Hi Rowboat.
As you seem to of focused on timelines so hard, I will take your word for it being as you said.
rowboat wrote:I do not know who Dawkins is or is not friends with, not that that actually matters as it would be the underpinning reasons for such action being advocated that would show hipocracy on Dawkins part.
I disagree. It certainly does matter. There is quite a difference between William Lane Craig's rhetorical reference to the biblical god of Abraham and his destruction of cities and cultures, in order to make a philosophical point, accusing WLC of advocacy for genocide on these grounds, and Sam Harris, when he talks about the real-world eventuality of a nuclear first strike against the Arab world. And I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are trying to say in the second part of your statement.
Haris was looking at a potential threat, and even cautioned Muslim countries to be aware of particular regimes (rising to power). he was, in fact, looking at a potential danger and what a first strike would potentially cause. not advocating a first strike should 100% happen,rather it is taken as a very real possibility as the jihadist mindset is immune to the "mutually assured destruction" understanding that kept the cold war cold. he also notes that it would be a war crime to kill indiscriminately.
WLC just needs to view it is gods will for him to believe an entire populace (militant and civilian of any age) should be wiped out and it would still be ethical (in his view).
There is a massive difference and as such the reasons behind advocacy or looking at possibilities/situations is completely different which makes any friendship Dawkins has with Haris besides the point and not showing any double standard.
But just to note I have never seen wlc actually counter a scientific theory, nor win an argument because he counters with wordplay and fallacious points. Debates are, however, rarely won on the merits of the argument, and more often on the charisma of the participants.
Sam Harris has debated WLC more than once. Probably you should write to Harris and give him your advice directly in case the two should meet again.
"Well, first let me say that it's an honour to be here at Notre Dame. And 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. I've actually gotten more than a few emails this week, that more or less read, 'brother, please don't blow this.'" - Sam Harris
I am sure Harris knows the art of rhetoric, it has been quite well looked into over the years.
The Art of Rhetoric wrote:Rhetoric is an old study developed by Aristotle in Ancient Greece and is familiar to the study of public management (Hood and Jackson 1991; Hood, 2000, Smullen, 2012, p.956). It recognizes that argumentation is a persuasive action that shapes views of the world. Rhetoric analysis tradition focuses to identify ho to incite action through talk.There are three concepts in rhetoric; pathos, ethos and logos. Ethos refers to the appeal of the speaker and the method that they develop themselves upon the audiences. It is how the speaker makes the audiences believe that they are trustworthy. Pathos refers to the way of the speaker to make audience receptive to the argument (Hood, 2000, Smullen,2012). Logos refers to the logic of the argument itself. It is the “scientific” way of argument when the speakers talk to the audiences. Logos is logical appeal. In addition,Ethos and pathos related to the way of the speaker talk to audiences. Logos, by contrast,focus in the content of argument (Smullen, 2010, p.45)
If you have a room full of scientific illiterate people and a charismatic creationist arguing against a dull scientist the charisma will win the day. Add to that the room is full of creationists then confirmation bias is also held, and if a tiny portion of the audience are Atheists they will be less likely to openly agree due to conformity bias.
Fine work. Over a hundred peer reviewed papers in respected philosophy journals, and thirty books, and nobody has exposed him until you today. But you claim to be very familiar with the work of William Lane Craig and yet you also state that you have no idea who Richard Dawkins is.
You should read what I say! I claim not to know who is friends with who, not that I do not know who Richard Dawkins is. Nor do I say Very familiar, I am familiar with some of his debates and writings.
One could say his greatest supporter in one question also notes
Eric Silverman wrote:Dr. Craig has written or edited about thirty books and over a hundred articles. He is the only theist with a chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. His work on the Kalam cosmological argument and Molinism is excellent. Yet, much of his work is published by less rigorous venues and he has not published much in the top academic presses mentioned above. So, I'd say that he's generally viewed as a good philosopher, though perhaps not as good as those I've listed above.
Personally I fail to see much difference between his "excellent" cosmological argument and other forms. even if they have been shown to be flawed several times.
however the first response to that question on ask philosophers says
Peter Smith wrote:So the philosophical atheists haven't been entirely silent. But it does seem that much philosophy of religion is being written noisily by people with religious axes to grind (such indeed as William Lane Craig). When I've dipped into that stuff, I've thought it either badly argued or starting from premisses we haven't much reason to believe or both: so my impression is that, if the world of Christian philosophy has been "utterly transformed" of late, it is largely a matter of quantity rather than quality. But I am, like most of my colleagues, too unimpressed/too lazy/short of time to bother to really get to grips with it.
so I am not the first to posit anything.
(edited spelling corrections & clarifiers. Nothing removed)