Watch the Richard Dawkins v. John Lennox debate

[Questioninggeller]

You can stream the full Dawkins/Lennox debate online at:

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com

On October 3rd of 2007 in Birmingham, Alabama, Professor Richard Dawkins and his Oxford University colleague Dr. John Lennox engaged in a lively debate over what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God.

Or if you want just the audio you can download it here and a 2008 follow up here.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'll watch it when I get home.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Thanks, will have a listen later.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Shermer vs Lennox

Also there is Michael Shermer vs John Lennox:



From Skeptic.com:

Dr Michael Shermer the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and a monthly columnist for Scientific American, during his lecture tour of Australia for that country's National Science Week in August, 2008, takes on Dr John Lennox, who holds three doctorates in the fields of science and mathematics (Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.) and is a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green College, University of Oxford. His most recent book is God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Wasn't it John Lennox that said, "Imagine there's no religion?"

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm having trouble listening to it. Lennox made a distinction between "blind faith" and "logical faith". ARGH! I HATE SEMANTICS SO MUCH!

Dawkins has made it clear that he is opposed to beliefs without evidence. If you think your religion is evidence based, present the evidence. Don't waste your time splitting pointless verbal hairs.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I'm having trouble listening to it. Lennox made a distinction between "blind faith" and "logical faith". ARGH! I HATE SEMANTICS SO MUCH!

Dawkins has made it clear that he is opposed to beliefs without evidence. If you think your religion is evidence based, present the evidence. Don't waste your time splitting pointless verbal hairs.

Having heard the entire very long event It amazes me how very poor and unimpressive, the "arguments" Lennox ( who I had never heard of before ) is trying to make.
This guy is supposed to be a professional Philosopher? Stick to maths.....

 

[Puppycow]

I'm having trouble listening to it. Lennox made a distinction between "blind faith" and "logical faith". ARGH! I HATE SEMANTICS SO MUCH!

Dawkins has made it clear that he is opposed to beliefs without evidence. If you think your religion is evidence based, present the evidence. Don't waste your time splitting pointless verbal hairs.

What I hate is the pithy non-sequitors that sound good but make no sense, such as "Faith is evidence of things not seen."

NO! To say that faith is evidence of anything is as logical as saying that a dog is a cat. Faith is belief without evidence.

 

[KingMerv00]

What I hate is the pithy non-sequitors that sound good but make no sense, such as "Faith is evidence of things not seen."

That's one hell of a tautology. Faith is a belief AND the evidence for that belief.

Excuse me Mr. Lennox, I think your cart is made of horse.

 

[plumjam]

Wasn't it John Lennox that said, "Imagine there's no religion?"

It might not look like it, but in his youth John Lennox was in a band.
Along with a Paul McCartnez, a Ringo Starp, and a George Harrisov. Indeed, by all accounts, the band was very close to being brilliant,.. but they always just lacked a little something, that finishing touch.

 

[Cavemonster]

It might not look like it, but in his youth John Lennox was in a band.
Along with a Paul McCartnez, a Ringo Starp, and a George Harrisov. Indeed, by all accounts, the band was very close to being brilliant,.. but they always just lacked a little something, that finishing touch.

They were never the same after they got rid of Pete West.

 

[arthwollipot]

It might not look like it, but in his youth John Lennox was in a band.
Along with a Paul McCartnez, a Ringo Starp, and a George Harrisov. Indeed, by all accounts, the band was very close to being brilliant,.. but they always just lacked a little something, that finishing touch.

I think it was the name they chose for their band. Who'd admit to listening to The Brattles?

 

[Egg]

I'm having trouble listening to it. Lennox made a distinction between "blind faith" and "logical faith". ARGH! I HATE SEMANTICS SO MUCH!

Dawkins has made it clear that he is opposed to beliefs without evidence. If you think your religion is evidence based, present the evidence. Don't waste your time splitting pointless verbal hairs.

If, as it has been claimed several times by Christians criticising "The God Delusion", Dawkins is misrepresenting what they mean by "faith", then it's hardly splitting verbal hairs to point this out, since the definition is pretty crucial to his argument about moderates supporting extremism.

No evidence is offered that [this definition] is representative of religious opinion. No authority is cited in its support. I don’t accept this definition of faith, and I have yet to meet a theologian who takes it seriously. It cannot be defended from any official declaration of faith from any Christian denomination. (p.85)

You define faith as believing something without evidence – a definition which is just something that you have made up in your own head and has nothing to do with Christianity. My faith is based on evidence. The minute you disprove that evidence I will change my faith.

Consider Dawkins’ likely reaction if one of his own students adopted a non-standard definition of a term like ‘natural selection’, just because it happened to suit them, but with no reference or source, and no justification of their definition. If Dawkins pointed out this error to the student, but the student went on to use the very same definition in his next essay and to draw some further strange conclusions from their invented definition, Dawkins would rightly question the student’s credibility. So why does Dawkins do exactly the same thing with his definition of faith?

 

[Mashuna]

I had a read of the David Robertson letter, and couldn't see any reference to the evidence he talks about. Do you know if there's anywhere he identifies the evidence he uses to come to his conclusions?

 

[KingMerv00]

If, as it has been claimed several times by Christians criticising "The God Delusion", Dawkins is misrepresenting what they mean by "faith", then it's hardly splitting verbal hairs to point this out, since the definition is pretty crucial to his argument about moderates supporting extremism.

Disagreeing on a definition is fine but it doesn't matter in the slightest. If you think "faith" can be based on evidence, state your evidence. There is no need for Lennox to ramble on about the subject.

 

[Egg]

I had a read of the David Robertson letter, and couldn't see any reference to the evidence he talks about. Do you know if there's anywhere he identifies the evidence he uses to come to his conclusions?

In the book of letters (link) he he does write about the evidence he says he bases his beliefs on.

 

[Egg]

Disagreeing on a definition is fine but it doesn't matter in the slightest. If you think "faith" can be based on evidence, state your evidence. There is no need for Lennox to ramble on about the subject.

In the context of the particular argument they were discussing in that section of the debate, the definition is pretty crucial. Discussing the reasoning and evidence that the faith is based on, as you point out, may well be the next obvious question, but, as important as it may be, the quality of the evidence would be a separate discussion from that particular point and probably more suitable as a subject of its own debate.

Even if the faith is based on poor reasoning and insubstantial evidence, it is still based on something, not nothing as the "blind faith" definition of faith that Dawkins uses suggests.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I think it was the name they chose for their band. Who'd admit to listening to The Brattles?

[Last derail]

No, it was from his post-Brattles period. Though by this time he was heavily criticized for letting his wife, Yozo sing on his albums.

[/Last derail]

 

[KingMerv00]

In the context of the particular argument they were discussing in that section of the debate, the definition is pretty crucial. Discussing the reasoning and evidence that the faith is based on, as you point out, may well be the next obvious question, but, as important as it may be, the quality of the evidence would be a separate discussion from that particular point and probably more suitable as a subject of its own debate.

Even if the faith is based on poor reasoning and insubstantial evidence, it is still based on something, not nothing as the "blind faith" definition of faith that Dawkins uses suggests.

I looked up "faith" in three dictionaries:

1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

2.belief that is not based on proof

2 (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Dawkins' definition is a common one so Lennox's rhetoric is a waste of time. What Lennox should have said:

"Dr. Dawkins and I are using different definitions of 'faith'. He is referring to 'belief without evidence' while I am simply referring to a belief in the existence of God. I support the idea that belief without evidence is unwise and I will not defend that form of belief as it is not my own. Now to get back on track..."

That would take 10 seconds.

 

[Egg]

I looked up "faith" in three dictionaries:

Dawkins' definition is a common one so Lennox's rhetoric is a waste of time. What Lennox should have said:

"Dr. Dawkins and I are using different definitions of 'faith'. He is referring to 'belief without evidence' while I am simply referring to a belief in the existence of God. I support the idea that belief without evidence is unwise and I will not defend that form of belief as it is not my own. Now to get back on track..."

That would take 10 seconds.

Proof is not the same as evidence, but I see what you're saying. I'm sure faith is sometimes used with the meaning Dawkins uses. I think the key point, though, is that if one is to criticise religious faith, one should criticise what religious people actually mean by faith, not whatever definition of faith that suits the argument.

As you suggest, both men seemed to agree that following blindly without questioning was potentially dangerous. I think it would need to be established that such blind loyalty is something which is common to all religious folk in order to make such arguments rather than generalising by using a definition of faith that is supposedly representative of all religions when various representatives of religions are clearly pointing out that it isn't what they mean by the word. It makes for an argument using equivocation and is in danger of merely criticising a straw man.