Friday, October 21, 2011

Why I would never debate Richard Dawkins: The atheist “philosopher” cannot give us a reason why genocide is wrong. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him.


Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of Richard Dawkins. He is an atheist. Most members of my church don’t know who he is either. He calls himself a philosopher, but other distinguished philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Antony Flew have called his work “jejune”, “sophomoric”, and even titled him a “secularist bigot.”  Perhaps we should just call him a “biologist.”
For years Dawkins has been running away from debating any credible Christian apologist or philosopher with reasons such as “I don’t debate 7 day creationists” and most recently *here* he says he won’t debate William Lane Craig because he supports genocide in the Bible.
Dawkins writes in his article, “But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.”
But here’s the problem with Mr. Dawkins, he has admitted that he can’t unequivocally state that genocide is wrong. In an interview with Larry Taunton he said, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”  Why couldn’t we just insert “the ancient near east Jews” instead of “Hitler?” But Dawkins reacts to Craig’s view of genocide as though the act is absolutely, morally reprehensible. He even uses this as his sole reason why he won’t debate the man. But if he can't justify why Hitler was wrong, how can he state that the Jews were wrong in the Old Testament?
            Well, would you share a platform and shake hands with a man who can’t even give evidence for why Hitler’s genocide of millions of Jews was absolutely immoral? I wouldn’t and I won’t. Sorry Richard, I’m diverting your emails to the spam folder and I’ve got my phone set to silent.  

Dean Hardy is the Head of the Bible Department at Charlotte Christian School in Charlotte, NC. He earned his B.A. in Religion from Palm Beach Atlantic University and his Masters in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He can be reached at http://www.YouthApologetics.com/contact.php

12 comments:

  1. 3/10. Dawkins doesn't try to justify, that which is to most, a morally reprehesnisble act as WLC does.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for commenting RIch,
    This would only be a valid criticism if morality were dictated by consensus. Just because many think it's morally reprehensible doesn't make it absolutely reprehensible. If there are absolutes, then they aren't dependent on human opinion.
    But you may have missed the point... in atheism Dawkins can't justify one position or the other. In WLC's view, he can take a position and justify it- and argue that an act is absolutely ethical or not. RIchard can't. He can in reality only say "Many people don't prefer genocide, so I won't debate WLC." So RIchard's criticism has NO LEGS! It's a torso.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "This would only be a valid criticism if morality were dictated by consensus. Just because many think it's morally reprehensible doesn't make it absolutely reprehensible. If there are absolutes, then they aren't dependent on human opinion."

    So morality has steadfastly remained, unchanged throughout time? My morals are probably not your morals, although I suspect we both strongly adhere to social norms or morality. I'm fine acknowledging the is / ought problem. But asserting that they come from God is pressupositionalist question-begging.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And with regard to the warrent of justification - if morality comes from one entity or the other (God or Dawkins)it is still arbitrary and there is no supporting logical argument that it is 'correct'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for writing back Rich,
    You said, "So morality has steadfastly remained, unchanged throughout time? My morals are probably not your morals, although I suspect we both strongly adhere to social norms or morality."

    If God is the basis for morality and he is immutable, then yes, morality has not been changed throughout time. Absolutes by nature can't be swayed by the public.
    It's not arbitrary. It's the essence of God. I'm not a muslim who would argue that God can change ethical absolutes. I am an essentialist. God is moral and morals stem from him alone.
    While some may deny God, or deny the ability to know absolute morality (the epistemological problem of ethics), this is very different from the metaphysical problem. Just because someone can't justify why there are absolutes (or there are disagreements in opinion), it doesn't mean their aren't absolute ethical norms.
    BTW- I'm a classical apologist. I've written much on why I think God exists and how ethics are derived from Him. I don't think you expected me to justify that in my blog comments. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "it doesn't mean their aren't absolute ethical norms. " - Again, question begging. Offer positive evidence for absolute ethics. Faith has a long history of supporting what we now find reprehensible - slavery, revenge killing, human sacrifice, and has been used to object to women's rights, interracial marriage etc. Not a very good 'absolute standard' if we look at its implementation. Now the temptation might be to blame human interpretation, but if you're omnipotent, find a way to get your message across, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dean,
    This response to Dawkins is absolutely brilliant! Thanks for the post and for an important insight that should be run in the Guardian, which ran Dawkins article.

    We need to meet up sometime. I'm in Statesville, NC, and starting a Ratio Christi chapter at Davidson College. I'll buy the coffee!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rich, I never posted this blog in reference to my defense or lack thereof for absolute morals. It had to do with Dawkins incoherence. He says there aren't absolutes, then argues that genocide is absolutely immoral. I'm not question begging because I wasn't even trying to answer the question you are posing. But I'll digress and respond...
    I think it's humorous to chide Christianity for suggesting that our absolute morals aren't working out perfectly over history when you are coming from a standpoint where there are no absolutes. (If I'm wrong, I'm begging you to tell me how that is possible!) It's easy to laugh at us for missing the mark when you don't even have a target.
    Secondly, you've ignored the fact of free will in your last post. Just because we don't follow the absolutes, or even further, we try to justify our immoral behavior by saying that we ARE following the absolutes, doesn't nullify the fact that God is perfect and is the basis for our moral standards. So, we can KNOW what the right thing to do is, but that doesn't mean we do it. It's not an epistemological problem, it's a volitional problem.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good question. Reminds me of Christian filmmaker Brian Godawa's short film Cruel Logic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Jenny! I've heard of Brian's work but haven't seen it... is that one a horror flick (in the truest sense of the word)?

    ReplyDelete