1. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207677 by hadrianushaereticus on July 10, 2008 at 5:27 am

To follow up on an earlier point: I agree with Steve Zara and Communist that Richard opted for a bad strategy. I take his point that there might be room for both approaches and that he chose to "let him hang himself" here.
But still: He could easily have killed two birds with one stone! Again: If he wanted to have Lennox on the record stating that he indeed believes in all the miracles, he could and should still have interrupted his ramblings right after the affirmation of his belief in the nonsense.

My feeling is that Richard simply wasn't able to rebut and expose the scriptural and historical "arguments" rapidly and effectively. Had he been able to do it, why would he have stayed silent? Contrary to what he said above, there is nothing in the explanation of his choice of strategy I "do not get". If he just wanted to collect evidence for the existence of the preposterous belief in miracles (in order to refute the claims of "sophisticated" theologians), then why didn't he start wiping the floor with Lennox immediately after Lennox's affirmation of his literal belief in the Gospel stories? Why didn't he press him more on the issue of Genesis vs. the New Testament? He mentioned the days of creation but didn't go on to really corner Lennox by bringing up, for instance, the Garden, Adam and Eve giving rise to the historicized genealogies (with people attaining ages of over 900), Noah's Ark and the Flood, Babel and so on - stories, for which there is not the slightest textual evidence that they should be interpreted metaphorically, quite the contrary.

Looking forward to Richard's response.

2. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207317 by hadrianushaereticus on July 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

"I think there might be a problem in that the majority of believers would not realise that Lennox had actually hung himself."

Absolutely, thank you Steve.
Christians and people sitting on the fence surely got the impression that Dawkins was not able to thoroughly refute the claims Lennox defended.

I am amazed that Dawkins apparently was "delighted" with the way it turned out. If he wanted to have Lennox on the tape recorder stating that he indeed believes in all the miracle, he could and should still have interrupted his ramblings and mercilessly teared him apart.

3. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206819 by hadrianushaereticus on July 8, 2008 at 9:05 pm

RickM,

I can recommend, for instance, all the works of Karlheinz Deschner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Deschner) or Joachim Kahl (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Kahl; especially "Das Elend des Christentums", "The Poverty of Christianity"), but I don't know whether there are good translations into english.

4. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206810 by hadrianushaereticus on July 8, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Mitchell Gilks,

"Lennox whole obfuscation of the word "faith" is an attempt to have things a la carte. Because "faith" is considered virtuous in religiuos circles, Lennox wants to both claim to have faith, but to not be basing his beliefs on it."

Yes, that's obviously his motivation for playing with the meaning of the word "faith": He wants to stick with it because it is traditionally associated with the semantic context of religious belief. At the same time he distances himself from the meaning or connotation of "belief without evidence" since he maintains that his beliefs, including the religious ones, are based on adequate evidence.
This, in itself, cannot be use as an argument against Lennox. Nominal definitions of words cannot be true or false, they just specify the arbitrary meaning of a word. Lennox is prefectly free to use the word "faith" as he pleases in his philosophical system. Let's analyze it:
Lennox holds, contrary to many theologians and in accordance with Dawkins, that propositions can only be rationally believed, if adequate evidence for them exists. He therefore claims that all of his beliefs, including the religious ones, are based on evidence. Now he just seems to arbitrarily label a certain subset of the propositions he believes with the term "faith" or "faith-proposition". This subset includes metaphysical beliefs connected with his religion and certain beliefs about the state of mind and future behaviour of other persons, such as in "faith in my wife". The subset does not include, for instance, beliefs about the age of the earth or verbal knowledge and mathematics.

There is nothing wrong with that. We could, for instance, define the term "faith-proposition" to denote - within our system - all propositions about our planet. Propositions about the diameter, the mass, the internal structure or the age of the earth would then be our "faith-propositions". This semantic settlement adds no information to our system and leaves its substance unchanged.
The epistemologically relevant aspect, which is untouched by mere definitions of words, is the (shared) principle that belief in a proposition is only warranted if there is good evidence for it. Any proposition, whether it is a member of the subset of propositions named "faith-propositions" or not, will therefore have to be supported by adequate evidence.

And that's why we should stop to vainly argue about the meaning of words and instead focus on the evidence presented for the propositions Lennox defends. If the evidence is there (which it is clearly not), it is completely irrelevant whether we still wish to call them "faith-propositions" or just label them "scientific propositions", which we could broadly define as denoting all propositions based upon solid evidence.

5. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206691 by hadrianushaereticus on July 8, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Riley,

"I don't think your approach would work very well in the conversational format. The "conversation" would get so bogged-down in theological arguments and debatable historical knowledge, that it would become hopeless."

I don't think so. One would just have to stick to one particular issue and prevent the Christian from jumping from story to story. Richard could have focused, for instance, on the literal interpretation of the Gospels vs. the literal interpretation of Genesis, as I have outlined above.

Some additions:

- Evolution: The most important objection against a doctrine accepting both evolution by natural selection and a creator/designer is linked to circularity and Occam's Razor. Whoever accepts both evolution and a creator has failed to appreciate the actual point and achievement of Darwin's theory: that it doesn't require a designer and that it therefore offers a real explanation ("crane") instead of question-begging magic. If you accept evolution but still insert a creator, you are in fact undoing the very achievement of evolution and have not made any explanatory progress. Furthermore, you run into epistemological problems. People who accept evolution and a (hidden) creator would have to accept, to give a strict analoy, the following too: Suppose you find a watch in a field. You have never seen a watch before nor heard of their existence. You then try to explain its function. A first working hypothesis might be: There is a magical spirit residing within the watch and propelling it. However, after having opened it up and analyzed it, you are able to produce a mechanistic, reductionist, natural account of its function in terms of the interaction of its parts, which makes the initial hypothesis of there being a magical, invisible spirit in the watch unnecessary and redundant. Yet people who believe in theistic evolution would have to accept the validity of the belief that there STILL is a magical spirit secretly propelling the watch and ensuring its proper function! They would even have to grant the validity of the claim of there being two, three or 100 different spirits within the watch - and the same is true for the claim of there being two, three or 100 different designers. This obviously leads you into epistemic contradictions, since you are adopting epistemological principles which allow you to simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs.

- The Gospels: Why not, for instance, ask Lennox directly where Richard is going to spend eternity? In hell? Keeping company with the overwhelming majority of all mankind, as Jesus clearly said? What about the Jews who died in the Holocaust? Their suffering under Hitler's regime is unimaginable, but they could, to quote Hitch, at least fucking die out of it. The God of the New Testament seems to be much worse than Hitler too (there is no question about that for the God of the Old Testament). What about poor childern growing up within fundamentalist Muslim communities and therefore firmly believing in the truth of Islam during their adulthood - will they be punished for not accepting Jesus as Saviour and Lord too? Is THAT the eternal justice of God, of gentle Jesus meek and mild? Is THAT his omnibenevolence? Is THAT "Love thine enemies" put into practice? Well, at least it resonates with passages such as Luke 19,26 of the New Testament, which "Dr." Lennox takes literally:

"For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

And don't come up with the cheap response that it is not Jesus but the imaginary King of the parable proclaiming this.
1. There is good textual evidence for the hypothesis that this passage does not belong to the parable any more.
2. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that it belongs to the parable and is uttered by the fictional King. Well, the point remains, since the King of the parable is quite trivially to be equated with Jesus, the eternal slaughter of his enemies will occur in hell.

Now THAT'S the kind of stuff biblicist nutcases like Lennox need to be confronted with!

Sorry again for annoying you with arguments you are certainly familiar with.

What annoyed me, though, is the fact that Richard didn't pursue a single one of them to the bitter end of Lennox - in spite of the fact that the format of open conversation would have allowed him to do so!
Note that I am not claiming that Richard is generally incompetent in debate - far, far from it! I have had the pleasure to listen to outstanding lectures, debates and conversations (such as the one with McGrath for his documentary) and am grateful to Richard for his commitment to our cause.

But I am of the opinion that he did a very bad job here. Innumerable preposterous "arguments" went completely unchallenged or were not thoroughly dissected. If it was his deliberate strategy to let Lennox roll out the nonsense, my evalutation applies to the choice of strategy. It was, I'm sorry to say, suicidal. All atheists and most educated and intelligent people will of course recognize Lennox as the idiot that he is. But Christians and people sitting on the fence, Richard's target audience, will surely get the impression that he could not rebut Lennox convincingly.

6. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206555 by hadrianushaereticus on July 8, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Richard...that was quite bad, I'm afraid.
And I do not even feel that you could have done much better, because - as a scientist barely acquainted with biblical scholarship - you apparently do not know enough about the content and the origins of the biblical texts to be able to effectively counter these scriptural "arguments". Or am I wrong?

I am a Swiss student of philosophy and ancient mediterranean religions and am especially interested in the origin of the New Testament. I am very familiar with the situation you were in when talking to Lennox: When we atheists ask to be given the evidence for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, the discussion will inevitably come down to the content and the origin of the Bible at some point, especially when debating orthodox Christians. Usually the discussion will then proceed as follows: The atheist raises questions as objections to particular claims (just as you did, Richard). The Christian will then start spitting out the standard "answers" to the questions, will give tedious biblical details and thus try to rationalize his beliefs and explain why, after all, they are "rational" and "warranted".
Thus, the average atheist will be confronted with three problems:
- His role will be limited to occasionally and passively asking questions and raising short objections, which will cause the Christian to roll out even more biblical stories.
- As an atheist, he is probably not knowledgeable enough about the Bible and its origins in order to really tear apart the "arguments" in favour of its truth.
- If he points out, as Richard did, that modern biblical scholarship has shown conclusively that the Gospels are mythological in nature and historically absolutely unreliable, he may be confronted with the objection: Well, you have not looked at the textual and historical evidence for yourself! You are simply taking the word of some atheistic biblical scholars for granted!

What's the solution to this problem?
At first I tried to avoid this subject in debate and instead focus on broader philosophical issues (such as miracles, the origin of the universe, morality and so on). But I soon realized that this strategy was not effective at all and began to study the Bible and its orgin in-depth (which is, by the way, also very interesting from a philological and a historical point of view).
The easiest way to really nail a Christian is by consistently sticking to the Bible and its historical origin, to beat the Christian in his own territory and with his own weapons. As I have found many times now, this aggressive strategy is usually much more promising than a general philosophical defence of atheism. And a further remark: One has to stick to a certain point and thoroughly dissect the Christian there rather than allowing him to jump from topic to topic and roll out story after story and forget about the objections raised by the atheist!

Why didn't you, Richard, stop and butcher him on the subject of the literal interpretation of the Gospels and Genesis just as you did, for instance, with McGrath and the one child saved?
First of all, if it is so obvious that the six days of creation are not to be understood literally, why have Christians come up with this peculiar interpretation only after science had conclusively shown that our planet is much older than 6000 years? If Lennox does not believe in a literal creation, what about Adam and Eve, the Garden or the talking snake? What about Noah and the Flood? What about Babel? There is not the slightest textual evidence that these texts are to be read purely metaphorically (as Lennox grants for the Gospels) - quite the contrary! One characteristic of these biblical myths is that they are historicized, i.e. located within real history! They can, by means of the elaborate genealogies, even be dated: Creation occured around 4000 BC, a global flood took place around 2500 BC when Noah was 600 years old etc. So, does Lennox really believe many generations of men reaching ages of over 900 walked the earth? There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest purely metaphorical interpretation - on the contrary! (They are obviously, as Layla Nasredding has already pointed out, reworkings of ancient mesopotamian literature and mythology. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list#Early_Bronze_Age_I)

As for the Gospels: Richard, you did not ask him which version he believes in? The Gospels are filled with significant contradictions, Matthew and Luke cannot even agree on the birth of Jesus.
What about discussing these points next time, Richard: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
This is why it is quite effective to this subject: It offers the atheist the opportunity to dissect the Christian through and through - in the Christian's own territory!
The implicit claim that the events related in the Gospels are historically accurate went unchallenged. All the waffle of the Jews or the Romans not being able to unearth the body of Jesus (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/stinketh.html) and thus refute the claims of early Christianity is entirely based on the premiss that the Gospel accounts are historically accurate - which makes his scriptural arguments circular (Richard, you even went so far - if I understood you correctly - as to suggest a conjuring trick explanation for the mircale of water being turned into wine - instead of attacking the very historicity of this story!)
Furhtermore, Lennox claimed to have examined the "witness" accounts through the lense of Hume's criterion. You should have pointed out that the only source mentioning Jesus' miracles is the Gospel of Mark, written about 40 years after the "fact" (the other evangelists copy it and embellish their version). So, is it more probable that a single account, written 40 years after the alleged events took place, is true and that, therefore, the whole natural order was suspended OR that some ancient, fearful and superstitious people made the story up? (Which Lennox is prepared to accept when it comes to, say, Islam!)
How is it, moreover, that nobody noticed the miracles of Jesus, if they really took place? Matthew, for example, reports the infanticide of Herod and the opening of the graves (jewish zombies visiting their friends in Jerusalem) and that the sun darkened abruptly at the crucifixion. We should expect enormous quantities of historical evidence if these events really happened. Yet there is not a single eye-witness account either of these events or of the life of Jesus.
Furhtermore: Lennox claims that his belief in Christianity is based on evidence. Contrary to many liberal theologians he does not maintain that God does not give us evidence of his existence because it would logically compel us to believe in him (which would take away our free choice). But if Lennox holds that evidence is a good thing and that evidence is indeed there - why isn't there any 100% foolproof evidence for God? Why is there even a controversy over his existence? If evidence is a good thing (as he maintains contrary to many theologians) - why then doesn't God provide direct evidence himself? Why aren't there Christians being able to, for instance, demonstrably cure diseases by "faith-healing", as Mark 16 predicts? Not one shred of this type of evidence exists. This evidence clearly could be there - just as it was a theoretical possibility that scientific data would turn out to confirm the biblical world view (6000 years, heaven up there, earth as the center of the universe, etc.). Yet no such evidence has ever been put forth.

One last point: Lennox seems to accept evolution - why didn't you dissect him on this point, Richard?

- It contradicts directly what Genesis says. For orthodox Christianity the immutability of the species has always been obvious. Even a "metaphorical interpretation" of Genesis won't do: One would have to maintain that what the text actually means - metaphorically - is the direct opposite of what it plainly says (special creation of the species and of man - what about the rib story, by the way?)
- It contradicts the broader worldview of Christianity: What did Jesus die for? For our sins. Where does sin come from? Right: Adam and Eve, the Fall. The consequence of sin is death, death is an invader into the good creation - as is clear from New Testament theology too. But if evolution is true, then God apparently used death as the very tool of creation! One cannot simultaneously believe in an omnibenevolent God, a metaphorical fall and the cruelty of natural selection! Moreover, Jesus and Paul seem to take a literal interpretation of Genesis for granted - and Lennox accepts a literal interpretation of the New Testament.
- Theodicy again or Hitch's objection: If you are a monotheist, you have to believe that for 100'000-200'000 years God watched this unbelievable human misery with folded arms, and after 96'000 years decided: Ah, now it's time to intervene! And the best way of doing this would be to select a tribe in in ancient Palestine...etc.
- Human evolution: Did Australopithecus afarensis have a soul? If not, what about Homo habilis? Or erectus? What about neanderthalensis? Were they capable of salvation too?
- The Big Bang: If the whole story is ultimately all about US HUMAN BEINGS - why bother to wait 13.7 billion years before we would emerge by natural selection on some tiny planet in some corner of some marginal galaxy? What was the purpose of these 13.7 billion years? God's ways are mysterious indeed. Why create - as an omnipotent and and omniscient deity - a plethora of species only to let 98% of them go extinct again? Quite some design!

Sorry to have bothered you with this rather longish post and exposition of several arguments you are certainly aware of. Unfortunately Richard did not pick them up in his discussion with Lennox and hence could not really press him and expose his blatant irrationality.

Why not, Richard?
I hope you will bring these points up more resolutely in future conversations or debates.

An open conversation would have been the ideal opportunity to dissect him once and for all. If the strategy of letting Lennox roll out his nonsense was deliberately chosen, it was - in my opinion - counterproductive, not to say suicidal! Especially people sitting on the fence and Christians listening to the conversation might obtain the impression of Lennox having detailed arguments and Dawkins not being able to reply thoroughly and thus just asking some questions from time to time.

7. Gimme that Old-Time Irreligion

Comment #181621 by hadrianushaereticus on May 17, 2008 at 5:21 pm

"It's such a common refrain, made by so many critics (not just believers but philosophers and historians) that I start wondering if maybe there's something to it."

Of course there is something to it! They are implying that the sort of cultural war against religion Richard is engaged in - which was quite typical of the 19th-century cultural clashes - should be considered obsolete by now.
Well, it should indeed be obsolete by now! But in view of the persisting influence (or even revival?) of religion it's about time that we secularists/atheists return to be more 19th-century, i.e. intellectually militant! As Richard said: "Let's all stop being so damned respectful!" This is what makes him "19th-century" - and it is more of a positive than a negative indeed.

8. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178524 by hadrianushaereticus on May 11, 2008 at 2:39 pm

"No modern Catholic would actually SAY anything so outrageous."

Well, Richard, I've heard modern Catholics say things like that, actually many times - tongue-in-cheek!
Which is why I didn't realize the whole thing was a satire at first. This does count as an excuse, wouldn't you say? :-)

9. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #168266 by hadrianushaereticus on April 24, 2008 at 8:32 pm

As for the preposterous claim that Darwin was not sufficient but necessary for the holocaust:

- Has he ever, as PZ Myers pointed out, heard the word pogrom? Christians systematically killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews only in the 14th century. Jews were blamed for the plague epidemic (1347-49) which killed approximately one third of the population.
Certainly Christian anti-semitism was necessary if not sufficient for the holocaust (Hitler pointed out the fact the he was only radically doing what the church had been doing for two millennia).

- You have to look no further than the Bible in order to realize that systematic extermination of a people is obviously possible without and before Darwin and is (as any barbaric act) easily "justifiable" in religious terms! One chapter of Mathis' Holy Book is SUFFICIENT to completely debunk his preposterous claim of Darwin being necessary for the holocaust:

Numbers 31
(there are many genocides of this type throughout the Old Testament)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers 31&version=31

A materialist philosophy (let it be noted that evolution alone is quite obviously not sufficient for materialism) is neither sufficient nor necessary in order to treat people like impersonal prey and plunder polluting the world, quite the contrary: The materialist cannot, by definition, establish a transcendental difference, dualism and dichotomy between an eternally good, superior people and an evil, inferior one (let's not even take the naturalistic fallacy into consideration). Some kind of supernaturalism is needed in order to legitimize a chosen, elected and therefore superior people or race. In one supernaturalist context they were called "Jews" (later on "Christians"), in another context "Arians."

More emphasis should be put - in the rebuttals of the grotesque central claim of "Expelled" - on the genocidal crimes Christians committed throughout their history and on the genocides of the "most unpleasant character in all fiction" by which they were inspired.