This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox - Comments

GordonYKWong's Avatar Comment 1 by GordonYKWong

This was a private discussion, with only a tape recorder present.
What? Just a tape recorder? No Nun-chuks, Katanas, Ninja Stars and BFGs? I am disappointed.

EDIT: This is NOT a first post!!

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:18:00 UTC | #195491

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 2 by Enlightenme..

"EDIT: This is NOT a first post!!"

Well, then you should have waited until someone came along who *hasn't* got a life.

(Posted in response *BEFORE* I've even listened to the recording)

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:51:00 UTC | #195494

rasman1978's Avatar Comment 3 by rasman1978

I had to stop listening halfway through because all the evidence for miracles was given on the assumption that the gospels were first-person eye-witness accounts. As soon as the Bible is used as evidence, that assumption must be laid bare and questioned. I'm a little disappointed that Dawkins let that go. Perhaps he did it for the purposes of elongating the discussion, but still...what's the point of debating something based on a false assumption?

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:58:00 UTC | #195496

Benjamin P.'s Avatar Comment 4 by Benjamin P.

Where is the connection between the fine tuning of nature and the virgin birth? No answer at all. No answer, which could not speak for every other god in human history.

Edit: I don't understand why Richard thinks about the water to whine miracle as a conjuring trick? Jesus' story was written down decades after he supposed to live. This miracle probably never happened.

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:05:00 UTC | #195499

Rawhard Dickins's Avatar Comment 5 by Rawhard Dickins

What's a nun chuck? - sounds like fun!

Line 'em up - I'll have a go!

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:34:00 UTC | #195507

Shane McKee's Avatar Comment 6 by Shane McKee

"God's Undertaker" is much better than Alister McGrath's effort, but it trots out the same old crap arguments. It's a major wriggling effort on Lennox's part.

One of the difficulties (and this applies to McGrath too) is that Lennox is sometimes painted as a "scientist" when he's in fact no such thing. A philosopher of science is not the same as a scientist. He is also a highly verbal thinker, and this restricts his vision quite dramatically (he's like McGrath in this too - what is it about our wee Northern Ireland that it keeps producing people like this??) - for instance, the word "faith" undergoes about 10 costume changes in the first 5 minutes - it's worse than Kylie. Yet Lennox still insists he's talking about the same thing.

The bottom line is that, like McGrath and McGrath's conscious role model (and another Northern Ireland disaster) CS Lewis, Lennox's intelligence is hugely over-rated. He can put the words together and *sound* clever, but underlying it all is a basic failure to structure a cogent argument. Or maybe it's that he uses fancy verbage to fool himself.

In general terms, I think we need to look into the thought patterns of people who think this way - if we could break 'em, it would be a huge step forward. But humanity's capacity for self-deception is truly remarkable. This may be unachievable.

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:42:00 UTC | #195509

Wosret's Avatar Comment 7 by Wosret

Damn is this guy insane. He claims to have read and completely understood Hume, and then mockingly offers to give Dawkins some material. What a pompous ass. I've only read a little bit about Hume on miracles, but it was astondingly good, and amazingly brilliant. It really changed how I view concepts of miracles. From what Lennox has said about miracles, I really don't think that he understands what Humes view was. At least as I understood it, and since I'm pretty confident that I'm a lot smarter than Lennox, I'm betting on myself.

Lennox is all question begging, and ad hoc explanations, along with special pleading, where he expects you to accept christians claims on eqivolently weak evidence as every other religion. "Oh this all makes perfect sense if you believe A B and C." I'm sure that it does, now prove A B and C.

I would have liked to see him debate Sam Harris.

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:57:00 UTC | #195510

Laurie Fraser's Avatar Comment 8 by Laurie Fraser

whoo, boy - I don't know where Richard gets the patience. I was ready to get physical by about 1/3 of the way through.

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:58:00 UTC | #195511

Johan's Avatar Comment 9 by Johan

John Lennox gets WAAAY too much time and room in this discussion.
The defense he gives for Christian miracles is, I guess, as good as it gets which is still pretty lousy indeed.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:02:00 UTC | #195513

Wosret's Avatar Comment 10 by Wosret

Also, this was neither a conversation, nor a debate. RD couldn't get a word in edgewise. Lennox just kept rambling on and on. He might have got to speak for maybe five or six minutes thoughout that 50 minutes.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:04:00 UTC | #195514

crusader234's Avatar Comment 11 by crusader234

WHEN John Frumm returns with the cargo, I hope theres a box of silly hats .....

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:05:00 UTC | #195517

GordonYKWong's Avatar Comment 12 by GordonYKWong

4. Comment #205928 by Enlightenme.. on July 7, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Well, then you should have waited until someone came along who *hasn't* got a life
Nah, screw them, I dun have a life and I wanna post first...

9. Comment #205943 by Rawhard Dickins on July 8, 2008 at 12:34 am

What's a nun chuck? - sounds like fun!
They are tremendous fun...

7. Comment #205938 by Theo C on July 8, 2008 at 12:18 am

From the first debate, Lennox came across as someone who applies great sophistry to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Just finished listening to the mp3, and Dr. Lennox doesn't disappoint with his sophistry and dissonance.

The conversation descend quickly towards one occuring on a psychologist couch between Richard and him.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:08:00 UTC | #195518

Eventhorizon's Avatar Comment 13 by Eventhorizon

....I lasted 26 minutes. Lennox has got to be related to McGrath

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:32:00 UTC | #195525

decius's Avatar Comment 14 by decius

Conceited superstitious git.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:36:00 UTC | #195526

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 15 by Enlightenme..

"Neither you or I are post-modernists, Richard.."

"Well, what I would like to say is.."
"Well, what I would like to say is.."

^^"Lennox has got to be related to McGrath"
Oh surely not! :)

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:37:00 UTC | #195528

Alovrin's Avatar Comment 16 by Alovrin

John Lennox:blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah
Does that make sense?
Richard Dawkins: No.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:38:00 UTC | #195530

Communist's Avatar Comment 17 by Communist

Oh my Marx. John Lennox is sounding like Tariq Ramadan here, trying desperately to bridge a vast gap between ancient thinking and modernity. The argument that Luke was a doctor is pretty typical.

I wish religious people would study Aleister Crowley and the emerging religion known as Thelema. Crowley has been dead for just sixty years, and the thelemites are already beginning to sound like other religionists when the interpret Crowley's text. Just check them out on YouTube. Christianity, Islam and Thelema all reflect either the societies in which they emerged, or the societies that came immediately afterwards. John Lennox is stuck in ancient times when he is impressed of Luke being a doctor, and of the sun and the moon not being presented as gods in genesis.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:38:00 UTC | #195531

Rawhard Dickins's Avatar Comment 18 by Rawhard Dickins

The adhesion to a particular mythological brand and the rejection of any real understanding of the world leaved me quite saddened.

This is what we're up against!

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:14:00 UTC | #195543

gcdavis's Avatar Comment 19 by gcdavis

I got 10 minutes into it and had to turn off, Lennox talks like a child, the justification for virgin birth is nonsense; I cannot see why RD bothers to debate with people like that!

On second thoughts I suppose giving a platform to people like Lennox to spew out their twaddle is giving them enough rope to intellectually hang themselves.

http://www.whengodsonyourside.blogspot.com/

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:18:00 UTC | #195545

bamboospitfire's Avatar Comment 20 by bamboospitfire

I have been to a lecture by John Lennox and met him afterwards, when I called him on his supposed scientific support by asking whether he would have been an atheist 100 years ago, given the absence at that time of the "evidence" on which he now relies. Needless to say, he didn't provide a straight answer. None of the comments above surprise me. You can read what I thought of the lecture here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37542&p=709286&hilit=john lennox#p709286

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:49:00 UTC | #195563

Lisa Bauer's Avatar Comment 21 by Lisa Bauer

I have to say that my favorite bit was at the end, where the announcer mentions that the Christian Fixed Point Foundation is a tax-deductible organization.

Minor point: if Genesis was written by a scribe during the Babylonian exile, it wouldn't have been written circa 800 BCE (as Dawkins suggests at one point) but more like 550 BCE, which is when most modern scholars say it probably began to be written, or rather put together. (See, the more biblical scholarship you know, the more effectively you can demolish Judeo-Christian claims based on the Bible!)

Lennox goes on about how the creation account in Genesis is so much different than ancient myths; I guess he hasn't read about the much-documented and extensive similarities between Genesis and the Enuma elish, the Babylonian creation epic. It's just been "de-paganized" for a monotheistic audience. And if he wants to use Genesis to back up an ex nihilo view of creation, as he seems to suggest by mentioning the Big Bang, he'll have to explain the "waters" in Genesis 1:2 ("and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters") before creation even started, the primeval waters being another element taken from Babylonian creation mythology.

I could go on in this vein, but why?

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:13:00 UTC | #195574

littlefox's Avatar Comment 22 by littlefox

Interesting remark by John Lennox, that although there is concrete evidence of smoking causing cancer, people continue to smoke.
I am, unfortunately, a smoker my self, and although I am totally aware of the consequences, I keep on doing it for the simple reason that I am deeply biologically and psychologically addicted to it.
Deep psychological addiction (caused by family and social brainwashing) is the main reason for continuing religious belief, although concrete evidence points to the opposite direction.
I found out that my childhood religious addiction was easier to overcome than my adult smoking addiction, thanks to the people that pointed out the evidence.

So thank you

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:31:00 UTC | #195583

GoodbyeGodNZ's Avatar Comment 23 by GoodbyeGodNZ

Quite seriously, this guy has a gravely advanced case of the virus and should be taken down to the back of the barn and shot thru the head.

You know, one of the things that makes us a unique species (not higher than the animals - just different) is our ability to use language and communicate.

But when the likes of SpongeJohn Lennox or SquarePants McGrath start with their stuff our wonderful human language just descends down into absolute shit and we'd be better off without it. I really think that people like this would be doing us all a favour if they just grunted like pigs and we could happily say to them "Oh I know what you're meaning SpongeJohn and SquarePants. Tell me more, your grunts are just so illuminating compared to what you used to talk about when you spoke in human language".

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:33:00 UTC | #195586

MikedubB's Avatar Comment 24 by MikedubB

Listening to this guy is like hearing nails on a chalkboard - absolutely intolerable.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:42:00 UTC | #195665

YssiBoo's Avatar Comment 25 by YssiBoo

When are these people going to realise that the fine-tuning argument (if accepted at all) does not say anything about the existence of their particular creator god.

Furthermore he claims that there is ample historical evidence for the miracles of the new testament without saying what it is; he just claims it exists.

What a mental midget.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:08:00 UTC | #195681

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 26 by TIKI AL

If miracles don't exist, how did Bush become president two times?

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:32:00 UTC | #195704

Zoron's Avatar Comment 27 by Zoron

Richard Dawkins was pretty bad in this debate.

btw that Lennox guy sounds retarded, I would have never guessed he was a "dr." of anything.

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:37:00 UTC | #195710

jaytee_555's Avatar Comment 28 by jaytee_555

Lennox is a total pain. Listening to him is like being forced to ride a bicycle too slowly...you keep falling off, and just can't get a proper discussion going.

Richard showed him the respect and deference that should be reserved for elderly religious people on their death beds - not superstitious, bumptious twats with delusions of scientific competence.

What on earth is Richard doing debating this
clown for a second time?

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:11:00 UTC | #195744

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 29 by Diacanu

John Lennox giving you that riding a bicycle too slowly feeling?

Do the memories linger on, and cause you to grab the sides of your head, and fill the night with screams?

Try Shmegalamonga!!

http://dickynoo.blogspot.com/

Life need never be filled with flavorless mediocrity ever again!

Because Shmegalamonga comes in cherry, grape, and watermelon!

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:25:00 UTC | #195759

LetMeBeClear's Avatar Comment 30 by LetMeBeClear

Why murder someone who is committing suicide?

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:29:00 UTC | #195763