Dawkins vs Lennox; The God Delusion

[Caroljeen]

It's possible for "Christians" to do bad things in the name of Jesus. You may say that those people are not really Christians but they believe they are and that they act for God.

They are completely misguided. They are Christians who have to repent and confess their sins to God to receive forgiveness and be in a right standing with him. Our law given as a commandment by Jesus is to love God, each other, and our enemies.

This is what happens when Christians disobey God...

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and determine what really matters because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth, 21 you, then, who teach others, will you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by your transgression of the law? 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you. Romans 2:17-24

 

[Caroljeen]

I don't know what "in the name of atheism" means - can you rephrase it?

no

I know you are intelligent enough to know what I mean.

 

[Caroljeen]

Not all atheists do this.

I am looking for an action motivated solely by the lack of belief in god/s; persecution of religions is motivated by hatred of religions, which is incidental to atheism.

If you were not an atheist, would you continue to hate the Christian religion?

 

[Caroljeen]

So why emphasise atheism as the causal factor to do evil?

It was the reason, the cause that Stalin killed Christians.

It was a main point that Lennox used to point out that religious people are not the only fanatics who kill others who are not like them.

Fourth Thesis: "Christianity is Dangerous" posts 410 and 411

Lennox turned the tables and asked Dawson to "Well I’d like you to imagine with John Lennox a world without atheism: with no Stalin, with no Mao, with no Pol Pot, today the heads of the three officially atheistic states. A world with no Gulag, no Cultural Revolution, no Killing Fields. I think that would be a world worth imagining too. And I must say, I am very disturbed in your book by what seems to me to be an attempt to airbrush out the atrocities of the Communist world"
"...if I were to say that because you and Stalin were atheists that you would have approved of the ruthless elimination of millions. You rightly expect me to differentiate between atheists."

Are you all missing the plot?

 

[Whatsisface]

I'm reading Lennox's book, Can Science explain every thing?. On page 47-48 he writes,

"Sometimes, when in conversation with my fellow scientists, I ask them "What do you do science with?"
"My mind," say some, and others, who hold the view that the mind is the brain, say, "My brain".
"Tell me about your brain? How does it come to exist?"
"By means of natural, mindless, unguided processes."
"Why, then, do you trust it?" I ask. "If you thought that your computer was the end product of mindless, unguided processes, would you trust it?"
"Not in a million years, " comes the reply.
"You clearly have a problem then."

This sounds somewhat contrived as well as philosophically naïve. For a start, the mind came to exist by natural, guided processes, as natural selection did the guiding. To be clear, it wasn't aware guiding, but guiding nonetheless by a process you should understand by now, as it has been explained many times over.

That Lennox doesn't seem to understand this is a little shocking. But then, he's not a scientist.

"After a pregnant pause they sometimes ask me where I got this argument--- they find the answer rather surprising: Charles Darwin.
He [Darwin] wrote: "...with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy."

This is a different point to the one Lennox has made. Here Darwin questions whether the convictions of man's mind are trustworthy due to them coming from lower animals, not because they come from mindless unguided processes as Lennox's example states.

Darwin would not say that the brain therefore mind came about by an unguided, random process. Lennox is creating a straw man.

 

[Whatsisface]

It was the reason, the cause that Stalin killed Christians.

No it wasn't, as you earlier seemed to agree.

You, " It's just like Christianity, if men have power they do evil things in the name of their beliefs or nonbeliefs.
Christianity most certainly doesn't entail evil and neither does atheism. But each can have fanatics who use either christianity or atheism to do evil".

The reason you give here for Stalin doing the things he did is power, not atheism.

 

[Eightcrackers]

no

I know you are intelligent enough to know what I mean.

First, read my sig.

Second, you have already stipulated to the fact that atheism alone cannot provide a motivation.
You seem to think that it is some sort of cause, or crusade, when all it is is the absence of a belief in gods (or, if you prefer, a belief in the absence of gods).

I'll ask again: what actions have you taken based solely on your lack of belief in Bigfoot?

Is it a stupid question?

 

[Eightcrackers]

If you were not an atheist, would you continue to hate the Christian religion?

If I were a Muslim, or some other religion besides Christianity, possibly.

But let's pretend that atheism were necessary for hatred of Christianity - that's necessity, not sufficiency.

You are yet to provide an example of an action for which atheism is sufficient.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I have a different approach to the question of whether atheism entails evil things like Stalin did.

I think one fundamental of the Christian accusation against atheism leading to Stalin is that in the absence of an ultimate, absolute restriction against evil, like you can only get from a god, one can then do evil. That makes logical sense to me, and it's OK for atheists to acknowledge that, because the absence of some ultimate restriction against evil is merely necessary, but is not sufficient, to do evil. You also need to, as some have said here about Stalin, to be an evil person. Most of atheists (and theists), thanks to our evolution as a social species, could never do what Stalin did. Something else is required (some sociopathy, etc.). Which is why the vast majority of atheists, like theists, are not horribly evil like Stalin.

So we can't pin Stalin's horrors on atheism. It's not the determinative factor. That something else which is required is the crucial factor, if only because Christians do horribly evil things as well (the Inquisition, etc.).

 

[Furion]

I have a different approach to the question of whether atheism entails evil things like Stalin did.

I think one fundamental of the Christian accusation against atheism leading to Stalin is that in the absence of an ultimate, absolute restriction against evil, like you can only get from a god, one can then do evil. That makes logical sense to me, and it's OK for atheists to acknowledge that, because the absence of some ultimate restriction against evil is merely necessary, but is not sufficient, to do evil. You also need to, as some have said here about Stalin, to be an evil person. Most of atheists (and theists), thanks to our evolution as a social species, could never do what Stalin did. Something else is required (some sociopathy, etc.). Which is why the vast majority of atheists, like theists, are not horribly evil like Stalin.

So we can't pin Stalin's horrors on atheism. It's not the determinative factor. That something else which is required is the crucial factor, if only because Christians do horribly evil things as well (the Inquisition, etc.).

I don't think atheists think too well.

There is no command by Christ for violence. Therefore any man committing violence is not authorized by God to do it.

There is no such command in atheism one way or the other, so they are free to commit violence.

This subject arises when christians are blamed for any violence committed by any Christian, throughout history.

It's rather trivial to claim the same about atheism, you just don't have any command to say it's wrong.

Have a nice day.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Nothing in what you wrote contradicts what I wrote.

I don't think atheists think too well.

There is no command by Christ for violence. Therefore any man committing violence is not authorized by God to do it.

This does not contradict anything I wrote.

There is no such command in atheism one way or the other,

Correct. Atheism is a single position about whether it's reasonable to believe some god exists. It doesn't contradict anything I wrote.

so they are free to commit violence.

As are Christians if they have free will, and that doesn't contradict anything I wrote.

This subject arises when christians are blamed for any violence committed by any Christian, throughout history.

Not contradictory to what I wrote.

It's rather trivial to claim the same about atheism, you just don't have any command to say it's wrong.

Not contradictory to what I wrote.

Have a nice day.

You too.

 

[Furion]

You too.

I will.

 

[Caroljeen]

​

Sixth thesis (and final thesis): “Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true.”, and closing remarks​

Start: 1:28:09
Stop: 1:43:11
Debate transcript: https://www.protorah.com/god-delusion-debate-dawkins-lennox-transcript/#_Dr_John_Lennox_2

The first comes from page 92 of your book:

“The historical evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal.” (Dawkins, 2008, p. 92.)

The next comes from page 257:

“Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality — coupled with outgroup hostility – that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs.” (Dawkins, p. 257.)

Sadly, Dawkins didn't address these unfounded remarks about Jesus, but he used up his time to address what Lennox had said an atheist morality would look like from Dawkins claim that,

“…blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Dawkins, 1996, p.133)

Dawkins went on to defend his point by saying,

"It gives us, if it is a hideous world, it gives us something to rise above and we clearly do rise above it. You raise the question “how do we rebel?” and seem to think there was some kind of contradiction. There is no contradiction with rising above Darwinian dictates. We do it every time we use a contraceptive. It’s easy! Every time you use a contraceptive you are defying the Darwinian imperative to reproduce. You’re enjoying sex using the Darwinian, the pleasure with built into your brains by Darwinism because normally sex leads to reproduction. You’re cutting off that link and you’re using sex for pure enjoyment without reproduction. That’s defying, that’s rebelling against the selfish genes and we can do a grand job of rebelling against the hideous blind physical forces that put us here. We understand what put us here. We understand that we are here as a result of a truly hideous process, never mind about the effects on humanity. Natural selection, the process which guides evolution, the process whereby…Natural selection is an ugly process that has beautiful consequences. We humans can rise above it."

Dawkins asserts that we can override the hideous process of evolution and he states we dance according to our DNA in which morality has no part of. Can we be moral according to our DNA if there is no morality involved in our DNA?

Dawkin's does contract himself and Lennox doesn't have any difficulty in pointing it out when he responded with,

" I think you are talking about the about two different things. My point was this: that if you believe that the universe is at bottom, there is no good and evil, you remove from yourself the categories you’re using to discuss morality. That’s my point. You’re assuming it’s true. I’m arguing on the basis of its truth that you are removing those categories and therefore you leave yourself powerless to comment."

Do you agree with Dawkins? How do you reconcile both of his statements?

Lennox moves on to the thesis and makes 3 main points:

1. He confirms the historicity of the Bible by using Luke and quotes one of the most authoritative historians of all ancient history. And A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford, a Roman historian, says that,

"It would be absurd to suggest that Luke's basic historicity was false even in matters of detail."

2. Lennox gives Dawson examples from the Bible on what love looks like, and comments that "you are totally wrong about the attitude of Jesus".
Lennox comments, "A mistake like that seems to me to be very serious indeed. I mean I react to it a bit like this: what would you think if I got all my reviews of Darwin from an engineer, and never bothered to read the Origin of Species? I think you would be distressed by that."

That is exactly how I feel when I interact with some atheists who obviously have never studied the Bible but like to discuss it and throw out off the wall interpretations that don't even land in the ballpark. It makes me wonder where they are getting this stuff from. They certainly didn't get it from reading the Bible.

3. Lennox spoke on miracles:

a. "You claim with David Hume that miracles violate the laws of nature. Well David Hume is a very curious person to quote on this topic because David Hume didn’t believe really in the laws of cause and effect, on which laws of nature are founded. He didn’t believe in causality, and he didn’t appear to believe in the principle of induction. And so, he’s not a very good authority to quote." Ha!!

Hmmm...what do you think of that argument, @Whatsisface

b. " I do not think that miracles are violations of the laws of nature. Because the laws of nature describe what normally happens. God, who is the God of this universe, and created it with its regularities, is perfectly at liberty to feed a new event into the universe. Just as CS Lewis makes the point, if I put two dollars plus two dollars in my desk tonight, (I have) four dollars. If I find in the morning there is one dollar, I don’t say that the laws of arithmetic have been broken."

This is the first argument by Lennox that I found to be specious. One would assume that someone stole the 3 missing dollars and not that a miracle had happened, and God borrowed it. Despite that, I don't see why it is a problem for God to suspend the laws of nature or the bypass the laws of nature since he created them.

@Whatsisface - This is part 1. Part 2 will be the closing comments.

 

[Eightcrackers]

I think one fundamental of the Christian accusation against atheism leading to Stalin is that in the absence of an ultimate, absolute restriction against evil, like you can only get from a god, one can then do evil. That makes logical sense to me, and it's OK for atheists to acknowledge that, because the absence of some ultimate restriction against evil is merely necessary, but is not sufficient, to do evil.

People don't go to the supermarket merely because there is nothing stopping them.

They go because they need groceries.

 

[Whatsisface]

​

Sixth thesis (and final thesis): “Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true.”, and closing remarks​

Start: 1:28:09
Stop: 1:43:11
Debate transcript: https://www.protorah.com/god-delusion-debate-dawkins-lennox-transcript/#_Dr_John_Lennox_2

The first comes from page 92 of your book:


The next comes from page 257:



Sadly, Dawkins didn't address these unfounded remarks about Jesus, but he used up his time to address what Lennox had said an atheist morality would look like from Dawkins claim that,

I don't know enough to say one way or the other about these two claims, but I would have thought that all anyone would have to do to show Dawkins wrong would be to quote the Bible showing Jesus claiming to be divine etc.

“…blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Dawkins, 1996, p.133)

Dawkins went on to defend his point by saying,

"It gives us, if it is a hideous world, it gives us something to rise above and we clearly do rise above it. You raise the question “how do we rebel?” and seem to think there was some kind of contradiction. There is no contradiction with rising above Darwinian dictates. We do it every time we use a contraceptive. It’s easy! Every time you use a contraceptive you are defying the Darwinian imperative to reproduce. You’re enjoying sex using the Darwinian, the pleasure with built into your brains by Darwinism because normally sex leads to reproduction. You’re cutting off that link and you’re using sex for pure enjoyment without reproduction. That’s defying, that’s rebelling against the selfish genes and we can do a grand job of rebelling against the hideous blind physical forces that put us here. We understand what put us here. We understand that we are here as a result of a truly hideous process, never mind about the effects on humanity. Natural selection, the process which guides evolution, the process whereby…Natural selection is an ugly process that has beautiful consequences. We humans can rise above it."

Dawkins asserts that we can override the hideous process of evolution and he states we dance according to our DNA in which morality has no part of. Can we be moral according to our DNA if there is no morality involved in our DNA?

Dawkin's does contract himself and Lennox doesn't have any difficulty in pointing it out when he responded with,

I don't think Dawkins does contradict himself really, I think you and Lennox are being uncharitable on this picky point, I just think he hasn't expressed himself precisely by saying …

"DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Of course we do dance to it's music in many ways, but we can rise above it. For example, DNA can make someone more susceptible to certain illness, but our intelligence has developed medicine and medical procedures to rise above what was once susceptibility to said illness.

" I think you are talking about the about two different things. My point was this: that if you believe that the universe is at bottom, there is no good and evil, you remove from yourself the categories you’re using to discuss morality. That’s my point. You’re assuming it’s true. I’m arguing on the basis of its truth that you are removing those categories and therefore you leave yourself powerless to comment."

I really disagree with Lennox here. The reason the universe itself has no good nor evil and is blindly pitiless is because not having self awareness means it's not a moral agent. We, although a product of this pitiless process, have evolved self awareness and so are moral agents because we can reflect on the consequences of our actions. In this way we have also risen above our DNA.

I think Lennox here commits the fallacy of division, being, an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole (the universe being pitiless) must also be true of all or some of its parts(Us, but it's false because our self awareness gives us the capacity for pity).

Do you agree with Dawkins? How do you reconcile both of his statements?

I hope I've done that above.

Lennox moves on to the thesis and makes 3 main points:

1. He confirms the historicity of the Bible by using Luke and quotes one of the most authoritative historians of all ancient history. And A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford, a Roman historian, says that,

"It would be absurd to suggest that Luke's basic historicity was false even in matters of detail."

Here is the title of an article by Richard Carrier …

"No, Mr. Christian, A.N. Sherwin-White Didn’t Say That. And Even What He Did Say Was Wrong".​

A brief extract …

"You might have heard this one before, but it bears a revisit. Once long ago William Lane Craig started using the argument that a mainstream historian in the early 1960s named A.N. Sherwin-White had demonstrated (in Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, pp. 189-93) that (in Sherwin-White’s words) “even two generations,” or roughly forty to eighty years, “are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency” of a story’s embellishment"

It seems this is what Lennox is referring to. Carrier further states …

"Yet almost none of what Craig said is correct or true. It’s already weird that these guys can only find one unpeer-reviewed lecture from a long-dead historian from fifty years ago to back their argument. That conjunction of details should send up a red flag right away".

If you want to read the whole article, it's found here.

A further extract … "Always check the dates on how old and mouldy and hard to find their outside “sources” tend to be; and what they actually say, and in what actual context, and with what actual merit—and what historians in the intervening lifetime have concluded about it since. A single vague lecture from 1960 does not establish a very strong foundation for the extraordinary claim the likes of Craig are making here. But Craig and his imitators all get wrong what Sherwin-White meant, reason invalidly from it, and incorrectly claim Sherwin-White “proved” his statement about rates of legendary eclipse (when in fact he didn’t; and, it turns out, plenty of evidence refutes it)".

3. Lennox spoke on miracles:

a. "You claim with David Hume that miracles violate the laws of nature. Well David Hume is a very curious person to quote on this topic because David Hume didn’t believe really in the laws of cause and effect, on which laws of nature are founded. He didn’t believe in causality, and he didn’t appear to believe in the principle of induction. And so, he’s not a very good authority to quote." Ha!!

Hmmm...what do you think of that argument, @Whatsisface

I'm unsure of Lennox's point here. He seems to be quibbling about the definition of "miracle", which doesn't add much to the discussion.

b. " I do not think that miracles are violations of the laws of nature. Because the laws of nature describe what normally happens. God, who is the God of this universe, and created it with its regularities, is perfectly at liberty to feed a new event into the universe. Just as CS Lewis makes the point, if I put two dollars plus two dollars in my desk tonight, (I have) four dollars. If I find in the morning there is one dollar, I don’t say that the laws of arithmetic have been broken."

This is the first argument by Lennox that I found to be specious. One would assume that someone stole the 3 missing dollars and not that a miracle had happened, and God borrowed it. Despite that, I don't see why it is a problem for God to suspend the laws of nature or the bypass the laws of nature since he created them.

Again, what's his point here as far as God's existence is concerned?

 

[Caroljeen]

@Whatsisface

Part 2: Concluding statements:

Lennox went first. He quoted Dawkins from the dedication of the front of the book to Douglas Adams where he says:

“Isn’t enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” (Dawkins, 2008, p. 7)

"...when you see the beauty of a garden, in say a new college in Oxford, do you believe there is no gardener or no owner? That its sublime beauty has come about from raw nature by pure chance? Of course not. For gardens are to be distinguished from raw nature by the operation of intelligence, and what you are doing in your... but I think is presenting us with an obviously false set of alternatives. Either we take gardens on their own or the garden plus fairies, but they don’t appear on their own. They have gardeners and owners. So does the universe. You say there is no evidence of God, and yet your very description of the universe as a garden bears witness that the evidence is all around you."

Though Lennox made a good point, he really didn't do a fair job at presenting Dawkin's argument that had a garden with fairies in it. He was calling it a false dilemma without much explanation. The rest of Lennox's points were, imo, also rushed due to lack of time and trying to fit too much into the time allowed.

Lennox's other final points -

1. "Atheism ladies and gentlemen is not only false."

I know this statement will not impress the atheists on CARM. To prove that atheism is false, Lennox has to prove that God exists. I don't believe that he gave proof to the existence of God but his arguments should leave questions those with open minds that are willing to investigate and think about his arguments for God.

2. "It [atheism] contains no message that deals with the central problem of human rebellion against God."

Why would it? Without proof for the existence of God why would an atheist think there was such a problem of humans rebelling against God.

3. "History is littered with attempts to build a godless utopia, each one of them based as the book of Genesis suggests that they would be, on a denial that God has ever spoken or even that He exists."

I don't understand what Lennox is saying and because time was short, he doesn't explain it.

4. His last point- "The world that Richard Dawkins wishes to bring us to is no paradise except for the few. It denies the existence of good and evil, it even denies justice. But ladies and gentlemen our hearts cry out for justice, and centuries about the apostle Paul spoke to the philosophers of Athens, and pointed out that there would be a day in which God would judge the world by the man that he had appointed, Jesus Christ, and that he had given assurance to all people by raising Him from the dead. And the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a miracle, something supernatural, for me constitutes the central evidence upon which I base my faith not only that atheism is a delusion, but that justice is real and our sense of morality does not mock us, because if there is no resurrection, if there is nothing after death, in the end the terrorists and the fanatics have got away with it."

I loved this point! This is the point he should have left us with, imo, and not have mentioned the first 3.

Just for discussion's sake I'm going to put Dawkin's Concluding statements in post 3.

Overall, I was disappointed in his closing statement.

 

[Whatsisface]

@Whatsisface

Part 2: Concluding statements:

Lennox went first. He quoted Dawkins from the dedication of the front of the book to Douglas Adams where he says:


"...when you see the beauty of a garden, in say a new college in Oxford, do you believe there is no gardener or no owner? That its sublime beauty has come about from raw nature by pure chance? Of course not. For gardens are to be distinguished from raw nature by the operation of intelligence, and what you are doing in your... but I think is presenting us with an obviously false set of alternatives. Either we take gardens on their own or the garden plus fairies, but they don’t appear on their own. They have gardeners and owners. So does the universe. You say there is no evidence of God, and yet your very description of the universe as a garden bears witness that the evidence is all around you."

Though Lennox made a good point, he really didn't do a fair job at presenting Dawkin's argument that had a garden with fairies in it. He was calling it a false dilemma without much explanation. The rest of Lennox's points were, imo, also rushed due to lack of time and trying to fit too much into the time allowed.

I really don't understand how Lennox can come to his conclusions here. That a garden has a gardener isn't evidence for, nor does it mean, that the universe has a creator. Lennox seems blind to the possibility that the universe could exist naturally for reasons beyond his current understanding.

As for beauty, it's somewhat subjective so there's no such thing as absolute beauty or something beautiful in itself. It's that we find things beautiful, and then we don't always agree, and different creatures might find different things beautiful. A male octopus will presumably find a female octopus more beautiful than a female human, and visa versa.

Lennox's other final points -

1. "Atheism ladies and gentlemen is not only false."

I know this statement will not impress the atheists on CARM. To prove that atheism is false, Lennox has to prove that God exists. I don't believe that he gave proof to the existence of God but his arguments should leave questions those with open minds that are willing to investigate and think about his arguments for God.

Agreed that he didn't give a proof of God. As for investigating further, what does Lennox or you know that us atheists don't? Presumably you think further investigation will throw up something we're currently unaware of? If so, what is it?

2. "It [atheism] contains no message that deals with the central problem of human rebellion against God."

Why would it? Without proof for the existence of God why would an atheist think there was such a problem of humans rebelling against God.

Indeed.

3. "History is littered with attempts to build a godless utopia, each one of them based as the book of Genesis suggests that they would be, on a denial that God has ever spoken or even that He exists."

I don't understand what Lennox is saying and because time was short, he doesn't explain it.

Yes, agreed.

4. His last point- "The world that Richard Dawkins wishes to bring us to is no paradise except for the few. It denies the existence of good and evil, it even denies justice. But ladies and gentlemen our hearts cry out for justice, and centuries about the apostle Paul spoke to the philosophers of Athens, and pointed out that there would be a day in which God would judge the world by the man that he had appointed, Jesus Christ, and that he had given assurance to all people by raising Him from the dead. And the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a miracle, something supernatural, for me constitutes the central evidence upon which I base my faith not only that atheism is a delusion, but that justice is real and our sense of morality does not mock us, because if there is no resurrection, if there is nothing after death, in the end the terrorists and the fanatics have got away with it."

I loved this point! This is the point he should have left us with, imo, and not have mentioned the first 3.

I think Lennox is straw manning Dawkins here. Just because Dawkins thinks the universe has no good, evil or justice doesn't mean he thinks that humans aren't aware of these concepts.

And that the terrorists might get away with it has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

 

[Eightcrackers]

And that the terrorists might get away with it has no bearing on whether God exists or not.

"If there's no god, some bad people wouldn't be punished!"

Yeah... and?

What's your argument?

 

[Eightcrackers]

4. His last point- "The world that Richard Dawkins wishes to bring us to is no paradise except for the few. It denies the existence of good and evil, it even denies justice. But ladies and gentlemen our hearts cry out for justice, and centuries about the apostle Paul spoke to the philosophers of Athens, and pointed out that there would be a day in which God would judge the world by the man that he had appointed, Jesus Christ, and that he had given assurance to all people by raising Him from the dead. And the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a miracle, something supernatural, for me constitutes the central evidence upon which I base my faith not only that atheism is a delusion, but that justice is real and our sense of morality does not mock us, because if there is no resurrection, if there is nothing after death, in the end the terrorists and the fanatics have got away with it."

I loved this point! This is the point he should have left us with, imo, and not have mentioned the first 3.

Why do you love this point? All Lennox is saying is that, if there is no god, there is no ultimate justice.

Therefore... what?

How is this evidence that there is a god?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

In the future whenever stiggy responds to one of my posts, I will simply say, "I do not respond to known liars", and link to this post,

EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12

In fact, let's see it again:

- Dawkins vs Lennox; The God Delusion

Pardon me if I get annoyed at people making stuff up about me, and want to set the record straight. And I really do not think this is an issue the mods would care about. I was annoyed by it as well. Confessing to being a jerk is pretty vacuous unless he takes steps to stop doing so. Repenting...

forums.carm.org

I defy anyone to make it through the excruciating boredom, and if so, try to summarize his points as to why I am allegedly lying. Hint: It has something to do with coffee getting cold.