'Dawkins here to announce his conversion to Christianity'

Richard Dawkins threw himself into the fire tonight, when he went to the heartland of those he rails against, the Bible Belt, Birmingham Alabama.
He took on Christian apologist, John Lennox, author of "Has Science buried God?", in The God Delusion Debate.
The host introduced Dawkins thus, "Professor Dawkins hasn't come here to debate tonight, he has instead come to announce his conversion to Christianity"  -  cue rapturous applause.

Here are some of the exchanges between the two

On faith

Dawkins: If it were evidence based, why would you need to call it faith? You would just call it evidence.

Lennox: I presume you've got faith in your wife is there any evidence for that?

Dawkins: Yes plenty.

Lennox: There you go.

On Non-overlapping magistera
Dawkins: If there are miracles, they are to be judged by scientific claims. If there was a Virgin birth, and a ressurection, science has every bearing on these cases.

Lennox: Yes I agree with you. Christianity is falsifiable in that technical sense.

On the Big Bang and the Bible's proclamation that there was a beginning to the universe
Dawkins: There are two possiblities, either the universe was here for ever, or it had a beginning, getting it right [that there was a beginning] isn't that impressive, there were only two possibilities.

Lennox: At least it [the Bible] got the right one.

Dawkins: Toss a coin and you had 50 per cent chance of getting it right.

On 'who created the creator?'
Lennox: Your book assumes God was created, no wonder you call it the God Delusion, created Gods are by definition a delusion. I don't believe in the God you don't believe in. I need to know what you mean by God, none of us, Christians, Jews, Muslims, believe in created Gods.

The point is not whether God is created or not, it's about simplicity. We can't just postulate complexity we have to go back to simplicty...We need some kind of ultimate explanation for the complex object.
You can't evade the issue by saying God was always there you still need an explanation.

On Atheism and faith
Dawkins: This is supposed to be a debate and I feel intensely frustrated.
Teaching children that faith is virtuous. It is teaching them that you don't have to justify what you do. The convention that we have all bought into that religious faith is something to be respected, not to be questioned. In most cases that's quite harmless, but if you take your faith really literally, then it's the fact that you were educated as a child in a madrassah and which if you happen to be unstable or violent, leads to the sort of terrible acts in the name of religion.
I would not for a moment say that all religion is bad or dangerous, only a minority of religious people are bad or do bad things.

Lennox: I agree with you on many points, and am ashamed as a Christian for many of the historical acts like the Crusades undertaken in the name of Christianity. But your attempt to airbrush out the atheistic regimes in your book concerns me that a scientist who is very concerned with historical evidence is content with a superficial analysis of the Cold War.
I would like you to write another book in which you differentiate between religions.

Dawkins: I agree that Stalin, and Pol Pot did bad things, it may even be their Marxist, their Atheism that led them to do bad things.
Those 19 men who flew planes into targets in the US - they weren't psychopaths, they were well educated, rational people, who thought they were good, the same thing could be said of the Taliban. Once you grant people the premise of their  faith, then the terrible things that they do follow. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lennox Atheism is a faith as well

Dawkins: It's not

Lennox: Don't you believe it?

Comments

[Steven Carr]

Lennox uses Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot because he knows that atheists do not defend genocide.

Christians though claim that genocide is perfectly acceptable, because some people are 'termites'

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/10/termites-and-caananites.html

'While they accuse Christians of being the ones who are unable to see nuances in positions, a total disregard of the reasoning that the destruction of entire groupings of people may be morally acceptable when taking all factors into account shows a lack of careful thought that it is appalling.'

[Simon R. Gladdish]

Professor Antony Flew, the brilliant emeritus professor of philosophy at Reading university, announced his belief in God in his eighties after a lifetime of writing erudite atheist tomes. Perhaps Dawkins will do the same.

[Coel]

Interesting format for this debate. First the moderator reads an excerpt from The God Delusion. Then Dawkins is invited to expound on it. Then Lennox reads a prepared critique of that excerpt.

Now, at this point, surely the thing to do is to invite Dawkins to respond to Lennox, defending his work? But no, the moderator then moves on to a new excerpt, and the above repeats.

In other words, the format gives Lennox repeated opportunities to critique Dawkins, but gives Dawkins no opportunity to respond to Lennox! And even when Dawkins points out the one-sidedness of this, the moderator persists!

[Andrew Clarke]

The link doesn't work. It's a pity as I'd really like to see the whole thing.

Lennox comes out with a lot of rubbish in the parts quoted:

(i) The comment 'there you go' seemed rather daft, as Lennox had shown nothing at all at this point. Dawkins has evidential reasons to have faith in his wife, and there are no such evidential reasons for faith in an unseen deity.

(ii) Dawkins clearly doesn't argue that God must have been created, since he doesn't believe in God. What he provides is a reductio ad absudum. If the reason for believing in God is because a complex universe requires a creator, then Dawkins suggests that by those lights the complex creator also requires a creator. Since the latter isn't true, it is a simple step to suggest that the former is not true.

The insistence that Dawkins is promoting a 'created God' is simply missing the point.

(iii) As it is written above it appears that 'Atheism is a religion' was a non-sequitur in order to change the subject. That Stalin was motivated by his Soviet ideology rather than his atheism, while the suicide bombers and crusaders were motivated by their religion is not affected by whether or not atheism is a religion.

As has been said many times before: 'atheism' is not a religion just as 'bald' is not a hair colour.

[Joanna Sugden]

Thanks Andrew,
I'm sorry the link didn't work. The debate was broadcast live last night on the radio but now can only be purchased on CD
http://www.fixed-point.org/

Joanna

[Tony Francis]

How do we know the 19 highjackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon weren't psychopaths? Their very behavior tends to point to the fact that they had, in the least, severe personality disorders which were expressed in extremely pathologic behavior. Psychopathology is defined by behavior, not education nor seemingly normal actions, most of the time. Look at psychopathic serial killers: most people are shocked to learn of their actions, because they appear "normal" most of the time. I would submit that anyone who flies a plane load of people into a building, committing suicide in the process is a psychopath by defintion.

[Jason Christopher]

Re Atheism..is it a faith ?
This depends whether it makes an assertion beyond that which is proven by evidence. Some athiests, including Dawkins are diluted down to agnostics, retreating once pressed, to the position 'I don't know'. Either way it is more interesting to know what they then go and put their faith in. All of us, including Dawkins, makes daily decisions which are based in part on our values which are based on a belief. Since science can't tell us how to live our lives we are all bound to make a leap of faith when it comes to living. This sit-on-the fence atheism/agnosticism as a position is a ruse.. in this life of uncertainty we all end up living a life of faith amidst some uncertainty of what is true. Richard should accept this and defend the basis for his values/faith.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

The arguments used by atheists like Dawkins regarding the creation of the world are also common among rabbinic scholars and were also common among all three monotheistic religions in the Middle Ages.

Dawkins is ignorant of the history of theology and has a childish approach to this subject.

He is a literalist, whereas the majority of mature religious thinkers are not.

We were discussing this very subject over dinner with an eminent rabbi here in Israel last night.

[Ant]

Andrew Clark's comment above misses the point of the 'there you go' statement. If Dawkins asked why you would need to call something faith, rather than just speaking of evidence, Lennox asked if he had FAITH in his wife... i.e., is that a term he would own. By declaring that he did, and that he had evidence for it, Dawkins showed that it is logical and sensible to speak of evidence for faith in something. He undid his previous statement by admitting he had evidence for faith in his wife.

[alan]

Sometimes I think Dawkins is too soft. If Lennox had asked me about "faith" in my wife, I would have told him in no uncertain terms that he was using the usual semantic trickery. Religious faith in a supernatural god is one thing. Judging through experience that one's wife is trustworthy is quite another matter, and nothing to do with religious faith. -- The same applies to the stupid question, whether Dawkins "believes" atheism. Of course Dawkins thinks his atheistic position is correct, judging by past experience, observation and logical thinking. This means he does NOT believe in anything supernatural. So it is NOT a belief, in fact it is the very opposite. Just another example of semantic trickery, which the intelligent listener will not fall for. It merely exposes the typical deliberate attempt by the "believer" to deceive his audience. Dawkins should have said so.

[Donjoe]

"He undid his previous statement by admitting he had evidence for faith in his wife."
No, he most certainly did not. This is just an old theologians' trick known in logic as the Fallacy of Equivocation. The same word is used with two different meanings and the (implicit) claim is made that what is true of the first meaning is also true of the second.
Dawkins' first comment was on _this_ faith:
"2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"
while Lennox's sophistic retort used this _other_ meaning:
"1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions"
which Merriam-Webster (and probably many other well-written dictionaries) lists _separately_.

(Notice also how 2a and 2b are put under the same number: religious "faith" and unreasonable, unsustained "faith".)

Every apparent theological victory ever in philosophical debates was due to a logical fallacy (or a combination of more) which the other side did not have the opportunity or moment's inspiration to reveal and obliterate.

[Steven Carr]

'Dawkins is ignorant of the history of theology and has a childish approach to this subject.

He is a literalist, whereas the majority of mature religious thinkers are not.'

Why do religious people think insults and name-calling are the way to behave in public?

[Tony Francis]

When Dawkins asks: "Who created God?", he is engaging in a superficial and juvenile approach to theology. The Greeks dealt with this problem when discussing the question of "an infinity of actions". They concluded that there could be no infinity of actions or motions. It all had to go back to some "unmade, unmoving, mover, beyond human comprehension." This is repeated in Aquinas in both Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologia. No one made God. God is God, always the same, infinitely simple. Take it or leave it, that's the theology.

[Robin Bather]

Unfortunately Richard Dawkins' foray into the bible belt just confirms what we already knew--people who believe in a God just aren't open to reason or logic.

[Jim Buck]

Two goldilocksfish swimming around in a bowl.. One says to the other:

‘If there is no God, how come: 1) The temperature in here is just right; 2) Food arrives regularly; 3) The water gets cleaned?

The second goldilocksfish (who happens to be a Professor for the Goldilocksfish Understanding Of Science) replies:

‘ It is probable that we live in a multiverse that contains an astronomically large number of fish-bowls. Most of those bowls will be completely fishless. The fact that we are here able to discuss the matter means that we are fortunate to live in one of the tiny number of bowls capable of sustaining evolved life. In the words of the old song: We’re here because we’re here, because we’re here! ‘

[alan]

Jim Buck, I'm still puzzled as to what you are attempting to say with your fishbowl story. (The faithful usually prefer stories to arguments.) If you're trying to make the point that we are "fortunate" to live on a planet that sustains life, then I must explain to you that it has nothing to do with (good) fortune. If the earth were not the way it is, earthly life would not have evolved the way it has. Simple as that. ------ (And, Jim, don't forget that alongside the cosy pandas and furry squirrels, there are also smallpox and aids viruses, tapeworms, gadflies, tse-tse flies, malaria-bearing mosquitos and untold numbers of germs and other nasties that plague humans and animals. I wonder where they came from. Did god create them? Were they on board Noah's ark? Or have they just evolved - in what we call "evolution"?)

[Steven Carr]

The fine-tuning argument :-

If things were different, it would be a miracle if we were alive.

Therefore, there is a god, who arranged a universe where no miracles are needed for life.

God, of course, must fine-tune things so that earthquakes, tsunamis, disease do not kill everybody.

I wonder how he decided how powerful and deadly earthquakes could be before he 'fine-tuned' them to still allow life to occur on planet Earth.

[Ant]

To have faith in a person (be it God or your wife) is to have confidence and trust in them. There is not such a clear distinction in the definitions as donjoe likes to think. It is clearly possible to speak in terms of evidence as to why such faith is warranted. Language develops over time, and it is true that in common usage religious 'faith' is sometimes defined as being belief in something for which there is no evidence, but that does not mean that it is a correct theological definition. Websters, and other dictionaries, reflect the way language is used. They do not set the meanings in that sense. They reflect current usage. Websters is not a theological dictionary of bible concepts. Faith, in biblical terms, IS a confidence and trust in and allegience to a person (God). There is no sophistry here. So it is legitimate to speak of evidence for faith. Indeed, the bible writers frequently refer to past events as reasons for future faith, so that tells you something of their definitions. Now a person may or may not accept such evidence - that's where the debate should kick in - but let's not pretend that all Christian faith has nothing to do with evidence.

[alan]

Ant - fact is that the faithful often resort to the trick of saying to an atheist, for example,"If you believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning, you have faith too." I'm sure you can see that this is a piece of semantic acrobatics, intended to deceive. We do not have "faith", but merely a sensible expectation that the sun will rise, based on observation and experience. This has nothing to do with faith in the religious sense of belief in a supernatural being. --------
I entirely agree with your last sentence. Indeed, atheists do not accept the "evidence" of the bible or reported miracles, for example. Believers do. Just as you say.

[max bernstein]

if there is a god all powerfull he needs no relgious people to go to his assitance. im not against god . how can you be against something that does not excist

[David Pitan]

Richard Dawkins is an incredible guy. As a Christian I pray that the Lord Jesus will one open his eyes as He did the eyes of Saul who became the indomitable Apostle Paul. Christians are not called to engage in mud-slinging. Our mandate is to share our faith with love not dogmatism. We don't have all the answers either. God is not desperate for converts. It's an invitation to be freely accepted or refused.

I hope atheists will respect the fact that countless people all over the world have, having come to God through faith in Christ, experienced the power and touch of God in diverse ways.

[Robin Huson]

It is quite disheartening to see intelligent people seriously trying to rubbish Richard Dawkins by accusing him of being--as one commentator said--"ignorant of the history of theology" (I believe she said a rabbi had told her so).

The very idea that one should faithfully study theology in order to come to a view about the existence of god is risible. It would be the same as reading science fiction novels to learn about extraterrestrial life forms. It could only matter if scripture were true. But as anyone can see, it isn't--on the important points it is demonstrably false or can't be proven due to lack of evidence. What is being here suggested seems to be that scripture is evidence for the truth of scripture.That works just as well for Star Trek!

And even some of the core tenets of Christianity for which our god-loving forebears cheerfully burned people alive such as the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth or transubstantiation turn out to be at best mistranslations or made up much later to fill some deep felt need. Jesus' mum floating up to heaven?

Of course we can take up the invitation of the kindly rabbi or rural dean and think of it all as "allegorical". Okay. An allegory for what? I would suggest one:

Man created God in his own image and then proceeded to create a universe of stories based on the ignorance, superstition and pre-scientific speculation of that society. The horrors of the semitic mystery "religions of the book" reflect those ignorant and unpleasant societies.

Now, with the benefit of science and rationalism and reinforced with the gifts of humanism and the enlightenment, people are all agog trying to reconcile the two to live side by side.

It's time to grow up. There's no Father Christmas.

[Norman]

Dave Pitan- If Richard has his eyes opened like Saul who became Paul, will he change his name to Pilchard? :-)

"God is not desperate for converts. It's an invitation to be freely accepted or refused." So why the threat of eternal punishment? How can you call this "freely" accepted or refused? If someone gave me the choice of handing over my wallet or being shot, is that "free" in your reckoning?

[David Pitan]

Norman, I'll use another metaphor - I pray that Richard Dawkins has a "road to Damascus" experience like Apostle Paul did.

The unpopular part of the Gospel requires a person to first acknowledge sin in their lives, repent and then avail themselves of Christ's sacrifice of atonement on the Cross. A life of sin is comparative to a life of crime - the only difference being that some appear to get away with crime.

A convict, on their to prison or the gallows, would seriously consider an offer of a pardon or a deal of some sort. Turning away from sin and disobedience to God's commandments in order to gain peace on Earth and eternal life in Heaven is not a bad deal.

We are told it's all fairy tales and superstition. Please do not be offended by the fact that some people have chosen to believe the Gospel. Many faithful men and women have borne the testimony for centuries often at great cost to them. We believe their testimony and have come to know the Lord. He would like to make Himself known to more people but only by their invitation.

[Samuel]

Actually, Stalin, Hitler et al are bad examples of atheism. They may not have professed any particular religion, but they espoused beliefs that were beyond question. The nature of their beliefs were faith based,religious if you like. I therefore lump them with the faithful, not the faithless.