Dawkins Won't Debate With Christian Apologist

Dawkins: Intelligent, brave, but above all, humble...
Tim Stanley today posts on Richard Dawkin's decision not to debate with Christian apologist William Lane Craig because, basically, what is the point in Manchester United playing Cheltenham Town FC? It's obvious that Cheltenham Town are just amateurs in comparison. In the video here, Dawkins, back in 2009, asserted that he wouldn't debate with Craig because he doesn't debate with Creationists. Interestingly, he said that he would debate with Bishops, Cardinals, Archbishops or the Pope, but not with born again Christians. So, you cannot say Dawkins does not respect authority!

For once, I have some sympathy with Dawkins. Those born again Christian apologists are quite frightening! They are full of fire for the salvation of sinners and yet are nearly totally ignorant of even the Bible they claim to love!

You tell them that scripture says one Baptism is necessary for the remission of sins, and they don't accept your Baptism or your Faith because you're not 'born again' enough.

You tell them that scripture says that the Lord Jesus left to His One True Church, His Body and His Blood in the Eucharist and they don't accept it saying that He meant it in some weird metaphorical way, as if Our Lord's words were left to them for interpretation.

You tell them that Christ left to His Church the power to forgive sins when He 'breathed on the Apostles' and said, 'receive the Holy Spirit' and yet still, in the face of all that scriptural support for your assertions, deride and mock the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

You tell them that the book they claim to know, venerate and love was, at least the second part at any rate, written by Catholics and even the first part would have been written by Catholics had they lived to see Our Lord in the flesh, since all the Prophets (that'll be those Jews again) longed for the coming of the promised Christ who would take away the sins of the World. They weren't Catholics then, but, the Church assures us, they are now, from Adam to Daniel. Whatever they are, they're not Baptists.

You tell them that the story of Creation is not a perfect scientific description of the formation of the Universe and all that is made, but an allegory of our original state of perfection and the entrance of Original Sin into the World, which is washed away by Baptism, and they look at you like you're the Antichrist.

You tell them that scripture supports the immense significance of Our Blessed Lady in Revelations since it is clear that the 'woman' who battles the big red dragon is our Heavenly Queen and they don't get it.

You take them through a small open-top bus tour of the works of canonized Catholic theologians and philosophers and you only draw from them blank faces.

You tell them that if Christ had willed that there should be a million different Churches saying a million different things about His nature and about salvation, with a million different doctrines, then He would not have prayed for unity for His Church and prayed that His disciples should all 'be one' and they say 'we are all one' even though they can't stand the doctrines of Holy Church.

You tell them that their Bible, had it not been doctored and an entire book, that of Maccabes, not been removed from the King James edition, then their Bible as well as yours would testify to at least a rudimentary understanding of Purgatory, purification after death, or at least the holy practice, as we cast our eyes forward towards All Souls Day, of praying for the repose of the souls of the dead.

You tell them that scripture supports the Church's assertion that the Church is built upon St Peter, the Rock and that Christ singles out Peter as the foundation of the Church upon which the gates of Hell shall never prevail and suddenly, the born again fruitcakes are calling you a 'fundamentalist'.

Yes, I have sympathy for you, Professor Dawkins. Believe me, against guys like that, you simply cannot win! They simply won't listen to reason!

Comments

Lazarus said…
Your comment about the exclusion of the Books of the Maccabees reminded me of the reggae song by Max Romeo about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHSYP0o5_Bw&feature=related

(Apparently West Indian slaves identified strongly with the idea of revolt in Maccabees!)

Dawkins should have just admitted he couldn't deal with criticism by an academic philosopher. That's pretty obvious to anyone -atheist or Christian. But instead of acknowledging his limitations, he's just given further evidence of his vanity by inventing specious excuses.