William Lane Craig reviews new Dawkins/Krauss movie “The Unbelievers” in The Blaze

Dr. William Lane Craig
Dr. William Lane Craig

On The Blaze, a major political news site, Dr. William Lane Craig reviews a new atheist movie entitled “The Unbelievers” starring Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.


Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are two of the most important figures in the New Atheist movement. So one would naturally have high expectations that their new documentary, The Unbelievers, would present a vigorous, powerful attack upon the rationality of religious belief, featuring interviews with impressive scientists laying out the case against God.  Instead, the film turns out to be merely a travelogue of Dawkins and Krauss’ “magical mystery tour” of speaking engagements before their enthusiastic fans. Rather than thought provoking, the film is shallow, boring, and narcissistic.

[…]Featuring sound bites from celebrities and film stars in support of their cause fits Dawkins and Krauss’ purpose more than substantive interviews with qualified but largely unknown academics. The film’s purpose is not to present a case but primarily to rally the troops.

But there is a more fundamental reason for the absence of argument against religious belief. Dawkins and Krauss proceed on the unspoken assumption that science and religion are fundamentally mutually exclusive. Therefore, all one needs to do in order to discredit religion is to extol and celebrate the greatness of science. Science and religion are like two ends of a teeter-totter:  if the one end goes up, the other automatically declines. Thus, Krauss asks Dawkins which he would rather do:  explain science or destroy religion?  It is assumed that these are two ways to the same end. Dawkins, of course, chooses to extol science. “I’m in love with science, and I want to tell the world.” His implicit assumption is that one cannot love both God and science.

There is no argument given for the mutual exclusivity of science and religion; rather it is the unquestioned presupposition of the film. This is ironic because one of the repeated emphases of the film is the necessity of critical thinking. No view is off limits to examination; we must insist on permission to question everything. Yet Dawkins and Krauss are strangely oblivious to their own unexamined assumptions. Why think that science, restricted as it is to the exploration of the physical world, is incompatible with the existence of God?  Alas, we are not told.

[…]Indeed, given their ignorance of the literature, one cannot help but wonder if Dawkins and Krauss are not, in fact, incapable of engaging in substantive conversation on these matters. Hence, their open endorsement of ridicule as “a useful tool for illuminating reality.” Dawkins’ philosophical gaucherie is on display when complains that his dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury was “ruined” by the chairman (Sir Anthony Kenny, himself an agnostic), who “is a philosopher and so thought it his duty to clarify things,” which led, says Dawkins, to “skewing.”  Similarly, Dawkins breezily dismisses “Why?” questions as “silly.”

So what do we make of Dr. Craig holding Dawkins and Krauss accountable? Well. it’s one thing to treat Peter Millican and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong nicely. But Krauss and Dawkins really need to be spanked for their own good, at this point. What else do you do with ignorant children who run around insulting grown-ups?

What I find ironic is that there are 7 areas of science where theism has gained decisive support in the last 50 years:

  1. The Big Bang cosmology
  2. The cosmic fine-tuning
  3. The origin of life
  4. The origin of phyla in the Cambrian explosion
  5. Galactic habitability
  6. Stellar habitability
  7. Irreducible complexity

Each of these poses a threat to naturalism, and a few of them are lethal to naturalism on their own. Atheists have been reduced to holding onto speculations to get around them. You know the sort: nothing creating something, unobservable multiverses explain fine-tuning, unseen aliens seeded the Earth with life, undiscovered pre-Cambrian fossil record, and so on. It’s a bad time to be an atheist. Science has refuted atheism over and over again!

William Lane Craig podcasts about “The Unbelievers”

There are 3 of these podcasts so far in the series:

  1. What was the point of the film?
  2. Is science opposed to religion?
  3. Unscientific assertions in the film

10 thoughts on “William Lane Craig reviews new Dawkins/Krauss movie “The Unbelievers” in The Blaze”

  1. Dawkins is effective at rallying the troops but a shallow thinker. He is like a self-parody with his question-begging “science vs. religion” nonsense.

  2. Great post. I’m reminded of a line from Gettysburg when a general asks another general if this is good ground to defend. “Very good ground,” comes the answer. Craig answers his own question as to why renowned atheists will not engage in the central question of Christianity’s increasing convergence with scientific discoveries: It’s bad ground for them to do battle on. They will likely lose and so simply run from that battle. That can only go on for so long, however. The truth catches up with everyone, eventually.

    1. Yes! I know that line, that’s the cavalry guy Buford, when he identifies the ground near Gettysburg as defensible and then dismounts and digs his cavalry troops in.

  3. Great post Wintery.
    This, from Craig, was so apropos……..”Yet Dawkins and Krauss are strangely oblivious to their own unexamined assumptions.”

    Forest, Virginia

  4. A little fun with the “Muscle-Heads (Krausse/Dawkins)

    There’s no Mind behind the matter,
    You’d be wise to not forget.…
    Like, I said, your brain’s a muscle
    That just doesn’t get it yet.

    See, we Muscle-Heads have voted,
    And decided that we’re right,
    All you “others” just accept it,
    It’s not something you can fight.

    Yes, we Muscle-Heads have noted,
    Yep, we’ve got it figured out…
    We’re The Cult of Scientism,
    We’re the Muscle-Heads with clout.

    “Common sense”? …Ha! We don’t think so!
    Not in Muscle-Headed-Land!
    Common sense has just been busted!
    (But you wouldn’t understand.)

  5. Thanks for spotlighting the podcasts, WK! You probably heard the soundbite I put in one of them of Krauss calling WLC a “huckster”. That may make things a little awkward when they meet again in Australia later this year!

    Kevin Harris

    1. You are welcome Kevin. I would really love it if you could get an RSS feed for the current events blog going again. I found an old one but it hasn’t been updated in a year. I let Lee know as well. Thank you, I just really like it when William Lane Craig discusses current events.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s