Dawkins vs Lennox; The God Delusion

[Caroljeen]

You failed to mention your REAL reason for linking to your long-winded, bloviated reply. You are pretty sure no one will read it, and of course hope no one does, as it only exposes your own deceit.

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.

I became bored early on. It was excruciating. It was the same thing over and over.

 

[Whatsisface]

I became bored early on. It was excruciating. It was the same thing over and over.

Hi @Caroljeen, you seem to have two posts mixed up somehow, I can't get the last part of the debate.

 

[Caroljeen]

Hi @Caroljeen, you seem to have two posts mixed up somehow, I can't get the last part of the debate.

My last two posts on the debate were one on the sixth thesis and one on Lennox's concluding arguments. I have one more post left, Dawkins concluding statements. I'm going to post that now.

 

[Caroljeen]

Part 3- @Whatsisface - This is my final post from the debate. Thanks for discussing it with me. I have Dawkin's book in my cart on Amazon.

Concluding statements: Richard Dawkins -He doesn't hold back on expressing his disdain of the resurrection of Jesus. He resorts to usings ad hominems rather than a refutation. Does Dawkins have it in him to rationally discuss the resurrection of Jesus? Lennox wanted to and was prepared to discuss the resurrection and did in a reduced way. I don't believe that Dawkins could rise to the challenge. This was his response below.

Why does Dawkins say that the resurrection of Jesus is petty, trivial, so local, so earthbound, so unworthy of the universe? I find that it portrays a God who truly cares for us.

1. Dawkins said, "...all that stuff about science and physics, and the complications of physics and things, what it really comes down to the resurrection of Jesus. There is a fundamental incompatibility between the sort of sophisticated scientists which we hear part of the time from John Lennox, and its impressive and we are interested in the argument about multiverses and things. And then having produced some sort of a case for a kind of deistic God, perhaps some God, the great physicist, who adjusted the laws and constants of the universe... that’s all very grand and wonderful then suddenly we come down to the resurrection of Jesus. It’s so petty, it so trivial, it’s so local, it’s so earthbound, it’s so unworthy of the universe.

In Dawkin's last statement below (which, imo, was better than his first), he responds to Lennox's critique of the of his analogy of garden and moves on to Darwin and evolution. He relies on Darwin and evolution to point out there is no need for an intelligent designer and that a designer is not the simpler of explanations for the universe and counter to the laws of common sense. I think, in general, the law of common sense would be that an intelligent designer created the universe. That's why there are more theists.
Dawkins also wrote that, "What Darwin did, was to show the staggeringly counterintuitive fact that this not only can be explained by an undirected process." Isn't "counterintuitive" contrary to common sense?
Dawkins corrected Lennox by adding, ".What Darwins did, was to show the staggeringly counterintuitive fact that this not only can be explained by an undirected process, it’s not chance by the way, entirely wrong to say it’s chance, it’s not chance. Natural selection is the very opposite of chance and that’s the essence of it." I still think natural selection is chance. There is no intent.

2. Dawkins said, "When we go into a garden and we see how beautiful it is, and we see coloured flowers and we see butterflies and the bees, of course it’s natural to think there must be a gardener. Any fool is likely to think there must be a gardener. The huge achievement of Darwin was to show that that didn’t have to be true. Of course, it’s difficult, of course, it had to wait until the mid-19th century before anybody thought of it.

...What Darwins did, was to show the staggeringly counterintuitive fact that this not only can be explained by an undirected process, it’s not chance by the way, entirely wrong to say it’s chance, it’s not chance. Natural selection is the very opposite of chance and that’s the essence of it.

That was what Darwin discovered. He showed not only a garden but everything in the living world, and in principle not just on this earth but on any other planet, wherever you see the organized complexity that we understand that we call life, that it has an explanation which can derive it from simple beginnings, by comprehensible, by rational means. That is possibly the greatest achievement that any human mind has ever accomplished. Not only did he show that it could be done, I believe that we can argue that the alternative [an intelligent designer] is so unparsimonious and so counter to the laws of common sense that reluctant as we might be because it might be unpleasant for us to admit it, although we can’t disprove that there is a God, it is very, very unlikely indeed."

 

[Caroljeen]

Here's one more debate with Dawkins and Lennox which is more of a discussion between the two at Oxford university.

dawkins vs lennox debate - Bing video

www.bing.com

 

[The Pixie]

You failed to mention...

I do not respond to known liars

 

[Whatsisface]

Part 3- @Whatsisface - This is my final post from the debate. Thanks for discussing it with me. I have Dawkin's book in my cart on Amazon.

Ok. Thanks for doing this, it's been a refreshing change to actually discus something.

Concluding statements: Richard Dawkins -He doesn't hold back on expressing his disdain of the resurrection of Jesus. He resorts to usings ad hominems rather than a refutation. Does Dawkins have it in him to rationally discuss the resurrection of Jesus? Lennox wanted to and was prepared to discuss the resurrection and did in a reduced way. I don't believe that Dawkins could rise to the challenge. This was his response below.

Why does Dawkins say that the resurrection of Jesus is petty, trivial, so local, so earthbound, so unworthy of the universe? I find that it portrays a God who truly cares for us.

1. Dawkins said, "...all that stuff about science and physics, and the complications of physics and things, what it really comes down to the resurrection of Jesus. There is a fundamental incompatibility between the sort of sophisticated scientists which we hear part of the time from John Lennox, and its impressive and we are interested in the argument about multiverses and things. And then having produced some sort of a case for a kind of deistic God, perhaps some God, the great physicist, who adjusted the laws and constants of the universe... that’s all very grand and wonderful then suddenly we come down to the resurrection of Jesus. It’s so petty, it so trivial, it’s so local, it’s so earthbound, it’s so unworthy of the universe.

Bear in mind that this was a closing statement so there would be no chance of discussing what Dawkins says here. Any discussion of the resurrection might best come from a Biblical scholarship perspective, and I might be wrong, but it seems that neither Dawkins nor Lennox has this expertise.

In Dawkin's last statement below (which, imo, was better than his first), he responds to Lennox's critique of the of his analogy of garden and moves on to Darwin and evolution. He relies on Darwin and evolution to point out there is no need for an intelligent designer and that a designer is not the simpler of explanations for the universe and counter to the laws of common sense. I think, in general, the law of common sense would be that an intelligent designer created the universe. That's why there are more theists.

Yes, I agree with Dawkins here. Before Darwin, most people thought that we were impossible naturally as many now think that the universe is impossible naturally. Darwin showed that there is a natural explanation for human beings. Dawkins has also said that the explanation for the universe is waiting for it's Darwin.

Dawkins also wrote that, "What Darwin did, was to show the staggeringly counterintuitive fact that this not only can be explained by an undirected process." Isn't "counterintuitive" contrary to common sense?
Dawkins corrected Lennox by adding, ".What Darwins did, was to show the staggeringly counterintuitive fact that this not only can be explained by an undirected process, it’s not chance by the way, entirely wrong to say it’s chance, it’s not chance. Natural selection is the very opposite of chance and that’s the essence of it." I still think natural selection is chance. There is no intent.

You don't have to have intent for something ordered to happen, the laws of physics would do it as they allow for certain things and not others. There is an order about them, the consequences of which are not necessarily randomness.

2. Dawkins said, "When we go into a garden and we see how beautiful it is, and we see coloured flowers and we see butterflies and the bees, of course it’s natural to think there must be a gardener. Any fool is likely to think there must be a gardener. The huge achievement of Darwin was to show that that didn’t have to be true. Of course, it’s difficult, of course, it had to wait until the mid-19th century before anybody thought of it.

Evolution is a complex subject and the achievement of Darwin was to see evolution without fully understanding the mechanism, he having no awareness of genetics. The so called father of genetics, Mendel, knew of Darwin, but Darwin didn't know of Mendel. If he did, he would have his mechanism

...What Darwins did, was to show the staggeringly counterintuitive fact that this not only can be explained by an undirected process, it’s not chance by the way, entirely wrong to say it’s chance, it’s not chance. Natural selection is the very opposite of chance and that’s the essence of it.

This is true. Natural selection is not a selection down to chance, but down to selecting what benefits a species. That's not chance.

 

[Tiburon]

The Bible is about God and his interactions with mankind. It's about promises, covenants, and most of all about a story of love and forgiveness. God is the center of the whole book(s) from the first to the last page. It is not focused completely on man.

The Bible is about God and his interactions with mankind according to man. It may say "God said..." but it's all written by man.

I'd have to read the article. Can those apes think more than this sign means banana? Can they form a justice system? or a hospital? or a church?

There are reports of them linking ideas together rather than just repeating rote learning. But of course they have been challenged.
They display behaviour that indicates they have a sense of fairness and act upon it. Is that a justice system?
Many societies haven't created hospitals or churches. Does that mean they aren't human?

Nature doesn't know anything. Nature can't give anything.

By nature I mean Evolution.

I posted this earlier in this thread, you didn't respond to it. You might have missed it:
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."
"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." Taking the obvious logic of this statement further, Physicist John Polkinghorne says that if you reduce mental events to physics and chemistry you destroy meaning. How?
"For thought is replaced by electrochemical neural events. Two such events cannot confront each other in rational discourse. They are neither right nor wrong---they simply happen. The world of rational discourse disappears into the absurd chatter of firing synapses. Quite frankly that can't be right and none of us believe it to be so."

I doubt a real scientist would say "By means of natural, mindless, unguided processes."
"Why, then, do you trust it?" Because the human mind has been put through millions of years in the cauldron of survival. If it didn't produce repeatable trustable results then we wouldn't be here. Everyday living is an endless series of experiences that test the reliability and trustability of our minds.
If "thought is replaced by electrochemical neural events. Two such events cannot confront each other in rational discourse." True. But we aren't talking about two such events. We are talking millions.
You may as well say that if you reduce water to single drops then how can we get rivers or the might of oceans?

There are a couple of things I've learned in walking with God: God is real and humans have a human spirit inside of them that is real and lives on after death. Whatever way that evolution works out in my beliefs, it will have to include the dualism of man.

How do you evaluate the realness of God? How do you know there is a spirit that lives on? Have you died?

Nature cannot give desires, morality, and, imo, to surpass itself.

So once again I mean Evolution. Evolution is part of "nature".

We can learn about the Creator by what he has created. Although there have been times when I felt like I could reach out and touch Him.

What has our understanding of the "created" taught us about the "Creator"?

I can't imagine liking the process of dying, but once I'm past that, then I'm with the Lord.

So why do you want to live? Doesn't the prospect of being with your Lord outweigh fear of dying?
Why do Christians bother to avoid dying?

Definitely. Why isn't our desire to always foster those good behaviors that increase our survival?
Suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual promiscuity, for example. Why do we kill our unborn?

Because there is a balance between the survival of the group and the survival of the individual. In any situation not all actions benefit both.

True, but it's a fleeting morality that can change very quickly depending on who is in charge, who has the money, who is the strongest, etc.

Really? Have individuals ever been happy to be killed or raped or enslaved?
If God is in charge, how can we have a fleeting morality?

That's a selfish reason. Morality doesn't flow from self-centeredness. I'm glad Jesus resisted that desire in the garden.

Survival is a selfish reason? Give me an example of where morality doesn’t flow from self-centeredness?
What desire did Jesus resist?

Humans are not absolute. They are born, live, and die. Morals are absolute because they are unchanging and are grounded in the character of God.

At their core humans are in general absolute. That is why those morals appear absolute.
I know you believe it is because of God, I don’t.

oxford languages: absolute
2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
"absolute moral standards"
PHILOSOPHY

1. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
   "good and evil are presented as absolutes"

I don’t know what you are trying to say by presenting this.

It would if we all were guided by our consciences, but you can harden your conscience the more you resist it.

So, God isn’t powerful enough to override that? Ok.
To me it makes more sense that conscience is learned. That explaining the differences between my actions and my neighbours when faced with the same situation.

Why do we feel guilt and shame when we do something we know is wrong? Is that learned also? Are you sure the thousands of years of religion hasn't rubbed off on us in some way to make us more moral than we naturally would be?

Of course guilt and shame are learned. That is part of the programming. Do you think people would feel guilt and shame if they hadn’t learned that particular actions were wrong?
No I think we imbue our Gods with the morality we already have.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I do not respond to known liars

No big deal. You made it clear in a post yesterday that you think 250,000 Americans must be liars, and I'm an American.

And by the way, instead of copy/pasting that old post of yours, in which no one can possibly extricate from all of your confused verbiage what my supposed lie was (I think you think it had something to do with coffee cooling), why not spit it out?

Here, let me help you. Fill in the blanks:

"Stiggy told some kind of lie, I think about coffee cooling or something, when he said '_______________________-',when in actuality, ______________________."

 

[Eightcrackers]

"Why, then, do you trust it?"

"Because I'm alive. And so are several billion others.
And so have been a hundred billion others."

If something works, you trust it.

 

[Caroljeen]

It shows that evil doesn't necessarily follow from atheism of course.

Nor does it from Christianity since our main directive is love for God and man.

Stalin didn't do the things above just because he was an atheist. He wasn't an otherwise good man driven to do evil things because of his atheism, If he was you'd have a point. He was an evil man to start off with and would do anything against that which threatened the power of the state and by extension him and his power. He didn't want any competition from the church. These were his main motivators, not atheism.

What you say may be true (even though you don't provide evidence) but atheism was the official ideology of the Communist party and the enforcement of atheism led to persecution of believers.

I didn't detect any.

It was easy to detect as a Christian, it was blatant but very dry.

Is morality absolute? If so then how can it change from the old testament which at the very least endorsed slavery?

Jesus changed many things when he started his ministry of teaching and healing. The law of Moses was done away with through the cross. Jesus brought salvation to everyone and not just Jews. Jesus was the exact image of God. He gave us a complete and true picture of God. In all of this, God never changed but revealed himself more clearly in Jesus. through what Jesus taught and presented.

It makes no sense to think Dawkins thought of zeitgeist as supernatural because he doesn't believe there is a supernatural

Maybe Dawkins was jet lagged during the debate and had brain fog causing him to be a little fuzzy with his wording. Wording that could be interpreted as supernatural. He called it a "force".

Yeah, he's missing that the concepts of good and evil are necessary abstract concepts that will occur to creatures with the ability of abstract thought. It doesn't matter where we come from, it's the ability for thought that counts.

The problem for Lennox was that Dawkins took away his ability to claim morality if there is no evil or good according to what he wrote in one of his books, "In a universe of 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." This statement gave Lennox the ammunition he needed and curiously Dawkins didn't get it and didn't deny it. If there is no evil and good then Dawkins cannot assert that there is as he does in the discussion. He sees it empirically in cultures around the world, he speaks of the golden rule, and Zeitgeist. Dawkins contradicts himself and doesn't realize it.

Lennox knows morality exists and comes from God. I agree with you that people understand right and wrong because God gave them a conscience. If they don't believe in God then other ideologies can affect their consciences and they resort to opinions that fit in with those ideologies.

None of this deals with my point that the concepts of fairness, right and wrong are necessary abstract concepts that will occur to creatures with ability of abstract thought.

That's part of it but not the complete story. Where do these concepts come from is what is being debated. You believe they come from human interaction, correct?

 

[Caroljeen]

This sounds somewhat contrived as well as philosophically naïve.

Lennox has advanced degrees in the philosophy of science as well as math.

or 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.

There are many Christians who are dualists and would not agree that the brain= the mind. I quoted Jerry Coyne below who was commenting on John Lennox. I'm wondering if Lennox is a dualist. I have read about it yet but I'd like to know more about his thoughts below. It might help me to reconcile my faith with evolution.

"Finally, Lennox claims that miracles do occur, and that there are at least three times God intervened in nature beyond reviving Jesus: the Big Bang (he doesn’t think it could happen naturalistically), the origin of life, and the evolution of humans. He seems to accept the rest of evolutionary biology, but argues, like a true Intelligent Design proponent, that the origin of life and the evolution of humans either couldn’t happen naturalistically and thus involved the hand of God. This kind of human exceptionalism is a trademark of the ID/creationist Discovery Institute."

Mathematician John Lennox embarrasses himself by trying to reconcile Christianity and science

Reader Alexander called my attention to this item in the Science Focus section of the BBC. (Note that it's in the science section, not the "religion" section!) It's a 33-minute podcast interview with

whyevolutionistrue.com

As for natural selection, I still loathe to call it a guided process even an unaware guiding. This sounds like an oxymoron to me. I will agree that the natural environment had a part to play in the extinction and destruction of some organisms, but it didn't select nor guide. It was simply the environment in which the organism prospered or died off. Call it what you will. I know what you are talking about.

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

I think he understands it. He is replying to Dawkins quote,
"In a universe of 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."

This sounds unguided to me also. Lennox considers himself a scientist and Dawkins considers him to be a scientist as well. You can hear Darwkins call Lennox a scientist in this debate somewhere in the first half of the debate:

dawkins vs lennox debate oxford - Bing video

www.bing.com

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.

The process of the development of man's brain came about through evolution which is unguided and mindless in that the process of evolution does not have a mind nor is it guided by someone that does have a mind according to atheists. How can it be trusted if the brain is the mind and came from lower animals? Why do you think Darwin would have a problem with this?

I understand the human mind to be other than the brain. The brain is made of matter. The mind is made of spirit. Therefore the mind/soul/spirit of man comes from God. It is God-breathed. This is what I'm trying to find out from other Christians that agree with evolution. How do incorporate dualism with evolution.

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

Why wouldn't he?

 

[Caroljeen]

First, read my sig.

It was meant to be a compliment.

Second, you have already stipulated to the fact that atheism alone cannot provide a motivation.

But atheism with power to conform others to atheism can.

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).

It was a crusade in the hands of Stalin who persecuted Christians who would not convert to atheism.

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

How does this analogy compare with what Stalin's persecution of Christians because they were not atheists?

Is it a stupid question?

Yes

 

[Caroljeen]

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

If atheism were necessary for hatred of Christianity, then why wouldn't necessity, when present, be sufficient?

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

Stalin found a country founded on atheism as its ideology sufficient to persecute Christians.

 

[Caroljeen]

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.).

It, atheism, is the excuse Stalin used to get rid of Christians. If it's not the determinative factor, then what is? If the determinative factor doesn't exist and instead, we find that Stalin had multiple factors (multifactorial) that influenced his decision to persecute Christians, then each factor can be a reason that contributed to Starlin's persecution of Christians.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It, atheism, is the excuse Stalin used to get rid of Christians. If it's not the determinative factor, then what is? If the determinative factor doesn't exist and instead, we find that Stalin had multiple factors (multifactorial) that influenced his decision to persecute Christians, then each factor can be a reason that contributed to Starlin's persecution of Christians.

I don’t think it’s determinative for 2 reasons: because it’s not sufficient, only necessary, as I said earlier, and because there’s nothing in atheism that requires that atheists will do evil. I also think that many behaviors have multiple factors.

 

[Eightcrackers]

But atheism with power to conform others to atheism can.

No, it can't - if something is not a motivation, adding power does not make it a motivation.

Power enables motivations; it doesn't create them.

How does this analogy compare with what Stalin's persecution of Christians because they were not atheists?

You are asserting that Stalin was doing things merely because he didn't believe in a god.
If he was, it stands to reason that you would be able do things merely because you don't believe in Bigfoot.

Unless you are engaging in special pleading.

If atheism were necessary for hatred of Christianity, then why wouldn't necessity, when present, be sufficient?

The presence of oxygen is necessary for a fire; it is not sufficient for a fire.
Atheism was the oxygen of Stalin's proscriptions against Christianity, but it was not the spark.

Stalin found a country founded on atheism as its ideology sufficient to persecute Christians.

Not sufficient.
Necessary.

It, atheism, is the excuse Stalin used to get rid of Christians.

An excuse is not a motivation.

If it's not the determinative factor, then what is?

Desire to make religion go away, and have the State be the focus of "worship".
This is the spark; Stalin's atheism was the oxygen.

 

[Whatsisface]

Nor does it from Christianity since our main directive is love for God and man.

So you admit evil doesn't come from atheism? I ask because elsewhere you imply it does.

What you say may be true (even though you don't provide evidence) but atheism was the official ideology of the Communist party and the enforcement of atheism led to persecution of believers.

Again, do you think the people doing the persecuting were good men to start off with driven to do what they did because of a lack of belief in any God? If so, to have a point you have to give the reason atheism would drive a man to evil.

Jesus changed many things when he started his ministry of teaching and healing. The law of Moses was done away with through the cross. Jesus brought salvation to everyone and not just Jews. Jesus was the exact image of God. He gave us a complete and true picture of God. In all of this, God never changed but revealed himself more clearly in Jesus. through what Jesus taught and presented.

This doesn't answer my question. Again, Is morality from God absolute?

Maybe Dawkins was jet lagged during the debate and had brain fog causing him to be a little fuzzy with his wording. Wording that could be interpreted as supernatural. He called it a "force".

Or maybe you're reading too much into the use of the word.

The problem for Lennox was that Dawkins took away his ability to claim morality if there is no evil or good according to what he wrote in one of his books, "In a universe of 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." This statement gave Lennox the ammunition he needed and curiously Dawkins didn't get it and didn't deny it. If there is no evil and good then Dawkins cannot assert that there is as he does in the discussion. He sees it empirically in cultures around the world, he speaks of the golden rule, and Zeitgeist. Dawkins contradicts himself and doesn't realize it.

I think you are misunderstanding Dawkins here. Dawkins is talking about the physical universe, not us as moral agents

Lennox knows morality exists and comes from God. I agree with you that people understand right and wrong because God gave them a conscience. If they don't believe in God then other ideologies can affect their consciences and they resort to opinions that fit in with those ideologies.

Is something wrong because God says it's wrong, or does God say it's wrong because it is wrong?

That's part of it but not the complete story. Where do these concepts come from is what is being debated. You believe they come from human interaction, correct?

These concepts are ideas that couldn't be any other way. Because of this they don't need to come from, minds will inevitably realise them as they realise numbers and mathematics.

 

[Caroljeen]

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?

He is also saying that justice is real and our sense of morality will not mock us when we see the resurrected Jesus judging the world.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the evidence that there is a God. It's the central evidence in Lennox's mind.

 

[Eightcrackers]

He is also saying that justice is real and our sense of morality will not mock us when we see the resurrected Jesus judging the world.

"Saying" is all he's doing, here.
Since he does not offer evidence for this, it is mere belief.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the evidence that there is a God. It's the central evidence in Lennox's mind.

He does not demonstrate that this resurrection took place.
He is, again, merely relating his beliefs.