However, I confess that I am finding it very difficult to believe that his schedule has been completely booked for the rest of his life.
I simply can’t understand why he can’t carve out a few hours of spare time to burst my bubble of egotistical pride, by demonstrating the intellectual superiority of his atheistic humanism once and for all.
After reading his book and blogging about it twice because I appreciated the skill of its authorship, I grew bold and wrote the good professor to propose a written debate that would pit his GOD Argument versus my Counterargument for God.
You see, I paid attention when I read his book. I believe that already know much of what the professor might say, and it gave me the confidence to approach him.
I am quite convinced that my counterargument can defeat his argument, even though my book was originally intended to rebut The God Delusion of Richard Dawkins.
My reply suggested that Professor Grayling could set the debate parameters for debate himself. My offer said that we could schedule our discussion for any future exchange at his convenience.
So you might imagine my surprise when his second assistant replied and said that it would never be convenient.
Not even sometime in late 2016? I asked.
Nope. Never, as in never, ever.
Please forgive me for stating the obvious, but I believe that if Professor Grayling’s schedule is truly that jam-packed and inflexible, the first assistant would almost certainly have known that and simply could have declined my offer, rather that requesting details of a debate that could never happen. The fact that the assistant asked for some details and then declined my invitation for a discussion suggests something else may be going on here.
Rather than actually being too busy, it seems much more plausible that Professor Grayling simply doesn’t want to debate me, and probably because my credentials don’t impress him. After all, I don’t even have a master’s degree, much less a PhD.
I’m not any sort of religious leader. I’m just a writer. Therefore, he would have more to lose in this exchange. He also probably thinks it is beneath him to condescend to debate me.
Surely he cannot be afraid of my argument…unless he knows what it is.
Well, I suppose that’s only fair because I’m not afraid of his argument, either. Or his curriculum vitae.
But I am still puzzled.
I must admit that if the situation were reversed, I would feel compelled to give Grayling something of an intellectual smackdown for having the temerity to challenge my authority as an academic and educator, which in my case doesn’t exist.
Yet we all have some pride.
Let me be abundantly clear — I am saying without equivocation that I am sure my argument is superior, and would defeat Grayling’s in a fair debate. After all, I’ve read his book. I know what he has to offer.
If that brash assertion doesn’t goad Professor Grayling into coming forward to accept my offer, nothing will, because I know if someone boldly claimed they could destroy my published argument in debate, I would want to teach such an audacious person a real lesson in humility.
Assuming that I could, of course. I would even make time for it in my schedule, if necessary.
So perhaps Professor Grayling considers himself above the fray — and if he can ignore having his authority questioned in such a brash and audacious manner, he’s right.
Because I am saying here again that his argument cannot defeat mine.
Now I know that if anyone were to read my book and challenged one or more of my assertions about God with an alternate interpretation of the evidence in question, they would hear directly from me — they would not get the brushoff from one or more of my editors.
But I am not Professor A. C. Grayling.
I am also not lacking for the courage of my convictions.