Just thought it'd be a good idea to start up a thread to talk about the debate for those of us who are planning on watching it through to the end on our own.
I watched the whole debate, and figured I'd list out the main "theses" from Dawkins' book that were used as the focus of the arguments. That might make it easier to discuss.
1. Faith is blind, science is evidence-based.
2. Science supports atheism, not christianity.
3. Design is dead, otherwise one must explain who designed the designer.
4. Christianity is dangerous.
5. No one needs god to be moral.
6. Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true. His alleged miracles violate the laws of nature. (This was not addressed due to time constraints.)
I'll recap Dawkins' and Lennox's arguments on each of these points soon, then give my take on the reasoning employed by each side.
Okay, here's my paraphrases of each man's arguments on the theses listed above.
1. Both agreed that science is firmly based on evidence. Dawkins: Religion allows for people to be satisfied with insufficient answers and poor understanding of the wondrous natural world, by mistakenly translating reverence into worship. Lennox: Faith is not always blind, it carries many connotations (e.g. loyalty) and is "only as robust as the evidence for it". Scientists have faith in Einstein's relativity and faith in their spouses. Dawkins: Love is based on plenty of subtle evidence. There's no reason to call something "faith" at all if there is evidence, ergo this is petty semantics.
2. Dawkins: The war between rationalism (science) and superstition (religion) is paramount, even over turf wars such as the American education / intelligent design nonsense. In the big picture, we should not obscure the tendency for evolution to yield atheism. Lennox: Atheism undermines science. It takes faith to believe the universe is intelligible or that inductive reasoning works. God is behind the human mind and the big bang because rationality can't emerge from chaos. Dawkins: There are only two possibilities, so for the Bible to predict that the universe had some beginning is unimpressive.
3. Dawkins: God presents a problem of infinite regress. The explanation that a deity tweaked the universe answers nothing. Just because we don't fully understand cosmology doesn't mean we can say "god did it". The anthropic principle and multiverses compose at least an interim solution, better than superstition. Lennox: The anthropic principle is just a truism. Darwinism doesn't explain the origin of a mutating replicator. Created gods are a delusion; the christian god had no beginning. Reductionism is flawed. Simplicity isn't the only criterion of truth. Scientific explanations are often more complex than the things they explain. Dawkins: No, science is about gradual, incremental development from simple beginnings. Irreducible complexity is a myth. The terms "complex" and "difficult" should not be confused; particle physics is tough work but still "simple" (as in fundamental). Lennox: An intelligent designer can be inferred from the fact that DNA encodes a message.
4. Dawkins: Most christians aren't directly dangerous. But it's dangerous to teach children that faith is a virtue in itself -- that words and actions don't need justification when faith is invoked. Violent/unstable people will commit terrible acts when given any excuse, including religion. Lennox: Christians using violence disobey christ's explicit command. It is indeed dangerous to train children as fanatics; christians train students to think. The God Delusion airbrushes over Marxist atrocities and lumps religions together. New Atheism can be parallel to communism. Dawkins: There's a logical path from religious faith to immoral acts, but no such path for atheism. Despots have not committed atrocities as a result of rationality or atheism, but for other (political) reasons. Lennox: There's a logical path from any fanatical ideology to violence. Atheism is a faith as well. Dawkins: It's not. You're an atheist with respect to Thor and Zeus. My position is the same with respect to Jehova/Yahweh. That lack does not lead to murder.
5. Dawkins: Following the entirety of the Bible/Koran yields hideous morals. Most people pick and choose verses, but you don't need the book to be able to do that in the first place. Religion inspires fear of punishment or desire for reward, neither of which is a noble. In early human small-group societies, there was likely stronger Darwinian pressure to cooperate and ease suffering, much like the lust for sex. The "shifting moral zeitgeist" can be observed over mere decades and goes against the idea of absolute morals. Lennox: Atheists can behave morally. But common ground means we were made as moral beings in the image of god. Theism provides foundations. Atheism purports that the universe on the smallest scale has no design, no purpose, no good/evil, and nothing but indifference. Therefore you can't make claims about morals, since even terrorists are following their strict genetic predispositions. A mindless, impersonal universe can't impose morality. Dawkins: Maybe an indifferent world IS hideous. Rising above Darwinian imperatives is easy: think contraceptives. Natural selection is an ugly process with beautiful consequences. Lennox: Atheism removes the basis for evaluating moral stances. Scripture is reliable because authoritative historians consider many of the accounts to be accurate. Miracles don't violate natural law because a creator can insert unique events at will.
6. (again, not addressed)
Conclusions: Lennox: The universe did not come about on its own or through pure chance. Historical atheistic societies were predicted by Genesis. Atheism is untrue because it denies good and evil. The resurrection of Christ was a miracle and the central evidence that justice is real. Dawkins: Lennox just dismissed the discussion on science as irrelevant by saying it all comes down to the resurrection of Jesus. The achievement of Darwin was showing against intuition that life does not require a creator, but an undirected yet organized, rational process (NOT chance).
First, I need to state that the "debate" format was severely flawed. Prof. Dawkins elaborated on the quotes taken from his book, and then Dr. Lennox responded to he portions on which he took issue. But there was no room for rebuttal; Dawkins had to squeeze that in using up his time for the proceeding question.
It would have made more sense for Lennox to respond first to the quotes, and then Dawkins to briefly clarify. There could be some back-and-forth after that, but it likely would have been shorter.
Also, Lennox didn't use his autobiographical time to describe himself (other than that he teaches math and spent time in Russia), so much as take patronizing pot-shots at Dawkins, begin the debate prematurely, and put words in his opponent's mouth.
Lennox takes makes a number of ridiculous statements, and I think they're worth mentioning. On thesis 2, he proclaims that the Bible's assertion that the universe had a beginning was strengthened by evidence for the Big Bang. Dawkins critiques that "having a beginning" was a 50/50 tossup, and an unimpressive bet. On thesis 3, Lennox rants about scientific explanations being more complex than what they address, and Dawkins has to correct him on the terms "complex" and "difficult", e.g. particle physics is tough work but still "simple" (as in fundamental). Lennox begins to say something about divine creation being inferred from the "message" encoded in DNA, but he never completes the thought. Following thesis 4, Lennox states that all fanatical ideologies can lead to violence, and then boldly claims that atheism is a faith. Dawkins of course points out that Lennox is an atheist with respect to Zeus and Thor, and that his own position is identical with respect to Jehova/Yahweh. That strict *lack* of belief cannot lead to murder. And then of course on thesis 5 and the conclusion, Lennox makes blatantly unsupported statements about the Bible's historical accuracy, miracles, and morality being based on Christ's resurrection.
It is worth noting at least that Lennox DOES appear to (vaguely) support evolution, and condemn a "god of the gaps" explanation for incomplete scientific data. And his style is quite charismatic. But he frequently pre-empts real discussion with "straw man" arguments, stating an oversimplified version of Dawkins' position and then combating THAT instead of the real thing. Overall I find his rhetoric to be a fresh coating on a very stale center.
Dawkins makes some mistakes as well. He seems to lose part of the debate on thesis 4, because his account of history does not thoroughly address atheist tyrants like Stalin or Pol Pot. Lennox has firsthand experience with the citizens who suffered under those rulers, and appears to have far more authority on those issues. But really, atheism is a simple "flag" that says little unto itself; those tyrants tacked it on to extreme Marxist philosophy, which Dawkins and other humanists/"new atheists" clearly do not support. Also, Dawkins supports the anthropic principle and a multiverse hypothesis, which are certainly not universally accepted by scientists. But at least those are far better than creationism. Overall, Dawkins was very consistent, and probably as concise as anyone could be when confronted with the most controversial aspects of their own book.
My impression is that this faux-debate takes the same bland argument that has repeated millions of times, and puts charismatic, academic celebrities in front. I wouldn't expect this to change anyone's stance on religion. Dawkins and Lennox speak in terms of ideals, but due to the poor format of the event, practically nothing is actually accomplished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
--Carl Sagan
Debate Overview
I watched the whole debate, and figured I'd list out the main "theses" from Dawkins' book that were used as the focus of the arguments. That might make it easier to discuss.
1. Faith is blind, science is evidence-based.
2. Science supports atheism, not christianity.
3. Design is dead, otherwise one must explain who designed the designer.
4. Christianity is dangerous.
5. No one needs god to be moral.
6. Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true. His alleged miracles violate the laws of nature. (This was not addressed due to time constraints.)
I'll recap Dawkins' and Lennox's arguments on each of these points soon, then give my take on the reasoning employed by each side.
In the meantime, here's someone else's review to hold you over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDsYqV3boxM
Argument Breakdown
Okay, here's my paraphrases of each man's arguments on the theses listed above.
1. Both agreed that science is firmly based on evidence.
Dawkins: Religion allows for people to be satisfied with insufficient answers and poor understanding of the wondrous natural world, by mistakenly translating reverence into worship.
Lennox: Faith is not always blind, it carries many connotations (e.g. loyalty) and is "only as robust as the evidence for it". Scientists have faith in Einstein's relativity and faith in their spouses.
Dawkins: Love is based on plenty of subtle evidence. There's no reason to call something "faith" at all if there is evidence, ergo this is petty semantics.
2. Dawkins: The war between rationalism (science) and superstition (religion) is paramount, even over turf wars such as the American education / intelligent design nonsense. In the big picture, we should not obscure the tendency for evolution to yield atheism.
Lennox: Atheism undermines science. It takes faith to believe the universe is intelligible or that inductive reasoning works. God is behind the human mind and the big bang because rationality can't emerge from chaos.
Dawkins: There are only two possibilities, so for the Bible to predict that the universe had some beginning is unimpressive.
3. Dawkins: God presents a problem of infinite regress. The explanation that a deity tweaked the universe answers nothing. Just because we don't fully understand cosmology doesn't mean we can say "god did it". The anthropic principle and multiverses compose at least an interim solution, better than superstition.
Lennox: The anthropic principle is just a truism. Darwinism doesn't explain the origin of a mutating replicator. Created gods are a delusion; the christian god had no beginning. Reductionism is flawed. Simplicity isn't the only criterion of truth. Scientific explanations are often more complex than the things they explain.
Dawkins: No, science is about gradual, incremental development from simple beginnings. Irreducible complexity is a myth. The terms "complex" and "difficult" should not be confused; particle physics is tough work but still "simple" (as in fundamental).
Lennox: An intelligent designer can be inferred from the fact that DNA encodes a message.
4. Dawkins: Most christians aren't directly dangerous. But it's dangerous to teach children that faith is a virtue in itself -- that words and actions don't need justification when faith is invoked. Violent/unstable people will commit terrible acts when given any excuse, including religion.
Lennox: Christians using violence disobey christ's explicit command. It is indeed dangerous to train children as fanatics; christians train students to think. The God Delusion airbrushes over Marxist atrocities and lumps religions together. New Atheism can be parallel to communism.
Dawkins: There's a logical path from religious faith to immoral acts, but no such path for atheism. Despots have not committed atrocities as a result of rationality or atheism, but for other (political) reasons.
Lennox: There's a logical path from any fanatical ideology to violence. Atheism is a faith as well.
Dawkins: It's not. You're an atheist with respect to Thor and Zeus. My position is the same with respect to Jehova/Yahweh. That lack does not lead to murder.
5. Dawkins: Following the entirety of the Bible/Koran yields hideous morals. Most people pick and choose verses, but you don't need the book to be able to do that in the first place. Religion inspires fear of punishment or desire for reward, neither of which is a noble. In early human small-group societies, there was likely stronger Darwinian pressure to cooperate and ease suffering, much like the lust for sex. The "shifting moral zeitgeist" can be observed over mere decades and goes against the idea of absolute morals.
Lennox: Atheists can behave morally. But common ground means we were made as moral beings in the image of god. Theism provides foundations. Atheism purports that the universe on the smallest scale has no design, no purpose, no good/evil, and nothing but indifference. Therefore you can't make claims about morals, since even terrorists are following their strict genetic predispositions. A mindless, impersonal universe can't impose morality.
Dawkins: Maybe an indifferent world IS hideous. Rising above Darwinian imperatives is easy: think contraceptives. Natural selection is an ugly process with beautiful consequences.
Lennox: Atheism removes the basis for evaluating moral stances. Scripture is reliable because authoritative historians consider many of the accounts to be accurate. Miracles don't violate natural law because a creator can insert unique events at will.
6. (again, not addressed)
Conclusions: Lennox: The universe did not come about on its own or through pure chance. Historical atheistic societies were predicted by Genesis. Atheism is untrue because it denies good and evil. The resurrection of Christ was a miracle and the central evidence that justice is real.
Dawkins: Lennox just dismissed the discussion on science as irrelevant by saying it all comes down to the resurrection of Jesus. The achievement of Darwin was showing against intuition that life does not require a creator, but an undirected yet organized, rational process (NOT chance).
Critique
First, I need to state that the "debate" format was severely flawed. Prof. Dawkins elaborated on the quotes taken from his book, and then Dr. Lennox responded to he portions on which he took issue. But there was no room for rebuttal; Dawkins had to squeeze that in using up his time for the proceeding question.
It would have made more sense for Lennox to respond first to the quotes, and then Dawkins to briefly clarify. There could be some back-and-forth after that, but it likely would have been shorter.
Also, Lennox didn't use his autobiographical time to describe himself (other than that he teaches math and spent time in Russia), so much as take patronizing pot-shots at Dawkins, begin the debate prematurely, and put words in his opponent's mouth.
Lennox takes makes a number of ridiculous statements, and I think they're worth mentioning. On thesis 2, he proclaims that the Bible's assertion that the universe had a beginning was strengthened by evidence for the Big Bang. Dawkins critiques that "having a beginning" was a 50/50 tossup, and an unimpressive bet. On thesis 3, Lennox rants about scientific explanations being more complex than what they address, and Dawkins has to correct him on the terms "complex" and "difficult", e.g. particle physics is tough work but still "simple" (as in fundamental). Lennox begins to say something about divine creation being inferred from the "message" encoded in DNA, but he never completes the thought. Following thesis 4, Lennox states that all fanatical ideologies can lead to violence, and then boldly claims that atheism is a faith. Dawkins of course points out that Lennox is an atheist with respect to Zeus and Thor, and that his own position is identical with respect to Jehova/Yahweh. That strict *lack* of belief cannot lead to murder. And then of course on thesis 5 and the conclusion, Lennox makes blatantly unsupported statements about the Bible's historical accuracy, miracles, and morality being based on Christ's resurrection.
It is worth noting at least that Lennox DOES appear to (vaguely) support evolution, and condemn a "god of the gaps" explanation for incomplete scientific data. And his style is quite charismatic. But he frequently pre-empts real discussion with "straw man" arguments, stating an oversimplified version of Dawkins' position and then combating THAT instead of the real thing. Overall I find his rhetoric to be a fresh coating on a very stale center.
Dawkins makes some mistakes as well. He seems to lose part of the debate on thesis 4, because his account of history does not thoroughly address atheist tyrants like Stalin or Pol Pot. Lennox has firsthand experience with the citizens who suffered under those rulers, and appears to have far more authority on those issues. But really, atheism is a simple "flag" that says little unto itself; those tyrants tacked it on to extreme Marxist philosophy, which Dawkins and other humanists/"new atheists" clearly do not support. Also, Dawkins supports the anthropic principle and a multiverse hypothesis, which are certainly not universally accepted by scientists. But at least those are far better than creationism. Overall, Dawkins was very consistent, and probably as concise as anyone could be when confronted with the most controversial aspects of their own book.
My impression is that this faux-debate takes the same bland argument that has repeated millions of times, and puts charismatic, academic celebrities in front. I wouldn't expect this to change anyone's stance on religion. Dawkins and Lennox speak in terms of ideals, but due to the poor format of the event, practically nothing is actually accomplished.
One of You Can Answer...?
I admittedly know very little about this debate, so humour me while I ask--how did this speaker support such a claim as "Christianity is Dangerous?"
Ill get you a copy of the
Ill get you a copy of the DVD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
--Carl Sagan