniel Came, the Oxford don who encouraged Dawkins to participate made a comment at the end of his letter about the ontological argument for God's existence, which Dawkins mocks in The God Delusion. I read The God Delusion as one of the three books we were assigned for the lecture series and wrote a critique of it, and Dawkins's response to the ontological argument seemed quite weak to me. Dr. Came puts it much better than I could, though, when he says,
"On the basis of your brief discussion of the argument in The God Delusion, it appears you do not understand the logic of this argument. The ontological argument moves from the logical possibility of God’s existence to its actuality. Douglas Gasking’s parody of the argument, which you cite, moves from a logical impossibility to actuality and so is not parallel to the argument. In addition, you do not discuss the more sophisticated modal version of the argument advanced by the American philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga. Admittedly, you do say that some philosophers ‘resort to modal logic’ in an attempt to prove the existence of God. But this is a bit like saying ‘some botanists resort to looking at plants’ and so can hardly be said to constitute an objection to the argument." (emphasis added)
(For the full story and the rest of the letter, you can go to http://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/dawkins-refuses-god-debate-with-william-lane-craig.htm.)
I am struck by the difference between Dr. Came's attitude (again, as an atheist) and Dawkins's. While Dawkins seems to feel the need to ridicule or make light of opposing viewpoints, and often presents them in the most unfavorable possible light, Came is willing to evaluate an argument honestly, on the basis of its strongest formulation. Unfortunately, the honest and reasonable approach doesn't seem to get much publicity these days.
"There's probably no Dawkins. So stop worrying and enjoy Oct. 25th at the Sheldonian. www.premier.org.uk/craig"
I finally got a chance to read the small print on one of those ads, and realized what it was talking about: William Lane Craig is coming to Oxford to give a lecture on the fallacies in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins's best-selling book. A little research online turned up the full story behind the ad.
Apparently, Craig offered Dawkins the chance to make a debate of the event, but Dawkins declined. Repeatedly. Even after being encouraged to debate Craig by several other people including a philosopher (and atheist) at Oxford, and after being made familiar with Craig's credentials (two PhD's, in philosophy and theology, and a reputation as one of the foremost modern Christian apologists). The tour website says that the invitation is still open for Dawkins if he should decide to make an appearance - and that if he doesn't, an empty chair will be left standing on the stage for him.
What is most delightful about the bus ad, though, is that it's a parody of a atheist bus ad from 2009: "There's probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life." The ad would have been cheeky enough on its own, but the story behind it is so much more entertaining...
Another interesting point that I came across: Dr. Daniel Came, the Oxford don who encouraged Dawkins to participate made a comment at the end of his letter about the ontological argument for God's existence, which Dawkins mocks in The God Delusion. I read The God Delusion as one of the three books we were assigned for the lecture series and wrote a critique of it, and Dawkins's response to the ontological argument seemed quite weak to me. Dr. Came puts it much better than I could, though, when he says,
"On the basis of your brief discussion of the argument in The God Delusion, it appears you do not understand the logic of this argument. The ontological argument moves from the logical possibility of God’s existence to its actuality. Douglas Gasking’s parody of the argument, which you cite, moves from a logical impossibility to actuality and so is not parallel to the argument. In addition, you do not discuss the more sophisticated modal version of the argument advanced by the American philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga. Admittedly, you do say that some philosophers ‘resort to modal logic’ in an attempt to prove the existence of God. But this is a bit like saying ‘some botanists resort to looking at plants’ and so can hardly be said to constitute an objection to the argument." (emphasis added)
(For the full story and the rest of the letter, you can go to http://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/dawkins-refuses-god-debate-with-william-lane-craig.htm.)
I am struck by the difference between Dr. Came's attitude (again, as an atheist) and Dawkins's. While Dawkins seems to feel the need to ridicule or make light of opposing viewpoints, and often presents them in the most unfavorable possible light, Came is willing to evaluate an argument honestly, on the basis of its strongest formulation. Unfortunately, the honest and reasonable approach doesn't seem to get much publicity these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment