Richard Dawkins’s Delicacy

For a fellow who was elevated to the Godhead just a few weeks ago by the votaries of the secular religion of science at The New York Times (here), Richard Dawkins seems awfully insecure.

Yesterday, the prominent evolutionary biologist, former Oxford don, prolific author—and possibly the world’s best-known professional atheist—published in The Guardian a short statement of the reasons why he refuses to debate William Lane Craig next Tuesday (Oct. 25) at Oxford University, where an empty chair will be reserved for Dawkins on the stage, should he change his mind at the last minute.

Who is William Lane Craig? He, too, is a professor (he holds a chair in philosophy at Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, CA). He, too, is a prolific author, though admittedly his books are not the best-sellers that Dawkins’s are. And he, too, is highly esteemed by his academic peers—he is an authority on the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, one of the most widely discussed problems in philosophical theology over the past generation—though admittedly he is not nearly so well known as Dawkins is to followers of the popular press.

Craig is also known as one of the foremost contemporary academic Christian apologists, and as such frequently appears in public debates with prominent atheists. (Here is the complete program of Craig’s current Reasonable Faith tour of the U.K.) Atheist author and debater Sam Harris has observed that Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into my fellow atheists.”

Now, it is understandable that Dawkins should disdain to debate someone so far below his own celebrity star-power as Professor Craig. On the other hand, by that criterion, he really ought to limit himself to appearing with other bona fide media stars, like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (not that they would find much to disagree about).

If, however, Dawkins’s principal concern were the truth, as opposed to protecting his celebrity status, then he ought to jump at the chance to debate Craig. If modern science really has put the question of the existence of God to rest once and for all, then what better forum to get this across to the public than Oxford’s venerable Sheldonian Theatre next Tuesday? It really is a pity, because for many of us interested in the question of the existence of God, such a match-up would have the quality of a real clash of the titans.

So, what reason does Dawkins give for his refusal to participate in the Oxford debate? In his latest article, Dawkins has finally come up with an explanation for his refusal to take up Craig’s long-standing challenge. It is, Dawkins says, because the delicacy of his moral feeling will not permit it.

In the brief op-ed he penned yesterday, Dawkins claims he is morally outraged by an exegesis he unearthed in Craig’s very extensive body of writings on the following biblical passage (Deuteronomy 20: 16–17):

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them.

Not among the most edifying passages in Scripture, one must admit. But what, exactly, is Craig’s sin? In a context (unmentioned by Dawkins) of discussing the differences between the Old and New Testaments, Craig assumes the challenge of attempting to interpret the troubling passage. That is part of the job description of a Christian apologist. In short, Craig takes both his faith and his reason seriously, and tries to square them the best he can.

Here is Dawkins’s response to Craig’s defense of Deuteronomy:

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

Now, I do not mean to defend the book of Deuteronomy, or even to defend Professor Craig’s defense of that recalcitrant book. But I do think it is a little rich that Dawkins should seize on Craig’s more or less unexceptionable exercise in Christian apologetics as a means of wriggling out of what had clearly become for him a very disagreeable situation.

After all, this is the same man who had the inspiration a few years back to place giant placards on Oxford’s buses proclaiming “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Now, what exactly is the moral lesson we are supposed to take away from that message? If I were an ancient Israelite, I guess I could stop worrying and slaughter Canaanites to my heart’s content.

Look at it this way. According to Craig, the ancient Israelites cannot be faulted for obeying God’s commandments, because He is the metaphysical ground of all right and wrong. So, who are we to question Him?

According to Dawkins, there simply is no metaphysical ground of right and wrong. At best, there are likes and dislikes traceable to natural selection. So, we should all just stop worrying and do what we feel like.

It is hard to see how Dawkins can fault Craig for attempting to rationally defend acts that Dawkins himself has no way to show are wrong, since for Dawkins there is no objective metaphysical basis for morality at all.

I think the real reason for Dawkins’s refusal to debate Craig is plain enough to see. If you have any doubt on this point, I suggest you take a look at a couple of video clips from recent debates between Craig and the atheist apologists Peter Atkins (a former Oxford Professor of Chemistry) and Sam Harris.

Here is the clip from the Atkins/Craig debate:

 

And here is the clip from the Harris/Craig debate:

I think we may safely assume that Richard Dawkins, too, has watched these clips.