Dawkins vs Lennox debate

_{Mark

October 6, 2007

Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This debate is really worth a listen. Lennox speaks very well. What follows are some classic Richard Dawkins statements. What do you think? (A, B C refer to the sound files 1 2 and 3 form the download, and the number to the time into the sound file.)

A14 I lost my faith because Darwin left me with no good reason to believe.

B2 Life is explained by Darwin. Cosmology is waiting for its Darwin.

B6 I invoke the Anthropic principle … and the multiverse.

B18 I would not for a moment say that all religion is bad or all religion is dangerous or Christianity is dangerous. Only a minority of religious people are bad or do bad things.

B20 The one belief I would give to a child is scepticism.

B28 I am not trying to say that religious people do bad things.
I do think there is a logical path from religion to doing terrible things.
If you really believe … then it is possible for an entirely rational person to do hideous things.

I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel.

B30 Once you grant them the premise of their faith then the terrible things that they do follow logically.
The terrible things that Stalin did did not follow from his atheism.
You will not do terrible deeds because you are an atheist – not for rational reasons.

B34 If you base your morals on the Christian Bible, your morals are likely to be hideous.
We are all to a greater or lesser extent moral. Whether we are moral or not has nothing to do with whether we read the Bible.

B35 How do I know what is moral? I don’t on the whole.

B36 Everyone knows by common sense that “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is moral. You don’t need a holy book to tell you to do that.

B37 As an evolutionist I say that …. the Darwinian pressure to be good is no longer so strong nor is the Darwinian pressure for lust as strong as it once was. That doesn’t matter.
There is something “in the air” about what it means to be moral and it clearly has nothing to do with religion because it doesn’t come from scripture.

C1 Maybe the world IS a hideous world. That doesn’t make it not true! If it is a hideous world, it gives us something to rise above. We can do a grand job of rebelling against the blind hideous physical forces that put us here.

We understand that we are here as a result of a truly hideous process. Natural Selection is an ugly process that has beautiful consequences.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,n,n

Comments

magnan, of course the Golden Rule is universal among all person, whether or not they are Christian. This is exactly what Christian doctrine states. Read the first three chapters of the book of Romans.BarryA_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

professorsmith (7): "XtremeCamera, If you grew up in the US or in a European country then you have indeed co-opted a Christian ideal, albeit you probably didn’t realize it. You got it from your parents who took it from the world around them, which was infused by Christian principles. It is inescapable; Christian principles have been so prevalent in the Western World that our culture is inextricably linked to Christian morality." I think many influential liberal humanists would differ with this, as far as a description of our current society. As far as the Golden Rule is concerned, is this strictly a Christian dictum? It seems to me this is nearly universal as a common sense ideal of behavior that thinking people realize promotes the common welfare on the average. This is not to say it is followed most of the time.magnan_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

My favorite is A 36.20: Dawkins: We only need to use the word 'faith' when there isn't any evidence. Lennox: No, not a'tall. I presume you've got faith in your wife -- is there any evidence for that? Dawkins: Yes. Yes, plenty of evidence. Lennox: Hmmm It ranks right up there with the 18 seconds of silence. It was an odd format -- having Dawkins repeat his argument, and then giving Lennox a fresh crack, and not leaving room for Dawkins to rebut. However Dawkins signed off on the format and he did have the opening and closing argument.bevets_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Get your ring-side tickets to The God Delusion show!!! To me, it seems like there is an odd blanket of commercialism being thrown over this so-called "debate". Maybe the broadcast commentators can develop a blow-by-blow commentating technique to keep the listening audience continuously mesmerized and on edge. Throw in a few product endorsements between topics: "This topic sponsored by......". Set a few Hollywood elites on the front row. Maybe sell it to ESPN as the next big sporting event......... Does this debate serve any REAL purpose other than entertainment? It's obvious Dawkins stirs up controversy just to sell books. Look at the titles of them. They have "evolved" specifically for that purpose. And now, we get to read The God Delusion Book, listen to The God Delusion show, and watch The Root of All Evil? show. He is using the name of God and he is using proponents of God to put himself at the apex of controversy, which is bringing him lots of fame, making him lots of money, and broadly spreading his word. It is despicable. My attention will not be turned toward him again.John Kelly_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

"I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel." It's actually a deceptive way of looking at the question. There's no 'logical path' from a mere lack of belief in God (or a belief in no God, take your pick) to anything at all. But that's not the problem; the problem is that atheism itself provides no impediments to "killing or murdering or being cruel". Sure, you can look in the bible or even an individual faith and start constructing arguments for a Christian to do such things. But notice how Dawkins never actually provides such a logical path - because he knows the moment he does, he's going to have it shown how that path is responded to by Christians, and also have the logical impediments to such a path highlighted, and the paths to other conclusions explained. Meanwhile, atheism provides no encouragement or discouragement for anything on its own; it does not encourage altruism any more than it discourages genocide. So you need something in addition, like a philosophy, social or political beliefs, and so on. And - surprise! - there come your logical paths to horrible things, supplied by sources that vary from Ayn Rand to Peter Singer. By the way, I thought Lennox did a marvelous job. But he can't take all the credit: Dawkins did a bad job on his own. No surprise; atheists tend to be used to being on the offense when it comes to discussing beliefs. But thanks to Dawkins and other modern atheists, now they have to play defense - that's where they tend to shatter.nullasalus_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

FIRST: "I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel." THEN: "How do I know what is moral? I don’t on the whole." It is truly amazing when one need not even add commentary to show that a person's statements are self-contradictory. The extent of the fatuity of this Oxford professor beggers belief.BarryA_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

bFast, what is the third possibility? we are all waiting for the other shoe to drop.BarryA_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

bfast, I doubt that Plato was a big follower or Darwin, yet he was a strong supporter or eugenics. From what I know the aryan myth came about through what was thought of as a common language source developed by the "Aryans", the writers of the Vedas and living in what is now India around 1700-900 BC. People made the jump that common language meant common beginning race. And seeing as the Vedas and Sanskrit itself are widely considered of the most beautiful written word, this gave a sense of cultural superiority to those who thought they were of that common race (including some Germans). Oxford scholar Friedrich Max Muller (Professor of Sanskrit) once said the Aryans had a "mission to link all parts of the world together through the chains of civilization, commerce and religion" and they were "the rulers of history". I hasten to add that he warned against making simplistic conclusions about race. (All taken from 'India: A History' John Keay, 2000). As for Dawkins, he can quite easily say that Hitler was morally wrong. After all, Darwin says that those who are most fit (those who are most able to produce healthy offspring) will pass on their genes better than those who do not. It makes no moral argument at all.leo_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Dawkins, "I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel." There was a lively descussion on this site a while back on the relationship between darwinism and eugenics. Hitler was clearly a darwinist. After all, where did he get this idea of a "superior" arian race. As I see it, Dawkins has three possibilities when it comes to Hitler. He can conclude that what Hitler did was actually "good" because it was built on the root of darwinian morality, or he can conclude that his statement above is wrong. The darwinian doctrine simply says that the fit thrive, the unfit die. How can this doctrine not lead to "kill or murder or be cruel."bFast_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

XtremeCamera If you grew up in the US or in a European country then you have indeed co-opted a Christian ideal, albeit you probably didn't realize it. You got it from your parents who took it from the world around them, which was infused by Christian principles. It is inescapable; Christian principles have been so prevalent in the Western World that our culture is inextricably linked to Christian morality.professorsmith_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

shaner74..LOL...Frustrating to try to find reason in his logic isn't it??? Consistency is apparently not one of Dawkin's strong suits... I was always impressed about how intelligent he seems on the outside and how utterly shallow his arguments are upon examination!bornagain77_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

I am convinced that Richard Dawkins knows the contents of his book verbatum!Tina_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

I set my alarm for 2:00 (Local South Africa time) to listen to this debate, live. It was worth it because Dr. Lennox' debate was beautiful. I previously listened to some other debates of Dawkins and think that Dr. Lennox did a great job. Dr. Lennox concluded his debate standing on the ruins of the poor arguments against Christianity victoriously declaring Christs' deity and resurrection confirming the Christian faith. Dawkins had only points to score with a community of people who like to hear that atheism is fun - regardless of its truth claims. There was very little arguments and therefore his rhetoric focused on absurdities as mentioned above. However, I think his mentioning of sexual orientations that is driven by hedonistic "righteousness" is a dangerously effective corrupter of an already baseless moral atheistic society. This part of atheist rhetoric must be confronted and I know it might be difficult in modern society.mullerpr_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

shaner74; Are you saying that The Golden Rule is Christian? That to recognize it, live by it, is to co-opt Christianity? I'm not a christian, never was. My parents never talked religion, I was never brainwashed to believe anything actually. But, I believe I live my life by the Golden Rule. The reason? I simply don't have any desire to cause anyone any harm. I am quite happy to see others prosper, and I enjoy helping others when I can. There is no religion on my part in being altruistic.XtremeCamera_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

shaner74, but of course "Do unto others..." is not only Christianity, it is a basic premise of just about all religions/philosophies. Certainly atheists are allowed to make moral arguments because, of course, why do we need to look to a higher truth. We can come to a consensus on how we feel about moral issues as individuals and as a population. So what he is saying (or at least what I think he is saying) is that "We" as a society see the process as hideous and ugly (as it is the result of countless deaths, I think the population would agree with him on this so I think the "We" is justified) but the end result is us and the rest of the living world - something I believe the population would (for the vast majority I think) see as beautiful. He is not asking the universe to make moral judgments, only the humans who live in it.leo_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

“The one belief I would give to a child is scepticism.” Ah…that’s what you call it when you attempt to destroy a young childs belief in Santa Claus. “I cannot conceive of a logical path that says because I am an atheist therefore it is rational for me to kill or murder or be cruel.” Of course he can. We are clumps of matter fighting to spread our selfish genes. That must be accomplished through any means or we fail as fortuitously organized clumps of matter. Like duh. “Everyone knows by common sense that “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is moral. You don’t need a holy book to tell you to do that.” Darwinism leads to “common sense” which leads to altruism? Interesting. I wish atheists would stop co-opting Christianity when it suits them. “We understand that we are here as a result of a truly hideous process. Natural Selection is an ugly process that has beautiful consequences.” Huh?? Who says they are hideous? By what does he compare them to? Is there a higher truth to which we can judge what is hideous and what is beautiful? I thought the universe was nothing but “blind, pitiless indifference”???shaner74_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Some of the commentators posting in that richarddawkins.net link can be so volatile and tactless... Hopefully I'll have time later to listen to the audio.Berceuse_{October 6, 2007
October
10
Oct
6
06
2007
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply