I was interested to read this post by Edward Feser regarding Dawkins “forgetting” he’d not debated William Lane Craig.
One of the comments led to this post which defended Dawkins’ refusal to debate Craig. The argument from this author was that Dawkins shouldn’t debate Craig because Craig is an expert in religious philosophy and Dawkins is an expert in Biology so it would be a mismatch.
However, as I recall, Dawkins already stepped into the ring when he wrote “The God Delusion”. Dawkins believed his philosophy is solid enough to publish. Why not debate it?
The fact that it hasn’t stood up to analysis by religious philosophers merely demonstrates that his philosophy doesn’t measure up to the standards of philosophy. Perhaps it was unwise for him to step outside of his expert domain? But would he be so popular if he hadn’t?
Naturalistic science desperately needs a strong religious philosophy for it to provide a comprehensive worldview, so I think Dawkins had to write “The God Delusion” to help provide that.
So why not debate it? Or is this stubborn refusal to debate the foremost evangelical religious philosophy debater a quiet acknowledgement that it hasn’t stood up well before religious philosophers?