William Lane Craig

Dear Matt,

You recently argued that (and I will paraphrase as to repeat your dissertation would put most reasonable people to sleep) Richard Dawkins refusal to debate William Lane Craig in the UK was a form of mis-information/cowardly act on Dawkins part.  Yes - your over 1570 words boiled down to that...

Craig, in the face of many statements of fact, has (to my knowledge) never changed his mind and said - "OK on this point I am mistaken and I need to develop a new position".  Yes - statements of fact.

Dawkins deals in facts.  You preface your article with the words "Contra Mundum"  really!! "Against the world"  - how arrogant.

Dawkins is a scientist.  Debating Craig who does not practice science or should I say does not use the Science Methodology would be a waste of time.  Dawkins can do what I do - and watch Craig on Youtube.  Dawkins probably concluded the same thing I did - Craig is an Unreasonable man.

Unreasonable:  "When the facts change, I change my mind"

Science continues to erode the the boundary of knowledge of our species and adding more facts about our existence.  Religion feels threatened by this and it is becoming obvious to me that we need to start treating thoughts of God in the same way we think about Santa Claus: Great for children but not appropriate for adults.

So Matt, I hope your pursuit of "adultness" deals to the childish notions of an omnipetent diety

Cheers

SCA