1. Comment #205923 by GordonYKWong on July 7, 2008 at 11:18 pm

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!!

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

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

"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)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

3. Comment #205930 by rasman1978 on July 7, 2008 at 11:58 pm

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?

Other Comments by rasman1978

4. Comment #205933 by Benjamin P. on July 8, 2008 at 12:05 am

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.

Other Comments by Benjamin P.

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

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

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

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

6. Comment #205945 by Shane McKee on July 8, 2008 at 12:42 am

"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.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

7. Comment #205946 by Wosret on July 8, 2008 at 12:57 am

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.

Other Comments by Wosret

8. Comment #205947 by Laurie Fraser on July 8, 2008 at 12:58 am

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.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

9. Comment #205950 by Johan on July 8, 2008 at 1:02 am

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.

Other Comments by Johan

10. Comment #205951 by Wosret on July 8, 2008 at 1:04 am

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.

Other Comments by Wosret

11. Comment #205954 by crusader234 on July 8, 2008 at 1:05 am

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

Other Comments by crusader234

12. Comment #205955 by GordonYKWong on July 8, 2008 at 1:08 am

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.

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

13. Comment #205962 by Eventhorizon on July 8, 2008 at 1:32 am

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

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

14. Comment #205963 by decius on July 8, 2008 at 1:36 am

Conceited superstitious git.

Other Comments by decius

15. Comment #205965 by Enlightenme.. on July 8, 2008 at 1:37 am

"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! :)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

16. Comment #205967 by alovrin on July 8, 2008 at 1:38 am

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

Other Comments by alovrin

17. Comment #205968 by Communist on July 8, 2008 at 1:38 am

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.

Other Comments by Communist

18. Comment #205983 by Rawhard Dickins on July 8, 2008 at 2:14 am

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!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

19. Comment #205986 by gcdavis on July 8, 2008 at 2:18 am

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/

Other Comments by gcdavis

20. Comment #206005 by bamboospitfire on July 8, 2008 at 2:49 am

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

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

21. Comment #206020 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 am

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?

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

22. Comment #206032 by littlefox on July 8, 2008 at 3:31 am

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

Other Comments by littlefox

23. Comment #206035 by GoodbyeGodNZ on July 8, 2008 at 3:33 am

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".

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

24. Comment #206114 by MikedubB on July 8, 2008 at 5:42 am

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

Other Comments by MikedubB

25. Comment #206134 by YssiBoo on July 8, 2008 at 6:08 am

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.

Other Comments by YssiBoo

26. Comment #206164 by TIKI AL on July 8, 2008 at 6:32 am

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

Other Comments by TIKI AL

27. Comment #206171 by Zoron on July 8, 2008 at 6:37 am

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.

Other Comments by Zoron

28. Comment #206211 by jaytee_555 on July 8, 2008 at 7:11 am

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?

Other Comments by jaytee_555

29. Comment #206228 by Diacanu on July 8, 2008 at 7:25 am

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!

Other Comments by Diacanu

30. Comment #206234 by 4horsefins on July 8, 2008 at 7:29 am

Why murder someone who is committing suicide?

Other Comments by 4horsefins

31. Comment #206245 by mad_monk on July 8, 2008 at 7:36 am

Prof. Dawkins should apply his "no debate with creationists" rule to John Lennox. Some of his bizarre claims are on a par with young-earthers. What happened to the moderator in this discussion? He allowed it to turn into a platform for a sermon by Lennox.

Other Comments by mad_monk

32. Comment #206252 by Unselfish Jean on July 8, 2008 at 7:42 am

"Wind" and "bag" spring to mind.

Other Comments by Unselfish Jean

33. Comment #206283 by pulsar1z on July 8, 2008 at 8:14 am

John Lennox annoyed me with a clear monopoly of the discussion. The only thing he managed to communicate was the fact that he is very good at manipulating words and philosophy to reinvent time and history. He is so busy at dissecting words and interpretations he looses all sight of logic. No one could have known how the World began because early humans were illiterate.

Other Comments by pulsar1z

34. Comment #206285 by AtheistrEvolutionist on July 8, 2008 at 8:18 am

I think Richard was far too shocked at the sheer inanity of Lennox's claims to really respond. I also think that Lennox's responses were evasive and with good reason.

Other Comments by AtheistrEvolutionist

35. Comment #206299 by Big City on July 8, 2008 at 8:41 am

At least with McGrath, you get the feeling that he doesn't have the strength of mind and character to be honest with himself. I feel that Lennox is being deliberately deceitful here, and intentionally muddling up the issues because he knows a straight answer will make him look as stupid as he is.

Other Comments by Big City

36. Comment #206301 by qomak on July 8, 2008 at 8:42 am

Throughout the debate, for some reason I was expecting John to burst into ...

"dumb, da da, dumb dada, ... Sweet dreams are made of this .."
"Who am I to disagree? dumb da da ..."

Other Comments by qomak

37. Comment #206312 by SniderD on July 8, 2008 at 9:06 am

Richard seems bored.

Doesn't it seem like kind of a waste that we have one of our best scientists debating hapless religious nut jobs rather than a fellow scientist in a matter of evolutionary biology? Any 5th grader could sit there and say 'Show me an example' and then have Lennox evade and ramble on about the beauty of religious symbolism.

I think it just goes to show Christopher Hitchen's point: Atheists don't want to let go of religion any more than religious people do. It's the fight that we enjoy.

Other Comments by SniderD

38. Comment #206317 by Cokane on July 8, 2008 at 9:12 am

I actually thought Richard handled this discussion excellently, particularly in remaining absolutely calm throughout. When someone so blatantly expresses a world view that is taken straight from the bible in a purely literalist sense I think the most effective tactic is not to argue with it, but to do as Christopher Hitchens recommends, and simply underline it.

The most interesting part of this exchange, for me, was the fact that Lennox and the chair both agreed that the views Lennox expressed were an orthodox christian view, rather than the ramblings and ravings of fundamentalist religion, which is what many of the more sophisticated christians (and religious apologists) will tell you it is. So which is it?

Other Comments by Cokane

39. Comment #206319 by jw0305 on July 8, 2008 at 9:16 am

Regarding Comment 15 (#205951)made by Mitchell Gilks:

I had the distinct privilege of being present during the "post debate" discussion between Professor Dawkins and Dr. Lennox.

You are correct in stating that this was not a debate. Neither Dawkins nor Lennox agreed to the event on the basis of it being a "debate". The intent was to conduct a post debate "discussion".

While Lennox spoke the vast majority of the time; one could not be physically present and conclude that Dawkins was frustrated with the situation. Rather, it seemed that Dawkins "game plan" was, in fact, to get on the offensive and proactively question Lennox regarding his beliefs; to allow Lennox to "ramble" as you put it.

Neither Dawkins nor Lennox left the discussion with sentiments of being cheated or coerced. Their mutual agreement to continue the "discussion" testifies to that fact.

Other Comments by jw0305

40. Comment #206344 by Big City on July 8, 2008 at 9:39 am

Snider D

Doesn't it seem like kind of a waste that we have one of our best scientists debating hapless religious nut jobs rather than a fellow scientist in a matter of evolutionary biology? Any 5th grader could sit there and say 'Show me an example' and then have Lennox evade and ramble on about the beauty of religious symbolism.

A very good point. Lennox doesn't need any help from Richard to make himself look like an idiot.

Other Comments by Big City

41. Comment #206348 by dpsych on July 8, 2008 at 9:45 am

Well I guess it's settled. John Lennox is a "Christian Child"

Other Comments by dpsych

42. Comment #206353 by Upgrade01A on July 8, 2008 at 9:49 am

I enjoyed listening. Thank you for providing this conversation.

One point that should be picked up on is that the word "faith", like almost every word uttered by humans, has more than one meaning. I am not sure why Richard Dawkins seems to have a problem with that particular word.

Here are just a few:

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Not misleading really. The context is usually quite clear.

I recommend: "Language, the Stuff of Thought", by Steven Pinker.

Another point was that it was a "conversation" the two were having, not a "debate".

Other Comments by Upgrade01A

43. Comment #206356 by Zoron on July 8, 2008 at 9:53 am

Maybe if John Lennox would write down his thoughts on paper he would make some sense, without the pressures of real-time communication?
I don't think he realizes how utterly ridiculous and foolish he sounds.

Other Comments by Zoron

44. Comment #206364 by brian_d_w on July 8, 2008 at 10:02 am

Lennox is a plodding old windbag. I just can't listen to his nonsense. The signal to noise ratio is too small. Then when I manage to decode the signal part, its all nonsense. How Dawkins can endue a conversation with him is beyond me.

Other Comments by brian_d_w

45. Comment #206365 by jw0305 on July 8, 2008 at 10:03 am

Regarding the question posed by Cokane (Comment 206317); the content and spirit of Lennox's statements during the discussion attest to an orthodox Christian view. They certainly are not the "ramblings and ravings of fundamentalist religion".

To whom do you refer when you mention "sophisticated Christians and religious apologists"?

Other Comments by jw0305

46. Comment #206401 by robotaholic on July 8, 2008 at 10:38 am

oh nooooooooooooo, I remember Lenox now! - ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - im so annoyed because Richard could have quickly gutted that man uh...verbally... Lennox: "i have never equated faith with absence of evidence" - uh Mr. Lennox that is the definition-

-edit - I made it mabye 5 minutes - *click* - this reminds me of talking with my father

why is it that all religious people deny the definition of faith but claim to have it, claim that everyone has faith- it's like their mind has been hijacked- in fact they make up phrases like "blind faith" when just 'faith' is blind enough-

Upgrade01A we all know what faith means - if you have evidence you don't need faith, if you have faith, you don't have evidence - saying "I have evidence for my faith" makes not a bit of sense

Other Comments by robotaholic

47. Comment #206425 by bachfiend on July 8, 2008 at 11:05 am

I'm surprised that Lennox could actually say that "Genesis" got the order of events in creation right. Let's see, plants were made the day before the Sun, whales and birds were made the day before all other animals. Has he actually ever read "Genesis"?

Other Comments by bachfiend

48. Comment #206441 by Big City on July 8, 2008 at 11:20 am

I just finished listening, and I have to say that I am staggered by the fact that Lennox did not have one intelligible thing to say. It was basically "I believe it all because I find it very easy. I just assume that it's all true." He did not substantiate any of his assumptions. A truly, truly pathetic display. He would have made more sense had he said nothing.

PS: His little laughter pissed me off, as did the closing remarks by the 'moderator.'

Other Comments by Big City

49. Comment #206450 by yesspam on July 8, 2008 at 11:30 am

crusader

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

It's John Frum you heretic scum, and don't you forget it.

Other Comments by yesspam

50. Comment #206457 by SniderD on July 8, 2008 at 11:36 am

BigCity:
He never said he assumed it was all true. He kept saying the exact opposite -- that he had good evidence for what he believed.

He presented as his evidence that good people were willing to die for it, so therefore it is probably true. Crappy evidence, sure. Not enough to convince a scientist, but it might convince a jury.

It's not fair to quote him as saying the exact opposite of what he was saying.

Other Comments by SniderD