William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldYmg0lpE
Edit: Digestible summary of the issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Daw...
QUOTE "Some of Prof Dawkins’s contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.
In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: 'The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.
I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House'" /QUOTE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Daw...
It just goes to show that the issue won't be resolved by logic (arguing logically about religion, which is the epitome of irrationality, seems doomed from the start anyway).
My main gripe with Dawkins has actually always been that he spends too much time arguing with senseless counterarguments. I wish the evolutionary biologists would rather invest more energy into developing more insights, rather than arguing the same old tired arguments of their enemies again and again.
Edit: for what it's worth, I would actually be interested in what arguments Mr Craig would like to present. I checked his web site, but an article about "The God Delusion" that I found was behind a paywall (or at least "become a member wall").
2. I agree that the issue won't be resolved by logic alone. However, based on Craig's previous debates, he will clearly define his terms and premises, and name the principles of logic used to reach a conclusion. To assert that such debate is "the epitome of irrationality" is itself irrational. You may disagree with his premises and definitions, but that is not the same as irrationality.
3. Dawkins has been asked again and again to debate Craig, and has refused again and again. As I've said before, other prominent atheists have criticised Dawkins on this matter.
4. You can download a number of Craig's debates here: http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927
In that sense, what is a public celebrity match supposed to achieve? Will people decide according to the merit of the arguments (then why not just read), or according to the better haircut?
As for 4), I tried to follow a link to one of the transcripts, but it only lead to the "restricted to members" page again. Can't be bothered with Audio or Video.
So if 2.) is true, at least Craig should present an easily digestable resource with his arguments.
As for 3) as I said, I think Dawkings is wasting too much time with futile discussions already. I don't think refusing to discuss with anybody is an indicator for the merit of his arguments.
Edit: also, since I suppose Craig has published books, name one good reason why I should expect any interesting points in them?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publ...
Craig is a serious philosopher with credible philosophical publications to his name. That is why he is worth reading (perhaps more his journal articles than his "popular" books, indicated by "P" in the above list). That is also the reason why Dawkins should take him on in debate.
Both have made their positions abundantly clear, both would be rehearsed and prepared and trotting out basically the same arguments and refutations and both are utterly closed minded on the matter.
So what you're left with is the intellectual equivalent of a bare knuckle fight - an unedifying spectacle, of interest to relatively few, which changes nothing and reflects badly on everyone involved.
I have no idea whether Dawkins' reasons for not debating Craig are honest. I can certainly see how Dawkins would think it beneath him - even if he weren't crashingly arrogant on paper he's on a level above Craig and Craig is a self publicist - though lets be honest, Dawkins is hardly a shrinking violet.
What I can say is that this debate not happening seems a pretty welcome relief from the bickering.