Eastwooding Richard Dawkins: William Lane Craig uses Clint Eastwood's strategy as the last resource to debate world leading atheist Richard Dawkins regarding God's existence

It is well known that famous Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood went to TV and spoke to a empty chair, in what is currently being known as "Eastwooding". 

Inspired by Eastwood, the world-leading philosophical defender of God's existence, philosopher William Lane Craig, spoke to a empty chair (the one in which Dawkins should be sitting for the debate), imagining that his opponent was world's most well known defender of atheism, Richard Dawkins. Craig developed his standards arguments for God's existence and, based on Dawkins' writtings, imagined the objections that Dawkins could pose against these arguments.

It is well known that Dawkins, the world-leading defender of atheism, refused to debate Craig about God's existence in Oxford (Dawkins' own home) some time ago. This fact strongly affected Dawkins' reputation among atheists and theists alike, making him look straigthforwardly as a coward. (Even Daniel Came,  an Oxford atheist philosopher, suggested that Dawkins' refusal was cynical, anti-intellectualist and suggestive of cowardice).

Since Dawkins is the leading defender of scientific atheism (at least in the public's mind), one would expect him to be eager to  take and openly refute whatever theistic arguments are posed by theists in a public debate, and show to the world that theists are a bunch of credulous, ignorant and pseudo-scientific thinkers whose only reason to believe in God is "blind faith" and religious indoctrination. But instead, we see Dawkins chicken away consistently from the debate against a sophisticated philosophical theist.

Althought I enjoyed Craig's lecture, I think Craig should forget Dawkins and the possibility of debating him. Dawkins simply WON'T debate Craig (Dawkins prefers to debate popular pastors, tele-evangelists and other unsophisticated theists... but not the best trained and most sophisticated defenders of theism). In fact, Dawkins also refused to debate another sophisticated philosophical theist, Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser.

The only sophisticated theist to whom Dawkins has debated is Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox (a couple of debates in which Lennox clearly destroyed him).

For careful readers and thinkers, it is pretty obvious that Dawkins is intellectually unsophisticated, positively illogical and unable to understand hard, subtle and complex philosophical questions (see an example here of Dawkins' powerful intelligence).So, there is not much point in trying to debate a person like that. He simply is too crude and unable to understand complex arguments (which is a typical trait of some atheists affected by Jime Iron Law).

For more posts on Dawkins in my blog, see this section.