Watch the Richard Dawkins v. John Lennox debate

[Malerin]

Lennox sounds like the professor from the movie "Paper Chase".

 

[KingMerv00]

Proof is not the same as evidence, but I see what you're saying.

You know, I saw this coming. I just went on at length about how much I hate semantics and you brought it up anyway. Back to the dictionaries on "proof":

1. conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something

1.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.2.anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

"Proof" is only considered absolute in mathematics.

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 criticisng a straw man.

Dawkins' argument is not a straw man because a significant number of people DO believe without evidence. It may not be Lennox's position but it is still worth mentioning.

See Fideism.

 

[Egg]

You know, I saw this coming. I just went on at length about how much I hate semantics and you brought it up anyway. Back to the dictionaries on "proof":

You're the one who turned to the dictionary first . When an argument is largely based on the meaning of a word, you can't really avoid the discussion turning to semantics.

"Proof" is only considered absolute in mathematics.

I accept that "proof" is commonly used to mean "evidence enough to make a confident conclusion", that's still not the same as "evidence". I also said that I accept that "faith" is sometimes used in the way Dawkins suggests.

Actually, listening to Dawkins in the debate, he uses "faith" at various points with at least three different meanings and he's surely knowledgeable enough to be aware of different definitions. When he defines faith in The God Delusion (and in the debate) it's pretty clear he is claiming to be defining religious faith in general.

Dawkins' argument is not a straw man because a significant number of people DO believe without evidence. It may not be Lennox's position but it is still worth mentioning.

See Fideism.

I don't think it's the criticism of unquestioning belief that is the problem. It's the arguments that Dawkins goes on to make based on his definition of faith. It sort of assumes that, by definition, all religious people (because they all have "faith") are blind, obedient, unquestioning followers and all of them think that such qualities are a good thing and if you defend "faith", that is what you are defending. It's the generalisation (based on his definition) that makes it a straw man.

If someone came to these forums and claimed that "moderate" atheists provided a climate which supported the Communist atrocities, based on a definition of "atheist" as "one who wishes to abolish religion", I don't suppose it would be long before someone levelled "straw man" at them. I don't think it would be much of a defence to find some people who define "atheist" in such a way (probably mostly religious fundies, but you never know) or to point out that some atheists do indeed wish to abolish religion.

 

[plumjam]

To move the debate on in a positive manner I can confirm that Dawkins' definition of faith diverges somewhat from the one held by his missus.

 

[Beth]

I found the two debaters/arguments presented about equal. Lennox brought up some valid criticisms of Dawkins writing, which Dawkins acknowledged. However I though some of Lennox's arguments against atheism and for Christianity had some serious problems and Dawkins responses to those quite on target.

 

[Pardalis]

I just managed to find some time to watch it all the way through, and I agree M. Lennox doesn't make much of a case, especially when he ends it with Jesus' resurrection of all things, as if it answered anything. He completely doesn't understand the flaws in his own thinking, and missed entirely Dawkins' point that it's a human flaw to always try to find an agent creator to every effect, that the theory of natural selection's beauty is precisely that it counter intuitively beats that bad habit out of us.

The only point I agree with Lennox though, is that unlike Dawkins and Hitchens, I don't think necessarily religion is the root of all evil, but instead I think any ideology when pushed to its extreme can allow peope to do "evil" acts, that to loose one's self to a self-delusion isn't only a characteristic of religion.

 

[Questioninggeller]

The only point I agree with Lennox though, is that unlike Dawkins and Hitchens, I don't think necessarily religion is the root of all evil, but instead I think any ideology when pushed to its extreme can allow peope to do "evil" acts, that to loose one's self to a self-delusion isn't only a characteristic of religion.

At what point did Dawkins say that? I remember in several interviews Dawkins saying religion is not the "root of all evil."

 

[KingMerv00]

At what point did Dawkins say that? I remember in several interviews Dawkins saying religion is not the "root of all evil."

Dawkins did make an atheist documentary entitled "The Root of All Evil?".

Hitchens' book is "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything".

 

[articulett]

The title of the documentary was not Dawkins choice-- it was the production company's decision. Their concession to him was the question mark at the end. He does not think that religion is the root of all evil. He just notes that they have no claims on truth, and that people are often blinded to the harms caused by faith.

 

[KingMerv00]

You're the one who turned to the dictionary first . When an argument is largely based on the meaning of a word, you can't really avoid the discussion turning to semantics.

My point is there should be no argument. Everyone knows that words have multiple means so debating semantics is pointless.

I accept that "proof" is commonly used to mean "evidence enough to make a confident conclusion", that's still not the same as "evidence". I also said that I accept that "faith" is sometimes used in the way Dawkins suggests.

Then what the are we debating?

Actually, listening to Dawkins in the debate, he uses "faith" at various points with at least three different meanings and he's surely knowledgeable enough to be aware of different definitions. When he defines faith in The God Delusion (and in the debate) it's pretty clear he is claiming to be defining religious faith in general.

What's wrong with using multiple definitions of a word if you are clear in your context?

I don't think it's the criticism of unquestioning belief that is the problem. It's the arguments that Dawkins goes on to make based on his definition of faith. It sort of assumes that, by definition, all religious people (because they all have "faith") are blind, obedient, unquestioning followers and all of them think that such qualities are a good thing and if you defend "faith", that is what you are defending. It's the generalisation (based on his definition) that makes it a straw man.

Like I said, I didn't watch the whole debate but I know Dawkins is aware many people believe in God for rational reasons. He spends big sections of The God Delusion refuting the "evidence" for God.

 

[articulett]

Egg, your straw man is that what you "sort of assume" is Dawkins' argument, is not his argument at all-- it's what you "hear" so that you can continue to miss his point and feel good about whatever it is you have "faith" in.

You are the one with the straw man. You want to believe that "faith in general" is not a bad thing, because you don't want to examine your own faith.

When you defend faith as a means of knowledge-- you ARE defending all faiths-- even the ones you find crazy or woo-ish or harmful. There is not way to tell a good faith or a true faith from a bad faith or a false faith! You just want special coddling given to the brand you've come to protect from such scrutiny.

 

[Pardalis]

At what point did Dawkins say that? I remember in several interviews Dawkins saying religion is not the "root of all evil."

The title of the documentary was not Dawkins choice-- it was the production company's decision. Their concession to him was the question mark at the end. He does not think that religion is the root of all evil. He just notes that they have no claims on truth, and that people are often blinded to the harms caused by faith.

I agree that they don't say it literally, but they do put all the emphasis on religion, making it seem they say that it is the main cause of harm in the world. I agree blind faith can lead to disaster, but blind faith in capitalism, communism or any other "ism" can lead to the same appalling results.

That's what he should have emphasized in the part when he confronts Lennox' false argument about Stalin and Mao, he should have said that it wasn't their atheism that caused all the killings, but their political ideology pushed to the extreme.

 

[Madouc]

I can't watch the Dawkins/Lennox debate at work, but was present at the Shermer/Lennox debate in August, 2008. I recall being very frustrated at the following points made by Dr. Lennox:

- He brought up the "fact of the Resurrection" but presented no evidence to back this up.
- He made several criticisms of "The God Delusion", even though he was debating Shermer, NOT Dawkins and it really had nothing to do with the debate (Shermer had not brought up "The God Delusion" as any kind of supporting text.
- When he is sad and bad things happen, belief in God makes him feel better.

The video linked above will show these arguments more accurately.

But what really made me howl afterwards, was a response to his repeated claim that a) it was logic and reason that led him to accept the Christian God, and b) some fuzzy claims about God's loving and cuddly nature. My friend approached him afterwards to ask how he had ascertained God's cuddliness when even other Christians supported the hellfire and brimstone hypothesis. His answer was that well, everyone had their own opinions and it was a matter of personal interpretation. Way to go with the logic and reasoning!

 

[Pardalis]

What also bugs me about Lennox is that he keeps saying science is a product of religion, that it was religious people who started research.

Well of course it was, because at the time religious people were the ones in power, they had all the money and the time to think, while the rest of humanity was struggling just to have something to eat each day.

 

[Egg]

My point is there should be no argument. Everyone knows that words have multiple means so debating semantics is pointless.


Then what the are we debating?


What's wrong with using multiple definitions of a word if you are clear in your context?

I agree that there's no problem using whatever definition, so long as it's clear. Where I think there is a problem is when you criticise someone based on your definition rather than theirs.
_{(That's "you" as in "one", not "you" as in KingMerv)}

 

[Questioninggeller]

I agree that they don't say it literally, but they do put all the emphasis on religion, making it seem they say that it is the main cause of harm in the world. I agree blind faith can lead to disaster, but blind faith in capitalism, communism or any other "ism" can lead to the same appalling results.

That's what he should have emphasized in the part when he confronts Lennox' false argument about Stalin and Mao, he should have said that it wasn't their atheism that caused all the killings, but their political ideology pushed to the extreme.

Dawkins has literally said, "I do not think religion is the root of all evil." In the last few years his particular focus is religion, in particular, faith. Other people focus on racism, fascism, communism, and so on. It depends on personal interest, experience, enviroment and a variety of factors on why someone at one point of their life focuses on one another.

I don't think Dawkins believes religion is the main source of problems: Dawkins hasn't said that and his work is not reductive to a single ideological issue.

 

[Egg]

Egg, your straw man is that what you "sort of assume" is Dawkins' argument, is not his argument at all-- it's what you "hear" so that you can continue to miss his point and feel good about whatever it is you have "faith" in.

You are the one with the straw man. You want to believe that "faith in general" is not a bad thing, because you don't want to examine your own faith.

When you defend faith as a means of knowledge-- you ARE defending all faiths-- even the ones you find crazy or woo-ish or harmful. There is not way to tell a good faith or a true faith from a bad faith or a false faith! You just want special coddling given to the brand you've come to protect from such scrutiny.

Please point out to me what I am assuming his argument is and how am I mistaken. I'm not really too interested in why you think I might be making a particular argument, only where I've made an error.

 

[KingMerv00]

I agree that there's no problem using whatever definition, so long as it's clear. Where I think there is a problem is when you criticise someone based on your definition rather than theirs.
_{(That's "you" as in "one", not "you" as in KingMerv)}

I agree of course but I don't think Dawkins falls into that trap. He says that some people believe in religion for emotional reasons while others look for evidence. Dawkins attacks both groups.

 

[Egg]

Like I said, I didn't watch the whole debate but I know Dawkins is aware many people believe in God for rational reasons. He spends big sections of The God Delusion refuting the "evidence" for God.

I agree of course but I don't think Dawkins falls into that trap. He says that some people believe in religion for emotional reasons while others look for evidence. Dawkins attacks both groups.

You've got a good point here. The problem with that though is that it makes him appear inconsistent when he makes his arguments against religion (Chapter 8 of God Delusion and discussed in the debate). Having defined religious faith as belief without evidence (or in spite of evidence) he then goes on to make such statements as "religious faith is an especially potent silencer of rational calculation ...partly because it discourages questioning, by its very nature" and "faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument".

In the section which these quotes appear, Dawkins makes it very clear he is including the faith of religious "moderates" (the whole section is an argument that moderate teachings on "faith" provide an open invitation for extreme religious terrorists). There's no indication of anyone religious being excluded in this criticism.

Lennox's argument (and the others I mentioned) would seem to be that he can make such statements only because he's misrepresented what is meant by religious faith.

One could make a similar argument by defining loyalty as blind allegiance and then say that loyalty is evil and even those who show moderate loyalty to their families and friends and defend that loyalty as a good thing are inviting the kinds of atrocities we get from soldiers demonstrating blind loyalty to a murderous dictator.

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

Lennox's argument (and the others I mentioned) would seem to be that he can make such statements only because he's misrepresented what is meant by religious faith.

Not at all. Dawkins, by clearly stating what he means by religious faith, is being extremely explicit. Lennox is not. Lennox does not justify the leap of faith that gets him from the grand designer to the Father that sent the Son to die on the cross for humanity's sins. He did not provide any evidence to justify his definition of faith; Dawkins' version fits like a well made suit of full-plate.

This is a common mistake. Justifying the Unmoved Mover as an acceptable postulate has jack-all to do with a Jew walking on water 2000 years ago. I have no issue with people who subscribe to the Prime Cause theory. I take issue with somehow linking this into Allah demanding that women cover their entire bodies.