What is Dawkins' Cowardice Level? IT'S OVER 9000!

Another letter I have written to the Guardian (which, again, I doubt will get published.)

Dear Guardian,

I see that Richard Dawkins is continuing his unrelenting drive in defaming professor William Lane Craig again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig?CMP=twt_fd

I don't care if this does not get published, just make sure Dawkins gets this. If this is published, then so much the better for me I guess. Here is the full text of my letter: -

"Dear Richard,

Who am I? Well, nobody really. I'm from one of the larger towns on the Isle of Wight, which is not really saying much. Calling a town on the Isle of Wight large is like trying to find the most handsome man in a burns unit. I attend the University of Chichester and I am currently on my 2nd year of a BA (Hons) in History. Whilst you might deign that reading this is beneath you and your ivory tower, might I invite you to consider what I say? I doubt it. If you are unwilling to listen to the foremost scholars of today, then I doubt you'd pay attention to a 22 year old student with Asperger's Syndrome and Dyspraxia, hunched over in a corner typing away whilst listening to Polish death metal, fuelled by a combination of microwaveable pasta and Mountain Dew. Still, I can hope, can't I? After I complete my BA, I intend to study an MA, and perhaps obtain tenure somewhere, whilst I work on a PhD, and am currently writing a book, so maybe you'll hear of me after all? I have been carefully following your comments in regard to the debating tour of William Lane Craig, and I notice that your excuses and ad hoc rationalisations to justify your enfeebled cowardice have grown somewhat. How many is it now? 11 excuses? Let's have a look shall we?

1) You haven't heard of William Lane Craig before. Oh really? I guess that is why you wrote an endorsement for Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis. A book which deals with some of Craig's argument (admittedly in a lacklustre and slapdash manner). Then there is the fact, Craig has debated AC Grayling (despite Grayling's assertions to the contrary,) Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and so on. Quentin Smith, an atheist philosopher, has written the following:
"William Lane Craig is a leading philosopher of religion and philosopher of time… More articles have been published on Craig's defence of the Kalam argument than any other contemporary argument for God's existence".

Jeffrey Jay Lowder, co-founder of the secular website Infidels.org, has come out in Dr. Craig's defence, saying that whilst he personally finds Craig unconvincing, Craig is neither nasty nor dishonest. What matters is the arguments. Dr. Craig has written hundreds of peer reviewed articles and authored over 30 books in the field of philosophy. I'm willing to bet you have not consulted any philosopher at all.

2) You'll only debate bishops. I guess that is why you have debated such esteemed intellectuals such as Ted Haggard, and Bill O'Reilly. In fact, you are scheduled to appear on the Bill O'Reilly show for a second time, despite maintaining elsewhere that appearing on shows like the Bill O'Reilly show is unproductive and a waste of time. Secondly, you have debated mathematician John Lennox and former biologist now theologian Alistair McGrath. They're not bishops now are they? Seems as if you've been telling us fairy stories. You know, I'm sort of tempted to join the priesthood now. That is, if Russian Orthodox clergy count. Something tells me you would quickly invent another convenient escape clause.

3) It'll look good on his CV, not yours. Au contraire, my dear narcissistic professor. Craig has debated intellectuals far more esteemed than yourself. He has debated Quentin Smith, Peter Atkins (and is scheduled to debate Atkins for a second time), Stephen Law, Richard Carrier, et al. The latest skull on his trophy rack belongs to that ponderous buffoon Lawrence Krauss, whose onanistic cry-baby rant on your website I found particularly amusing. Whereas atheist philosopher Daniel Came had some rather choice words for your refusal to take Craig on:
"The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part".

You're an afterthought. I guess that must sting even more than your humiliation at the hands of John Lennox. Aww, poor baby. You're not the centre of public attention after all. Whatever shall you do?

4) You don't debate creationists. Good for you. Craig isn't a creationist. He believes the world is several billion years old, and the universe older still. He has gone on air specifically stating that he is not a creationist. I am not either, just in case you are wondering. Of course, this does not change the fact you debated some creationist woman whose name escapes me (Wendy something or other) and at some point was going to debate Kirk Cameron (the banana man's sidekick) until he later declined to show up. Honesty it seems, is a harsh mistress.

5) You won't debate people whose only claim to fame is being a professional debater. Perhaps you should check Dr. Craig's CV then?

Education:
Wheaton College — B. A. Communications, high honors 1971
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Philosophy of Religion, summa cum laude 1975
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School — M. A. Church History, summa cum laude 1975
University of Birmingham, England — Ph.D. Philosophy 1977
Universität München, Germany — D. Theol. Theology 1984

Employment:
Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Religion Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 1980-1986
Associate Professor of Religious Studies Westmont College 1986-1987
Visiting Researcher Université Catholique de Louvain 1987-1994
Research Professor of Philosophy Talbot School of Theology 1996-present
Visiting Professor of Philosophy Wheaton College 2003-present

I could go on.

6) You're busy. Indeed, busy promoting your new book The Magic of Reality on the Bill O'Reilly show. Ah, the irony. You're also retired aren't you? Surely, you could fit in the time to crush Craig? Ah, but then you'd be exposed as the pseudo-intellectual know-nothing you really are, and you couldn't have that now, could you?

7) You've already debated him in Mexico. You mean the 6-man panel debate where you spent all of but 1 minute and 4 seconds actually addressing Craig, and where you personally said to him that you did not consider it a debate with him?

8) You have no intention to support Craig's "relentless drive for self-promotion." But you do intend to self-promote your new book... again, on the Bill O'Reilly show. Tu quoque indeed. Although I consider it ironic that you claim Craig is "self-promoting" when he has not requested this debate. He is merely a guest speaker, these events have been set up independently, by various organisations. You are simply being hypocritical here, not to mention playing fast and loose with the truth, but then again, nobody ever accused you of living in the real world.

9) You have no interest in this. Then why, pray tell, did you write The God Delusion? Riddle me that, oh enlightened one. Of course you are interested in this. You are only saying this now because of all the stringent criticisms that are flying in fast and loose, exposing the many egregious logical errors, fallacies, and factual discrepancies present in your cry-baby polemical screed of a book.

10) Andrew Copson, spokesman for the British Humanist Society, said that the reason he and you did not want to debate Craig 1-vs-1 was because he was a "slippery" character who constructed his arguments and debates in such a way as to make his arguments impossible to respond to.
Never mind that Copson, the snivelling little weasel that he is, said that he hoped atheists would attend so that they could "refute" Dr. Craig "from the floor." Nevermind also, that most of Dr. Craig's debates take place at secular universities. At his debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame in America, the local secular and humanist society bought up a load of tickets to stack the audience with their own numbers. Never mind also that atheists admitted that Craig beat Hitchens and Harris. Consider the following comment from the atheist blog Common Sense Atheism:
"Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."

Christopher Hitchens said the following:
"I can tell you that my brothers and sisters in the unbelieving community take him very seriously. He's thought of as a very tough guy: very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. I say that without reserve, I don't say it just because I'm here... Normally I don't get people saying, 'good luck tonight and don't let us down' but with him I do."

Sam Harris:
"I'm very happy to be debating Dr. Craig, the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."

11) Dr. Craig's views are "unpleasant." Wasn't it you who said you just care what is true? So why now, all of a sudden, are you smoke-screening your cowardice by employing other such appeals to emotion? I find it hilarious that you of all people should call Craig an apologist for genocide, when you claim that there is no such thing as good or evil and support infanticide. Your own comments on the wholesale slaughter of 185,000,000 people at the hands of 52 atheist state leaders in 25 different atheist states weren't rather endearing either, if you don't mind me saying. For the record, I don't agree with Craig here, (imagine that, a Christian criticising Dr. Craig!) for the simply reason that no such genocide took place. Having looked into the matter myself, such a context is completely alien to the 2nd millennium BC Ancient Near East (you know, the culture in which the accounts were written.) Properly understood, it was a driving out (as Craig notes) but it was stronger than that, the context of the language implies that the Israelites were speaking hyperbolically, and the word translated to "children" is not dependant on age. Not to mention the people in being driven out were predatory warrior tribes who sacrificed their own children to idols, and all sorts of fun things like that. Those poor innocent murderous Canaanites. You've really got the moral high ground there. Not that I would expect you to know such things. Your care for factual accuracy is about as low as the ankle socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country.

If Craig were as wrong as you assert he is, then it would be ridiculously easy to demonstrate it. Furthermore, if Craig really were an apologist for genocide, what better way to ruin his career than to expose him? Of course, you know full well that Craig is right, and isn't an apologist for genocide at all. This is just your way of trying to pull focus from your own inability to debate religion. If you had good arguments, you'd air them against Craig. But you don't, which explains the whole contrived excuses routine that you've conjured up in lieu of substantive rebuttal. You also claimed that you weren't aware of Craig's views on the Canaanites in Mexico, when in 2008 you wrote an article attacking his views on the Canaanites. To save face, you then claimed you had "forgotten." If by, 'forgotten,' you really mean, 'been caught with your trousers down,' then yes, I suppose you are right.

I'll be honest, Richard. You're not a man of science and reason. You do not value truth, and aren't interested in civil discourse. All you care about is promoting your quaint though ludicrous notions about religion. No need to let evidence penetrate the penumbra of your otherwise impenetrable quixotic delusions. You've already decided that there is no god but science, and you are its prophet, reason and logic be damned. William Lane Craig was sent here to test us... along with philosophy, history, and facts. In reality, you are nothing more than a sententious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessed, and bombastic moron who spouts nothing but intolerance, bigotry, non-sequiturs, caricatures, straw men and vitriol. A brain dead, vapid, condescending, piss-poor excuse of a debater who could not argue his way out of a wet paper bag. An arrogant, self-absorbed, blow-hard who takes himself too seriously, and a morally retarded intellectual cripple. And if that seems a bit much to you Richard, what I was doing, as anybody with a modicum of intelligence would be able to recognise, was taking an exaggerated form of your rhetoric and implied values, to satirise your rhetoric and implied values. It is a shame to have to break character and point this out, but it should save you participating in a long, tedious exchange of e-mails. Although coincidentally, as well as it being a joke, it also happens to be true.

You are singularly incapable of responding to a single criticism of your beliefs. You have to resort to ad hominems, offence and bluster, because that is all you have got. In fact, Richard it is you who finally convinced me that atheism was false. I was teetering on the edge of nihilism when by chance I happened across your documentary The Root of All Evil? and not long after that I happened across your book The God Delusion (which someone had ironically placed in the fiction section of my local WH Smith's) and luckily for me I had a familiarity with history, since your claims that religion is the cause of most world conflict, or that a convincing case could be made that Jesus never existed were patently false. 'How could such a man belief this absurdity?' I asked myself. 'Hasn't he ever studied History?' I then felt compelled to seek out Christian apologetics, and see what they had to say. After doing a little research of my own, I found Christianity to be true. So you see Richard, I really must thank you. Had your arguments not been so terribly dire and lacklustre, I would not have been compelled to see what the other side were saying. Your beliefs are stupid, offensive, poorly-researched and badly thought-out. I am willing to bet that I could crush you and the pernicious myths that you hold dear like a bug, with zero preparation whatsoever, and I haven't even so much as completed my BA (Hons) in History yet, let alone an MA or PhD. Craig would presumably crucify you, but then again, you probably figured that out a long time ago, otherwise you wouldn't still be spinning lies about him in the press now, would you? If you are actually reading this, as opposed to jamming your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and chanting "THERE IS NO GOD!" over and over again as you rock back and forth under your chair, huddled up in the foetal position and sporting a tin foil hat, then that is something I suppose.

До свидания, товарищ.