Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate

The God Delusion Debate pits world-renowned atheist and scientist Professor Richard Dawkins against his Oxford University colleague Professor John Lennox, who is both a scientist and a Christian theologian. In this, his first visit to the so-called Bible Belt, Dawkins debates his views as expressed in "The God Delusion" and their validity over and against the Christian faith. The event garnered national and international attention from The Times of London, NPR, BBC, Christian Post, and Fox News Network. Spectator Magazine called the debate remarkable, and still others have called it historic.
The God Delusion Debate was filmed on October 3, 2007 before a sold-out crowd at the University of Alabama-Birmingham's Alys Stephens Center and broadcast to a global audience of over one million.
Free study guide at fixed-point.org/

[@ExhaustingGlow465]

A British atheist, an Alabama judge, and an Irish Christian walk into an auditorium…

[@think_again82]

How did you know?

[@NikoMiller-hz7jp]

@@think_again82I don’t think you get the joke

[@seeratihazir]

That’s the joke 😂

[@Sana_a04]

Regardless of whether it was a Christian or Atheist world, we would be far more advanced if people could have more civilized discussions like these two.

[@tomgreene1843]

A great thought indeeed.

[@MyDevice-yl5pn]

.

[@dcmastermindfirst9418]

Lol most human advancements have come along because of religion. Atheist countries like North Korea and Russia are decades behind.

[@erniescullion8452]

It takes more than one I often find non Christian feels challenged and gets aggressive no matter what way its put a cross.

[@scottymeffz5025]

@@erniescullion8452 I often find sentences that don't mean anything.

[@blackswan7568]

Ah, yes. Back when two opponents could have a civil, reasonable debate without emotional outbursts and useless name-calling.

[@stevenrobinson8263]

UNLIKE Democratic Party Debates where they lie and accuse Republicans of being Racists, right?

[@tb8987]

LOL... Good point... I'm from the Post Covid Era, debate is no longer allowed LOL.

[@ZebecZT]

“james tour vs dave farina” ad homms after ad homms

[@JimmyTony-uu2xs]

Dawkins is a lying fraud either way. So there's that.

[@ZebecZT]

@@El_Bruno7510 lol interesting how you figured out which party the name calling was from without me saying anything. there’s no need for that in a debate, lets just be civil.

[@Redheadedlady55]

~Simply love Dr. John Lennox...yes, he knows how to hold a debate with utmost care & knowledge. Cannot get enough videos of the heart felt words of Dr. John.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

Yes, Lennox does all his thinking in his heart. Pity that - he should try using his brain - it's much better for thinking.

[@MrEmanthedrummer]

@@L.Ron_Dowyou may say that but I’d be surprised if either one of us would hold up in a debate with Dr. Lennox. Don’t forget that we all have biases and judgements, conscious and definitely unconscious, that guide all our decisions. Anyone claiming otherwise is deceiving themselves. I personally have noticed that bias is deeper than we think.

[@joelcarter2535]

​@@El_Bruno7510has Richard not been indoctrinated by the anti God education system? 🤨

[@globalcoupledances]

Lennox invoked Godwin, so he lost

[@krayzilla6213]

@@El_Bruno7510 lol ok random youtuber

[@RobertH1971]

Why can't presidential debates be this civilized?

[@stephenreinholt546]

Bro! I was thinking the same thing lmao

[@cassied9327]

There are no intellectuals in politics. ;)

[@HITGFRY]

Most candidates just aren't up to this intellectual level...with some exceptions.

[@pcstar123]

If they were intellectuals they would never be elected!

[@jarrod752]

Because politicians and reality tv stars don't know how to debate.

[@peteconrad2077]

This debate could have been better run by sending the moderator to the pub for its duration.

[@mariusionut3479]

:))) true

[@flawed911]

Seriously....WTF

[@muhammadkhalid85]

😂🤣🤣🤣

[@seandeker]

exactly. who the hell put this guy here.

[@ENFPerspectives]

🤓

[@SpacePonder]

Recorded in 2007, looks like 1999, lol. Crazy how tech changed so quickly.

[@dhruvChessLover11]

My birth year man😂

[@Joeythe1st]

Watching this reminded me how much we are starved in the U.S. for long form civil debates and discussions like this. conversations where both speakers leave you wanting to learn more about their point of view. This was absolutely wonderful but also made me sad that we can’t disagree like this very often.

[@2fast2block]

@@El_Bruno7510 sure, how does Matt even get past creation happening naturally. He says we don't know as he ignores what we know. He's just some clueless being. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

[@2fast2block]

@@El_Bruno7510 how you got around the laws of science I gave... "clueless, from someone who believes in a magic Sky Daddy" Wow, what 'science.'

[@stevenrobinson8263]

So, you don't much care for Biden calling Trump supporters "MAGA White Supremacists" with a Blood Red backdrop at Philadelphia's Independence Hall; right?

[@stevenrobinson8263]

@@El_Bruno7510 A flipping idiot who can't explain where ALL live originated, who insults those with whom he disagrees... I'm not surprised to hear from someone Psalm 14:1 describes perfectly: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'."

[@andyvhot]

Well said, I couldn't agree more. Its quite a state a person has to reach to be starved of true stimulation. Hopefully the art of productive discourse finds its way back into the world :)

[@HM-vj5ll]

the only delusion is to think the moderator helped this debate....

[@TheSpock23]

Crappy, crappy, crappy debate structure. Let the two men have a free form debate. I understand the organizers wanted a structure, but this one was lousy.

[@hulmey676]

I know man; it was like 'Oh So SoRrY yOu RaN oUt Of TiMe.'

[@michellebiland5163]

I didn't like the way moderator handled this debate. 😣😣

[@MacCadalso]

As a Christian, I wanted to hear more of what Richard Dawkinson had to say. I do love John Lennox’s points though!

[@alexanderx33]

Yeah, if you want to see really good moderating, watch the first video of Sam Harris vs. Jordan Peterson. Incredibly good moderating, dude understood everything and presented issues with both sides points. Very flexible with time too. In the second one they did a steel-manning exercise. Just fantastic.

[@MrThewillows]

These discussions should be displayed in schools. Respect from both sides and no evil condemnation. I'm sure society would benefit enormously.

[@richarddeerflame]

indeed well said

[@sumansaha2151]

In india it should be showed to the news channels which coduct poisonous debates

[@richarddeerflame]

@@sumansaha2151 so sad , we all need positive and Friendships in this difficult time on earth... we need this love .

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Unfortunately the very nature of Abrahamic Religions is to frame anyone with dissenting opinions as “Evil”. Christians claim that morality is universal and is known by all believers and of unbelievers can come only deception. This is childish thinking. And is toxic sociologically.

[@MrThewillows]

​@@isidoreaerys8745 You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it even though I disagree. I don't wish to antagonise but I dislike it because of the nature in the way you have presented it. They sound like possibly based on bad experiences or sources. I could easily provide you with an opposing view and evidence of it but what good will that do. The point here is being able to talk about it from both sides and not offend. Please don't be annoyed as I'm certainly not trying to be overly virtuous and claim any high moral ground. all the best

[@manuelallensucaldito8580]

I really wished they had set a more conversational type of debate for Professor Richard Dawkins to respond too well. I am becoming frankly impressed by the rebuttals they made; it is turning the entire debate into a higher dimensions of wisdom. John Lennox really did a very good defense of the Christianity here!

[@Azoria4]

@@El_Bruno7510how are they shallow? Richard’s points were literally basic, school boy arguments Lennox dissolved

[@audreywilson3948]

I disagree. He reduced it to one premise, the resurrection, which was, as is in the scriptures, happening a lot at the time of the alleged resurrection. So rendering moot the miracle of the resurrection.

[@manuelallensucaldito8580]

@@audreywilson3948 I think it is because of the question, at the same time, the foundations of Christian faith is resurrection. The debate is flawed. It is cornering both the debater to just give conclusion. It is injustice then still.

[@davidstaffell]

The irony on this comment is hilarious

[@ESVScriptureSongs]

@@audreywilson3948 until you consider the thousands of reliable accounts given by strangers, enemies, and friends. if you want to debate we can.

[@josepholugbami794]

Watching in 2023. The level of interllect, decorum, civility displayed by both is quite exemplary. God bless Prof John Lennox for such erudicity.

[@jeremiclement5723]

Lennox is my new favorite. His towering intellect is jawdropping.

[@jeremiclement5723]

@@El_Bruno7510 That's probably because he is genuine. I don't think he's "deluded" however. Dawkins, to me, seems much more "deluded" by his hatred of God, so much so that he puts all his faith on Charles Darwin, whom, unlike Dawkins, was a real scientist who probably would have put his theory into question had he known anything about genes. Which he did'nt.

[@jeremiclement5723]

@@El_Bruno7510 Oh no. Not a smiley face. Whatever will I do. I'm sorry you can't understand Lennox's argument. Faith without evidence is blind faith. And Lennox's faith is anything but. Dawkins however, definetly has blind faith in Darwinism. Yes I know the theory of evolution has been built on. And it was built on in a rush, unscientifically because they wanted to take the axe to Genesis 1:1 as fast as they could. Because like Dawkins, they were not scientists. And their only motivation was to hate God. They did not care about evidence or truth. Which is why still today, they ignore how genes work because if they did, they would show that actually, natural selection cannot produce evolution. Because there is entropy you see? There is loss of information with each generation. Not gain. Never a gain. You can't generate information without a mind. It's mathematically impossible. Not "very unlikely". IMPOSSIBLE. 0 percent chance. Tell me one evidence for Evolution. One... The only evidence you have for evolution is the image of a fish turning into a lizard turning to a chimp turning into a walking human you see on textbooks. That's all. A drawing. We've NEVER, ever seen an evolution. Except in Pokemon. 😅 Come on tell me one evidence, "mate". I'll wait.

[@richardt3583]

Remember, keep it civil! 😅 God bless

[@eckavolo]

@@richardt3583people say God Bless so often. Yet it doesn’t seem like “God” blesses anyone at all. Look at the world, look at the suffering that is sometimes nationwide. I call it deluded to say this man has ever blessed anyone.

[@TRH982]

Every debate video comment section ever: The guy supporting my side was very logical and won the debate, the other guy made bad points and clearly lost.

[@nadim2911]

Christianity is the side you choose. Atheism is what you are if you don't choose. So, if there's anyone wrong here, it's Christians.

[@themercifulguard3971]

@@nadim2911 You do choose as an atheist, and it's the position that represents the rejection of all deities/higher power in any shape or form. Atheism is not the same in definition as Disbelief. Rejecting what is false is part of common sense, but don't make it seem like one has attained common sense properly solely if he's an atheist in this matter.

[@nadim2911]

@@themercifulguard3971 No, you don't. You're not born as a believer, you're born as a non-believer, you don't have a sense of Religion, and then depending on where you were born, your parents decided to brainwash you into thinking this myth is real, just because they're to scared to face the fact that it's over when you're dead, no afterlife, no second chance. Then you start believing that crap and pass it on to your children.

[@thomash226]

Nadim Very true, If one day every person decided to not tell their kids about Christianity, it would simply cease to exist.

[@hereticlife2546]

It’s not about them, it’s about the people on the fence.

[@edwardarnautovic6948]

Ex-muslim here and a follower of Jesus Christ now!

[@beingaware8542]

Wow. changing clothes doesn't matter. You exchanged ridiculous for ridiculous.

[@mariobaratti2985]

well done sir

[@anuwilson7637]

​@@beingaware8542realising and choosing right clothe is great thing Than walking naked and announcing my eye is closed..so no problem

[@ESVScriptureSongs]

@@anuwilson7637 🤣😆love it!

[@teejah7785]

keep your beliefs to yourself instead of trying to badmouth others regardn their beliefs. if u dont like it then move on.@@beingaware8542

[@dandjmcfetridge3687]

It's Spring '23 in Australia. Thanks for putting this debate together for us all.

[@sjurhaugen8175]

07:28 Dawkins Intro 13:10 Lennox Intro 19:40 Dawkins elaborates on qoute 25:25 Lennox response 30:55 Dawkins elaborates 38:32 Lennox response 44:33 Dawkins elaborates 51:03 Lennox response 57:00 Dawkins elaborates 01:04:40 Lennox response 01:11:15 Dawkins 01:15:27 Lennox 01:17:20 Dawkins elaborates 01:22:55 Lennox response 01:28:30 Dawkins elaborates

[@VibotoAchumi63]

Thank you

[@kevinangel7289]

Thank you. God bless you in Jesus name Amen. Darwin was a masonic freemason think about it.

[@deanpd3402]

@@kevinangel7289 he is. I've seen a couple of pictures of him throwing out gang signs, usually to do with the all seeing eye. All these people, Sagan included are doped up on ancient Egyptian symbology as are the Masons.

[@richardsiima3004]

Thank you

[@user-uw8dy5lz7p]

@@kevinangel7289 lol, why are the same people who believe in creationism also believe in nonsense conspiracy theories without any evidence? Evolution is a fact and facts don't care about your feelings.

[@ferrisbeuler8657]

I really like Dr. Lennox. He doesn't have to attack the person to make a point. Such s good speaker. Calm and composed.

[@ferrisbeuler8657]

@@El_Bruno7510 on the contrary. His arguments are on point and well considered. But I do wonder where atheists/ materialists/Darwinists stand on the point Dr Lennox makes early in in this video, on worldview vs proof vs evidence? I found this pivotal. I also got the impression that it didn't land with Dawkins. Do you recognize the importance of this? Do you agree that your worldview shapes how your interpret the evidence?

[@normahopkin3393]

@@ferrisbeuler8657 👍💥💥💥

[@DavidDArcy1975]

but he did attack Dawkins, on more than one occassion, and dressed those attacks in humour. that's the very reason why Dawkins is so intent on trying to debate rather than discuss

[@chrisocony]

Many vicious attacks and distortions of Dawkins. Just a smarmy lawyer type.

[@terrorists-are-among-us]

Dawkins is bent now that people don't believe females actually exist. Well done science 🤡

[@thecrew777]

Very good and professional debate. Wish I saw these more often. I miss them.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

It wasn't a debate - it was a deconstruction of Dawkins's book. The moderator chose a topic from the book, Dawkins expanded upon it & Lennox critiqued it - very little time was given for Dawkins to then address Lennox's points.

[@user-vo1fu7tm1r]

​@@L.Ron_DowOga it's a debate. If it was Lennox's book, you would not make this comment

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@user-vo1fu7tm1r A debate has a 'motion' and the opponents make their cases for and against that motion. What was the motion for this event? I gave the format of this exchange - do you disagree that that is what transpired? If so, what was the format you saw?

[@alaron5698]

@@user-vo1fu7tm1r As @L-Ron_Dow pointed out, this is not how a debate is ordinarily carried out. Usually, there's a back-and-forth with the moderator there to make sure that the debate stays on topic and that neither party takes up too much time. Here, there is one side stating beliefs, and the other side critiquing, with no chance for the critiques to be answered. This is not fair. Don't get me wrong, it's not the worst, but still, as Dawkins indicated himself, a natural back-and-forth would be much preferable.

[@JeffLearman]

The structure of the debate was biased by the "point / counterpoint" format. Dawkins alleviated that somewhat by rebutting during the next question, and for one point there was considerable back and forth. It would have been much better to have Dawkins and Lennox each have two rounds for each question. That still would have given Lennox an advantage, speaking last on every point, but Dawkins had the last word at the end. Regardless, everyone behaved civilly. Both made some good points and some questionable ones. I doubt many minds were changed, though.

[@kakarotwolf]

I really hate how they dont let them actually debate.

[@Roescoe]

It was poorly set up. They tried to cover too much of the book.

[@IdeasHaveConsequences]

It was the best we could do in the time we had. I had to end the debate abruptly because the radio broadcast people were on a hard-out.

[@kakarotwolf]

@@IdeasHaveConsequences ah, I see. I understand. Thank you.

[@gazesalso645]

​@@IdeasHaveConsequencestime limits for a debate are not new, and to be fair, the format was hardly a debate. Immediately after starting, Dawkins expressed that he thought it was a debate and he was frustrated. The setup was merely to have Dawkins defend his book. It's a real shame because despite this the debaters did their best.

[@eddiemckenzie5306]

Lennox is extremely creative. What an example of debating your opponent with kindness.

[@elizabethblackwell6242]

He also indulges in flimflammery and constantly attributes fallacious arguments and statements to Dawkins with no foundation.

[@Wilantonjakov]

@@elizabethblackwell6242 like for example....?

[@ford6768]

@@elizabethblackwell6242 like for example....?

[@gethypegaming2272]

Stable Life *crickets*

[@tryhardf844]

@@elizabethblackwell6242 Same for Dawkins in that regard you cant hold a candle to the delusional hipothetical arguments of Dawkins about aliens and premises that would require more than just an atheist perspective.

[@mann8557]

It’s refreshing to see two very intelligent men discuss their ideas in a civilized manner.

[@benardo01]

This isn't a discussion or a debate, it's 2 men making 5 minute statements. They should be able to have a dialogue and counter each other's points

[@ck_banana_noob7145]

Fofodksjdnn go watch the other one

[@joshuamichael5612]

Very Well Said

[@gabrielpadilla5441]

Jason Mckenzie link?

[@boy-de1jw]

@@benardo01 the very much counter each other's points throughout

[@joosthorskamp1736]

Where are debates like this nowadays? I'm drinking in these words. Refreshing to hear solid arguments spoken so clearly.

[@natlovell122]

Not allowed anymore

[@treycherry1367]

im thankful for learning in highschool that whoever hurls character insults in a debate typically does so because they are losing the debate. it helps me remain civil when discussing things, but it also helps me understand these debates and where the speakers stand.

[@JeffLearman]

Bertrand Russell made the point that when we find ourselves getting hot under the collar, it's often because our reasons aren't purely rational: "If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do." I have to remind myself of that now and then.

[@michaelrosen6814]

Gotta love how John Lennox went over to Richard's with extended arms and beaming face. Whatever the difference of opinion were you could tell he had nothing but respect and good regards for his opponents as a person.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

_"nothing but respect"_ and as soon as Lennox is giving a talk where Dawkins is not present he will misrepresent Dawkins position and riidcule him. That says more about Lennox's character than a false show of friendship.

[@ivanacfp5776]

@@L.Ron_Dow many recent scientific findings in physics, biology, (evolution didn't deliver it's proofs, these findings, bi fail!) do not support Dawking's 'scientism'. Perhaps grab some other book to get a different perspective of the world around us, marvel at the amazing perfect fine tuning in cosmology, biology, conducive of all lives here on earth ... Stephen Meyer, the return of the God Hypothesis, or Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. It has taken 200 hundred years of Darwin legacy to eradicate God in people's heart and mind. Humanity's now ready to accept the AI nanotechnology

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@ivanacfp5776 Your diatribe has nothing to do with my reply to Michael and it has been ghost-banned. Meyer is a Iiar and hack - he's out of his area of expertize. Evolution is a factual process that can be observed - Marbled Crayfish. Magic does not exist anywhere other than in your mind. I once was a Christian - then I woke up to the fact that it is unsupported by reality or evidence - it lures you in with a promise to escape death and loss of loved-ones.

[@Obake4777]

@@L.Ron_Dow And that was pure speculation from an individual who hates Christians therefore passes judgment right away not even knowing the true character of the man that he just ostracized. Hilarious, the lack of self awareness and blatant projection. Yeah point out the trash in someone else's backyard and overlook the landfill that has accumulated in your own. You're not very happy person are you? Oh you'll tell me yeah I'm happy, but you are on anti depressant medication along with other drugs.

[@jrcenina85]

@@L.Ron_Dow where can we hear some of this? Or, what are some examples?

[@osamabad3597]

British people are so polite when they debate. When their time is up, they immediately stop, even when given the permission to continue. If they were Americans, they'd be screaming over each other.

[@patersongalupe5099]

you never heard of Cristopher Hitchens? he was a British turned American, and he takes a few more seconds off just to slap a few more pounds of cement onto his points.

[@bluesifer8238]

RUSSIAN ROBOT It's more likely that he was so close to proving god isn't real that the Vatican infected him with a small but fatal dose of christianity (Cancer)

[@bluesifer8238]

RUSSIAN ROBOT If you can't tell that was evidently satirical sarcasm I'm gonna say your part of the problem pal

[@declandoyle4151]

+RUSSIAN ROBOT. Wow, you must be trying to outdo the Cretin theists when it comes to putting irrelevant, inane drivel in the form of meaningless comments. Please bathe some glass shard suppositories in acid & proceed to experiment on yourself with them. What was it about Hitchens? Did his consistent dispelling of your fantastical super Pappy induce too many existential crisis situations for you? When the bugs and critters have finished eating your sad little carcass they'll shit you out to perculate down into the deep dark earth. Nice, Huh?

[@shepherd8203]

They are professional debaters

[@Michael-uf4ri]

Two great minds one will be spending eternity cursing God,and one will spend eternity praising him .

[@lizbethy3214]

One is proud, haughty, arrogant, angry; Lennox is humble, considerate, kind, personable, sensitive, empathetic, joyful, and absolutely brilliant. I love John Lennox, God bless him.

[@joannquaid6037]

You hit the nail on the head. 😮

[@christinafidance340]

Both will spend eternity as dust…..

[@lizbethy3214]

@christinafidance340 John Lennox, when God call him home, will have fullness of joy, indescribable peace, and the deep, glorious fulfillment that is unimaginable and unending. DANIEL 12:3 says, " Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever". He'll, where those who reject God go has flames that are never quenched, weeping, gnashing of teeth, darkness and misery that never ends; your choice.

[@landonevans818]

@@christinafidance340let’s play this out and say you’re right there is no God. It won’t matter at the end because we will all be dead and dust. Now let’s say Christians are right then we will be in heaven and you will spend eternity in hell. Take a chance and believe in something bigger then yourself

[@h4rder10]

Dr. John Lennox is very very very good. Respect to Dr. Richard Dawkins for being impressive as well. This debate was an enriching experience for a guy like me. Many thanks for organising the event and sharing this on KZbin.

[@Gruuvin1]

They want to debate, and the moderator says, "no, no, no!"

[@thefuturist8864]

“Yes I’ve been black but when I come back you know, know, know!”

[@gbowers]

This wasn’t even a debate. This whole thing should’ve just been a preface to their debate. After this, they should’ve just had a conversation and argument with each other.

[@razorback7158]

Ain’t no debate ! The Lord is my King

[@L.Ron_Dow]

Heya Raz - I agree Lord Brahma is the King! Do you know what 'gaslighting' means?

[@stephenbrennwald4927]

I believe wholeheartedly in Zeus, my god and redeemer! No debate at all! See how silly that is??@@L.Ron_Dow

[@sanalouis2620]

Amen 🙏

[@ianng88]

This is really nice. Just discussion and really helping everyone of both sides be more aware of their own processes conclusions to what is or may be true.

[@emadmary4271]

Why exactly do I continue to look in the comment sections of debates

[@Mike65809]

They're better than the debates.

[@chrisdeep8417]

Maybe like me you come here looking for humour but then leave having not found it but instead other unpleasant things (present thread excluded of course).

[@A-Duck]

Much like the search for intelligent life on alien worlds, doing the same in comment sections is a hopeful quest taken in spite of the total lack of evidence...

[@Mike65809]

@@A-Duck Yes so many only repeating the scientist's current belief system. You would think they would appreciate a challenge. Nope. Unless repeatable experiments can show a pattern, they are pushing a belief system.

[@Ap31920]

They are more entertaining, albeit less enriching

[@BigCrispy55]

SHUT UP AND LET THE MEN TALK TO EACH OTHER! We'll learn more! Good debate and thoroughly fun to listen to.

[@Razvann220]

Good mgtow snnipet ;)

[@batman2311]

LOL!

[@tribeofjudah8091]

Exactly

[@catchercat_yt3503]

Yes it was a nice debate

[@gabriellegrechorr8301]

“Whoever denies me before men, i will deny him before my father”

[@djkostya76]

Wow. Richard is talking about "easy" and "simple". But why it's next to impossible to find a point among millions of the words he said?

[@djkostya76]

It doesn't matter what i am. But it matters do people follow logic. Usually when someone has no clue he starts to say lots of words without meaning as Richard does. @@El_Bruno7510

[@djkostya76]

Well, it's hard to understand what Dawkins says because it's doesn't make any sense. To cover the uselessness of his presentation he talks chaos and thrown in lots of emotions and expressions but no sense. And you should know it is obvious that when someone wants to pretend he is saying a smart things he will use many-many-many words and lots of long speeches as Richard does every tyme he wants to convince others that he is right. @@El_Bruno7510

[@stephenbrennwald4927]

It's unfortunate that you weren't able to understand him. Perhaps his comments, to paraphrase a bible text, could only be logically discerned.

[@TheChadPad]

@@stephenbrennwald4927perhaps they could’ve been better presented. The clarity of communication is the job of the presenter. It’s no condemnation of the audience if one’s points are hard to elucidate

[@eggplantparmesan4996]

It's nice to see people able to civilly disagree with each other on such a deep topic, though I wish it were more of a flowing back-and-forth true debate. Unfortunately this is an ability that we don't see much anymore in our "modern" world.

[@carltonreese4854]

I can certainly understand Dawkins' frustration with the format of the debate. Read an excerpt from Dawkins' book, have Dawkins elaborate, then have Lennox tear it apart, then move on to the next excerpt. Thank goodness Dawkins forced some dialogue into the equation so that an actual debate could take place.

[@Thomas-cd6im]

It was a debate on the book lol

[@MyDevice-yl5pn]

.

[@RizkMartan]

@@Thomas-cd6im it's not a debate if you don't get to reply...

[@greendayy7]

The format is absolutely ridiculous for a debate, how could they not forsee that it is flawed?

[@Mr.MarkGuerrero]

On February 2, 2003 I encountered God. Having all the same questions as everyone else, on that day near midnight I got on my knees and prayed if there was a God who could hear me then and there who really did send His Son into the world to save it then I needed Him. I mean..sex, drugs, education, money, a nice apartment, friends, a race car…none of it mattered. These gave no absolute meaning to life. Until that night when He showed up. He ended this debate for me. When I hear there is not even one shred of evidence I say, for you but not me (and countless others by the way). God is wonderful; He is awesome. God bless

[@audreywilson3948]

Really? You encountered god!! Was he sitting in your living room or at the end of your bed? Maybe you had taken too many of the drugs of which you speak. Either way, it's a wholly unconvincing testimony.

[@joannquaid6037]

If you, Audrey, experienced God, you would know. How can anyone believe that the sophistication of human beings, the universe. How can anyone believe that it was created from nothing.

[@audreywilson3948]

@@joannquaid6037 I absolutely believe that there is no loving god. The universe happened by chance and we are the product of evolution.

[@scottthebahamiannaturalist]

Really loved this debate... and especially loved the final statement by Dr. Lennox who brought the Gospel of Jesus to the audience.

[@elilerch772]

⁠@@El_Bruno7510A true Christian does not pick and choose what is “literal” vs what is “figurative”. First of all, the Bible is not a scientific text, in that it does not try to make descriptions of the physical world. It is an ancient text with stories that illuminate truth about the nature of man and of God, so that the reader can know true Wisdom, not mere facts about the physical world. Professor Lennox has in the past used the example of Jesus Christ saying that he is “the door”. Now, it would be silly to think that Jesus is saying he is literally a door made of wood which one uses to enter a room. But he is a door in the sense that in entering through Him, one has access to God. So him saying he is “the door” is true, and I would argue MORE true than a physical description of something.

[@elilerch772]

@@El_Bruno7510 I am not oblivious to the fact that many fundamentalist Christians have trouble with how the Bible is to be read. I have had this same trouble in the past, and it turned me away from Christianity for a time. Unfortunately, many Christians are not aware of the symbolic nature of the language used in ancient texts like the Bible. However, just because language is symbolic, or even metaphorical for that matter, does not mean it's not true. It's just not making a scientific claim about the physical world. The Bible is not concerned with such questions. Furthermore, the Bible is not just one book, it is a collection of books, a library. And just like in a library, there are different literary genres. For example, books like Genesis and Revelation read like mythological books with deep symbolism. Books like the Psalms are pure poetry and song. I agree with you that it's a problem that many Christians, especially Protestant Christians, do not understand these things about the Bible. But the Church Fathers did. And no, my example of Jesus's parable that he is "the door" in no way takes away from the idea that the Bible is the Word of God.

[@josephdubon7104]

​@@elilerch772I have a question, and what about all the different editions, translations the bible has? There is a problem with each sect or each ramification of christianity, each one has a different version of the bible, and they preach sometimes even different things that they claim to be true, there is no consistency. I'm agnostic, and if I ever get enough rational evidence into believe in a god, I will not relate him with any religion invented, I will just believe in the god himself. I am an ignorant and I hope someday I decide between the evidence shown by atheism and theism, or maybe I will die as an agnostic, but the thing is that I don't want to claim that something is true just because of faith.

[@elilerch772]

@@josephdubon7104 I’ve had similar thoughts and questions. As far as the multiple editions and translations issue, here’s the way I think about it; regardless of what edition of the Bible you have, you will still have the same overarching story, the Gospel. When it comes to specific passages, it’s up to us to consult the original Hebrew and Greek and make our own rational and sensical judgements. And I hear you about your agnosticism, I felt I was in a similar boat not too long ago. For me, what continuously brings me back to the Christian faith is the figure of Christ. Objectively, I think there’s good evidence for His existence historically, and most modern historians worth their salt think there is no doubt He existed. More subjectively, I feel His power when I read the words of Christ. If you want the truth, your heart won’t be turned by mere facts and rationalizations. If you go into your room and get on your knees, and pray earnestly for the Truth, you will find it. Good luck brother. ✝️

[@josephdubon7104]

@@elilerch772 thanks, you might be the first Christian who has talk to me in a really polite way in this last few days, and I appreciate that. Just today somebody told me that I was a cynical because I for questioning certain morality in the bible and told me I was trying to prove that I was intelligent and turn out that I was just being cynical, ad then the typical "you are going to hell for not believing" stuff, the thing is I don't assume I am an ignorant, I believe I am an ignorant because I don't what is the true (at least from my point of view). And you know, there are messed up things in that book. But well, maybe someday I will believe in something, I'm just gonna keep searching and I might find something someday. By the way if I am not grammatically correct in something, sorry, English is not my first language. 😂 But the purpose of language is to comunicate, and I hope you understand me well. Have a really nice day.

[@ciarantaaffe5259]

The moderator lost this debate.

[@ENFPerspectives]

🤣

[@Nihilism4U]

Haha so true, I think the discussion or debate would have been better of without him.

[@furiousinsects6386]

🤣 🤣🤣

[@robertdegruchy160]

Mr. Lennox proffers the same old tired religious ideals. One loaded question I would ask is this: Can religious faith alone help us cure cancer or save the environment? Where exactly would such human endeavours fit in with 'God's Plan?

[@bond3161]

Yes, not the best format.

[@joshuapeloquin96]

I will admit that the structure of this was off. Like there was no room for rebuttal

[@katar9090]

Yeah it seemed kinda of rigged

[@MisterTrotts]

Get the feeling the idea was to provide a refutation of his arguments without the ability of dawkins to do what he does best: counterpunch.

[@Robobotic]

@@MisterTrotts He's not good at anything except biology. He got demolished here, for the absolute faithful materialist reductionist he is.

[@zack_hasnain]

Its almost as if they are setting up Dawkins to fail, because he always goes first and then the other guy gets to close / rebuttal him. This debate was not that great. Too structured.

[@darthnox2210]

@@MisterTrotts Ever thought maybe he couldn't?

[@orandegellogaming4793]

I couldn’t help but think of this verse in Dawkins final reply, “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1‬:‭18‬ ‭ESV‬‬ It has always been frontal to the message that it is humiliating and narrative to its look. Can be assumed a mere story. However I find the evidence is powerful in favor of the resurrection I enjoyed listening to this, very respectful and interesting back n forth

[@matthewmanucci]

This debate retired Dawkins from debating Christians.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

No, only Lennox - who started to misrepresent him: see *"Richard Dawkins: John Lennox is a scientist who believes Jesus turned water into wine!"*

[@charlesmartel8228]

@@L.Ron_DowLennox became more established after this debate. He was literally unknown before.Lennox moped the floor with Dawkins.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@charlesmartel8228 ROFL

[@henryginn7490]

Only half way through, but I really feel dawkin's frustration at this format, and I'm sure lennox would like some back and forth as well.

[@kierenzylstra922]

I agree, the structure was poorly planned

[@lucavasilache2390]

I don’t really agree. Plenty of other back-and-forth videos with Dawkins - few that go into the specific claims of his book. Back-and-forths become rambling screaming matches.

[@henryginn7490]

@@lucavasilache2390 I like the idea of going into specific claims of the book as well, but in this format Dawkins doesn't get to reply to Lennox (well not if the moderator got their way anyway), imo Dawkins should get a short amount of time to flesh out the claim from the book, and then it goes Lennox, Dawkins, Lennox before moving on

[@henryginn7490]

@@garrethdalton1210 That comment is irrelevent to the topic of this thread of conversation, post it as a stand alone comment as it is not adding anything here

[@JakeAdkinsOfficial]

They open it up about 2/3 of the way through for back and forth

[@brookemoore8369]

The one thing atheists and Christians can finally agree on..... the was the worst example of debate moderation we’ve ever seen.

[@TTIN23]

This was a shitty attempt at moderation.... Better to have just digressed into arguing and physical altercations.... I think Dawkins would do the bible basher...!

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

No, the format was untenable. The idea that for every “thesis” Dawkins is supposed to defend himself against an adversary without first hearing his adversary’s criticism and then immediately after that criticism move to the next “thesis” without a chance to reply is profoundly unfair. A real debate builds into the process a means by which both debaters can respond to all charges leveled against them. It’s to the credit of both debaters that they (to varying degree) defied the format, although Dawkins did so more deservingly since he was the particular victim of the unfairness of the format.

[@sethlancaster]

@@jeffryphillipsburns I am not an atheist and I completely agree the format was unfair to Dawkins. He should have been able to respond to Lennox every time and I would have very much liked to hear his responses.

[@TheMichaelseymour]

@@TTIN23 Force......the weapon of the weak .

[@adrammelech6323]

@@jeffryphillipsburns Well it was made by christian organization so of course they head a goal and plan in mind.

[@J.Lester-kk9wf]

You can't call it a debate and restrict the participants from debating.

[@waltersabin8099]

This is a special shout-out to the students I have had in those 17 years of teaching "Principles of Public Speaking" at Virginia's Community Colleges - who out of the wildest possibilities may land here and read this: I would encourage you to at least skim, read, contemplate if needed, and then speak-up if so moved. Remember: topic and delivery. If you land at this video, are somehow moved, and the mood to speak-up from the heart strikes you, then know that this seems a worthy spot to do so. Dig deeper if needed. The audience seems well meaning and broad, comments are helpful. I've discovered fascinating knowledge that seems a direct helpful hit for the meditating mood that I have been in. It may be a difficult topic for some to articulate well and I appreciate the gifts of these gentlemen, and those who graciously participate in the discussion arenas. Keep it short and to the point, it is always appreciated. If needed, a "God Bless, Thank You Lord (TLY) or Right On Amen" works if deserved by a comment posted here, one can be enough. Say It, when you see it. In closing, this discussion area seems to include being a spot for those speaking from the heart as related to topic, some who are striving to help the Holy Spirit, as well as those who may be grateful for its existence. :)

[@davidmarsh3104]

This was well worth the watching. Thoughtful discussion, respectfully presented (but with rhetorical flourishes) by two people well-qualified to engage in the discussion.

[@lightningbrigade257]

DR. John Lennox you are a breath of fresh air.

[@BRNRDNCK]

Livin Gunk What a stupid thing to say, even an atheist should acknowledge that Lennox has at least decent and original points.

[@MoxxMix]

He is breath of 1000 farts.

[@MoxxMix]

@Benjamin Keep wondering.

[@Dominus_Augustus]

@@BRNRDNCK Actually, he just has a bunch of typical, long debunked points. Nice try, though

[@BRNRDNCK]

@@Dominus_Augustus All conjecture (not surprising)... don't say stupid things online

[@DaddyKratosOfTheShire]

Before the debate even started you find our that they both have a love for science, yet they went drastically different paths

[@beni4366]

Right? I mean Dawkins is clearly worshipping Darwin and evolution for him is a religion.

[@gabriellegrechorr8301]

Lennox is brilliant and amazing!!!

[@davitinijaradze7635]

I don't get why they are not allowed to be engaged in dialogue, this statements-like monologues kill all the passion of the discourse and many points which could have been debated are simply lost. What a pity

[@jordanguindon2849]

If was produced by a christian organisation. Of course they wouldn't allow it Dawkins would completely dismantle the dudes allready weak as shit argument.

[@weloveicecream2281]

They gave way more time to Dawkins than to Lennox so you guys comments that Lennox couldn’t debate him better or more are just delusional. Dawkins got many counter answer opportunities, two, sometimes three counter answers while Lennox hardly got those, not in the same number at least.

[@canzuk4711]

Spot on, but if you dig deep I am sure you will grasp the answer, :) the organizers did a great sneaky job in NOT letting them engage in a dialogue lol Dawkins would have put forth evidence while the distinguished gentleman simply a bundle of ideas based on.... FAITH . There you go :)

[@canzuk4711]

@@weloveicecream2281 Delusional ? lol well you seem certain of that ? maybe you should put forth some other wordin, I for one think that I do not hold idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder, lol maybe it is you that did not grasp the full meaning of what engaged dialogue means, there was very little of that on both sides, you talk about counter answers, THAT is NOT dialogue my dear chap, a dialogue should be 100% in which typically a conversation or discourse between two people in a narrative work is applied, this is not the case here. I hope I have shed some light for you on this matter. Cheers

[@brianlaudrupchannel]

It's set up so Dawkins can't argue and win

[@matthewgoetter3127]

The moderator tried his hardest to limit these two intellectual giants to the confines of the small box of current thinking. I think this explains to me why the federal justice system is so inept at times at dealing with these bigger questions and societal beliefs. Rather than let these men have a discussion and a back-and-forth exchange of ideas He continually tried to force them to MoveOn and talk about the next point even if it wasn’t relevant and hindered the context of what they were discussing

[@sheridanwhiteside6503]

Wonderful to watch two great minds in action.

[@DrMontague]

I can stump lennox. Why did an intelligent designer design us to shit ?

[@Me-gc3pu]

@@DrMontagueWhat exactly is you’re point?

[@DrMontague]

@@Me-gc3pu answer the question Why did an intelligent designer of the universe design us to shit dirty stinking turds, to have stinking farts, and sometime have stinking wet farts in public.?

[@Chris-qo4rt]

@@DrMontague 100% THIS! I would love to see any christian try to answer this.... oh wait, they can't! This supposed "Almighty god" made us fart and shit stinky turds? LOL! Case closed!

[@LudJud]

@@DrMontague because you are dirt. You came from dirt, and you will become one. God put you on earth so that a low level creation that farts, deficates, smells, stinks, would go through the process to change into something more valuable. You are dirt. You are the creation. You don't get to ask questions. A creator created you that way. Period. When you nail a nail into the wall, does it ask you questions? Stop watching porn, and masturbating in front of TV, go actually do something, and realize that life is more complicated than the Fool Dawkins presents it .

[@dustinneathery9492]

John Lennox is an absolute unit

[@WardofSquid]

😂true

[@nathalielyttle]

Had to Google what "unit" meant. Apparently its equivalent to "savage" or "beast" in the U.S. lol

[@rtarbinar]

@@nathalielyttle hm, i think it's more like "dick".

[@rtarbinar]

i stand corrected. just means fat person. en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/absolute_unit

[@MacCadalso]

rtarbinar It’s a slang for positive and negative meanings. So in this case, Dustin complemented John as he was able to give more sophisticated answers.

[@jordanwirth3738]

The interview sequence was unfair. Should have been: 1. Richard's book excerpt 2. John's objection 3. Richard's defence 4. (optional) John's brief reply Despite this, they both made some excellent points.

[@viclimited9081]

Aww - if yo ass gets wiped by one - tip the odds in your favour so you get a chance to win for once.

[@SomeUserk]

Jordan Wirth i agree it is so annoying how many things goes unanswered. I would like to tell John thay every creation myth believes in beginning of universe. It is not accidental conclusion that makes a prediction smart, but the reasoning and the euclidean links to axioms that makes conclusions smart even if it happens to be wrong. This is why Aristotle is smart, because he was logiclalu rigorous trying to deduce conclusion from self evident axioms. and NOT just someone who guessed something right. Furthermore the semantic move of changing god’s definition into a self-caused being SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED. If John equated God with Parmenides’ Being/Existence, then God iss indeed uncreated. But a personal God is nott at all self-evidently uncreated in the sense of Parmenides and Plotinus. But people just think that Lennox checkmated Dawkins when he has not. I said this despite being a Christian

[@gooey5234]

@@SomeUserk There was no semantic move of changing God's definition into a self caused being. You say that you're Christian but don't even know that the bible describes God as eternal in many verses? I'm not a Christian and I know this. Stupid people don't realise that Dawkins' logic is completely incoherent, but then again this depends on the benchmark at which you judge intelligence. From a pure philosophical perspective, Richard Dawkins is a total fool. That's why he's too afraid of debating any high level Christian philosophers anymore.

[@gooey5234]

In regards to the original comment. I agree that the structure of this debate was sloppy. I didn't like it at all, but could nonetheless gather the different worldviews and follow both Dawkins' and Lennox' logic...

[@gooey5234]

@@SomeUserk I read your reply before you removed it. It was quite the tangent haha. It sounds like you're searching for God and it also sounds like you haven't grasped the God of the bible. There's no shame to either one of those. They are both elusive. You're playing with philosophical ideas...as do I...it's easy to loose yourself in deep philosophical ideas...If you're actually truly Christian, then you would pray as well. You need not be a Christian to pray, but I know the power of prayer, and it can provide you with answers that deep delving of the intellect cannot.

[@jordanteodoro3389]

It's a great job for both of the men. I think we should see more of this kind. Kudos for Prof John Lennox for raising the subject of God clearly.❤

[@L.Ron_Dow]

What answer did Lennox give for how his deity came to be and how he knows that explanation to be True?

[@growingman92]

highly intellectual debate Thoroughly enjoyed this.

[@tothemoon5109]

Glad I found this video. Respect both of you! ♥️

[@davidhagglund1231]

Towards the end things got very interesting! I'd love to see these 2 in an open discussion to really hash out everything they went over tonight and I feel like 5 minutes wasn't enough.

[@kemicalhazard8770]

I would recommend the debate between the same two speakers called "Has science burried god?" which is a long debate with a very open format. I would also recommend any debate between atheists/non-believers and a man called William Lane Craig who, though I do not share his world view/religion, I find he is one of the more intelligent and well spoken Christian Apologists in my opinion.

[@stevenrobinson8263]

@@kemicalhazard8770 It's interesting that BOTH men are from Cambridge, and have English/Irish backgrounds. I'm certain we have Americans, besides Will Lane Craig, who can argue well enough to respond to any atheist's argument. I just saw WLC on a video for the first time. While I agree he is very intelligent, I wonder if he's the best in a debate format.

[@kemicalhazard8770]

@@stevenrobinson8263 WLC is in my opinion one of, if not the, best apologist around. Although in my opinion, he does still use somewhat fallacious arguments and religous dogma.

[@mylesharris4889]

@@stevenrobinson8263 Frank Turek is another great apologist from the USA, he has a book called “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” and his debate with the late Christopher Hitchens on here is also worth a watch.

[@garymaclean6903]

Morality - Almost all higher animals demonstrate to greater or lesser degrees social behaviors (Altruism, care of young, cooperation, pack hunting, generosity, etc. etc.) that could be described as 'moral'. This is an evolutionary adaptation, where social behaviors that benefit the group, help to ensure the survival of all the individuals within the group. This widespread behavior becomes 'codified' in our human socialization that begins with our youth. Even our laws have their basis in our morality. The existence of morality does NOT require a supreme creator. It just requires that species need every advantage to survive. 'Moral behavior' is exactly one of these advantages.

[@kappachino3431]

For me moral is kinda subjective for different animal i take dolphin and orcas they are absolute menace ( you can google it what have they do ). But it their moral value different from us human, but their intelegence is high. what made our moral different from other species is somewhat grey. If we take theory about social construct evolution as community, lot of civilization come and go and their moral change but they're live in same region. it still got me think hard

[@garymaclean6903]

@@nauticalmiles8752 Yet most higher species display social behaviors that can be described as altruistic, such as pack behavior, sharing their food, caring for their young, fighting off predators that threaten the larger group, etc. etc. The point is what can be described as socially beneficial (i.e. - moral) behavior is an evolutionary acquired and inherited trait that benefits the survival of the species. Such behavior existed long before various religions decided they were the reason why we must behave morally, and morality was expanded by those churches to cover behaviors that have little to do with the survival of man as a species or individual.

[@garymaclean6903]

@@nauticalmiles8752 Why would anyone make the obvious error of equating survival in nature, with survival in a Nazi extermination camp...???

[@garymaclean6903]

@@nauticalmiles8752 Yes, there are many examples of species that demonstrate altruistic behavior. And they don't need to know or even understand the concept of altruism to be able to demonstrate that behavior. It is common in animals that hunt in packs, and even mothers of a great many species are altruistic towards their young, yet don't have a clue of the meaning... The roots of our morality comes from our evolved social conditioning, where higher species learned cooperative behavior provides them with significantly improved chances of survival. Like aspects of our personalities, the tendency for man to have personal values, and to form societies that have laws and social expectations, long pre-dates the current religions that exist. That so many religions have similar moral codes is no coincidence... God did not pass down moral edicts. Man created them long before Mosses claimed to pass them on. And Mosses' 10 Commandments had missed commands against many activities people today would consider immoral. Genocide, slavery, infanticide, etc. are a few that were omitted...

[@garymaclean6903]

@@nauticalmiles8752 This post makes absolutely no sense. What's with no punctuation too...???

[@benb.9954]

Scientist here and I am a born again believer. The Universe was created by something greater than itself. The Bible says Jesus holds the universe in his hands. I envoke the principle that God being everywhere through the universe as he created it, literally set the principles in motion such as gravity etc. We are being held together by God. Every electron orbit spinning, every strong and weak force, every ray of light is held together by God. This is very intriguing and challenges me to say, "How so".. this is how we discover new things in the universe. The drive the intrigue, the search, all come from God to discover God. He said the creation proves himself. Much live my friends. Turn to God he will direct your path. ❤😊

[@stephenbrennwald4927]

I do not believe for one second that you are a scientist. No scientist would say that you can prove the existence of god by statements in the Bible.

[@benb.9954]

@@stephenbrennwald4927 Thank you for telling me what you think I am, you are a wrong. Lets continue. The worship of science is only as good as the scientists. Scientists are fallible, make mistakes etc. If one worshiped science they would be a flat earther, then a sphere, then a hollow earther etc. It is always changing. Nothing is stable. Finding something stable is God's finger prints in this universe. The rate of decaying isotopes, gravity actually is not constant, the speed of light is changing. Science is really but a group of people trying to find the universal equation for existance. Scientist can also be evil and stop true knowledge from being made mainstream it happens again and again. Find me an equation that explains life and beauty, consciousness and then you will know the mind of God.

[@MamaMama-sv3b]

You read Quran sura qyama

[@chasepotter341]

Unbelievable job by both speakers! Moderator and/or event planner, why even call it a debate if during their actual debate time, you make it a personal Q/A?

[@808Fee]

I'll have myself a cup of tea.

[@Honestandtruth]

Can I have some tea please 😊?

[@JohnSmith-yl9en]

@@Honestandtruth She´s gone cold.

[@Alex-yr8iy]

I'll take water

[@robertmccully2792]

In any debate the person that insults is the person that has nothing else to offer.

[@tomekczajka]

Lennox keeps saying that if the laws of physics are immoral, the is no morality. That's confusing two different levels of description. It's like saying that if the atoms can't speak English, humans can't speak English. Or if atoms aren't wet, water isn't wet. Morality is a pattern of thought and communication at a human and social level, not something that has to be directly described by the laws of physics.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

I totally agree - he uses a different definition of 'Morality' though. He sees it as "behavior in accordance with G0D's commandments" - it completely disregards the effect such behavior has on our fellow man (which is competely the opposite to what most rational people understand by 'Moral'.) btw the better word for 'no morality' is *'amoral'*

[@scottlynch1411]

This is the most absurdly structured debate I've ever seen.

[@Robearwgl]

c'mon, they're old

[@metathanatos1]

one of the reasons why its tiring for them to do critical thinking?

[@naturalphilosophy9649]

Scott Lynch, I agree, I am a theist but I must say it seems like a set up for them to get Richard in a position where they could debate his book and he was unable to respond back but had to move on to the next topic.

[@scottlynch5286]

Thanks! I'm a theist as well, but I believe in having legit debates. Do you follow William Lane Craig?

[@LittleImpaler]

Agree. The setup is poor.

[@VenusLover17]

Thanks so much for this gem

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 🤖 The debate features Richard Dawkins and John Lennox discussing the conflict between new atheism and religion. 01:30 🛡️ The fixed Point Foundation aims to address mischaracterizations of beliefs in the cultural discussion around atheism and religion. 03:11 💼 The debate is focused on Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and its assertions against Christianity. 05:28 🎙️ The debate begins with opening statements from Dawkins and Lennox, followed by a structured discussion on key themes. 13:22 📚 John Lennox shares his biography, emphasizing the intersection of his Christian faith with his pursuits in mathematics and philosophy. 20:08 🤔 Richard Dawkins argues that religion promotes blind faith and inhibits the pursuit of understanding through evidence-based reasoning. 25:29 💡 John Lennox counters Dawkins' assertion, distinguishing between blind faith and evidence-based faith, and highlighting the role of Christianity in the rise of science. 30:46 🧐 Science is claimed to support atheism rather than Christianity. 31:17 📜 Noma suggests religion and science have non-overlapping domains, but Dawkins believes religious claims are scientific claims. 32:40 🤝 Faith relies on lack of evidence; evidence-based claims do not require faith. 37:01 🌌 Claims about the universe, like a universe with or without God, fall within the realm of science. 38:24 👥 Miracles and religious claims are subject to scientific evaluation, not separate from it. 40:13 🕊️ Atheism challenges the rational intelligibility assumption of science, raising questions about belief in a universe guided by randomness. 41:23 🔧 Theism posits that God, as an uncreated being, underpins rationality and the universe's order. 43:12 🌠 The Bible's prediction of the universe's beginning is debated, highlighting its potential relevance. 44:07 ⚙️ Design argument leads to "who designed the designer?" dilemma, which Dawkins finds unsatisfactory. 46:05 🌍 Darwin's theory explains life, but its origin is still uncertain, leaving room for debate. 46:46 🧪 Complexity isn't the sole criterion for explanations; science often explains by increasing complexity. 52:05 🕊️ Uncreated God is eternal, unlike created gods, addressing the "who created God?" question. 53:28 📚 The distinction between uncreated God and created universe underlies the theistic explanation. 54:35 🧪 Science often explains complex phenomena, even when meaning is involved, paralleling the argument for God's existence. 56:11 🧬 DNA's semiotic dimension carries meaning that transcends the underlying physics and chemistry. 57:13 🚀 Christianity's perceived dangers are discussed, referencing John Lennon's famous quote. 57:26 🌍 Imagine a world without religion: no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, and more. 58:18 🌐 Moderate religion can provide a climate in which extremism flourishes, by teaching faith as a virtue and discouraging questioning. 59:19 🤔 The debate delves into the question of whether God was created, with a focus on the need to explain complexity and ultimate origins. 01:02:07 📚 The danger of teaching children that faith is a virtue, limiting their ability to question and leading to potential extremism justified by faith. 01:15:11 🌄 Dawkins asserts there's a logical path from religion to terrible deeds, driven by deep belief in divine commands, whereas no such logical path exists for atheism. 01:19:48 💡 Moral sense seems to be influenced by evolutionary history and a shifting moral zeitgeist, rather than relying on religious scriptures. 01:22:46 📜 The shifting moral zeitgeist indicates that moral values evolve over time and are not solely derived from religious texts. 01:23:03 🧐 The debate revolves around the relationship between atheism and morality. Lennox argues that common moral values support the idea of humans being made in God's image. 01:24:13 😕 Lennox argues that a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication implies no ultimate good or evil, while Dawkins responds that such a universe doesn't imply a moral foundation. 01:25:36 😮 Lennox questions how morality can exist without a transcendent God, while Dawkins argues that humans can rise above evolutionary imperatives, as seen with contraceptive use. 01:27:38 🤔 Lennox contends that atheism's lack of a moral foundation leads to ethical confusion and a collapse of values, citing Dostoyevsky's notion that "if God does not exist, everything is permissible." 01:31:28 🧐 Lennox critiques Dawkins' view of Jesus, challenges his interpretation of love, and defends the historicity of Jesus by referencing biblical passages. 01:35:12 🤨 Dawkins responds to Lennox's criticism on his view of miracles, arguing that the laws of nature don't necessarily preclude miracles, and mentions C.S. Lewis' analogy to support his point. 01:36:20 😤 Lennox concludes by asserting that the universe's beauty and design point to a Creator, contrasting atheism's denial of purpose with his belief in God's judgment and the resurrection of Jesus. 01:40:02 😒 Dawkins criticizes the focus on Jesus' resurrection as trivial compared to the complexity of scientific arguments, suggesting a fundamental difference between Lennox's sophisticated scientific arguments and his reliance on religious claims.

[@jeonrickmarcushipolito9711]

Thank you for this

[@benren747]

Thanks

[@mlumbra8874]

Yes, thank you!

[@amyamy9482]

Excellent break down. Thank you for your work in this.

[@danieloconnor4760]

you the real MVP. I am doing an assignment on this for bible college and this break down is super helpful!

[@StanleyJr_Music]

Thoroughly enjoyed this civilised debate. I would have loved them to have the opportunity to have additional time for conversational exchange on some of the points raised within the subject topics. Nevertheless it was well structured. I must say that Dr Lennox did a stellar job and in my opinion was successful in his responses to the God Delusion book and you could see it appeared to even cause Professor Dawkins to rethink throughout the debate.

[@Wandering_Chemist]

Wow….who ever put this event together really messed this entire discussion and dialogue up royally! No engagement or dialogue or anything. Literally ruined the entire event with these two extremely intelligent and intellectual humans.

[@andreventer7024]

You must have missed the introduction and thus the purpose of the program.

[@dennis-gk3zt]

It's a sad commentary on our times that everybody is so delighted that the two gentleman can discuss, and argue politely.

[@rudy8409]

Indeed… it should be the norm and unfortunately its not these days

[@dennis-gk3zt]

@@rudy8409 I just remembered: we lost Hitchens 11 years ago. Civility has gotten worse, since then.

[@Jay-ft3xh]

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.

[@NoodleMcnoodle]

That debate was surprisingly civil considering the polarizing topic about religion.

[@IdeasHaveConsequences]

That was a goal of mine.

[@0MissPhoenix]

Wasn't much of a debate when the setup doesn't really allow for any back and forth. Dawkins gets to elaborate on part of his book, then Lennox is given time to try and poke holes in that and then rather than Dawkins getting to address Lennox's points and defend his own as you would have in a regular debate, it's on to the next part of the book. I think a lot of people would have liked if we could see if any kind of conclusion could have been reached for any of the points rather than being hurried along to a different topic. It feels like we got only a small percentage of their views presented on each of those topics.

[@vandal280]

John seems to have missed the cheeky nature of the question "who created the creator?". It's less a real question and more a response to the theist charge "everything that exists must have been created, therefore there must be a creator". So the atheist asks "then what created the creator?".

[@dited358]

Cheeky? More like a non-answer produced by ignorance

[@vandal280]

@@dited358 Well if everything must have a creator, then so does god. Otherwise it's special pleading.

[@seofilipino]

No one wins here. Both have a very very solid argument. But man, this Lennox guy has a very clear explanation, also, if you noticed, he's unbiased. He accepts also whats lacking with Religion. This is amazing debate. Wish all debater are as good as them, a professional debater too.

[@risingsun3545]

Yeah I agree with you

[@swamivardana9911]

He is not arguing God.

[@swamivardana9911]

Any atheist would love to believe in God if evidence became available. The reverse is not true.

[@logans.butler285]

@Mizo's Channel By "the reverse" you mean that no Christian would love to stop believing in God if there was evidence available for that?

[@lazarshulekov9311]

By saing that "He accepts also whats lacking with Religion", you must understand that for hundreds of years this "lacking" was not that obvious, and you must also udenrstand that it will get even more obvious.

[@matthewpaterson4628]

Why are there time limits on these debates? They are so interesting and I would listen to them all day

[@Acharmedlife]

Enjoyable to listen in the comfort of your home but as a career conference attendee I must say it becomes painful after 3 hours. Your back hurts, you feel claustrophobic and you have to pee.

[@rockchalk9078]

Because people have to go to bed...

[@sambell385]

@@rockchalk9078 Why I don’t sleep anyway when I go to bed might as well stay up all night😁

[@edwinrivera5377]

@@rockchalk9078 hahahah

[@notsocrates9529]

@@Acharmedlife Have an intermission and a few breaks, this is such a fascinating topic. It isn't a comedy act or a movie, this merits all the time in the world.

[@SSamohri]

Dr John Lennox is very humble intellectual and learned man of God. He interprets deepest Biblical truth in a simple English language. English is not my first language. I have been studying Bible in Urdu language and I speak Punjabi. Dr. Lennox has always blessed me to understand different world views.

[@keeperofthereign]

Paki and Christian?

[@jameswood4344]

Notice that Dawkins nails Lennox at 1:17, when Lennox says that atheism is a faith. No it isn't, says Dawkins. "I don't believe in Yahweh, in the same way that you don't believe in Zeus or Wotan." You, says Dawkins to Lennox, are an atheist in relation to those gods; I just happen to be an atheist in relation to those gods *plus Yahweh*. To which Lennox's response is: "Let's not talk about Zeus and Wotan, they're non-existent gods, they're not real gods. MY god is the real god." Um.. that isn't an answer. Look, I know Lennox is a nice man, and clearly a decent mathematician, but he talks religious nonsense just as well as the next chap.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

Well said.

[@Benny-sw8xs]

Okay, let me give you a maybe better answer to dawkins statement: The question of whether god exists is, first of all, fundamentally different than WHICH god exists. Therefore there are many sole philosophical arguments for good (for example cosmological, ontological, teleological, transcendental, the argument from consciousness). I also don't like the response of John Lennox but I thinks overall he does a relly god job defending his position and defending christianity. I would also say that Dawkins still has a believe. Atheism is not lack of believe or faith. It is rather the faith that our universe is explainable ONLY by science. But that presupposes that the scientific method is perfect. Therefore atheism is FAITH In the scientific method. And you can't prove that the scientific method is the best way to learn about the universe. It was only experience that showed that it works good. But (personal) experience can never be taken as objectively true and therefore faith is involved.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@Benny-sw8xs Dawkins is a Methodological Naturalist not a Philosophical Naturalist as you claim him to be. No-one has a solution to the problem posed by hard solipsism so we just have to be pragmatic in the presupposition that we share a common existence. As such, our conclusion, that our experiences tell us that the Scientific Method is the *best* means by which we can understand existence, has been proven time and time again to be justified. Science works. But *no-one* would consider it *perfect* or the *only* means by which we do so. Atheism is the answer *"NO"* to the question _"Do you believe that a G0D exists?"_ - it does not mandate any position on the nature of understanding of existence.

[@Benny-sw8xs]

I don't claim dawkins to be anything. I try to argue against a naturalistic worldview by using philosophy because i think it is a good tool. I believe you can not seperate atheism from your position on the nature of understanding of existence because the believe in a higher agent fixes your pragmatism. Pragmatism is only necessary when your overall view indicates that it is necessary. And you obviously also make use of pragmatism just because you can not justify your believe otherwise. Pragmatism is determined by your intuitive observation of nature and from that logic I would definitely argue that from my observed consciousness it is intuitive to believe in an immaterial realm where my consciousness originates from and that is what also indirectly provides good evidence for an immaterial agent responsible for this immaterial realm.

[@JM-jj3eg]

The difference is, Lennox hasn't written a book called "The Zeus Delusion". He's not so commited to his "lack of faith in Zeus" as Dawkins is in God.

[@bryceneuberger3460]

I want these two charming gentlemen to go out for coffee/tea and I would love to just sit in the room and listen as they have a dialogue

[@bradsmith9189]

Dawkins may have appeared “charming” here but has publicly called (in very large rallies) for Christians to be openly mocked at every opportunity. He had also called for Lennox to be disbarred from Oxford simply because he has religious faith.

[@primavanderpoorten1925]

Dawkins was so red he looks like a roasted lobster in this debate his answers was wavering he was controlling his emotion he was getting pissed at Sir Lenox brilliant explanations but Sir Lenox was very considerate and loving ly answers sir Dawkins that should be a Christ like attitude as the Christian bible said so

[@timwatts9371]

@@bradsmith9189 Dawkins has excellent relations with many Christians. Your whining and lying about him is evidence of the infantile petulance with which many religious people respond to any challenges to their opinions. Smug, arrogant Christians mock and insult atheists all the time so you should rein in your hypocritical whining

[@302indian]

To quote Delmar from Oh Brother Where Art Thou " I'm with you fellers '

[@Allothersweretakenn]

1:34:08 he’s wrong about the text. non-Israelites were in fact treated differently according to Old Testament laws. The command to be kind to the sojourner often referred specifically to how Israelites were to treat foreigners living among them, which meant more favorable treatment towards those who were not permanently part of the Israelite community or slaves. However, this does not necessarily mean that all sojourners were Israelites; sojourners could be non-Israelites living temporarily among the Israelite community. The key distinction in the text is often between permanent residents or citizens (Israelites) and temporary residents or foreigners (non-Israelites), rather than a blanket statement about ethnicity. So while John used the verse properly there is def a dishonesty there too

[@matthill3293]

Whatever side you're on, you have to admit both men come across respectful, polite and civilised here. I think the world could learn a lot from these two.

[@BobDobalena]

Except for the common atheist world view of religious people being lazy or creationism being lunacy and blatant lies like ‘science knows where life came from’. He was much more polite than most atheists in all these debates I watch though.

[@turbosport]

Lennox is a full professor too at Oxford...

[@L.Ron_Dow]

Yes, he is an expert in man-made conceptual tools (including the truly imaginary) that don't exist outside of the human mind (not strictly true, they've found even bird-brains (crows) can count up to four) - no wonder he has no trouble believing in gods.

[@Honestandtruth]

@@L.Ron_Dow So you think you are Smarter than him, huh; and You believe in Evolution Theory ??

[@crablante7415]

@@L.Ron_Dow lol look at your idol Dawkins choking to answer simple argument...

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@Honestandtruth Not in mathematics, no, I appreciate his superior intellect in that area - but that does not make him an expert in any other area (I wouldn't ask Dawkins for advice on sky-diving either.) Evolution is a fact - it can be observed - so belief is not necessary. The Theories about the mechanisms by which it happens are less certain.

[@L.Ron_Dow]

@@crablante7415 Where? He is merely dumbfounded that an otherwise intelligent person could come out with such tripe. But you need to look at the format of this event. It is not a debate - it is a criticism of Dawkin's book.

[@christopherdriskell9655]

I love it when people can talk about their different opinions without flipping out

[@Josef-EU]

imagine if they did it withOUT flipping out! :)

[@christopherdriskell9655]

@@Josef-EU well you definitely caught me slipping there

[@piertinence]

A real debate between two antagonists with diametrically different views would have to provoke some strong altercations. Atheist Dawkins fed those who are sharing his atheist views and Lennox did the same with those sharing his theistic views. Debates are about challenging opposite view points. Dawkins advocating the concept of creatures in the creation presenting only an illusion of design is clearly insane

[@melanymiskatonic8699]

Love these

[@dagkaszlikowski8358]

How intellectually dishonest you must be to claim religion explains the universe. No it doesn’t explain anything if you understand the meaning of “explain”.

[@MartinDellaVecchia]

I would prefer they stayed with the first point each made and that they kept debating that each of their statements. In that way it would have been a debate. In my view it would have been a much more interesting one.

[@sarahjacob2080]

Really amazed at the civil level of this debate. Sharp differences, diametrically opposite views and fundamentally different beliefs of faith, yet such a beautiful debate, honest admissions of evidence given by the other, treating each other with utmost respect . Neither wins but great victory for the audience, listeners and viewers as they have gained greater clarity and understanding. Congratulate both and a special word of appreciation to the moderator.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

despite lennox being as mad as a hatter.

[@2fast2block]

"Neither wins"? Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.

[@garrisonturner5670]

@@2fast2block 'from nothing' is a bit of a misnomer; when scientists say this, it means we have zero evidence to suggest from where the universe came about or how. However, as soon as any physical evidence presents itself, rest assured we will re-write our textbooks to reflect the gain in knowledge.

[@jackkomisar458]

@@2fast2block Science does not recognize the validity of supernatural explanations. Explanations must be consistent with the laws of physics. With the supernatural, everything is possible: talking horses, flying cows, a moon made of green cheese, etc. Requiring natural explanations imposes a discipline on science that makes life more difficult, but is ultimately rewarding. The theory of evolution is an example. It is an intellectually magnificent body of reasoning that explains the development of life on earth. It is consistent with physical laws, the fossil record, genomic relatedness, and observations of living things. Evolution even explains some arguably non-living things that share the biochemistry and imperative to reproduce of living things, such as viruses. We have seen the SARS-CoV-2 virus evolve in real time, becoming more transmissible and less susceptible to the immune responses that it has encountered so far.

[@2fast2block]

@@garrisonturner5670 "means we have zero evidence to suggest from where the universe came about" I gave the evidence, you completely ignore it, then....you just say there is no evidence. The good news is, you losers will have a 'rude awakening' when you're judged by God you ignore.

[@dited358]

"How could atheism logically lead to violence 🧓" "The unverse is nothing but blind pitiless indifference with no ultimate meaning." Same person

[@dited358]

@@El_Bruno7510 Reading comprehension issues? I never said that, try again.

[@dited358]

@@El_Bruno7510 I'll take that as a yes, reading comprehension issues. Those aren't my quotes lmao, thats your little idol dorkins' words, I agree they are quite ignorant.

[@aneekes.]

I’m really surprised or even shocked many people can’t wrap their heads around it. We desperately trying to put some meaning to everything, but at the same time the universe indeed doesn’t care, what people actually thinking. No ultimate meaning ≠ violence. Where it’s coming from anyway?

[@eventfulnonsense]

I just wish my country have this philosophical debates and intellects...

[@rubygarcia1751]

Absolutely phenomenal debate! Cannot get enough of them! Extremely well composed both of them. Even their humor is so respectful and well thought out! As a Christian, of course, Dr. Lenox wins the debate !

[@jimdeighan7078]

except he really failed, every one of his points were crushed, and he brought nothing but empty claims without any evidence from start to finish.

[@timothymarcoux6569]

If only presidential and political debates in general were like this, especially today...

[@jorgesailsoneday92]

Yes, true.

[@tobangafeufeu]

1:42:51 did that guy just climb out from under the table? I'm very thankful for hearing this discussion

[@HassanAhmed-rf9xr]

man i had a good laugh b4 i even checked it out and after seeing it left laughing

[@mehulverma3708]

I found this exercise fascinating. But this is far from a debate. This is an indictment of Richard's book and him explaining his POV. He is not being allowed to defend himself against the comments of Lennox. As an Atheist, I was very impressed by the holes poked by Lennox in the fabric of the idea of Atheism. But Richard did not get a fair chance poke similar holes in the fabric of Theistic and Creationist ideologies.

[@bobbob-zi1qk]

It was an great watch but as a Christian who was already cheering for Lennox this wasn't a very fair debate Dawkins was put in a position to defend his book instead of the ideas in general this would have been a much different debate if Len was debating the content of the bible for example

[@nvna1111]

Well to be fair the premise of the debate was on the God delusion which he agreed to!!

[@Ali-rl2up]

@@nvna1111yes The God Delusion is the name of his book so it was fair… The host said it in the beginning and so did the moderator 👨‍⚖️

[@wisdom1285]

He started it by tittle his book "God delusion" and he has to defend it.

[@ForumLight]

"As a Christian" you think the Bible is not defendable?

[@N3Rd32]

Moderator "Richard, I think you will like this quote" Read's from Richards book.

[@bimble2112]

I enjoyed this well humoured and intelligent exchange. It’s a Shame that it was set out so poorly, with the debaters having to almost apologise for taking the time to respond to each other. That aside I enjoyed it.

[@afsar_gunner5271]

Scrooge Dawkins cannot possibly have an intelligent exchange !

[@seivaDsugnA]

@@afsar_gunner5271 We just need some evidence of a god. Anything at all.

[@lauramann8275]

​@@seivaDsugnA do you believe in evolution?

[@seivaDsugnA]

@@lauramann8275 I don't think "believe" is the right word. I accept the mountains of evidence from different disciplines of science, some even predictive, that confirm the model of the theory. It's a fact whether anyone "believes" it or not.

[@lauramann8275]

@@seivaDsugnA did you watch the debate? What are your thoughts on Lennox's point on the evolution of our brains and the intelligibility of the universe? You believe we are descendants of monkeys, evolution correct? (I say believe, because I don't buy it. There is not enough transitional fossils and the dating methods are suspect.) Do monkeys have a rational mind? Do you think rationality is evolutionary? What about consciousness?

[@JHS270694]

The dislikes amuse me to no end in a sad sort of way. People having lost the ability to think divergently and from multiple points of view is something worth mourning.

[@LennyCooke636]

Best arguments I ever heard concerning this subject. What no yelling and screaming, vitriol and put-downs ?

[@lightningplasma]

the form of this debate makes it flow more like an interrogation of Dawkins' book.

[@Wandering_Chemist]

Yeah there was no dialogue….shitty event for what could have been such a good debate and discourse with 2 extremely intelligent and intellectual people.