Richard Dawkins’ Empty Chair 1, William Lane Craig 0

Professional Christian apologist William Lane Craig has been harassing Richard Dawkins to debate him for years.  Dawkins, citing a strict “I will not debate with creationists” policy, has refused, much to WLC’s consternation.  Craig’s followers spend an inordinate amount of time leaving comments all over the Internet (and showing up at his public appearances) to accuse Dawkins of cowardice for not agreeing to the debate.

On the occasion of Craig’s planned visit to Oxford last month, the rhetoric was stepped up.  Craig promised to leave an empty chair at his appearance as a reminder of Dawkins’ absence (and possibly to provide a phantom opponent to declare victory against); Dawkins took the time to issue a rare reply to Craig in the form of an article published in The Guardian.

For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

He then goes on to describe Craig’s recent defenses of biblical slaughter and genocide, and asks,

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

Craig, not surprisingly, went ahead with his attempt to capitalize on Richard’s name and absence.  A few reports on the event have now been published, and it turns out the issue was raised there:

[Craig said] “I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead…than being raised in this Canaanite culture. “

One attendee, who wished not be named, called Craig’s argument “alarming”: “I’m a Christian who generally agrees with Craig’s ideas but what he said for the last question was simply disturbing. He completely contradicted himself, one minute saying that, effectively, no children were killed in the genocide, only to say later on that it was OK that children died, that it was God’s will, and that they were saved from a debauched culture.”

Sounds to me like the chair was the clear winner of this debate.