1. Comment #76020 by AppliedMootist on October 4, 2007 at 11:26 am

I understand that Professor Dawkins does not want to "tote up" the casualties, but when the shopworn canard equating religion with morals was trotted out for yet another pathetic lap, he exhibited too much restraint.

Since the debate venue was in Birmingham, Alabama a quick summary of the Christian values associated with the American South was appropriate. With Biblical justification for three and a half centuries the good Christians of the South owned humans. The abolitionists were led by radical Quakers and the deist Transcendentalists, not mainstream Christians. After emancipation came the Christian-based KKK. In the early 1960's the good Christians of Alabama elected the separatist George Wallace as governor to maintain the system of Southern Apartheid. Not coincidently, the last institutions of the South to integrate, and never fully, are Christian churches.

As Sam Harris remarks, it was secular modernity, not religious tradition and scripture that has eliminated the greatest single blight in history. The great emancipator Charles Darwin proved scientifically that race, as traditionally interpreted, simply does not exist.

Dr. Lennox's response to any act performed by a theist that he found morally reprehensible was to state, "that's not my God." The true enemies of Dr. Lennox are not the handful of misdirected atheists but rather heretics clad in the guise of Christianity. However, we know that it is rare that a Christian attacks the acts or statements of other Christians. To do so is to confirm the obvious truth that at best Christianity is a zero-sum game in which every good deed done in the name of Jesus is offset by an evil deed justified by the same scriptures and dogma.



Other Comments by AppliedMootist

2. Comment #76032 by maton100 on October 4, 2007 at 12:56 pm

What tripe from Lennox. My god is the correct god, blah, blah. Not one detail worth notice.

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #76037 by obscured by clouds on October 4, 2007 at 1:13 pm

That was a joke! I'm impressed how Richard Dawkins handled that train wreak of a "debate", which it was not. It was a debater against a preacher, who had nothing to say except for spewing his sermon.

I am not even going to try to dissect what was wrong with Lennox. There were to many logical fallacies to keep track of.

Other Comments by obscured by clouds

4. Comment #76038 by Bonzai on October 4, 2007 at 1:14 pm

I sense that Richard is somewhat frustrated by the format of the debate. Instead of having the moderator asking a prewritten list of questions and allow each speaker to address these specific questions once and then move on to the next item I think it is better for the speakers to have back and forth with each other and let the flow of the debate decide which item would be addressed next.

Lennox is a nut, I expect an Oxford mathematician to do better than espousing drivels like Jesus is truth, "my faith is not like any other faith" and howlers like "we have faith in relativity" as if to say science is just another religion (or "Biblical Christianity is like another science, which ever way you slice it the guy is out to lunch)

Other Comments by Bonzai

5. Comment #76039 by sane1 on October 4, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Why is downloading the file so painfully slow...10/kb/sec?

Other Comments by sane1

6. Comment #76042 by d4m14n on October 4, 2007 at 1:49 pm

The audio invites you to comment on this exchange here:

http://www.aproundtable.org/LennoxDebate/comments.cfm

Ugh! The number of uneducated, deluded morons that have posted is just too painful.

Other Comments by d4m14n

7. Comment #76044 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Near the beginning he says something like "In this book Dawkins frees us from belief in God so we can pursue lives of unadulterated pleasure-seeking"

What a stupid thing to say, as if life is a choice between evangelical christianity or some kind of "meaningless" pleasure seeking. TGD addresses well the question of gods existence, but most readers I'm sure can find worthwhile ways to live without help from Richard Dawkins, or their local church where perhaps, pretty shallow people may be pontificating on "the meaning of life".

Lennox said that science owes its existence to a religious assumption of an ordered universe. Although of course the greeks had some science and preceded the medieval christian worldview. It is wrong again on the count that an ordered world is a natural assumption of everyday common sense, not something we needed medieval philosophy to tell us. And wrong again in that even if science did proceed from medieval christian philosophy in no sense does science therefore validate that worldview. Rather it is just one example of how running with the tenets of a system can lead to its passing away into something else. In which case science working on those assumptions proceeded to a worldview without god.

He also seemed to say belief in an ordered universe requires a belief in something to "give it" order. Leaving aside Kant who (I think) said the world is ordered because we ourselves see it as having order. Who said that, because the idea it is ordered by God was already at that time becoming untenable. Science has shown how order can emerge naturally. for instance in any instance if you have replication and variation combined with finite resources (and therefore competition) evolution will occur. And the fact that it will is a matter of logical necessity, not something that could even in principle be attributed to the volition of a designer.

I think he says towards the end that goodness is "incomprehensible" without the idea of a god. Lennox even quotes Hume that "You can't get an ought from an is". Which defeats his own position, from the is statement that god exists you can't get the ought statement that "we should be moral".

"If you're not good (or don't follow a particular, inadequate as it happens, guideline for goodness contained in a certain sacred text) you'll go to hell." is an is statement, but it still doesn't logically lead to being good.

god is not of any use to morality. I'd suggest rather life, and the common value people find in it is instead a good basis for goodness.

Also Somewhere also he says Science doesn't address the simple questions children ask like who am I, but later he dismisses the question of who made god as a "schoolboy question". ^£%*!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

8. Comment #76046 by ccrenshaw on October 4, 2007 at 2:07 pm

This debate was incredibly frustrating to listen to. The format was incredibly biased...A passage is read from TGD, Richard comments on the topic, Lennox gives a ridiculous retort, repeat. I find it difficult to qualify this as a proper "debate" when Dawkins literally had to demand the right to respond to Lennox's comments. I did find it amusing that at a debate structurally biased against Dawkins and sponsored by a Christian organization, that there seemed to be as much (if not more) applause of Dawkin's points as Lennox. It's good to see that even in Alabama, the rational atheists are gaining in numbers and not afraid to show it.

Other Comments by ccrenshaw

9. Comment #76049 by Zakie Chan on October 4, 2007 at 2:11 pm

When listening to Lennox (or any apologist) repeat the same nonsense over and over again, I am reminded of a quote by Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Its seriously like these people are not even listening, or thinking about what is being said to them or what they are saying.

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

10. Comment #76051 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Also Lennox used the bible passages about treating well aliens in your midst.

I think that came up in the Hitchens/Sharpton debate where Hitchens points out that alien in the bible refers to Jews from other tribes, and Samaritans are still Jews in an absolute sense.

The whole thing is probably worth listening to for RD's response at the end, when Lennox suddenly starts gushing about Jesus.

. . .

The guys at the beginning and end sounded like football pundits with slightly bizarre effect . . .

Other Comments by BaronOchs

11. Comment #76053 by Dog Boots on October 4, 2007 at 2:25 pm

So, my dear theists, does Lennox constitute the kind of sophisticated representative for religion that Richard is always accused of not confronting? Or was he just another walkover?

For me, at least, this debate made it a little clearer still that we're not gonna see any new arguments for religion - they most likely don't exist...much like the big man himself.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

12. Comment #76056 by scooternyc on October 4, 2007 at 2:38 pm

RD.Net, you guys are so good at getting us this information all the time, much appreciated.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Scooternyc

Other Comments by scooternyc

13. Comment #76057 by ergaster on October 4, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Here is a brief overview of the Lennox guy. It could be useful to know before you listen to the debate:

Dr. John Lennox has been exploring the place where religion and science meet for decades. Raised in Ireland where religion is "in the DNA", Lennox never gave a second thought to his belief in God. It wasn't until he went off to Cambridge University that he would dive into the debate over religion, science and evolution after a student asked him if he believed in God.

Since then Lennox has gone on to become a vocal proponent of intelligent design. The Oxford University reader in mathematics is also a fellow in mathematics and the philosophy of science at the school. He travels all over the world talking about the nexus of religion and science, as well as intelligent design ... although he doesn't like that label. Lennox says it's been hijacked by people who don't understand it.

Other Comments by ergaster

14. Comment #76061 by Duff on October 4, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Why is everyone surprised that these debates all end the same way. Why, why would we expect something better from the religionists? I'm beginning to believe the best we can do is to just shout at them, "you're stupid, you're idiots, you're morons!!" It is probably as effective as using reason and logic. Reason and logic are anathema to these people. I'm going to yell at them.

Other Comments by Duff

15. Comment #76062 by tribals on October 4, 2007 at 2:58 pm

I am still trying to download the audio but I will hopefully have a little more patience than I did with 'The God Delusion' which seemed to say it wanted to give evidence and yet most of what I could find was inaccuracies of so called facts - 5 on page 118 (Arguments from God's existence) alone. I will wait and listen before I comment.

Other Comments by tribals

16. Comment #76064 by MikeV on October 4, 2007 at 3:08 pm

What a shameful "debate". No wonder, it was organized by a Christian group after all.

I was so pissed off by the fact that Lennox always had the last word in. All Richard could do was simply explain some statement in his book and then Lennox would attack it, without letting Richard rebut his silly arguments.

It's like they were two against one.

Other Comments by MikeV

17. Comment #76067 by Bonzai on October 4, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Lennox spews nonsense but is very good at coming up soundbites and muddling the water with sophistry which a careless listener may find compelling, his ludicrous claim that God explains the existence of universe but its own existence doesn't require explanation because God is by definition self created is a case in point. He has an air of confidence which is not really backed up by his weak arguments.

In contrast, Richard is a a careful thinker and sometimes appears to be on the defensive because he needs the time to formulate his thoughts precisely and as it is often the case, it is more complicated to dissect and respond to a falsehood such as those made by Lennox,--usually a simple assertion that sounds reasonable but turns out to be wrong on many levels,-- than to utter one. Also, as many have pointed out, the format is also biased against him.

I think Richard's style is better with a more sophisticated audience but he may come across as too hesitant and unsure of himself for an audience which is used to evangelical huxterism.

Other Comments by Bonzai

18. Comment #76069 by maton100 on October 4, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Ha, listen closely to the dialogue of the broadcasters after the debate. The moron brigade is in the house. Part 3.

Other Comments by maton100

19. Comment #76070 by Quine on October 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Duff: I'm going to yell at them.

If you do that, it will help them continue the stereotype of Atheists as servants of Satan. You should not judge the value of standing up and giving rational argument by the perceived disagreement you get back. The fact that an Atheist does get up and provide rational thinking in a polite posture cuts against what they have been taught. This causes unconscious problems for them that help start the process of change of long held prejudice. Yes, the "debate" part of the debate was silly, but thousands of Christians listened to an Atheist on their radios for the very first time in their entire lives. I will bet in many cases, he was not what they expected. Not yelling at them is one of Prof. Dawkins greatest weapons.

Other Comments by Quine

20. Comment #76071 by 82abhilash on October 4, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I got a beautiful quote that explains this phenomenon very well.

"It is very easy to wake someone who is asleep, but very difficult to wake someone who is pretending to sleep."

Other Comments by 82abhilash

21. Comment #76078 by BaronOchs on October 4, 2007 at 4:09 pm

I think this is the thing Lennox mentions about Stephen Hawking and the Theory of Everything:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/

Other Comments by BaronOchs

22. Comment #76080 by mdowe on October 4, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Does any know if there is an ogg or mp3 version of this 'debate' available somewhere?

Other Comments by mdowe

23. Comment #76083 by Monosilabbiq on October 4, 2007 at 4:18 pm

This was not a debate - it was an ambush. And having walked into it the Prof got a bit of a kicking. After a while I recognised the style and tactics of Dr Lennox - it was remarkably similar to some training in dealing with the media that I had undergone. Don't bother with answering the question - say what it is that you want to say! And Dr Lennox certainly didn't listen to anything said by the Prof, and even put words in his mouth so that he could demonise him as the classic bogeyman atheist.

Shouting at this level of stubborn-ness might provide some satisfaction, but probably will not be effective. The suggestion in previous discussions has been to use ridicule. That appeals to me. Certainly the atheist protagonists have no shortage of material.

I would recommend a slightly different form of "debate". A Balloon debate would be entertaining with each of the major religions allowed an entrant. The "None of the above" candidate would have to be the Prof, seconded by Mr Hitchins in his role as attack dog.

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

24. Comment #76086 by Annatar on October 4, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Wow, some of those comments at round table are revealing.

(http://www.aproundtable.org/LennoxDebate/comments.cfm)

""It's interesting how much of his life Richard Dawkins devotes to refuting creation. Why? If it really is a myth, why waste your time on people who are stupid enough to have been duped by the biggest lie of all time?"

"Throughout the debate, Mr. Dawkins kept referring to Darwinism as a given, a proven theory, not debatable. Excuse me? Where is the fossil evidence?"

"I truly believe that the discovery of DNA was the death nail into the heart of Darwinism and that God Himself is revealing His existance through the very avenue that Prof. Dawkins excels in."

"Thank you-I listened intently on Christian radio to every word. I felt, probably along with my favorite Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, that Darwinism was dealt yet another huge blow."

"This was the most amazing one hour and 1/2 that I have ever heard on a radio broadcast... Thank you for standing up to the biggest falsehood ever sold to mankind! Our country has been damaged by its' doctrine (Darwinism) and you exposed it to the core."

Apparently, many of the fundies who listened to the debate are under the impression that Dr. Lennox rejects the truth of Darwinism and that he was trying to refute it. Their faith in creationism has been strengthened by the "huge blow" that Lennox supposedly delivered to Charles Darwin's theory... which Mr. Lennox, in fact, accepts.

Do they seriously believe that they heard anything like that?
There is something strange and terrifying in this.

Other Comments by Annatar

25. Comment #76088 by Teratornis on October 4, 2007 at 4:42 pm

In reply to comment #76061 by Duff:

Why is everyone surprised that these debates all end the same way. Why, why would we expect something better from the religionists? I'm beginning to believe the best we can do is to just shout at them, "you're stupid, you're idiots, you're morons!!" It is probably as effective as using reason and logic. Reason and logic are anathema to these people. I'm going to yell at them.

Organized religion has spent thousands of years evolving into an ever-more-potent force for crippling the human mind's innate capacity for logical thought. I have firsthand experience at having been so crippled, and of working my way back to some facility with critical thinking. The latter process required several key ingredients:

1. Lots of time, spread over a period of years.
2. Considerable effort on my part (I had to read lots of books, and they were all heavy going).
3. A dissatisfaction with what I was getting from religion, in terms of emotional benefits (since there aren't any obviously supernatural benefits).

A rational person won't easily make much headway with a person indoctrinated to be comprehensively irrational unless the irrational person agrees to help. (It's like the way an alcoholic has to hit bottom and realize he needs help. Someone who still perceives a net benefit from an addiction isn't likely to seek change.) Any decent religion will have waterproofed itself against logical argument well enough that logic alone isn't likely to get through to someone who wants to keep logic at bay.

But not everyone who identifies as religious is equally immune to logic. There are always some people in every church having a "crisis of faith" (i.e., an episode of rationality) at a given time. Think how tragic it was that Mother Teresa did not have a chat with Richard Dawkins at the right moment! Instead, she only received input from priests, which is like asking the prison wardens for help with an escape plan.

The lack of clear evidence for any supernatural phenomenon, the never-ending parade of leading religious figures caught up in scandal and exposed as lying frauds, the problem of evil, and any number of other troubling things defying all pat answers continuously crop up and affect almost all religious believers at one time or another.

Variation is the raw material of natural selection, and reality is the raw material of doubt. But just as variation alone does not drive a species to become a new species, neither does the disorganized undercurrent of doubt undermine the religious enterprise, unless rational voices help the bewildered get purchase on it.

Thus I would strongly disagree that the seeming "failure" of Prof. Dawkins and the other "new atheists" to "get through" during debates with the professional theist mouthpieces suggests the whole exercise is a waste of time. I can assure you that churches contain people at all levels of agreement with the nonsense they are being fed, ranging from highly convinced all the way down to just going through the motions.

Just because a professional theist presents a particular nonsense argument does not mean every churchgoer happens to buy that particular argument completely. Even if the professional theist gets the last word, odds are a few of the nonprofessional theists in the audience heard the points that Prof. Dawkins made, and find them more compelling than the theistic rebuttal.

It's like the difference between Adolf Hitler and the rank-and-file Nazis. After the fall of the Third Reich, Germany had little difficulty becoming a modern, democratic nation, suggesting that most ordinary Germans weren't all that committed to Nazism in the first place. The fact that a majority had voted for Hitler in the early 1930's did not necessarily mean they shared Hitler's fanaticism in every detail to the same degree. The vast majority of people tend to be fairly apathetic; they just bend whichever way the wind blows, and a few men of action have always known how to direct some wind.

We see something similar today, in the way that most North American Catholics flatly reject the Pope's nonsensical teachings on contraceptives. If the religious base can exercise common sense in one area, maybe it can accept a little more common sense.

When I was "under the spell," I never heard anyone like Prof. Dawkins. If I had, I might have escaped years sooner. Even though the professional theists have heard all the arguments and have their rationalizations at the ready, many of the millions of less-committed churchgoers who pay the professional theists' salaries may be barely aware of these arguments. Many have never heard them at all. So even if Prof. Dawkins has to present his ideas in an unfavorable setting, at least he is presenting them, and that is a remarkable step forward for many of the rank-and-file who have thus far only been exposed to one set of ideas.

Despite all that, yelling might be appropriate in some cases. Religions throughout history have used various types of coercion, shaming, group pressure, and ridicule to sell their ideas. Blunt methods can certainly work; if nothing else, research into the mechanisms of memory formation has shown that people are far more likely to remember what they heard in a heated argument than in a casual exchange. The next time they hear the same ideas, their brains may be that much farther along in the process of understanding them.

When a student makes a mistake in school, and the whole class laughs, the burning shame felt by the target of ridicule does not necessarily turn him or her off to the truth. In most cases, it reinforces the lesson. Thus it seems very likely that humans have this talent for learning under duress because it had survival value in the ancestral environment.

Other Comments by Teratornis

26. Comment #76089 by Teratornis on October 4, 2007 at 5:03 pm

In reply to comment #76086 by Annatar:

Apparently, many of the fundies who listened to the debate are under the impression that Dr. Lennox rejects the truth of Darwinism and that he was trying to refute it. Their faith in creationism has been strengthened by the "huge blow" that Lennox supposedly delivered to Charles Darwin's theory... which Mr. Lennox, in fact, accepts.

Do they seriously believe that they heard anything like that?
There is something strange and terrifying in this.

Sure, but this is nothing new to anyone who has worked in technical support. Even when people haven't been specifically indoctrinated to misinterpret simple instructions, they demonstrate an amazing capacity to do just that. Talk to anyone who works in technical support and hear the horror stories. Like the customer who tried to use her computer's mouse as a foot pedal (because it seemed similar to the one on her sewing machine). Or the caller who reported a broken "cup-holder" on his computer and wanted it replaced (turns out that was the CD player, in the open position).

Bottom line: people can be incredibly stupid. It's so normal that it hardly rates a comment.

Whenever a large crowd hears a particular message, some percentage will misinterpret it any which way, and they require oversight and corrective feedback to steer them back onto the proper path.

In some ways, scientists are to blame for their failure to sell their discoveries. The whole machinery of science is about doing research, and convincing other scientists. There isn't, as such, a scientific enterprise for making sure everybody else understands the evidence well enough to come to the same conclusion. There is too much of stating the conclusions without the evidence for them, such as scientists pronouncing the world to be 4.5 billion years old as if we should all just take that on faith. Instead, such evidence as does get presented to hoi polloi is largely left up to the Discovery Channel etc.

How many people have even a casual understanding of the basic evidences for biological evolution? (E.g., homology, biogeography, diversity, the DNA "clock," etc.) Or the basic evidences for an old Earth? Science needs people to present the basic evidences, in enough detail to be convincing, but with enough simplicity to be accessible to people with less than a full-time interest.

We do, of course, have to trust experts all the time. Nobody can be an expert in everything. But experts have to find some way to demonstrate their credibility. In some disciplines, the proof is obviously in the pudding - it's pretty clear whether airline pilots know what they are doing. But evolutionists have a problem in that their material is rather arcane, and even the successful applications of evolutionary theory which have practical impact are themselves rather arcane.

It doesn't register with the average person that evolution helps professional biologists make splendid sense of biology. The average person wants to know how to get the roaches out of the basement and so on. Is a creationist exterminator at any sort of practical disadvantage compared to an evolutionist exterminator? No. The creationist exterminator does not have to know why the bug spray works to use it.

Other Comments by Teratornis

27. Comment #76092 by MAS2007 on October 4, 2007 at 5:13 pm

How anyone using 3% of their brain power can make irrational statements that Lennox made anything close to a valid point is disheartening.
I had to stop reading the xian bollocks, was starting to sense brain cells rebelling against apologetics. That web site appears to be a wasted use of molcules.

Other Comments by MAS2007

28. Comment #76096 by onagol on October 4, 2007 at 5:33 pm

tribal, if you wish to rebut RD's "facts", please do so. For my part I read TGD more as an illustrative essay demonstrating the complete absense of facts supporting the god hypothesis.

Having had a quick glance at p118 of TGD, it is primarily concerned with the authorship of the bible/gospels and the inherent contradictions therein. Now, if you have any fresh insight into this particular chestnut, please feel at liberty to explain.
However (and this is my point), do so in the spirit with which contributors (for the most part) try to conduct themselves on this forum. In the sense that, if you must make sweeping statements, at least attempt to describe whatever rational is behind your belief/opinion/position etc. at the same time.

P.S. Not withstanding your complete absense of any supporting statements, it is a crime one can easily commit. What seems obvious and apparent to oneself almost always needs clarification to those not of ones own mind set (and not infrequently to those who are). I digress but in the general sense it might be described as not so common sense..., me thinks.

Other Comments by onagol

29. Comment #76097 by Stephen Maxwell on October 4, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Judging by the discussion between the two hosts at the end, they have absolutely no idea about evolution.

Looks like they're equating evolution to the origin of the universe. Laughable.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

30. Comment #76099 by stevieb on October 4, 2007 at 5:41 pm

any audio-only versions available for us who like to listen at work?

thanks,

-steve

Other Comments by stevieb

31. Comment #76102 by jaytee_555 on October 4, 2007 at 5:55 pm

The format of the debate was grossly unfair to Dawkins, and an organisational disgrace.

First, a quotation from Dawkins book was read out by the chairman, and Dawkins was invited to comment on it. But since the book was published 12 months ago, Lennox had had all that time to prepare, hone and practice his attack on the quotation. Surely, at that point, Dawkins should have been given an opportunity to deal with Lennox's points; but astonishingly, the chairman moved on to the next quotation!

This absurd way of proceeding continued throughout, and the result was that Dawkins was repeatedly frustrated by having to backtrack to Lennox's previous points before he could answer the new question. Even after Dawkins had pointed out the unfairness of this, the chairman persisted in continuing in the same format. Dawkins was clearly unsettled and disadvantaged by this, as it prevented the natural flow of questions and answer. I will be try to be charitable, and assume that this was accidental and not deliberately rigged; but it is almost unbelievable that Dawkins would agree to a debating format that systematically denied him the right of reply.

Fortunately, he still managed to dismantle Lennox's arguments, but not always with his customary facility. This had nothing to do with any serious challenge in Lennox's arguments, but was a direct result of the ridiculous format employed.

Lennox's closing comments were nothing more than intellectual suicide, and an admission admission that he believes in miracles and prefers magical thinking to reason. His gratuitous preaching will, no doubt, endear him to Christian Fundies, but will surely confirm to rationalists everywhere their conviction that the virus of faith severely disables certain parts of otherwise able minds.

Dawkins was able to capitalise on Lennox's final departure from scientific argument into baseless faith-fantasy, and hit the nail right on the head by pointing out that all that 'scientific' sophistry was no more than a desperate attempt to justify Lennox's desperate need to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and loves him.

This was not Dawkins best performance, due to the reasons given above, but it was certainly good enough.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

32. Comment #76103 by jaytee_555 on October 4, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Other Comments by jaytee_555

33. Comment #76106 by JD Cherry on October 4, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Really, I think most religious folks watching this debate won't be convinced simply because they don't understand the theory of evolution properly. This underscores the vital importance of making sure that evolution is taught properly in schools.
Listening to people like Lennox always makes my blood boil.

Other Comments by JD Cherry

34. Comment #76113 by stptrck75 on October 4, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Why must I as an agnostic have to defend my beliefs to Christians? It seems ludicrous. I'm so fed up with people of "faith". I don't know what to do though, because alot of them are my dearest friends. I want to retain them as such in my life, but I don't think we can ever really broach the subject without creating a permanent rift. It's quite disconcerting.

Other Comments by stptrck75

35. Comment #76114 by RickM on October 4, 2007 at 6:48 pm

This was terrible. Lennox takes broadsides and Dawkins can't return fire. I think it's fair to assume Prof. D. will not get into another one of these.

The thing was so frustrating; sheer bull shit. The same (reshaped) stupid arguments. And the dip-shit commentary that followed.........

Other Comments by RickM

36. Comment #76115 by eXcommunicate on October 4, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Fixed Point Foundation? More like Fixed Debate Foundation.

Like others here, I think this debate's format was pretty shitty. I'm not sure if Dawkins was duped or what. A more reputable format for dissecting TGD would have been to have Lennox comment on the read passage first, then Dawkins defend, not the other way around! This tells me the debate was obviously rigged, but instead of crying over spilled milk, Dawkins mopped it up the best he could. It's encouraging that the audience replied so favorably to Dawkins, and I echo the sentiments of Teratornis in that we shouldn't always lump theists together as "idiots" or "a lost cause" and automatically switch to shouting. His example of the rise of and fall of Nazism is perfect. Kudos! And kudos to RRS for posting a Myspace Bulletin about this debate, otherwise I wouldn't have known about it last night. I thought the commentators after the event were really kind of peculiar - it sounded like a post-game show on ESPN, which is a different take on analysis of a debate of this stripe. Despite their obvious subjectivity (or perhaps because of it) I found their "analysis" quite entertaining. lol

Now, here's the kind of debate I would like to see:

Dawkins vs. Theist (whoever)

Each gets a 20-30 minute slot for a presentation, using any media they like. As the theist has something to prove (god exists) and the atheist doesn't, the Theist goes first and Dawkins makes a rebuttal.

Then comes 20-30 minutes of back and forth questioning between Dawkins and the Theist.

Then comes 20-30 minutes of a question and answer session about what just transpired between the men, with audience participation (audience questions and moderator questions).

Then a 5 minute closing from each man, again, Theist first, then Dawkins.


Other Comments by eXcommunicate

37. Comment #76119 by Jason1083 on October 4, 2007 at 7:07 pm

BaronOchs writes:

I think this is the thing Lennox mentions about Stephen Hawking and the Theory of Everything:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/

I think that is as well. I couldn't believe it when he said that Steven Hawking used Godel's theorem to show that a Theory of Everything was impossible. What a dishonest attempt to manipulate the audience's ignorance!

There is not one physicist in the world (including Stephen Hawking) who would claim that he has shown any such thing. As an Oxford Mathematician, the least any listeners could expect of Lennox is that he would be accurate in his description of mathematical results - instead, he attempts to manipulate the audience by making his ideas seem as though they have scientific backing. And not just in physics - what percentage of scientists think that the problem of abiogenesis is insoluble by naturalistic means?

I think in the future Professor Dawkins would do well to quote more statistics and survey results to demonstrate just how strong the scientific consensus is against ideas like the ones Lennox tries to promote. He should also ask opponents who claim that there is scientific evidence for their belief to consider the consequences of that claim: if biologists explain how the first replicator emerged from non-living materials, and if physicists formulate a theory of everything, would Lennox then cease to believe in God? Of course not. And this betrays the fact that his faith is not evidence based - evidence for him is just a shroud which obscures the nakedness of his faith.

Other Comments by Jason1083

38. Comment #76122 by yyuryyub on October 4, 2007 at 7:20 pm

It never ceases to bewilder, amaze and stupefy me that intelligent people, scientists no less, can trot out this rubbish and then sit back, fold their arms and smile as if they have totally destroyed your argument... I feel ill!

Other Comments by yyuryyub

39. Comment #76124 by Jason1083 on October 4, 2007 at 7:25 pm

It's worth checking what Steven Hawking actually says about this issue:

Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory, that we will eventually discover.Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true.Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Goedel's theorem.This says that any finite system of axyoms, is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics.

Which Lennox translates as (paraphrasing from memory) - Steven Hawking has shown that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem makes a Theory of Everything impossible. Perhaps someone with no understanding of what it means to "show" something in math or physics could be forgiven for such a remark. I hope someone brings this issue to Richard's attention so he can expose Lennox as a dishonest fraud if they were to meet again.

Other Comments by Jason1083

40. Comment #76126 by jb5string on October 4, 2007 at 7:36 pm

The "Christian" apologetics "ministries" will be charging for the .mp3, cd and tapes. Thanks Dr. Dawkins!!!!!!

Other Comments by jb5string

41. Comment #76127 by Ashley1319 on October 4, 2007 at 7:38 pm

I came away from this debate with these two impressions of Lennox:

1) he was a smart man
2) he was not a smart man

He may very well be a scientist,and he is probably pretty intelligent. His problem, is that he applies the scientific method to everything, except for his own religion. He never struggled with doubt, because he was raised religious, and didn't want to struggle. It is in a way, weak and cowardly that he can't be a scientist all the time. He was pacifying when dawkins made a point that he couldn't disagree with without looking foolish, and arrogant and degrading (in a polite manner)when he knew that what he was arguing against was metaphysical and therefore he couldn't be called on it. His repeated opening remarks of (It concerns me, this concerns me, what you just said Mr. Dawkins frankly concerns me) is in a way, trying to make Dawkins seem to be ignorant or even as if something were 'wrong' with his ideas. I enjoyed how Dawkins stayed polite but demanded time to rebut Lennox's remarks, and I enjoyed watching the format of the debate disintegrate, much to the frustration of the moderator. Also, the appeal to emotion by Lennox throughout the debate was...annoying at best.

Other Comments by Ashley1319

42. Comment #76128 by Bonzai on October 4, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Regardless of whether a theory of everything is possible, I don't see how this is related to an assertion that God exists. Even without invoking Godel's theorem in any way it is conceivable that there are things we may in principle cannot know, perhaps because of the way our brains are wired up, etc. But it is quite a leap to say that there must be a God as a result of us not having the "ultimate answer" (whatever it means) It would be even a bigger leap to conclude that this somehow validates the Bible and the Jesus story. Is this guy out of his mind? And he is a mathematician, sheese. It proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that "Biblical Christianity" can cause brain damage.

There is a worn out line believers always used in their arguments with atheists. "There are things in the heavens that we can't imagine" (sorry, my English literature is really shitty, I think this is a quote from Shakespeare, maybe someone can help me out) as if this comment on our state of ignorance somehow makes their fairy tales more plausible. To my mind the Bible is unbelievable exactly because we do can imagine it, its stories are too crude and predictable, its teaching too narrow and parochial to have been authored by anything other than a bunch of not very imaginative apes.

Other Comments by Bonzai

43. Comment #76133 by Jason1083 on October 4, 2007 at 7:59 pm

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- Hamlet, 1.5

I agree Bonzai - I don't see how the existence of a Theory of Everything would relate to God's existence. I'm sure if we developed such a theory theists would turn around and insist that it was a testament to God's glorious design for the world (and that it was predicted in the Bible).

I'd love to see a biblical scholar offer a scientific prediction about something with more than two possibilities. The contrast between real evidence and the kind of evidence Lennox offers up (the Bible predicted that the universe had a beginning!) is just mindboggling. He acts as though the Bible predicted the patterns of microwave background radiation observed by Wilson and Penzias. Now a book written a few thousand years ago that predicted that would have some credibility.

Other Comments by Jason1083

44. Comment #76134 by wwilliams on October 4, 2007 at 8:01 pm

I was at the event. I was just listening to the broadcast you have posted where the opening commentators mentioned that Lennox didn't have any notes or talking points...

THAT IS FALSE! Well, it was misleading. He did have notes prepared, just possibly not out at that time.

In fact, his closing statements were almost completely read off a sheet that was prepared ahead of time.

Other Comments by wwilliams

45. Comment #76142 by JanChan on October 4, 2007 at 8:34 pm

I love this quote from Dawkins

Either the universe began or it's been here forever...to get one of them is really not that impressive. (Crowds laughs) Toss a penny, you've got a chance of getting it right 50% of the time.

And it seems to be the best 'prediction' the bible has to offer. I think I'll do better with a coin toss.

Other Comments by JanChan

46. Comment #76143 by PLAYBALL on October 4, 2007 at 9:28 pm

I think Richard you deserve an award just for talking with Mr. Lennox. He doesn't listen and it's very annoying. Your British etiquette was delightful as always.

I find it amusing when Christians talk about god like they had lunch with him last weekend.

Other Comments by PLAYBALL

47. Comment #76145 by Robert Maynard on October 4, 2007 at 9:42 pm

I managed to catch the live webcast yesterday morning (Australian time).

Dawkin's exclamation, "Darwin gives us a lust to be good" caught a few off guard, and this was great, sort of. The announcers on the radio show I listened were surprised and bemused by this, and Lennox also trotted out the usual puzzlement, asking how one who claims the universe is indifferent and without absolute order or intent can even begin discussing morality.

It got me thinking of interesting ways to illuminate the distinctions between objective, 'absolute' standards and subjective standards, and their application to human morality, using other spheres of positive and negative experience which can be easily conceived, and scientifically discussed without running right up against core beliefs.

For instance, when someone asks "How can you talk about what's right or wrong without believing in an absolute standard?"
perhaps one could counter "How have we all agreed that sugar tastes good, or that excrement smells bad, when they lack an 'absolute' smell or taste?"
Sugar's sweetness is not an innate property of its ingredients. Human excrement is not objectively repulsive. (Why do you suppose flies like it so much? Likewise, why does bird urea not smell anywhere near as bad as our mess?)
So on what grounds do we make associations between sugar and 'good', and excrement and 'bad', when they are at base only chemicals, which can be interpreted and experienced differently? There is no objective standard of taste or smell in the universe, so how do we make any interpretive judgments of stimuli in terms of 'good' and 'bad'?
Indeed, what can we atasteists do, in acknowledging this fundamentally tasteless universe, but go out in the street and indiscriminately eat every filthy thing we can with abandon?

I would hope that a religious person would recognise that this garbage-eating parallel is an absurd scenario, and follow through that it is just as (possibly less) absurd than the charge that atheists should be murdering everyone or moving to North Korea.
Our minds haven't evolved to be objective about phenomena in the world - but our minds have evolved (generally) with the best interests of our genes in mind. Lennox asks "Why would I trust my mind, if I were a reductionist who thinks my mind can be boiled down to nothing more than atomic interactions?"
Simply, you should trust these systems because they've evolved with your survival as a priority (sparing you all the usual lecture Dawkins invariably has to mention to dispel notions of agency). I guess if you don't want to survive, you have every reason to be suspicious of chemicals, because the ones in your body are (mindlessly) working together against you.
Our lust to be good can be discussed in the same terms as our 'lust' to be healthy.
Glucose is really important to our functioning, faeces contain chemicals our body purposefully threw out. In other words there has been a definite selective pressure at work during our evolution, to enjoy sugar and not eat crap, based on their effects to our health.
Our evolved predispositions can be nullified, to be sure, and just as there are people with a fetish for eating excrement, there are people with stifled senses for fear or empathy. However, we can definitively say these states are exceptions to the rule, and rationally explain why they are negative variations on the human condition, and take responsible, respectful steps to help these people avoid harming themselves or others.

Our biological intuitions are an adequate foundation to build systems of ethics upon (it's what we've been doing for centuries), but the more we know about our brains and what we don't like to experience, the more confidently we can rationally describe actions or attitudes as 'good' or 'bad', based on how they effect people.

...I didn't mean to follow that train of thought through to grandiose statements about secular ethics, it just felt weird to end a comment with the statement that there's a good reason we avoid poop.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

48. Comment #76147 by The Truth, the light on October 4, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Comment #76088 by Teratornis.

That has to be one of the most well written and intelligent replies I've read in some time.

Thank you for sharing.

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

49. Comment #76150 by macros_man on October 4, 2007 at 11:00 pm

I realize that Richard Dawkins is an incredibly busy guy... and that it's not his area of expertise... but I wish that he would bone-up on his physics and cosmology a bit.

As the idiots at the end of the program illustrate, creationists cannot easily distinguish between "evolution" and "origins of the universe". Didn't anyone else catch, at the end, how they were so incredibly shocked that Dawkins, an "evolutionist" claimed that "we do not understand the origins of the universe", or something to that effect? As if the entire theory of evolution hinged on a full understanding of the origins of the universe... which it simply does not... but creationists seem fixed on this point - and it's fodder for religious apologists to pick on.

So it's like Richard is fighting with one arm behind his back in these debates... because while he has a mastery of evolution, his knowledge of cosmology seems cursory, at best.

There are many retorts to the creationist cosmological arguments of which Richard does not seem aware of. With "fine tuning", for example, there is the point that we only call these constants "finely tuned" because we do not yet understand why they have the values that they do - but this in no way implies that these values could have been anything different - it may well be that these values are constrained by other physical laws, which are themselves constrained by axioms of probability, consistency, symmetry - or some hitherto unknown constraints. And it is only as a last resort, that we should attribute any such apparent serendipity to continuously variable parameters (aka 'multi-verse' hypotheses)

I understand debates are extremely difficult ordeals... and that it's impossible to have all hits, and no misses... but over and over, I'm seeing the same opportunities missed, to aptly address creationist claims in the area of physics and cosmology.

If Richard simply does not have the time or the inclination to research this area, then I think we should really start encouraging more cosmologists and physicists to join the debate, and become more vocal against the ludicrous claims repeatedly made by creationists regarding cosmology.


That said... I really do appreciate everything Richard and his foundation is doing... and I'm not complaining or anything... but it's just a friendly suggestion... :)

Other Comments by macros_man

50. Comment #76160 by jefft0 on October 5, 2007 at 12:06 am

Audio only MP3 of the debate is here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CGH5YY2Z

Other Comments by jefft0