Godless Goodness? Sources of Beauty and Morality | John Lennox and Nicholas Christenfeld

Professor John Lennox and Nicholas Christenfeld discuss how sources of beauty of morality can exist with or without God. | UC San Diego, 2015 | Explore more at www.veritas.org.
Want Veritas updates in your inbox? Subscribe to our twice-monthly newsletter here:
www.veritas.org/newsletter-yt
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
FACEBOOK: / veritasforum
SUBSCRIBE: / subscription_. .
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!

[@lukefredricks4954]

I am amazed by the Humility and patience of Lennox.

[@RaymondIsiah]

I almost turned it off out of impatience smh lol

[@overcamehim]

Lennox is manifesting the Fruit of the Holy Spirit. Glory to God.

[@francisfreeman2283]

Honestly!! Luke

[@marcat4565]

John Lennox is always a gentleman. He is secure in his own skin. Christenfeld is staid in his very own small space.

[@raerae_]

Dr. Lennox is such a goodhearted peaceful man, I love him. His response here, 46:00

[@silajeep1]

sparklytimetraveler thanks for that😺

[@tyowongndeso]

Christenfeld didn't even care to listen or even hear and let John responded to his question, he talked and talk asked and asked without letting John answer it. he asked 5 issues at the time let john said one or two words and asked again another 5 questions. I guess he didn't really want a dialogue, he just wanted to rant. :D

[@mybebe2005]

I think they called people like that "lack wisdom." That's exactly what Christenfeld is.

[@nelsonsoto741]

Because he knows he loses the debate

[@andsalomoni]

After watching quite a bit of these debates, I'd say that these professional atheists just rant.

[@carolsmith9120]

A filibustering atheist, a giggling ineffectual moderator, a patient godly man

[@grubblewubbles]

Should you capitalize the G in godly?

[@andsalomoni]

@@grubblewubbles No, in "God" only... if these are the issues...

[@dperkins01]

what were you watching, John had no answers but what he felt.

[@manne8575]

@@dperkins01 Sure buddy

[@tonton1945.]

Dr. Lennox you are brilliant and humble. I just love you! Thank you for what you do🙏🏼

[@titoytvph]

I wanna give Dr. Lennox a big hug! 😊😊😊

[@emmanuelbrampah5893]

Professor Lennox is ever admirable. His words are striking, a man with the spine of steel. It's always refreshing listening to him

[@nichudson1481]

Nicholas Christenfield is another Dawkins who cannot see the wood for the trees. Prof Lennox intellect is in another class, this wasn't even a contest.

[@annchovey2089]

John Lennox - his wisdom is on a level way above the intelligence of Christenfeld.

[@willzer808]

***** bullshit

[@annchovey2089]

willzer808 You sound like a real charmer! Nice to meet you.

[@willzer808]

***** charmers are normally fake, if that is your thing, well, then that's your thing. It's not mine. And I'm in a bad mood lately, but I stand by my word. I guess I could have delivered it a bit more politely. But, again, politeness is full of falsity a lot of the time also. Being fake is bullshit.

[@annchovey2089]

willzer808 Thank you for the extra dose of more of your charm. Of course, if there is no God, you're right. Everything is B.S. Fortunately, there is a God so everything has an explanation; it just may not be the explanation we want to hear.

[@willzer808]

***** There might be a God, there might not be. As humans, it is moronic to presume to know. At best, we are capable of exploration, and that is best. You discover America by seeing it. WE have not crossed such a existential divide yet. Explore, do not presume, Ann.

[@tomgoetz513]

Nicholas Christenfeld throws 10 statements, John Lennox catches 2, and Nicholas Christenfeld interupts to throw 5 more. This is not a moderated debate. John Lennox is civil and considerate. Nicholas Christenfeld is rude and inconsiderate.

[@veronicaleduc1052]

+Tom Goetz >Nicholas Christenfeld throws 10 statements

[@dereklaing2929]

Yeah, Nicky seemed pretty much on his back heel through that debate, resorting to sly underhanded remarks and dismissal of Johns points in order to distract from his weak arguments. I would have answered differently than John for some questions, but it was obvious Nicky had no intention of making coherent rebuttals.

[@alexbirrell4568]

veronica l

[@jpix96]

@@veronicaleduc1052 You can really say that about the unwrapping of the lie... I couldn't even get myself to remember what his opening words where. Not because i wasn't intressted, i just couldn't find any actually based statments. I just can't get myself to remember something which has no basis.... That's my protection against lies!

[@rozarioglenpatrick1802]

Prof John Lennox is so brilliant n humble I hope he can live to his 90s so that he can share more knowledge and wisdom to many of us..and he s a very lovely man😇🙏

[@TimothyFish]

Nicholas Christenfeld seems to think that if you raise an argument and then interrupt the other person before they can offer the counter argument you win the debate. If you aren't willing to listen and follow the evidence, there's no reason for anyone to trust anything you have to say.

[@ContemporaryCompendium]

Timothy Fish the same with Lawrence Krauss. My goodness, that man infuriated me like no other when watching him debate/interrupt.

[@08453300222]

This is why we should pray for God to let them, Be still and know I am God. I pray for Atheists more than theists. Their chatter is internal as well as external so they become like an ostrich who buries its head in the sand and says," I see no evidence of God." Blessings and love to you Timothy Fish and what a wonderful surname you have, the symbol that Christians of persecution use to recognize each other. Bless you my brother in Christ.

[@bonnie43uk]

@@08453300222 Hey, I used to work with a Pete Kimble in Swindon, I dare say you are not him are you :-) Peter, I'm an atheist and I do agree with you to a degree, I'd much rather converse with a happy Christian than an angry Atheist. But I do disagree with you that the evidence for God is before us.. to use your exact sentence Peter.. "I see no evidence of God", if I may ask you, what is your best evidence for God?

[@bonnie43uk]

@Fredrik Larsson Hi Frederik, I wasn't sure if you were addressing me or the original comment. Clearly you are a highly intelligent man, you say you've never found a conflict between science and Christianity, for me, the whole premise of something like the ascension as one clear example ( to me at any rate), goes against the known laws of physics. Yes, of course, if Jesus was capable of supernatural acts, then it's not a problem to float upwards into the clouds never to be seen again. I have quite a keen interest in miracle claims, and I've yet to find one which didn't have a much more plausible explanation. Q:What is more likely in your opinion.. that this actually happened, or that we humans have a propensity to exaggerate?. I would say the latter, but you're free to think otherwise. Good to hear your thoughts From bonnie in sunny Swindon, to Fredrik in sunny Sweden :-)

[@tommarshall7247]

@@bonnie43uk Hi Bonnie, I use to live in Stroud and go swimming in Swindon, at the Oasis. (UK) 🙂 I remember first reading the new testament with the expectation of meeting a collection of hoaxes or exaggerations, or failures to understand natural phenomena, interrupted by teachings about how to be nice to each other. I was surprised. If you have experiences of myths or orchestrated propaganda, this is very different. The mood, the flavour, which is made up of style and detail, etc, is not the same. I was listening, yesterday, to something by CS Lewis, who was a language expert, who said they're not good enough as myths, for one thing. There are so many little things that convey their ordinariness and genuineness to me. One is the bungling and incompetence and failure to grasp what Jesus is on about, of the first disciples, and Jesus's own brothers, who formed an important part of the leadership of the early group of Christians and whose experiences were written in the same gospels. There are things that an orchestrator wouldn't put in, like the different characters and orders of events listed on different occasions, across the gospels; and the women being the first and key witnesses, and a eunuch being one of the first to be baptised in Acts, and things like the unformulaic nature of Jesus's healings- there's no pattern of how he goes about them- and in Acts, of the movement of the Holy Spirit. There are also the everyday, unnecessary details: John relating how he beat Peter in the race to the tomb, the ridiculous way Jesus has to ask them for something to eat to prove he isn't a ghost, and they find him some leftovers; the argument between the man born blind and the chief priests, the way Jesus outrageously sits next to the money box and comments on what people put in, the description of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery- the writing in the dust, the way he doesn't look at them, the way the eldest leaves first; the barbecue breakfast on the beach, and the fisherman writing or telling the story to a scribe not only commenting on the catch, but the 2 fish already cooking, and type of fire being used. I could go on, 🙂 and then you have the teaching itself, like in Luke chapter 6 and the character of Jesus, and then you have the book of Acts and the letters, again crammed with the everyday. In the letters, for example, you have a scribe interrupting what he's writing, to send his own message, you have Paul asking someone to bring his cloak that he left behind, and in another to get their guest room ready for him. They are full of the ordinary. If you were inventing the crucifixion, you'd have him saying a great, profound speech on the cross. Instead, it's short and bitty, as you'd expect from someone fighting for each breath, and heard from different distances. You get him forgiving them, a cry of horror, a cry of thirst, forgiveness and hope for a bad man on the cross next-door, with no opportunities to make up for what he's done, a request for John to look after his mum for him, a commending of his spirit to his Father, and another cry, (I always picture that early cry leading to him going through psalm 22, written hundreds of years before, in his head, and the last cry reflecting that line "for he has done it!" but that's just my imagining). But in those sayings on the cross, the ordinary rubs shoulders with the amazing. It happens throughout the new testament. CS Lewis is worth reading, as he really didn't want to become a Christian at all, but ended up concluding that it was true, so he had a real think anout miracles. And there's a short book by a vicar from Swanage called Ring of Truth. JB Phillips, who wrote it, did a very readable translation of the bible and the book is his thoughts after doing that. Sorry to waffle. Take care 🙂🙃🙂

[@raymondhummel5211]

What a fascinating debate, both gentlemen presenting what they believe is the truth about their topic of conversation. I have heard other debates in which Dr. Lennox has participated in. His love for God is quite apparent. He is such a strong believer and not afraid to stand up for what he believes in and gives good solid evidence why.

[@cyberjace4888]

I love John Lennox he is such a lovable spirit.

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

Christenfeld…from the start…snarky! I withheld judgment at first, but it only got worse right through to the end. He makes two serious mistakes. He mistakes snarky for clever and funny. And he mistakes laughs from the audience for proof that he excels in wisdom. Thus…he never transcends the trivial, dishing out 60 minutes of one-liners, the ultimate standup comic on Saturday Night Live. Unfortunately, and largely to Christenfeld’s comic bobbing and dodging, the discussion missed its opportunity to truly discuss the source of morality - leaving beauty to the side. It morphed into a “prove there really is a God, a Christian God” - and if you do - prove that he is not truly evil. It never really managed to treat that issue or any other subject with depth. Lennox attempted to set a better tone, in one case, by framing morality and evil against the background of the Holocaust. Alas…nothing came of it. The moderator was little help throughout. Too bad. Christenfeld got a free pass - claiming that pure biology and evolution will create moral people and that God is the source of evil for allowing immorality. Oddly, he kept bringing up “littlest people” - “proving” that atheists are more moral than God because they protect these “little people.” One word - abortion! In general, atheists are in great part supporters of abortion in all its grizzly forms. Euthanasia is on its way next. The Holocaust, abortion and euthanasia have been justified as pragmatic, ethical and moral by humans relying on their “intellect” while many Christians have been great defenders of life My favorite moment was Christenfeld’s hypothetical about two groups of prehistoric people, one group moral and the other which slaughters people. Did he really have to go back that far? What has his biological evolution accomplished? The modern man has evolved to be more efficient in slaughtering, and the Nazis are his “perfect” petri dish of atheists which he never took time to explain. What a mess of a “discussion”!

[@jeromeduque1304]

I love Dr. Lennox, I'm a bit disappointed that he didn't point out to Dr. Christenfeld that time ceases to be pertinent after death.

[@highfunq2863]

@1:21:30 Lennox calling Christenfeld's deceit out - powerful

[@davidcallaghan3659]

Nicholas is very one dimensional in his thinking. After all, in his world view we are just a genetic mutation. He either doesn't listen or does not understand. Lennox is far more intelligent...

[@yunghussla]

David Callaghan one dimensional or consistent? But then again, Lennox is pretty consistent with his belief that there's a super-dad in the sky..

[@isaiasperez2018]

+David Callaghan Agree, this is not to say atheists are not intelligent, nor is it to say Dr Christenfeld is not intelligent, I am sure he is. But as for Lennox, he as a completely different level. At least Christenfeld did not resort to popular slogans and offences of atheistic laymen, like Krauss tends to do, catchprases like "super-dad in the sky", which are just silly.

[@Ojack33]

Super dad? These ridiculous superficial caricatures of what a cosmic consciousness might be are highly juvenile and add nothing of meaning to a real intellectual discussion. They are intensely immature mockery, like a precocious spoiled 10 year old might act on a playground. Totally worthless.

[@GeoCoppens]

Lennox is a brainwashed fool!

[@PaulfrmTXtoCO]

GeoCoppens is a brainwashed fool. Such arbitrary comments have no value as they are baseless and thus easily reversible.

[@integdrd]

Christenfeld prof at U of Cal was fired from his tenured professorship and stripped of emeritus status after a year-long investigation found he had violated Title IX by emailing a female student pornography in 2018. He had previously been the subject of five separate complaints, including substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct on university property and undisclosed romantic relationships with undergraduate students. However, the university determined none of the prior complaints warranted significant disciplinary action.[3] Hopefully, he now understands the relationship with God is forgiveness, responsibility, and change.

[@mruvia]

Christenfeld is like a generator of random words

[@deniseedmondson6236]

Okay doesn't deserve to be on the stage with John Lennox! John you are patient, long-suffering and kind

[@regi1948]

I appreciate very much your genuine concern for the comity of the Christendom. You are a real witness of your Christian experiences. ✝️ The lay souls cannot visualize your noble sense craving for a belated justice , John L ... Never mind the laughter even of the unfaithful . Uncontexual laughter is unfaithfulness . They know not what they are doubtful about. Christianity is basically a Movement and then a belief , a faith , a Religion next , a religiousity ultimate and so on. But the real experience rests in the knowledge of the Ultimate Reality of Jesus the second person of the Trinity discovered ❤ a God Incarnate 🙌 and all besides the Omnipotence , Omniscience and Omnipresence. Yes , here lies the sense 😂 . How much could the theories of the Atheism disprove the love divine of the Truth. This is my humble view . I am only a little 🐦 🦜 🦚 🪶 🦢 bird after all in the Ocean/ mysteries of Unbelief , Misbelief and Disbelief. God bless you 🙏 all.

[@oldmanjudo6241]

Lennox swept the leg! He made his opponent look like a child asking a man questions. I thank God for men like John Lennox.

[@overcamehim]

Compared to God I am a toddler and the older I get the less I know either because there is so much I don't know or bcause I have forgotten things I once knew. Either way, I am painfully aware of my lack. Shalom.

[@valentindodica]

Or maybe both are true we do know little and with time even that little are inclined to forget...apart from being reminded again and again by God Him Self Who He is an what He has done...He is an Amasing GOD!!!! Shalom! !!Shalom !!

[@josh_d_w____]

Lennox was kind to this irrational man.

[@stosounian]

Dr. Christenfeld wrongly believes by interrupting someone and speaking so offensively and mocking the belief of the person he speaks to shows him to be somehow more intelligent.

[@go2mark1313]

"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition." Sir Isaac Newton

[@arktheball]

go2mark To what end was he refering?

[@go2mark1313]

read the bible and find out for yourself

[@willzer808]

arktheball his backside, of course

[@jamesfenning47]

John Lennox A Great Man For The Lord Jesus Christ’s Long May Reign

[@highfunq2863]

Chistenfeld offers an incredibly childish caricature of faith second to none

[@niklewis952]

Christenfeld, straw man, straight up. He either knowingly or ignorantly misrepresents the biblical definition of God to serve his arguments. Why does this conversation literally appear to be a small child speaking with an adult?

[@joewright9879]

The grinding, unsubtle hatred and contempt of the atheist is well represented in this debate. The guy on the left is in over his head.

[@dorrenes.missdthetruthtell5342]

YOU dear Sir are a Daily 🙌 BLESSING. The word SHALOM becomes more "productive" actually more REALISTIC and PRECIOUS during these challenging days......GRACE IN ACTION!

[@andrewryzebol6118]

Nicely put by John Lennox

[@bretloomis8881]

something from nothing takes much more faith than god does.

[@cherylsmith233]

Actually, the atheist faith is the more immature. And more importantly, a faith guaranteed to be let down, as it relies on self and other humans who are not worthy of having faith in.

[@sunnymoney7204]

Christenfeld behaved like a child during this conversation. Rude, arrogant, and would not stay silent long enough for his own questions to be answered.

[@3438-e9z]

It’s very sad that Christenfeld came off as being rude and dishonest. Not surprising, coming from an atheist. That perhaps is a little unfair since there are atheist who have more class in debates like dr. Shermer. I’m very impressed with Dr. Lennox with his well reasoned statements and his patience above all. I have yet to see Dr. Lennox come up short in any debate. I recommend that everyone check out his debate against militant atheist Richard Dawkins. Lennox simply destroys Dawkins.

[@nichudson1481]

Dawkins thinks he is so smart and intellectually superior, but he more than meets his match in his debates with Prof Lennox. Frankly Dawkins line of reasoning is made to look silly by the razor sharp mind of the Prof.

[@HomicideHenry]

Reminds me of Lawrence Krauss and how he debates: always cutting people off, snide remarks, downplaying people's intelligence, and on the whole (more or less) saying, "It does but doesn't, it's a does-doesn't, and we don't know but I can tell you that whatever the answer is it surely cannot be God," which amounts to a pigeon strutting around a chess board, shitting on the pieces, and saying he's won the game when the truth is that he never played the game at all. Christenfeld, I think also, is a bit dishonest ("have you ever been tempted to believe in God?") when I've seen numerous atheists from Dawkins to Atkins, etc say that they have been at some point in their life.

[@616Haggard]

I visualized your pigeon analogy as I read it. I had a good chuckle.

[@pseudosaidrawr2021]

Nicholas Christenfeld has very valid points in his arguments and his questions, by my goodness his manners and the underlying tone of his intentions are atrocious.

[@arktheball]

PseudoSaidRawr I really didnt see that as the case with respect to the quality of his arguments and questions. I will watch this again, to see if I observed correctly, but I feel you can sum up his arguments thusly: "I assert that only predictive power is valid. Everything I believe, I will assert as having predictive power. I will, conversely, assert that everything you say is not a theory nor possesses predictive power. I will therefore insenuate that I have one the argument on the mere fact that you have provided nothing. Oh and I will provide no supporting argumentation or evidence to validate my assertions while pretending as if my questions are defeaters to your arguments"

[@pascualmunoz55]

Maybe his intentions were to do exactly what he did but he only proved the fact that he was rude and unable to hold his own.

[@MPaulHolmesMPH]

Instead of objective/subjective, you could say that right/wrong doesn't have to matter to a person if they don't want it to matter in a naturalistic worldview, but it will matter to everyone in a Christian worldview. And "human flourishing" is a terrifying test for right and wrong. Let's say that a more flourishing world is with only 20,000,000 people rather than 8 billion (I could argue that pretty easily). Now, how do you get to that number, and does it have to matter in a naturalistic worldview?

[@Xenosaurian]

"Morals evolve!" Insanity.

[@K1370]

This atheist won't shut up. Let Lennox talk. Exactly... so Hitler got away when he R.I.P??? Lol. Um you didn't answer the question. Empathy has nothing to do with the golden rule. I'm pretty sure if we slapped that gorilla, the gorilla will get mad on the sole basis of us slapping him for no reason etc. and eat us alive :) .... yeah, the root of all atheists' unbelief is sin. Why did you have to bring up toddlers being tortured... smh

[@K1370]

***** Yeah, you're right! The punishment is not forever but the actual hell is eternal until the second coming when all pain will be done with I suppose. God bless! :)

[@K1370]

***** Hi there! I am in college right now and cannot answer your long post atm. I will get back to you when I can but your argument has been answered by a well-known Christian apologist, Greg Koukl. Please take the time to read his long post if you are interested. Take care. I've attached the link below: www.str.org/articles/evolution-can-t-explain-morality#.Ve-g3J1Viko

[@K1370]

***** They are moral because of God. God is truth and the absolute good in all creation. John 14:1-7. Sorry didn't read further than the first paragraph, lol. As for your other questions please research the Christian side. Apologetics press is a good resource as well as gotquestions.org. But in short, Hebrews 8:13, OT based on a theocracy, only applied to Israel and its people etc. Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis are helpful tools as well in regards to your other paragraph. In Christianity, last I've heard, one does not do anything to please God. He cannot be pleased by your own works. It is by his grace that you are "saved." He did all there was to be done for your salvation. Here are some more resources: Absolute/universal/objective morality. Please read *Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis*; Lewis gives a very good account of basic Christianity. desiringGod.org questions.veritas.org/science-faith/ gotquestions.org Living waters ministry Reasonablefaith.org Reasons.org John Piper, Francis Chan, Matt Chandler, Ray Comfort, Emeal Zwayne, Nabeel Qureshi, Ravi Zacharias, Hugh Ross, John Lennox, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig…. And most importantly, the Bible with Biblical hermeneutics & exegesis. *Romans **1:20**, Psalms 19:1-4, Romans **1:19**;**2:14**-15, 2 Cor **5:17**.* Evolution does not explain the origins of morality. It denies it.

[@K1370]

***** Who said I was going to change you? I don't need to read your *common* comments because I've spent 7 years debating atheists/ agnostics on KZbin and this site certainly is not the place to change people, lol. It is merely a means to plant a seed. It is God's doing and grace to let that seed grow. Anyways, I only read your first sentence in your long anti-Christianity ramble. Good luck with finding the meaning in life above superficiality.

[@K1370]

***** Lol. No. And I only read your first 28 lines of rant. I don't plan on reading your 181 lines of rant anytime soon. I don't exactly have time for someone unwilling to search these answers with the resources I've already provided. Go search John Lennox again for GOODNESS sake.

[@charliesloan6059]

Why is Dr. Lennox debating Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor?

[@remalim9471]

I love listening to John. Nicholas is a joke.

[@go2mark1313]

Einstein proved that as gravity increases time slows down. (general relativity) this shows that when the universe was first starting its expansion the gravitational pull would have been much greater hence causing time to be much slower and can be used to explain why what we see looks like billions of years. because after the expansion arrived where it is today the time has increased to its present speed. so when we look at the edge of the universe we are looking at the expansion from a time dimension that is far different than it was when it was first started. this is also why when we look at the edge of the universe we see galaxies that are mature just like the ones closer to us.

[@thomassmida4679]

Nick my friend you were intellectually beat to death and the simple fact you couldn’t understand the meaning of his argument several times is almost sad

[@BigJohnLee]

I have to think John Lennox’s children love him very much.

[@PaulfrmTXtoCO]

Lots of intellectual dishonest from Nicholas Christenfeld.

[@askbrettmanning]

Display of rationality, for the two world views here is extremely telling. You have one person with a joy and a confidence being able to understand that there is some thing such as truth. Will you hear another person who's smug, dry, and continuously using words like utility. If that's the world, he lives in, I feel sorry for him. But even for a greater, how sad to miss out on the free gift of salvation and face, death with the uncertainty of disbelief.

[@rosemcguinn5301]

I really do not care what John Lennox's roots are about, for he seems to hate very little, if at all. His choice is to remain kind and calm and to handle things through a peaceful outlook. He believes in nonviolence, so I don't imagine that he has ever been responsible for physical harm being done to anybody of any other faith. I could refute a portion of Nicholas' argument within the first 5 minutes of this video. I found many of his assertions simply nonsensical. Here's just one example of my own reasoning: The REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr was a Christian minister whose NON - VIOLENT Movement was led by him, for the sake of the rights of a certain group. A number of other Christians of various ethnic groups helped him along the way. My own Christian beliefs support human rights. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule. The basic rule of all of the Ten Commandments, and the bedrock foundation of the faith I choose to follow. It supports human rights more fully than all else. So to say that religious groups don't care to help others to have their personal rights protected is a false judgment based upon either bigoted thinking or ignorance of certain facts. They "won't lead moral changes," he says, also claiming that most faiths are being run by "old men." A grandly false statement. Especially as there are now many female ministers in the USA and Canada, not to mention the UK. And there are female bishops, too. Here is a very long web address for a Google search for "woman archbishop": www.google.com/search?q=woman+archbishop&espv=2&biw=1158&bih=662&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM883ugbjNAhVPxCYKHUJMC_sQsAQIOQ Lots and lots of photos there. Another example might be how the activism movement of Abolitionism in the 1800's was helped and spurred along, funded and supported, and also often led by religious people. The Society of Friends (a.k.a. the Quakers) and numerous other church societies rose to fight against slavery by every peaceful means possible, including becoming a part of the "Underground railroad." Such religious groups helped heroic Harriet Tubman to bring many people to freedom and safety. www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/activists/harriet-tubman.html So Tubman herself had faith in God. This 2011 article lists 10 more famous leaders and activists. www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/top-ten-black-religious-f_b_828847.html And that's only two times in the history of the world that I have time to offer here this evening.

[@CosmicFaust]

I am a former Christian, but Christenfield got wrecked by Lennox so hard. The crap which comes out of his mouth is unbelievable.

[@calebcrawford2520]

Christenfield uses big words to sound smart, but at the end of the day, he doesn’t say much of anything.

[@daveboyd8113]

I am reminded of the verse in Psalms 14:6 'the fool has said in his heart- there is no God". Bear in mind that this was written by King David some 2800 yrs ago- still quite relevant today.

[@lealeandre1063]

So true. Their reason for not believing in God never makes sense, and it keeps changing.

[@pauljojo1318]

Funny. I could write a book quite easily which makes a lot of fantastic claims and says in the end: "Fools won't believe this story." Would that convince you of my religion? Nope. Not a difficult prediction to make that not everybody will believe in a certain concept, is it?

[@Mrguy-ds9lr]

@@pauljojo1318 if that were the only prophecy, perhaps you would have a piont. But I await to read this book of yours with baited breath. One that will prove to be historically correct, the power to change hearts and influence whole nations. One that will still be on the shelves of the average man, a topic of conversation, and still used and revered to this day.

[@pauljojo1318]

@@Mrguy-ds9lr Many Religions Had great Impact on nations. That doesnt make their Claims right. Nietzsche ist considered a "Prophet of the 20st century" too. Im Sure he isnt send by god.

[@timwrightfamily740]

His body language of tightly crossed legs, hand over mouth, shoulders facing the audience instead of John, speaks volumes.

[@sourisooo2434]

An alternative to absence of belief is chaos, meaning that overvall the state of humanity is unpredictable. If any rules can describe the state of humanity no rule define what is good or wrong, so ethics doesnt exist. Ethics and beliefs are bounded together in this attenpt to describe the humanity state in the much fair manner possible. Beauty is sublimation of the nature, seeking to express essence of nature. Does nature required rule to exist? Humanity belong to nature, to its rules, somehow the bound between humanity and nature give a hope that ethics can be owned by any individuals.

[@femibabalola4057]

Christenfeld holds on for dear life to a world view that says The world was made by nothing from nothing for nothing. Strange for one who's very name includes the name of Christ. I do not know how Prof Lennox managed to keep his cool debating this windbag.

[@mybebe2005]

Nicholas is good looking guy, however, I wouldn't want to marry someone like him because his mind is so closed and he talks and talks without listening to how others feel. His opinion and his alone counts. He's the only intelligent one.

[@cmeGordy]

The rude the angry the arrogant and those that mock shall not do well disproving something or proving. Why because very few people care to see someone harm another whether it be physical or mental or verbal it does not matter. Also people do not tend to like arrogance or the thoughts that other people are better than the rest of them.

[@Gratefullybroken]

Keen points

[@veka82]

But God explanation makes a prediction. That there is objective morality for the discussion to begin with.

[@regi1948]

Listening ... yes , so goes your thoughts provoking dialogues on some of our concerns on common issues ... quite interesting anyway ... I think our exploration on Atheism is carrying us too far in the search for the vedantic/ philosophy of the state of godlessness and ungodliness. Atheism suggests a complex of sheer arguments and not the science of a perfect experience and or a noble encounter with the Omnipotent Divinity of God Almighty 🤔 It is well a Kharmic Curse 🤬 on their selves. Providence deals with the frivolous. As we know that every religiousity and or the Religions boasts of their spiritual jealousies between/amongst themselves/ each other. This is true 👍 of the infinite ♾ number of denominational believers throughout our histories . But at the same time noticeably we find the believers or the so called believers relinquishing their parental Faiths to one or the other of their alien Faiths. And in fact ' they ' leave their original/traditional Belief to the other Beliefs without the intervention or the approval of their jealous divinties. There is no disapproval from any side either. So , What does this phenomenon suggest to those of the Devotees and or the Believers who are neither the Atheists ⚛ nor the Theists but the ones who come under the category of the Real Believers 🤔 neutral by instinct ! So the jealousies and envies corrects the Celestial insufficiencies ! But the inference that the divinity of God is One proves itself 😂 . Amen 👏 🙏

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

Nicholas Christenfeld has to be one of the least sophisticated thinkers in these debates, he's not as abysmally bad as Peter Atkins, another psychologist, though he is better than the total idiots like Richard Carrier and John Shook.

[@nichudson1481]

Dawkin's in the same league in my humble opinion!

[@jjcm3135]

Atkins is a very highly regarded. Chemist. A brilliant and formidable man. But a poor anti-theist.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

@@jjcm3135 You're right, I mixed him up with another person. He was still pretty bad when debating anything that violated his materialst-atheist-scientistic ideology. Scientists should be required to take rigorous courses in philosophical reasoning because some of them really stink at it.

[@sherrieflynn252]

Jesus addressed the conflict in the Law One example,is when the religious leaders condemned Him for healing on the Sabbath He called them hypocrites,as not one would have nor rescued his donkey if it fell in a pit( on the Sabbath)

[@tyowongndeso]

lie because if i didn't someone's gonna die, of course. but lie about someone's haircut? i would say no. i would tell the truth about my opinion. I believe it won't hurt anyone feeling at the end when you say it honestly, sincerely and not in a way to mock them.

[@whosays2153]

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." We longed for he fulfilment of God's promise: resurrection and knowing and living with God. Now, human mind is carnal and anathema to God; it cannot know God. But we have the mind of Christ, and he is God. This is why the "elect" believes and has "Faith" in God. For this Jesus declared "blessed are those who have not seen; yet they believe", because this is the sign and "evidence" that the Holy Spirit of God is with them.

[@piushalg8175]

Christenfeld has either no clue of the pesumptions which are implied in his worldview or he is simply not honest. Either of it makes him an worthless debater.

[@mariagraciaez7925]

It's very obvious that Nicholas wanted to debate with the intent to win it. He's not open to truly digesting what Sir Lennox is saying. It's like your debating with a college or high school student. Lol 🤣 Thank God for Sir Lennox professionalism.

[@joels310]

I've never heard of the Christianfeld who is an atheist ironically. His opening remarks made me believe that he was told that God holds homosexuality as an abomination so he is rejecting God. His arguments are for the most part reliant on data and other philosophical ideas from the mid 90's... He needs to brush up on the discoveries made in the last 20 years that negated many of his presuppositions...

[@whosays2153]

"He'll" is "eternal" death, which there is no hope of resurrection. So, if the atheist' s position is right both the theists and atheist would have no accounting for this no afterlife. But what if the theist' s position is tied after all?

[@soniadeferris2221]

Do Atheos believe in God when their plane is going to crush????

[@mick1gallagher]

When is John going to discuss where he got all his millions from why was God so good to John and ignore millions of children around the world starving

[@tommarshall7247]

Michael, you make the same kind of comment on every vid. You sound angry and indignant. I'm curious to know what are you implying? Do you know how much or little good he does with his money? People make the same comments about footballers, but many of them give a lot away to charity, and if someone is willing to pay them for what they do, I don't see that they should get the blame. Is the implication that you feel he has made money nefariously, or that a Christian shouldn't make money? Surely the issue is how you make it, what you do with it, and your general attitude to it, not whether you make it or how much.

[@floramayrebota5472]

GOD BLESS THESE PEOPLE LIKE JOHN LENNOX

[@alastairmackenzie9010]

Jesus didn’t care that slavery existed! When did he ever condemn slavery?

[@varklyantoine5665]

NC talking mess 🤣🤣🤣

[@jpix96]

Please brothers and sisters read 1 Corinthians 13 (can't share scripture, my comment got deleted twice) en stay in Christ until and past the end! Jesus warned us to not let our love grow cold because we are worthless without it. We need to understand that it's our biggest debt to love those that are lost and warn them for the wrath that is to come... Do not be snarky because a unbeliever is snarky. We should love them and respect them because they are made in the same image as us. God could destroy them, just like he could have done with us when we hadn't repented. Every second of there life he could destroy them but he doesn't, why? Well it's explained in 2 Peter 3: 9. He loves all and wants all to come to repentends!!! I ask you in the name of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ to love others like you have been loved by God, Amen!

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

God being longsuffering not wishing any to perish but all come to repentance. Methuselah, the man who lived and died while accumulating more years of life on warth than any other man, DIED and that was the same year the flood came in the 7th month on the 17th day. His name can be broken up into 3 Hebrew words translated to "At his death brings it". Scholars say his name means "man of the dart" or "man of the javelin". But if you can get the first phrase feom the letters and do the math feom the dates in the text and realize the year the oldest man died is the year God sent the flood and still reject the prophetic translation, than you are a stubborn fool who needs help. After all,Seth means, 'appointed'. "FOR GOD HAS 'APPOINTED' ME A SON TO REPLACE ABEL...." Or these same scholars know the story in the books attributed falsely to Enoch say that in the time of Jared the angels came feom heaven to rebel. And Jared means, 'SHALL COME DOWN'. Would these scholars suggest that Yared doesnt mean 'sha come down'.? I doubt it.

[@SteamBunneh]

stuff like what lennox was saying blows my mind about morality.. and god being moral.. us created in his image to being moral.. didnt god literally murder tons of people in the bible? and personally im not ok with anyone murdering anyone so does that mean im more moral than god? seems like it should be the other way around? odd

[@dtscurvy7601]

One

[@jneves20]

Going by how he behaved in this debate, Nicholas Christenfeld is the very definition of conceited, arrogant, rude and inconsiderate. After his annoying display of pompous behaviour and digs to the other speaker...all I desired was for someone to SHUT HIM THE HELL UP!!! I could care less what his message was! Couldn’t get past his negative demeanor... On the other hand, John Lennox appeared to be jolly, humble, educated (in the complete sense of the word) and well-mannered. He carried himself well in spite of the incessant interruptions and never being permitted to finish his sentences but instead being bombarded with new ones. Ugh.. What a difference a positive attitude makes!

[@matthewstokes1608]

I listen to countless hypothetical attempts by the great physicists of our time trying to posit a theory for the existence of everything without a creator - and they use words like “it seems” all the time… How on earth could they not?(!) So this Frankenstein fellow’s last point in his opening volley is not at all valid… Sorry, old bean.

[@alastairmackenzie9010]

Lennox states that God allows all the suffering in the world …but not to worry you will get justice in the afterlife. Man up!

[@landofthefree2023]

What's the point...? Carrying on about rainbows and snowflakes 😂 did he clarify whether he was a rainbow or a snowflake? He could create one using Photoshop that's so much more beautiful... How daft. Nature doesn't need him to create that though because create is what has already been established. It's beautiful that man would postulate how wonderful his own creation could be while stealing from Creation in order to make it that way. Speaking of crystals and snowflakes apparently he hasn't an understanding of fractals. Fractals make up snowflakes, fractals are in nature and magnificent ways

[@lcuddy12]

"My theory is that [morality comes down to] scaffolded, very advanced traits that were necessary for our survival." This is much more reasonable than Lennox's explanation which is that we "are created by God," a prediction of his worldview being that "one can be utterly transformed by Jesus." Just replace "Jesus" with "Zoroaster" and you've got the same prediction. Sigh, this is the sort of reasoning that precedes philosophy 101. Lennox is a fancy rhetorician indeed, not the least of which because he is a jolly, likeable person. But to be fair, Christenfeld at the end ignores the question of sexual selection, he hasn't kept up on his literature. For instance, check out Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind (google it), which draws a convincing link between sexual selection and morality.

[@TimothyFish]

+lcuddy12 I remember a story my mother told me when I was a child. A woman had twelve children, including a particularly unruly one. One day, this child fell into a pit of tar. The woman pulled him out and looked at the mess he was in. She threw him back in, saying, "It's easier to have another one than to clean you up." On the surface, it sounds reasonable that natural selection would causes us to have traits that would advance our tendency for survival and we would interpret that as morality. But when you look more closely at what we consider to be moral, survival and morality are not the same thing. Regardless of why you think we believe this, morality is driven by the view that individuals have value. In the abortion debate, for example, those who are for legalized abortion argue that the fetus has less value than the mother, while those against abortion argue that the fetus has value. In slavery, those who are for slavery argue that the slaves are of less value than those who own them, but those who are against slavery argue that all people have value. When people steal, they argue that those they steal from have more than they deserve. Sure, they may steal for their own survival, but they don't ask whether the person they are stealing from will survive, because they don't see them as valuable. When you realize that morality is based on human worth, Lennox's explanation that "we are created in the image of God" makes much more sense. If we are created in the image of God, then we have inherent worth. If we are just the end result of a random process, there's really no reason for us to be of value.

[@lcuddy12]

+Timothy Fish "Morality is driven by the view that individuals have value." Yes and no. You have to distinguish the average person's morality from theories of morality from sophisticated philosophers. Some moral theories, such as utilitarianism, place value on all beings and even nature, not just on individuals. However, even if we accept your premise that the basis of morality is the value of individuals, where does that drive to assign value come from? Evolution. In the same way, your reasoning here is likely motivated by the confirmation bias, another unfortunate byproduct of evolution. There are many precursors to our general moral sense (from the perspective of an average person's morality) in the animal kingdom: to take just one example of many, primates have a sense of fairness and compassion. There is much research on this topic. But even if we accept your premise that morality is based on human worth, this does not lead to Lennox's conclusion that Jesus is the son of God, and that Christianity is the true religion. Even if we accept the premise, it's not clear which monotheistic God is the true one. Allah? Yahweh? Ahura Mazda? Finally, you seem to suggest that either something is valuable in a cosmic perspective, or it has no value at all (a false dilemma), when you say this: "If we are just the end result of a random process, there's really no reason for us to be of value." Not at all. Being the result of a natural process like evolution is, frankly, brimming with value. I can still fall in love, experience great pain and joy, develop my natural capacities, etc. These are all activities of great value, despite having been made possible by an evolutionary process.

[@TimothyFish]

lcuddy12 If by evolution you mean a mindless, unguided process by which simple single celled organisms evolved into multi-celled organisms, etc. etc., you have a problem.Single celled organisms do not have a mind, or consciousness, or morality and there is nothing that can explain how consciousness emerged. Even within the human brain, the various neurons can be simulated by Turing machine, as can any computing device, but there is nothing to cause us to think that if we put a bunch of printheads on a magnetic tape that they will have consciousness. So, while it is conceivable that evolution might create a machine that acts in a moral way, it is not possible for evolution to create a machine that desires to act in a moral way or that is hurt by someone acting immorally. It would be incorrect to jump from the concept of morality being built into us to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God. There is evidence to support that Jesus is the Son of God, but the law of God written on our hearts is not that evidence. I've already argued against it being possible, but let's assume that evolution can produce a mind. Yes, you would value other people. But what right would you have to tell other people that they are wrong for not valuing those people as well. Suppose you fall in love with someone and you are making plans for the future. One day, someone comes along and sticks a gun up to the head of this person that you love. Obviously, this persons doesn't value your loved one as much as you do. If this is the end result of a mindless process, aren't they just as right in their determination of the value of your loved one as you are? Who are you to claim that they shouldn't turn your loved one into fertilizer? Perhaps, they value fertilizer more than they value you.

[@lcuddy12]

+Timothy Fish The problem of consciousness is a difficult problem, and pointing out that we don't yet fully understand how consciousness emerges is not an argument against morality having an evolutionary origin. But I wouldn't say nothing can explain how consciousness emerged, and there are interesting theories out there. We just don't know yet. What right would we have to tell other people that they are wrong? You are assuming that without a monotheistic God morality is relative, which is not a necessary consequence of there not being such a God. I can tell people they are wrong, for example, because their actions violate universal respect and dignity for all beings. Is the force of my claim dependent on the existence of a higher being who gave us objective morality? Absolutely not. I already pointed to utilitarianism, and there are many other moral theories that attempt to ground morality objectively (deontology, rights ethics, which you appeal to in your answer, etc.). There are other examples: for thousands of years Chinese folks were morally motivated by the non-theistic philosophy of Confucius. Grounding morality objectively in one of these theories is no less difficult, and perhaps easier, than grounding it in God via natural law theory (which is what I'm guessing you are coming from) or divine command theory.

[@TimothyFish]

lcuddy12 You place too much blind faith in evolution. How can you claim their is universal respect and dignity when the Universe has no respect and dignity. These are things that can only come from a mind. If all minds are equal, then what my mind determines is respect and dignity is no less important than what your mind determines is respect and dignity. Only when our understanding of respect and dignity is derivative from what God's mind understands respect and dignity does it make sense.

[@thewillsfamilyaccount6486]

Nicholas and the babbling lady had no chance with John Lennox!!

[@walterdaems57]

If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence

[@tommarshall7247]

Walter, so maybe there is no need. 🤔

[@walterdaems57]

@@tommarshall7247 indeed and so there is even less of a reason to live our lives as if there was some celestial deity

[@g4osia42ASH]

Christenfeld is a snarky rude man who knows he has lost ...and lost to a polite genius

[@nichudson1481]

Couldn't agree more!

[@adelalucassian505]

nicholas christenfeld is lacking the ingredients of a symb ol of social philosophy; should go back to school. his category have no question in the first place, they are expert in wasting others time.

[@jmack1087ful]

Christenfeld is a brilliant man obviously, but I wish his patience was equal to that of Lennox. We may all have come away having learned much more.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Lennox uses lots of words only to say nothing useful at all.

[@elfootman]

Religious comments can be one of three: > Praising Lennox > Criticizing Christenfeld > Asserting Lennox "clearly" won

[@nichudson1481]

Are you sure you were watching the same debate? Even the most simple person can see clearly that Christenfeld was pulverised by Prof Lennox

[@johndoez4354]

Christenfeld lacks tact but he makes some very valid points, especially as to how group psychology can explain altruism. He does interrupt too often but Lennox will dominate a debate if you let him, mainly through recycling an small canon of anecdotes aimed at enticing an emotional response from the audience.

[@jjccarpentry]

Spot on assessment from my view.

[@K1370]

BOTH reasonings on child care is correct. From an evolutionary standpoint we NEED to take care of our children. From God's FAMILY perspective we OUGHT to take care of them because it would be considered CRUEL and WRONG. Both morality and evolution have a say.

[@Triumvirate888]

JustmeKasie But why do we NEED to take care of our children if life is purposeless and it was just an evolutionary accident? See, what I think you missed was the issue of "Why should we care about staying alive if life has no purpose?" Why should we care if our species dies off if it's just the end product of mindless unguided process? Why OUGHT we care about life, children, or our evolutionary impulses in the first place?

[@K1370]

Triumvirate888 I agree with your point but I think atheists would say "for the survival of our species."

[@Triumvirate888]

JustmeKasie Right, but that is circular reasoning and makes no sense. If survival has no real purpose, why should we bother with the survival of our species? Survival for survival's sake is utter nonsense.

[@yunghussla]

Triumvirate888 Why "ought" humans fear the dark? Why "ought" humans naturally desire sweets or other calorically dense foods? You're asking the wrong question about a predisposition that simply IS, as a result of natural selection and behavioral scaffolding. The modern human species has evolved to where we are today because, as Christenfeld stated, we've scaffolded off the very basic principle of "be nice to your little relatives." If you don't understand that, then you'll never overcome the god delusion.

[@Triumvirate888]

designated_hitter Nobody is making the claim that it is moral to fear the dark. Nobody is saying we "ought" to fear the dark, or desire sweets. Those are not moral statements. Saying that we OUGHT to take care of our children is not a statement of fact, it is a moral imperative. See, I understand perfectly what you are saying. I really do. But what you are saying is false. If we are naturally attracted to sweets, why do we bother eating vegetables or bitter leafy plants? What I am telling you is that it's not possible to get an "ought" from an "is". Saying that the modern human species has evolved to where it is today because we've branched off of things doesn't explain why we SHOULD or OUGHT to choose this path. It just means that we HAVE chosen this path. You are like the proverbial dog being wagged by the tail. You are looking at the tail and thinking that it controls the dog, rather than the other way around. The other problem, of course, is that if what you say is true, then your brain is nothing but a blob resulting from a mindless, unguided process, and it shouldn't be trusted. So nothing you say, including your ideas about science and evolution, are at all worthy of being believed.

[@jayrob5270]

Nicholas is hitting it out of the park here, never letting John get away with any of his nonsense lol.

[@bonnie43uk]

In his closing argument, Dr Lennox went on a big preamble about snakes and the garden of Eden, now if you studied Zoology at University, you can find out a massive amount of knowledge about snakes, .. that they date back millions of years, the sheer tonnage of information we have about every snake in the world is huge. Or you can read about the snake in the Garden of Eden, .. the fictional talking snake, surely it's far better to know about real snakes at the end of the day.

[@LawrenceCaldwellAuthor]

...

[@bonnie43uk]

@@LawrenceCaldwellAuthor I'm not quite sure what to make of your ... comment. :-)

[@altal2993]

Lennox is a tricky one, he talks like Deepak and is king of God of the Gaps.

[@dmi3kno]

I would love this debate repeated and hear Nicholas' take on ethics after the scandal he got himself into en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christenfeld

[@reality4330]

How utterly embarrassing for christenfeld Nonsensical rhetoric. He literally holds his breath and stamps his feet because evil exists. This fool would lose a debate with a high schooler because of all the holes in his premises. Self contradicting himself also seems to be a way of life with him. So sad

[@hgostos]

Sadly, Dr Christenfeld seems to me rude and slightly dishonest in his discourse.

[@remalim9471]

Nicholas is in the shallow end. John is in the deep end.

[@GamzaLive]

That moderator was completely useless.

[@integdrd]

Moderator is certainly a rookie. But did the best she could without expirence.

[@tommarshall7247]

I liked the way she was having fun and couldn't stop herself laughing, but ideally, you have 2.

[@funstuff81girl]

The naturalist argument only knows to tear down other explanations, they never pivot to show how their theory is more complete, logical or beautiful. They never build it up, as good apologists do with Christianity.

[@deniseedmondson6236]

John has shown that it is possible to have a friendly and vigorous conversation with opposing reality beliefs and the other gentleman did a bit but he was rude on many levels! Pray for him