Watch the Richard Dawkins v. John Lennox debate

[DeusPhasmatis]

That's debatable.

Pins with angels and heaven with poo.

Angels don't dance. Except for Aziraphale, and it's more of a shuffle, really.

 

[Egg]

I honestly don't understand the complaint. The basis for my love for my wife and my trusting belief in her is based, in large part, on empirical evidence. She's there. She has shown me kindness and returned my affection. She has put secret notes in my lunch expressing her love, has endured my insecurities and foibles and has held me and comforted me when I was in pain. Perhaps most importantly she has simply been there when I needed her in spite of myself. I'll conced that there's a subjective value to it (internal feelings) but without her being there what's the point?

That's pretty much the point. Your faith in your wife is based on evidence. If faith can be based on evidence, it makes no sense to define it as being a belief intrinsically without or contrary to evidence.

I can have a trusting belief in four leaf clover and horseshoes but why should I? If someone tells me that they have had an internal confirmation that there is some value in having this belief then fine. I can't disprove it but why them and not me? Perhaps things like lucky charms are arbitrary. But why god? I spent many hours on my knees and I've read the Bible cover to cover. Nothing. I sincerly believed that I believed. I sacrificed and prayed and even fasted. In the end, I eventually realized my prayers were simply my talking to myself.

For someone like myself who has been a true believer, one who spent tens of thousands of dollars and two years of my life on a mission because I believed, I can honestly say that while I'm willing to respect your trusting belief I see no basis for it and I do think it makes virtue of something that does not merit virtue. No mater how begnign you make it sound. It's trusting in something without evidence.

I can understand and respect your opinion on that, but this is actually a separate argument. What you are saying here is that you would consider that faith in God is baseless, not that faith, by definition, is baseless.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." --Hebrews 11:1

Not seen, but not necessarily unknown. Check out the rest of that Hebrews passage and see how Dawkins' definition fits.

 

[KingMerv00]

That's pretty much the point. Your faith in your wife is based on evidence. If faith can be based on evidence, it makes no sense to define it as being a belief intrinsically without or contrary to evidence.

That's the thing. I don't think anyone, not even Dawkins, is saying that ALL religious people believe without evidence.

 

[Ragnarok]

I'm sure if god would repeat his trick with the Virgin Birth and The Resurrection, it would be far better appreciated these days. Come on god, we are not asking you to create another universe, just prove Jesus wasn't a fluke!

 

[articulett]

We use the term "trust" to delineate belief based on evidence... we use the term "faith" to denote trust without or despite evidence.

God belief is always in the latter category as is all belief in "divine truths" or invisible unmeasurable entities of any kind.

Fuzzing up the semantics doesn't change what most people mean when they use those words.

 

[Beth]

That's the thing. I don't think anyone, not even Dawkins, is saying that ALL religious people believe without evidence.

Actually, I think that Dawkins and plenty of people posting here are saying that. At least, that's how it comes across to me.

 

[articulett]

Well there is no evidence for the existence of any invisible immeasurable entity that some humans can magically know something about is there? Or did I miss some evidence somewhere in my years of reading peoples "reasons" for believing.

 

[Egg]

That's the thing. I don't think anyone, not even Dawkins, is saying that ALL religious people believe without evidence.

Whether that would be actually be his position if one tried to specifically pin him down on it, I couldn't say for sure, but when he defines religious faith as "belief without or in spite of evidence" he is saying that by definition, if you have "faith", you are believing without evidence.

 

[Egg]

Well there is no evidence for the existence of any invisible immeasurable entity that some humans can magically know something about is there? Or did I miss some evidence somewhere in my years of reading peoples "reasons" for believing.

There are plenty who would disagree and Lennox claims his faith is based on evidence. Whether there actually is any evidence and the quality of that evidence wasn't covered in this debate and is besides the point. It's not that it's not important, it's just that it is the subject of a separate (and probably very lengthy) discussion.

 

[Egg]

Deleted

 

[articulett]

Yes, but if you are talking about what Dawkins means when he refers to faith, you ought not plug in your own much wider definitions--

That would be arguing a straw man version of what he said rather than his actual words and the intent he meant to convey.

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

There are plenty who would disagree and Lennox claims his faith is based on evidence. Whether there actually is any evidence and the quality of that evidence wasn't covered in this debate and is besides the point. It's not that it's not important, it's just that it is the subject of a separate (and probably very lengthy) discussion.

Claiming that the sky is purple doesn't make it so. Faith means without evidence. Literally "leap of faith," not "leap of trust" or "leap of maybe it could possibly be true." Lennox (and other people) want to redefine the term in order to make their position seem more legitimate. When someone says "I have faith in God" they don't mean "I deduced the existence of the Unmoved Mover from the available evidence." When someone says "have a little faith", they don't mean "go check the evidence again."

When you start redefining terms, you change the argument. The Prime Cause is not Jesus.

 

[Egg]

Claiming that the sky is purple doesn't make it so. Faith means without evidence. Literally "leap of faith," not "leap of trust" or "leap of maybe it could possibly be true."

"Leap of faith" and "faith" are two different terms and I would disagree that's it's not close in meaning to "leap of trust". The "faith" in "leap of faith" can still be based on evidence. It's the leap that is based on trust rather than proof (there could even still be some evidence for the leap I guess).

Here's an example of what I mean. Billy has gone up in a plane for his first parachute jump. His instructor, Mark, has prepared the parachute. Billy has not checked the parachute nor would he have enough knowledge to do so safely. However, Billy has known Mark for some time and the evidence tells him that Mark is an experienced instructor and has prepared many parachutes successfully. Billy therefore has faith in Mark's parachute preparation.

When Billy jumps out of the plane, it is literally a "leap of faith". He has no proof that the parachute has been prepared properly, only his faith in Mark.

We could say the same kind of thing for the expression "taken on faith". The term implies that you have accepted information without proof, however, you take something on faith because you have faith in the person telling you the information. You could certainly have evidence behind the faith you have in that person.

Lennox (and other people) want to redefine the term in order to make their position seem more legitimate.

On the contrary. Lennox is trying to correct Dawkins in what is generally meant by "religious faith". It's Dawkins who's done the redefining. If it is somehow a legitimate argument to suggest that someone's definition is wrong if they have the motivation to be dishonest, then I'd point to Dawkins as being the one with a reason to redefine "faith" so as to make his argument. He's the one bringing up the issue (in The God Delusion) and making a criticism.

However, I don't believe showing such a motive does carry much weight here. I do think the onus is on the one criticising religious faith to show that his definition is what religious people actually mean by "faith", especially since several religious people have pointed out that it is not what they mean.

When someone says "I have faith in God" they don't mean "I deduced the existence of the Unmoved Mover from the available evidence." When someone says "have a little faith", they don't mean "go check the evidence again."

I agree that's not what they mean. They also don't mean "I have a lemur nibbling on my earlobe".

There are a few things someone might mean when they say "I have faith in God" - I would say the most common would be along the lines of "I trust and confidence in God" and says nothing of what the faith is based on.

"Have a little faith" - depends on context, but it could even mean "you've seen the evidence, now trust what you've seen and have confidence in sticking to your decision".

Billy is getting scared of jumping out of the plane. He's having doubts that the parachute will open. His friend and fellow jumper, Mandy, says "Mark knows what he's doing. Have a little faith". Billy says, "You're right. I have faith in Mark" and jumps.

When you start redefining terms, you change the argument.

Indeed. And when those terms are corrected, so as to mean what the people to whom the terms refer actually mean, Dawkins' argument about the dangers posed by moderate believers is revealed as unsubstantiated, polemic scaremongering (whether intentional or not).

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

On the contrary. Lennox is trying to correct Dawkins in what is generally meant by "religious faith". It's Dawkins who's done the redefining. If it is somehow a legitimate argument to suggest that someone's definition is wrong if they have the motivation to be dishonest, then I'd point to Dawkins as being the one with a reason to redefine "faith" so as to make his argument. He's the one bringing up the issue (in The God Delusion) and making a criticism.

However, I don't believe showing such a motive does carry much weight here. I do think the onus is on the one criticising religious faith to show that his definition is what religious people actually mean by "faith", especially since several religious people have pointed out that it is not what they mean.

It doesn't matter what they mean when they use faith. Attack the argument on it's merits (what it means), not on the vehicle used to convey meaning. "Well, I use faith to mean with evidence." Good for you! Now show me the evidence for transubstantiation. And prayer. And, for that matter, God (and not some half-assed Unmoved Mover postulate, either. I want the God who asked Abram to sacrafice his own son. Or Zeus. Or Thor. Or He that is three and yet one. You know, one of the gods that religion actually believes in.).

Indeed. And when those terms are corrected, so as to mean what the people to whom the terms refer actually mean, Dawkins' argument about the dangers posed by moderate believers is revealed as unsubstantiated, polemic scaremongering (whether intentional or not).

Semantic ********. This is literally a straw-man: you have redefined words, and thus changed Dawkins' argument into something else. Then you attack the new argument, and somehow claim victory over the old. It doesn't matter what Lennox means when he says faith, he has to show that what Dawkins means is wrong. And what Dawkins means is very, very clear.

 

[RandFan]

That's pretty much the point. Your faith in your wife is based on evidence. If faith can be based on evidence, it makes no sense to define it as being a belief intrinsically without or contrary to evidence.

Words are not laws of physics that govern the universe. They are merely means of conveying information or ideas and concepts. Lennox is conflating two different things. One is an intuition based on evidence and subjective feelings. The other is simply based on indoctrination and feelings.

I can understand and respect your opinion on that, but this is actually a separate argument. What you are saying here is that you would consider that faith in God is baseless, not that faith, by definition, is baseless.

The problem lies with Lennox not me. It is Lennox that is conflating two different things. The word "faith" is used in different ways. "Blind" faith, the kind promoted by Jesus when he scolded Thomas is baseless.

Not seen, but not necessarily unknown. Check out the rest of that Hebrews passage and see how Dawkins' definition fits.

Having served a mission and having graduated Mormon seminary (*a 4 year high school course) I'm quite familiar with the chapter.

The problem you face is that Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons etc., etc. all have "known" but unseen beliefs. I can direct you to many decent and sincere Mormons who will look you in the eye and tell you in all sincerity that they KNOW that Joseph Smith is a prophet of god. There are at least two of them on this forum.

Here's the hitch, just because you believe you "know" something doesn't mean that you do.

It's odd, thousands of years ago the ancient Greeks realized that there was a problem when it came to finding truth due to human bias. They started to come up with ways to remove human bias from the equation so that we could more confidently come to a consensus as to the truth and this directly lead to unlocking the mysteries of DNA, the Atom, carbon molecules, travel to the moon, modern medicine, personal computers, geocentric orbiting satellites that rely on the theory of relativity as advanced by Einstein to accurately give us directions. Thanks to these Greeks we have accumulated hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientific concepts. Still, here we are, thousands of years later many of us still can't seem to understand the significance of that discovery and so we avoid black cats that cross our paths.

Will we ever grow up?

*Having made referrence to this fact on a number of occasions it occurs to me that it is misleading as what most people think of as "seminary" is something quite different.

 

[plumjam]

It's odd, thousands of years ago the ancient Greeks realized that there was a problem when it came to finding truth due to human bias. They started to come up with ways to remove human bias from the equation so that we could more confidently come to a consensus as to the truth and this directly lead to unlocking the mysteries of DNA, the Atom, carbon molecules, travel to the moon, modern medicine, personal computers, geocentric orbiting satellites that rely on the theory of relativity as advanced by Einstein to accurately give us directions. Thanks to these Greeks we have accumulated hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientific concepts. Still, here we are, thousands of years later many of us still can't seem to understand the significance of that discovery and so we avoid black cats that cross our paths.

Will we ever grow up?

Just an observation.
This bit strikes me as a bit strange. Didn't the Ancient Greeks rely largely on logic, argument and reason?
Whereas science (which I interpret as your driving force behind the achievements you mention) relies largely on experience.
A pretty good argument could be made that such Ancient Greek thinking held mankind back for a good two thousand years.. until the likes of Francis Bacon refocused investigation upon the evidence of the senses.

 

[RandFan]

Just an observation.
This bit strikes me as a bit strange. Didn't the Ancient Greeks rely largely on logic, argument and reason?
Whereas science (which I interpret as your driving force behind the achievements you mention) relies largely on experience.
A pretty good argument could be made that such Ancient Greek thinking held mankind back for a good two thousand years.. until the likes of Francis Bacon refocused investigation upon the evidence of the senses.

You are in desperate need of a refresher course. See Empericism.

BTW: I'm a big Francis Bacon fan but by no means was he the demarcation of Empericism. If you are looking for a demarcation from the Enlightenment then see John Locke. But the idea of Empericism started long before Locke. And FTR: Empericism needs logic and reason the way an internal combustion engine needs fuel.

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views about how we know things, part of the branch of philosophy called epistemology, or "theory of knowledge". Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas (except in so far as these might be inferred from empirical reasoning, as in the case of genetic predisposition).[1]

In the philosophy of science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience. It also derives from a more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of empiric, referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory.[2]

The term "empirical" was originally used to refer to certain ancient Greek practitioners of medicine who rejected adherence to the dogmatic doctrines of the day, preferring instead to rely on the observation of phenomena as perceived in experience.[2] The notion of tabula rasa ("clean slate" or "blank tablet") dates back to Aristotle, and was developed into an elaborate theory by Avicenna[3] and demonstrated as a thought experiment by Ibn Tufail.[4] The doctrine of empiricism was later explicitly formulated by John Locke in the 17th century. He argued that the mind is a tabula rasa (Locke used the words "white paper") on which experiences leave their marks. Such empiricism denies that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable without reference to experience.

 

[jayman]

I watched this debate and Richard Dawkins is an excellent debater. I have noticed that people like John Lennox never offer anything in the ways of hard evidence. It was very difficult listening to him. Especially when he keeps on insisting that atheism is a belief system or a religion.

 

[articulett]

I know... I can't even listen to such stuff any more...

It's mushy semantics that allows each woo to hear whatever they need to hear to make themselves feel like belief in whatever they believe in is good or rational.

But unless you already are a believer, or really want and need to believe-- there really isn't anything there. I refer to it as "semantics of the silly"-- all woo relies on spinning assorted platitudes into "parables" with deep meaning... but to me it's like crap wrapped in a pretty package. It's still crap, no matter how many pretty bows you put on it or how many people you are able to convince that it's a treasure.

All the semantics seem to hide the fact that there is no "point"-- no "truth"-- no substance to the verbiage. It's nonsense disguised as wisdom or "higher truths". I can't believe I fell for this nothingness at one time-- while imagining that the stuff I didn't "get" was due to my own lack of understanding. It promotes feelings of "knowledge" though there is nothing of useful or verifiable known.

 

[Egg]

It doesn't matter what they mean when they use faith. Attack the argument on it's merits (what it means), not on the vehicle used to convey meaning. "Well, I use faith to mean with evidence." Good for you! Now show me the evidence for transubstantiation. And prayer. And, for that matter, God (and not some half-assed Unmoved Mover postulate, either. I want the God who asked Abram to sacrafice his own son. Or Zeus. Or Thor. Or He that is three and yet one. You know, one of the gods that religion actually believes in.).

Is doesn't mean "with evidence" either. It's a word like "trust" or "loyalty" that says nothing of the evidence behind it. I refer you again to the Wiki definition.

The arguments I'm referring to rely on Dawkins' definition of faith, so actually it does matter if he means what they mean.

That you would argue that you have yet to see any convincing evidence is irrelevant to what the religious mean by "faith".

Semantic ********. This is literally a straw-man: you have redefined words, and thus changed Dawkins' argument into something else. Then you attack the new argument, and somehow claim victory over the old. It doesn't matter what Lennox means when he says faith, he has to show that what Dawkins means is wrong. And what Dawkins means is very, very clear.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. (Wiki)
Dawkins describes a position that superficially resembles his opponent's actual view with his definition of "faith" and then attacks that misrepresentation.