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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
~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_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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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?
@@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'."
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 :)
🎯 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.
@@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?
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
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 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.
@@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.
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.
_"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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@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 It's really ironic, since John Lennox claimed the morality of Js's statement like "love your neighbour like yourself", "the good samaritan" story, etc. If that's the only thing Js claimed, or appeared in the NT, then we wouldn't even have any atrocities from those crusaders. "I am not here to unite or bring peace, I'm the sword of the world", "I am only here for the lost sheeps of Israel" - the Samaritan was originally JEWS, "I am not here to change the law, I am here to continue the law. You who wants to follow me, obey the laws". The in group organized and out group hostility is real. Pick up the gspls and read it for yourself, it's the main focus of G, from Ywh to Js. The goal never change: to unite ppl under the authority of the G, who blessed a chosen ppl to rule from the soil to the sea. I strongly believe privileged ppl like him never actually read to those verses, or they have "beautiful way" to justify it, make interpretation of it. One of the core value of the B, has to be redirected to another direction, ignoring the contradictions, nitpicking the part that could be taken literally, only means one thing: ppl made it up, and try to cope with the public throughout the flow of change in moral standards, because that's not what those words were originally meant to be.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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...
@@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.
This was well worth the watching. Thoughtful discussion, respectfully presented (but with rhetorical flourishes) by two people well-qualified to engage in the discussion.
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.
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.
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)
+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?
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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 RUclips.
Lennox is good at making rhetorical points, but none of them stand up to actual scrutiny. "Famous thinker X said this about god!" So what? Does that make it true? What if another thinker said the opposite? What if 10 did? Does it matter? "A god makes more sense to me than no god!" Not to me, now what?
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?
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.
@@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
@@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
@@shannaveganamcinnis-hurd405 asking Trump to debate or engage in any intellectual endeavor is akin to asking a pigeon to play chess, and we all know how that will turn out...
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.
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
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.
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.
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 :)
@@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
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.
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
@@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.
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...
@@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.
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.
@@OnuigboChimaobi 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?
@@OnuigboChimaobi 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.
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.
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...!
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@IdeasHaveConsequencesit had nothing to do with the time frame. Just set the topic and let them debate. Far too much interference for either of them to get anywhere really interesting. The topic switching kept the whole conversation, (as it was hardly a debate) at mere surface level.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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. ✝️
@@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.
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.
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.
@@Honestandtruth007 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.
@@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.
Richard Dawkins: "Because I am an atheist, I cannot conceive of a logical path that would lead me to kill or do some other evil or hideous thing" Also Richard Dawkins: "There is no good and evil - just blind pitiless indifference"
@@El_Bruno7510 it's a shame you think you think. Dawkins: we go the universe from "literally nothing" and you think he makes sense. 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.
@@El_Bruno7510 so then you do believe in God? So then you show some sign of reasoning we can't get this on its own? Or you don't believe in God and believe we got all this, including what is good and evil, all by itself somehow? Show something you are one to listen to, or just admit you'll believe whatever you want no matter how absurd.
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.
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.
I liked the debate, but I felt very frustrated for Richard's case because it felt like a 2on1 and deeply scrutinizing Richard's book. Where an excerpt would be shared, Richard would elaborate, and Lennox would rip him up and there's no defense. It wasn't later where it was pushed for more dialogue which I prefer. I'm a Christian and I felt frustrated for Richard because it felt unfair in the beginning to Richard on how the "debate" was formatted. I deeply enjoyed hearing both dialogue, to hear both sides and actually having a debate.
@@adamspun the success of the debates does not matter. the fact of the debates matters more. it's enough for me. in modern religious society it's a satisfying result. besides, do you really have a hope that you'll be able to persuade people who have God's will at their disposal as universal answer to all of the questions in the World?
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
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
Time was allocated to them equally. When a person says his intelligence came from things that lack life and intelligence, the result can't be different.
@@jesseadebayo4746 wonder why you feel that intelligence cannot grow out of things that weren't initially conscious. Why would a creator fit in this picture anyway ?
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.
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
@@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
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.
@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.
@@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
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.
@@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.
@@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?
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.
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
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.
"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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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?
Had a lot of potential, but the organisation of the event was short-sighted and irritating. Let them have the to-and-fro and avoid the constant interruption and moderation!
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
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.
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.
What a stupid response! Do you believe in love? Or are they just chemicals and signals intepretated by our brain? If you would favor the latter then it would take away any meaning that what our word "love" entails. Carl Jung called people who believed in higher meaning and gods a "mystical participation". Life without it, for many people feels just too gray and boring, because then we humans just fish for an "advantage" as Doestevsky so beautiful put it. Self-sacrifice, believing in god puts away our need to become gods ourselves! Because thats what we must become if there has to he any meaning in an atheistic world view. I love science, i love the universe and cosmos. But i love God the most! How could i say otherwise after the love and meaning he has given to my life!
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.
@@michaelmuise7084 Delude yourself long enough that nothing made everything and sooner or later you will start to believe it. This is the stuff of arrogance and ignorance
@@gabriellegrechorr8301 it's not truth just because you say so. I myself happen to believe it isn't true through rational thinking, and I am not denying Jesus as a person because I can't if he doesn't exist
@Josef H. If you seek the truth with your heart you will surely understand ... I was an atheist myself ... too proced to admit the simple and obvious truth - we don't know everything
@Josef H. Not all religions are the same ... there are many competing models trying to explain the atomic Structure ... only one is correct ... this does not mean atom does not have a structure ... just means more research is needed ... want more info ... contact me - philips.zone@live.com ... if you are serious about knowing ... we can have a healthy discussion ... I see no point in mocking each other like the guys in the above comments
Lennox is just another well spoken brainwashed christian apologist. He isn't even arguing for theism, just christianity. They can't argue for theism because it's outside their programming.
@Skelley when it comes to theology the only materials a Christian has to work with are the Bible and other Christian writings (maybe), to advocate for any other god violates one of the commandments they hold as truth. There is no room for logic and reason in Christianity, and certainly not debate, for the 'truth' has already been written.
@@ab8682 lol you're just another not so well spoken brain washed atheist delusional lol he wasn't just arguing for Christianity he was arguing for theism in general. We Christians also follow science too lol we use science to prove that the Bible is real and there literally is countless evidence for the Bible and God being true there's actually more logic and reason for Christianity than atheism. You're right, the truth has already been written in the Bible of course ☺
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
@@ForumLight I will claim the Bible has no defense. Guilty! Not usually fond of book burnings but this is a solid exception to the rule. Think of it as an exorcism. We can rid the world of Evil, one Bible at a time.
Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Psalm 19:1 - "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands."
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
@@vicentecarneiro4985 Just because somebody rose from the dead, it does not imply god, or any supernatural cause. How about aliens who can bring one from the dead, or unseen genetic defect, or unseen bug bite...
@@namziuthou1583 The bible doesnt answer anything. It is an unproved and unprovable assertion. If you were correct the matter could not be debated. The bible raises as many questions as it tries to answer.
In contrast, the ontological arguments are conceptual in roughly the following sense: just as the propositions constituting the concept of a bachelor imply that every bachelor is male, the propositions constituting the concept of God, according to the ontological argument, imply that God exists. There is, of course, this difference: whereas the concept of a bachelor explicitly contains the proposition that bachelors are unmarried, the concept of God does not explicitly contain any proposition asserting the existence of such a being. Even so, the basic idea is the same: ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God.
Darwinist Dawkins has his atheism at the center of preaching a Darwinian evolutionary creation. Debating him without confronting the contradiction in his promoting of Darwinism is quite meaningless. Here is a lecture by Darwinist evolutionist atheist Dawkins's saying that the creation of all the wonders in nature would be miracle of naturalisms made possible by smearing the process over billions of years, which is highly unscientific. “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Darwinist Richard Dawkins
I am the opposite. I dont agree with lennox because i dont believe in a mythical creature. All of dawkins s Material speaks of reality. To me there is no debate. But others can believe what they choose and thats ok for them as long as it doesnt harm or opress others. Which it has for too long. It is nice that these two men can be respectful.
@@rocky5152 you should educate yourself before its too late. God exists and is waiting for you to come to him. Jesus has existed and died for our sins 🙏🏻
@arandom5980 he doesn’t need to. He only needs to respond to evidence of the claim that there is a god. The only evidence ever presented is a book. And to be honest, if you just open your eyes and take a look around, you can EASILY see that most people don’t actually believe. I do not see any evidence of “good” in religious folks - 80% just throw it out there because it’s instilled in them. Like brainwashing. Which, there is plenty of evidence for. Tell a kid the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over for 18 years. Kinda hard to combat that.
@@DrMontague you mean the origin of evil question ? If that's what you are saying then yes it's probably the hardest question believers face. And the answer is that we do not know why. But let's turn that around shall we. From your presumably atheistic perspective, where does evil come from? (And what is it?) Wait, ok so you don't believe its evil, it just is what it is right? so evil and good are indistinguishable in your world view are they? They equally have no meaning? Then what on earth did you by 'being designed to excrement'? Why ask a 'meaningless' question? Because YOU KNOW that what you are saying has Meaning!
@@smsog2236 I'm on not on about the origin of evil, that is a totally different question. Again did the god who created the universe design us to shit out stinking turds?It's a simple yes or no answer.
@@DrMontague that's concerning moral evil. The answer is NO. We can choose to do good or bad. Our choices are our own. This is reflected in ANY sane judicial system and capitalist model. Both based on firm acceptance of man's free will!
At the very least the format should’ve been for the moderator to read passages from Dr. Dawkins’ TGD, then for Dr. Lennox to make his argument in response, then for Dr. Dawkins to defend his position.
This was beautiful. Two people with different beliefs concluded in an argument that wasn’t hostile. We have much to learn from these two. How to disagree in a non hostile manner to even shake hands at the end with smiles on their faces. No disrespect whatsoever.
lol ...I'm sorry to throw cold water on your positivity, but not everyone can shake hands and be all lovey dovey. If one party is right and the other is wrong, nothing is gained from a lovey dovey handshake. There are no greys when it is black or white. They can't both be right. A decision cannot be delayed forever. Example: you cannot shake hands with terrorists who kill people and be all lovey dove as if that makes you a better person. You are burying your head in the sand and ignoring the problem by pretending ugly is beautiful.
I mean, they're scholars and, in Dawkins' case, a scientist. This is the entire thing about science. Obviously, I think Lennox is just blatantly wrong and has, over the years simply shoehorned the religion he was born into, in to a modern world dominated by scientific achievement. A person above noted how creative Lennox is. Well, he has to be. He has to make these ancient and outdated ideas, with literally zero evidence fit into a modern construct. People, especially here in the U.S. are so manipulated by a particular party's animosity toward science that they don't realize that this is what it should be.
@@kv257 It's funny how that is the refrain often used by theists toward atheists and scientists. But, of course, irony is dead because only one of these groups is demanding that their worldview be taught in schools as though it were fact. Only one of these groups will literally go to war over their beliefs, go door to door and proselytize to try and LITERALLY force people to believe their beliefs. Or how about here in the U.S.? Where a certain party, a certain group of people are currently creating laws that would FORCE people, by law, to obey their beliefs. Once again, as with everything, it's a masterclass in projection. Yes. We should be vociferously arguing against this crap as loudly as possible until it's gone from public life. If you want to believe that in your private home, awesome. But it should stop there. End of story.
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.
And why did the first scientist come from the church? Because priests were taught to read and the first libraries were in religious organisations. But when those priest/scientist findings went against the church beliefs they were prosecuted, and burned to death in most instances.
Let us not forget that George Lemaître, who postulated the Big Bang theory, was a Catholic priest. I am not a Catholic apologist, however, the Catholic Church has come a long way. They are very invested in the sciences (without persecuting its believers), they even have a telescope out in AZ.
Not believing in God CAN lead to terrible things because God makes new creatures of us if we believe in him! Consonant with His peace and Love Richard!
@TerrorWest the claim that Paul who created Christianity, and Jesus would be dissapointed if He knew christians worship Him as god. Its a common narrative among muslim communities despite Christianity exist before Saul become Paul, true that Paul contribute the most to the NT texts but Christianity exist because of the ressurection of Jesus not because of Paul's letters.
@@goodnight8169 you seem to misunderstand what Muslims claim. The claim is that he overtook the way the people learned about Christianity and the majority of people believed in the way he taught them.
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 !
The Great Debate: Science, The Universe & The God Question I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins & Dr. Peter Atkins at Columbia University
Listening in 2024, I really learn a lot from these debates, I’m so please we have John Lennox to defend our Christian faith. It make me sad that there are lot of people in our time are still not saved, our Lord Jesus is coming soon and unfortunately only when He comes that people will finally believe. Maranta.
Having faith can be seen as a by-product of an evolutionary adaptation that improves the chances of survival. As children we have to believe what our adult carers tell us, or we might poison ourselves, or get eaten by a predator. Having faith in something that we don't understand is a child's position which as adults we should outgrow as we mature and learn.
@@petermccarthy855 Valid point. However, as we mature we should recognize more fully that “love” “justice” “imagination”, “creativity” and other such intangible realities are meaningless if they only developed through time and chance. Why should i sacrificially love a stranger if tomorrow “love” means something else? Why should i care about “love” in any of its expressions if they are not permanently nailed to something or someone that transcends our finite existence? Animals have done quite well via your evolutionary model without our concepts of “love”. Some species eat their mate or offspring. In the evolutionary model humans may one day eat their children. Roe v Wade has already determined that its acceptable to terminate that child’s life. Intangible realities must be permanently nailed down or they are meaningless.
@@memowilliam9889 "Intangible realities must be permanently nailed down or they are meaningless." Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Absolutely meaningful or meaningless... By the way, this position means that you are very biased towards a specific conslusion and raises the probability of you being wrong.
If that were true, we wouldn't have human enquiry, and we'd still be living in caves. We literally search out truth. When someone says that the gods control our crops and prevent disease, but another person says "actually we know of micro-organisms like mildew and blight and we should pay attention to these", which one do you think is right?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
A great thought indeeed.
.
Lol most human advancements have come along because of religion.
Atheist countries like North Korea and Russia are decades behind.
It takes more than one I often find non Christian feels challenged and gets aggressive no matter what way its put a cross.
@@erniescullion8452 I often find sentences that don't mean anything.
These discussions should be displayed in schools. Respect from both sides and no evil condemnation. I'm sure society would benefit enormously.
indeed well said
In india it should be showed to the news channels which coduct poisonous debates
@@sumansaha2151 so sad , we all need positive and Friendships in this difficult time on earth... we need this love .
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.
@@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
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
Thank you
Thank you. God bless you in Jesus name Amen.
Darwin was a masonic freemason think about it.
@@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.
Thank you
@@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.
~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.
Yes, Lennox does all his thinking in his heart. Pity that - he should try using his brain - it's much better for thinking.
@@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.
@@El_Bruno7510has Richard not been indoctrinated by the anti God education system? 🤨
Lennox invoked Godwin, so he lost
@@El_Bruno7510 lol ok random youtuber
Ah, yes. Back when two opponents could have a civil, reasonable debate without emotional outbursts and useless name-calling.
UNLIKE Democratic Party Debates where they lie and accuse Republicans of being Racists, right?
LOL... Good point... I'm from the Post Covid Era, debate is no longer allowed LOL.
“james tour vs dave farina”
ad homms after ad homms
Dawkins is a lying fraud either way. So there's that.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.'
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?
@@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'."
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 :)
Recorded in 2007, looks like 1999, lol. Crazy how tech changed so quickly.
In what way?
@@davidhoban3825 hd
@@davidhoban3825in the way of the over saturated colors and grainy picture quality
🎯 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.
Thank you for this
Thanks
Yes, thank you!
Excellent break down. Thank you for your work in this.
you the real MVP. I am doing an assignment on this for bible college and this break down is super helpful!
I really like Dr. Lennox. He doesn't have to attack the person to make a point. Such s good speaker. Calm and composed.
@@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?
@@ferrisbeuler8657 👍💥💥💥
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
Many vicious attacks and distortions of Dawkins. Just a smarmy lawyer type.
Dawkins is bent now that people don't believe females actually exist. Well done science 🤡
Why can't presidential debates be this civilized?
Bro! I was thinking the same thing lmao
There are no intellectuals in politics.
;)
Most candidates just aren't up to this intellectual level...with some exceptions.
If they were intellectuals they would never be elected!
Because politicians and reality tv stars don't know how to debate.
This debate could have been better run by sending the moderator to the pub for its duration.
:))) true
Seriously....WTF
😂🤣🤣🤣
exactly. who the hell put this guy here.
🤓
A British atheist, an Alabama judge, and an Irish Christian walk into an auditorium…
How did you know?
That’s the joke 😂
@@RUclipsChannelName-th3gi Is he not British? Africa is not a country as the United Kingdom is.
And the auditorium curator said, this must be some sort of joke 😏
John lennox is British too. He just says irish to keep things simple for people. He's from armagh which is northern ireland.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
Nadim Very true, If one day every person decided to not tell their kids about Christianity, it would simply cease to exist.
It’s not about them, it’s about the people on the fence.
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.
_"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.
@@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
@@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.
@@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.
@@L.Ron_Dow where can we hear some of this? Or, what are some examples?
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!
@@El_Bruno7510how are they shallow? Richard’s points were literally basic, school boy arguments Lennox dissolved
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.
@@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.
The irony on this comment is hilarious
@@davidstaffell
It's really ironic, since John Lennox claimed the morality of Js's statement like "love your neighbour like yourself", "the good samaritan" story, etc.
If that's the only thing Js claimed, or appeared in the NT, then we wouldn't even have any atrocities from those crusaders.
"I am not here to unite or bring peace, I'm the sword of the world", "I am only here for the lost sheeps of Israel" - the Samaritan was originally JEWS,
"I am not here to change the law, I am here to continue the law. You who wants to follow me, obey the laws". The in group organized and out group hostility is real. Pick up the gspls and read it for yourself, it's the main focus of G, from Ywh to Js. The goal never change: to unite ppl under the authority of the G, who blessed a chosen ppl to rule from the soil to the sea.
I strongly believe privileged ppl like him never actually read to those verses, or they have "beautiful way" to justify it, make interpretation of it.
One of the core value of the B, has to be redirected to another direction, ignoring the contradictions, nitpicking the part that could be taken literally, only means one thing: ppl made it up, and try to cope with the public throughout the flow of change in moral standards, because that's not what those words were originally meant to be.
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.
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.
the only delusion is to think the moderator helped this debate....
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.
I know man; it was like 'Oh So SoRrY yOu RaN oUt Of TiMe.'
I didn't like the way moderator handled this debate. 😣😣
As a Christian, I wanted to hear more of what Richard Dawkinson had to say. I do love John Lennox’s points though!
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.
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.
Why exactly do I continue to look in the comment sections of debates
They're better than the debates.
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).
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...
@@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.
They are more entertaining, albeit less enriching
It's Spring '23 in Australia. Thanks for putting this debate together for us all.
This was well worth the watching. Thoughtful discussion, respectfully presented (but with rhetorical flourishes) by two people well-qualified to engage in the discussion.
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.
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.
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)
RUSSIAN ROBOT If you can't tell that was evidently satirical sarcasm I'm gonna say your part of the problem pal
+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?
They are professional debaters
It’s refreshing to see two very intelligent men discuss their ideas in a civilized manner.
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
Fofodksjdnn go watch the other one
Very Well Said
Jason Mckenzie link?
@@benardo01 the very much counter each other's points throughout
Watching in 2023. The level of interllect, decorum, civility displayed by both is quite exemplary. God bless Prof John Lennox for such erudicity.
Lennox is my new favorite. His towering intellect is jawdropping.
@@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.
@@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.
Remember, keep it civil! 😅 God bless
@@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.
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.
This is like a classical debate, not what most of us think of when we think of a debate.
SHUT UP AND LET THE MEN TALK TO EACH OTHER! We'll learn more!
Good debate and thoroughly fun to listen to.
Good mgtow snnipet ;)
LOL!
Exactly
Yes it was a nice debate
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.
It was a debate on the book lol
.
@@Thomas-cd6im it's not a debate if you don't get to reply...
The format is absolutely ridiculous for a debate, how could they not forsee that it is flawed?
I agree the format was not in his favor
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 RUclips.
Lennox is good at making rhetorical points, but none of them stand up to actual scrutiny.
"Famous thinker X said this about god!" So what? Does that make it true? What if another thinker said the opposite? What if 10 did? Does it matter?
"A god makes more sense to me than no god!" Not to me, now what?
The moderator lost this debate.
🤣
Haha so true, I think the discussion or debate would have been better of without him.
🤣 🤣🤣
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?
Yes, not the best format.
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.
I agree, the structure was poorly planned
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.
@@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
@@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
They open it up about 2/3 of the way through for back and forth
Such a respectful debate, as all debates should be.
Respectful debates require intelligent debaters, like these 2.
Reminds me of that debate between rump and Biden. 😝😜🤪😜😝
@@shannaveganamcinnis-hurd405 "rump" 😂😂
@@shannaveganamcinnis-hurd405 asking Trump to debate or engage in any intellectual endeavor is akin to asking a pigeon to play chess, and we all know how that will turn out...
@@shannaveganamcinnis-hurd405 These two are most suitable to be politician more trump and biden
Thank you for uploading this gem.
You're welcome
I will admit that the structure of this was off. Like there was no room for rebuttal
Yeah it seemed kinda of rigged
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.
@@MisterTrotts He's not good at anything except biology. He got demolished here, for the absolute faithful materialist reductionist he is.
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.
@@MisterTrotts Ever thought maybe he couldn't?
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
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.
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.
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 :)
@@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
It's set up so Dawkins can't argue and win
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.
Aww - if yo ass gets wiped by one - tip the odds in your favour so you get a chance to win for once.
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
@@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.
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...
@@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.
Very good and professional debate. Wish I saw these more often. I miss them.
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.
@@L.Ron_DowOga it's a debate. If it was Lennox's book, you would not make this comment
@@OnuigboChimaobi 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?
@@OnuigboChimaobi 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.
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.
They want to debate, and the moderator says, "no, no, no!"
“Yes I’ve been black but when I come back you know, know, know!”
The one thing atheists and Christians can finally agree on..... the was the worst example of debate moderation we’ve ever seen.
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...!
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.
@@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.
@@TTIN23 Force......the weapon of the weak .
@@jeffryphillipsburns Well it was made by christian organization so of course they head a goal and plan in mind.
Lennox is extremely creative. What an example of debating your opponent with kindness.
He also indulges in flimflammery and constantly attributes fallacious arguments and statements to Dawkins with no foundation.
@@elizabethblackwell6242 like for example....?
@@elizabethblackwell6242 like for example....?
Stable Life *crickets*
@@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.
I really hate how they dont let them actually debate.
It was poorly set up. They tried to cover too much of the book.
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.
@@IdeasHaveConsequences ah, I see. I understand. Thank you.
@@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.
@@IdeasHaveConsequencesit had nothing to do with the time frame. Just set the topic and let them debate. Far too much interference for either of them to get anywhere really interesting. The topic switching kept the whole conversation, (as it was hardly a debate) at mere surface level.
amazing Debate where everyone left as friends and warm hearted. This is correct and the way of good human debate and Brotherly Conversation.
Yup
Good thing that Hawkins was courteous in this debate. It would be better if he would always be respectful, not just in this instance.
Not sure their friends but did appear to respect each other. Richard was cramped in this structure. John bogged the floor.
@@karimb972 hawking is dead. i think lennox is too.
@@HarryNicNicholas
He meant Dawkins I think. Stephen Hawkings is dead but Lennox is still alive. Unless that was a joke?
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
Why are there time limits on these debates? They are so interesting and I would listen to them all day
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.
Because people have to go to bed...
@@rockchalk9078 Why I don’t sleep anyway when I go to bed might as well stay up all night😁
@@rockchalk9078 hahahah
@@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.
This has been so stimulating. Both men and the moderator were excellent and I'm inspired to listen to more debates/discussions like this.
You can't call it a debate and restrict the participants from debating.
John Lennox is an absolute unit
😂true
Had to Google what "unit" meant. Apparently its equivalent to "savage" or "beast" in the U.S. lol
@@nathalielyttle hm, i think it's more like "dick".
i stand corrected. just means fat person.
en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/absolute_unit
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.
Really loved this debate... and especially loved the final statement by Dr. Lennox who brought the Gospel of Jesus to the audience.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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. ✝️
@@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.
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.
Paki and Christian?
Lennox is a full professor too at Oxford...
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.
@@L.Ron_Dow So you think you are Smarter than him, huh; and You believe in Evolution Theory ??
@@L.Ron_Dow lol look at your idol Dawkins choking to answer simple argument...
@@Honestandtruth007 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.
@@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.
Glad I found this video. Respect both of you! ♥️
I'll have myself a cup of tea.
Can I have some tea please 😊?
@@Honestandtruth007 She´s gone cold.
I'll take water
Richard Dawkins: "Because I am an atheist, I cannot conceive of a logical path that would lead me to kill or do some other evil or hideous thing"
Also Richard Dawkins: "There is no good and evil - just blind pitiless indifference"
@@El_Bruno7510 it's a shame you think you think. Dawkins: we go the universe from "literally nothing" and you think he makes sense.
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.
@@El_Bruno7510 wow, how creation just happened on its own to El unsound mind...
"2Fast2Think It is a shame you don't understand either statement!"
@@El_Bruno7510 so then you do believe in God? So then you show some sign of reasoning we can't get this on its own? Or you don't believe in God and believe we got all this, including what is good and evil, all by itself somehow? Show something you are one to listen to, or just admit you'll believe whatever you want no matter how absurd.
@@2fast2blockmmmmm…I believe ithey have found evidence that the universe is doing the opposite. Not at all slowing down, but increasing mightily.
@@2fast2blockgood and evil are man made words and are subjective. I would continue, but you are not interested and neither am I.
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.
Yeah I agree with you
He is not arguing God.
Any atheist would love to believe in God if evidence became available.
The reverse is not true.
@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?
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.
I liked the debate, but I felt very frustrated for Richard's case because it felt like a 2on1 and deeply scrutinizing Richard's book. Where an excerpt would be shared, Richard would elaborate, and Lennox would rip him up and there's no defense. It wasn't later where it was pushed for more dialogue which I prefer. I'm a Christian and I felt frustrated for Richard because it felt unfair in the beginning to Richard on how the "debate" was formatted. I deeply enjoyed hearing both dialogue, to hear both sides and actually having a debate.
im an atheist and i 100% agree. this was not a debate. we will leave it there.
@@adamspun the success of the debates does not matter.
the fact of the debates matters more.
it's enough for me.
in modern religious society it's a satisfying result.
besides, do you really have a hope that you'll be able to persuade people who have God's will at their disposal as universal answer to all of the questions in the World?
Sir, listen to intro again....carefully.
But that was the whole point of the debate, to discuss DAWKINS BOOK, the God delusion. So I fear you missed the point.
Of course you would say that.. 🤦🏽♂️.. Mr Dawkins was out debated .. that’s all..
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
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
I am a christian but i feel Dawkins wasn't given much space to express himself. Nevertheless i enjoyed it
yeah same here. And structure of debate was dumb.
Time was allocated to them equally. When a person says his intelligence came from things that lack life and intelligence, the result can't be different.
@@jesseadebayo4746 wonder why you feel that intelligence cannot grow out of things that weren't initially conscious. Why would a creator fit in this picture anyway ?
But if there was no Jesus what would you be? You've given up the self for religious slavery.
@@danemount6113 don't know what to say to such an argument
Where are debates like this nowadays? I'm drinking in these words. Refreshing to hear solid arguments spoken so clearly.
Not allowed anymore
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
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.
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
@@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
Two great minds one will be spending eternity cursing God,and one will spend eternity praising him .
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.
You hit the nail on the head. 😮
Both will spend eternity as dust…..
@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.
@@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
It's a sad commentary on our times that everybody is so delighted that the two gentleman can discuss, and argue politely.
Indeed… it should be the norm and unfortunately its not these days
@@rudy8409 I just remembered: we lost Hitchens 11 years ago. Civility has gotten worse, since then.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.
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.
Scrooge Dawkins cannot possibly have an intelligent exchange !
@@afsar_gunner5271 We just need some evidence of a god. Anything at all.
@@seivaDsugnA do you believe in evolution?
@@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.
@@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?
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.
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
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.
despite lennox being as mad as a hatter.
"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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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?
Had a lot of potential, but the organisation of the event was short-sighted and irritating. Let them have the to-and-fro and avoid the constant interruption and moderation!
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
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.
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.
@@joannquaid6037 I absolutely believe that there is no loving god. The universe happened by chance and we are the product of evolution.
What a stupid response! Do you believe in love? Or are they just chemicals and signals intepretated by our brain? If you would favor the latter then it would take away any meaning that what our word "love" entails. Carl Jung called people who believed in higher meaning and gods a "mystical participation". Life without it, for many people feels just too gray and boring, because then we humans just fish for an "advantage" as Doestevsky so beautiful put it. Self-sacrifice, believing in god puts away our need to become gods ourselves! Because thats what we must become if there has to he any meaning in an atheistic world view. I love science, i love the universe and cosmos. But i love God the most! How could i say otherwise after the love and meaning he has given to my life!
1:42:51 did that guy just climb out from under the table?
I'm very thankful for hearing this discussion
man i had a good laugh b4 i even checked it out and after seeing it left laughing
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.
You must have missed the introduction and thus the purpose of the program.
Thanks so much for this gem
“Whoever denies me before men, i will deny him before my father”
Bear in mind there's a difference between rejecting Jesus as a person and rejecting the belief in Jesus
Tell yourself a lie long enough and sooner or later you'll begin to believe it's the truth - this is the stuff of religious zealotry.
@@michaelmuise7084 Delude yourself long enough that nothing made everything and sooner or later you will start to believe it. This is the stuff of arrogance and ignorance
@@asherloat8570 He rejects the truth…belief in Jesus who is GOD
@@gabriellegrechorr8301 it's not truth just because you say so. I myself happen to believe it isn't true through rational thinking, and I am not denying Jesus as a person because I can't if he doesn't exist
If only presidential and political debates in general were like this, especially today...
Yes, true.
God bless you Prof. John Lenox
Did he sneeze?
The delusional God or the God of Science?
@Josef H. If you seek the truth with your heart you will surely understand ... I was an atheist myself ... too proced to admit the simple and obvious truth - we don't know everything
@Josef H. Not all religions are the same ... there are many competing models trying to explain the atomic Structure ... only one is correct ... this does not mean atom does not have a structure ... just means more research is needed ... want more info ... contact me - philips.zone@live.com ... if you are serious about knowing ... we can have a healthy discussion ... I see no point in mocking each other like the guys in the above comments
@Josef H. why does the Bible say that you are condemned if you don't believe in Jesus? that's the operative question
Such a good debate from both sides, Salute to Dawkins and Lennox both fabulous and knowledge people.
Lennox is just another well spoken brainwashed christian apologist. He isn't even arguing for theism, just christianity. They can't argue for theism because it's outside their programming.
@Skelley when it comes to theology the only materials a Christian has to work with are the Bible and other Christian writings (maybe), to advocate for any other god violates one of the commandments they hold as truth. There is no room for logic and reason in Christianity, and certainly not debate, for the 'truth' has already been written.
@@ab8682 lol you're just another not so well spoken brain washed atheist delusional lol he wasn't just arguing for Christianity he was arguing for theism in general. We Christians also follow science too lol we use science to prove that the Bible is real and there literally is countless evidence for the Bible and God being true there's actually more logic and reason for Christianity than atheism. You're right, the truth has already been written in the Bible of course ☺
The Grammar Nazi in me compels me to say it should be either “people of knowledge” or “knowledgeable people” I would favour the 2nd one.
Thank you everyone who has involved in this great discussion.
Moderator "Richard, I think you will like this quote" Read's from Richards book.
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
Well to be fair the premise of the debate was on the God delusion which he agreed to!!
@@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 👨⚖️
He started it by tittle his book "God delusion" and he has to defend it.
"As a Christian" you think the Bible is not defendable?
@@ForumLight I will claim the Bible has no defense. Guilty! Not usually fond of book burnings but this is a solid exception to the rule. Think of it as an exorcism. We can rid the world of Evil, one Bible at a time.
Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Psalm 19:1 - "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands."
I love it when people can talk about their different opinions without flipping out
@Josef H. well you definitely caught me slipping there
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
Perhaps the most substantive debate I’ve listened to. Both men should be commended. Thank you!
What should Lennox be commended forr?
@@scottroberts9177 What should Dawkins be commended for?
The bottom line really, is whether we believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead. If he did, then nothing else needs to be debated.
You are wrong.
@@MoxxMix can you explain?
Both read the Bible and ull find ur answer to ur questions
@@vicentecarneiro4985 Just because somebody rose from the dead, it does not imply god, or any supernatural cause. How about aliens who can bring one from the dead, or unseen genetic defect, or unseen bug bite...
@@namziuthou1583 The bible doesnt answer anything. It is an unproved and unprovable assertion. If you were correct the matter could not be debated. The bible raises as many questions as it tries to answer.
In contrast, the ontological arguments are conceptual in roughly the following sense: just as the propositions constituting the concept of a bachelor imply that every bachelor is male, the propositions constituting the concept of God, according to the ontological argument, imply that God exists. There is, of course, this difference: whereas the concept of a bachelor explicitly contains the proposition that bachelors are unmarried, the concept of God does not explicitly contain any proposition asserting the existence of such a being. Even so, the basic idea is the same: ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God.
I agree with some of Dawkin's arguments about religion/s, however, John Lennox clarifies very well the following issues
Darwinist Dawkins has his atheism at the center of preaching a Darwinian evolutionary creation. Debating him without confronting the contradiction in his promoting of Darwinism is quite meaningless.
Here is a lecture by Darwinist evolutionist atheist Dawkins's saying that the creation of all the wonders in nature would be miracle of naturalisms made possible by smearing the process over billions of years, which is highly unscientific. “It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Darwinist Richard Dawkins
I am the opposite. I dont agree with lennox because i dont believe in a mythical creature. All of dawkins s
Material speaks of reality. To me there is no debate. But others can believe what they choose and thats ok for them as long as it doesnt harm or opress others. Which it has for too long.
It is nice that these two men can be respectful.
@@rocky5152 you should educate yourself before its too late.
God exists and is waiting for you to come to him.
Jesus has existed and died for our sins 🙏🏻
@@IramCoercere😂😂
@arandom5980 he doesn’t need to. He only needs to respond to evidence of the claim that there is a god. The only evidence ever presented is a book. And to be honest, if you just open your eyes and take a look around, you can EASILY see that most people don’t actually believe. I do not see any evidence of “good” in religious folks - 80% just throw it out there because it’s instilled in them. Like brainwashing. Which, there is plenty of evidence for. Tell a kid the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over for 18 years. Kinda hard to combat that.
Thank You John LENNOX SIR
This has to go down as a modern legendary debate.
I can stump lennox. Why did an intelligent designer design us to shit ?
@@DrMontague you mean the origin of evil question ? If that's what you are saying then yes it's probably the hardest question believers face. And the answer is that we do not know why.
But let's turn that around shall we. From your presumably atheistic perspective, where does evil come from? (And what is it?)
Wait, ok so you don't believe its evil, it just is what it is right? so evil and good are indistinguishable in your world view are they? They equally have no meaning?
Then what on earth did you by 'being designed to excrement'?
Why ask a 'meaningless' question?
Because YOU KNOW that what you are saying has Meaning!
@@smsog2236 I'm on not on about the origin of evil, that is a totally different question. Again did the god who created the universe design us to shit out stinking turds?It's a simple yes or no answer.
@@DrMontague that's concerning moral evil. The answer is NO.
We can choose to do good or bad.
Our choices are our own.
This is reflected in ANY sane judicial system and capitalist model.
Both based on firm acceptance of man's free will!
@@smsog2236 I am not talking about evil or free will. Again my question is :did god design us to shit stinking turds? YES or No
Amazing debate, very orderly and without insults.
At the very least the format should’ve been for the moderator to read passages from Dr. Dawkins’ TGD, then for Dr. Lennox to make his argument in response, then for Dr. Dawkins to defend his position.
And that is what it was, with a slight variation, which is perfectly normal
@@andreventer7024 no it wasn’t. Dawkins had to apologise before rebutting. That wasn’t part of the initial format. It was Speaker, Dawkins, Lennox
But I get it, Dawkins wrote his book. So before it goes to Lennox, he must explain his view to the audience.
This was beautiful. Two people with different beliefs concluded in an argument that wasn’t hostile. We have much to learn from these two. How to disagree in a non hostile manner to even shake hands at the end with smiles on their faces. No disrespect whatsoever.
lol ...I'm sorry to throw cold water on your positivity, but not everyone can shake hands and be all lovey dovey. If one party is right and the other is wrong, nothing is gained from a lovey dovey handshake. There are no greys when it is black or white. They can't both be right. A decision cannot be delayed forever. Example: you cannot shake hands with terrorists who kill people and be all lovey dove as if that makes you a better person. You are burying your head in the sand and ignoring the problem by pretending ugly is beautiful.
When you are comfortable & convinced in your beliefs , there is no need to enforce it on others or be angry....
Dawkins words are not "beliefs ". It comes from empirical evidence. The other guy is wishful thinking
I mean, they're scholars and, in Dawkins' case, a scientist.
This is the entire thing about science. Obviously, I think Lennox is just blatantly wrong and has, over the years simply shoehorned the religion he was born into, in to a modern world dominated by scientific achievement. A person above noted how creative Lennox is. Well, he has to be. He has to make these ancient and outdated ideas, with literally zero evidence fit into a modern construct.
People, especially here in the U.S. are so manipulated by a particular party's animosity toward science that they don't realize that this is what it should be.
@@kv257 It's funny how that is the refrain often used by theists toward atheists and scientists. But, of course, irony is dead because only one of these groups is demanding that their worldview be taught in schools as though it were fact.
Only one of these groups will literally go to war over their beliefs, go door to door and proselytize to try and LITERALLY force people to believe their beliefs.
Or how about here in the U.S.? Where a certain party, a certain group of people are currently creating laws that would FORCE people, by law, to obey their beliefs.
Once again, as with everything, it's a masterclass in projection.
Yes. We should be vociferously arguing against this crap as loudly as possible until it's gone from public life. If you want to believe that in your private home, awesome. But it should stop there. End of story.
It is very brilliant preaching, Mr.Lennox, clear and insgthful!
Preaching. Exactly. He never answers one of Dawkins points and continues on with the rhetoric.
insgthful!?
7:28 -
Richard
Dawkins.
13:12 -
John
Lennox.
20:22 -
Richard
Dawkins.
25:28 -
John
Lennox.
32:08 -
Richard
Dawkins
& John
Lennox
(dialogue).
This is the most absurdly structured debate I've ever seen.
c'mon, they're old
one of the reasons why its tiring for them to do critical thinking?
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.
Thanks! I'm a theist as well, but I believe in having legit debates. Do you follow William Lane Craig?
Agree. The setup is poor.
starts at 7:27
Thank you...!!!
@@hegel5816 Greatness Awaits
Thank you
A hero lives here
Thanks
And why did the first scientist come from the church? Because priests were taught to read and the first libraries were in religious organisations. But when those priest/scientist findings went against the church beliefs they were prosecuted, and burned to death in most instances.
Let us not forget that George Lemaître, who postulated the Big Bang theory, was a Catholic priest. I am not a Catholic apologist, however, the Catholic Church has come a long way. They are very invested in the sciences (without persecuting its believers), they even have a telescope out in AZ.
Not believing in God CAN lead to terrible things because God makes new creatures of us if we believe in him! Consonant with His peace and Love Richard!
Did dawkins learn about Jesus from a mosque?
@TerrorWest the claim that Paul who created Christianity, and Jesus would be dissapointed if He knew christians worship Him as god.
Its a common narrative among muslim communities despite Christianity exist before Saul become Paul, true that Paul contribute the most to the NT texts but Christianity exist because of the ressurection of Jesus not because of Paul's letters.
@@goodnight8169 It wouldn´t be Christian doctrine that we know of, without Paul, and certainly not widespread.
Of course NO, and that is why he is an aggressive atheist!
But Jesus himself said: The father is greater than I
@@goodnight8169 you seem to misunderstand what Muslims claim. The claim is that he overtook the way the people learned about Christianity and the majority of people believed in the way he taught them.
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 !
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.
The Great Debate: Science, The Universe & The God Question
I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. William Lane Craig debate Richard Dawkins & Dr. Peter Atkins at Columbia University
Dawkins said he will not debate William Lane Craig
@@juanjosueserrano1803 why is that?
Listening in 2024, I really learn a lot from these debates, I’m so please we have John Lennox to defend our Christian faith. It make me sad that there are lot of people in our time are still not saved, our Lord Jesus is coming soon and unfortunately only when He comes that people will finally believe. Maranta.
All humanity is naturally disposed to have faith. From the moment we are born, faith also stirs into being.
Having faith can be seen as a by-product of an evolutionary adaptation that improves the chances of survival. As children we have to believe what our adult carers tell us, or we might poison ourselves, or get eaten by a predator. Having faith in something that we don't understand is a child's position which as adults we should outgrow as we mature and learn.
@@petermccarthy855
Valid point. However, as we mature we should recognize more fully that “love” “justice” “imagination”, “creativity” and other such intangible realities are meaningless if they only developed through time and chance. Why should i sacrificially love a stranger if tomorrow “love” means something else? Why should i care about “love” in any of its expressions if they are not permanently nailed to something or someone that transcends our finite existence? Animals have done quite well via your evolutionary model without our concepts of “love”. Some species eat their mate or offspring. In the evolutionary model humans may one day eat their children. Roe v Wade has already determined that its acceptable to terminate that child’s life.
Intangible realities must be permanently nailed down or they are meaningless.
@@memowilliam9889 "Intangible realities must be permanently nailed down or they are meaningless." Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Absolutely meaningful or meaningless... By the way, this position means that you are very biased towards a specific conslusion and raises the probability of you being wrong.
If that were true, we wouldn't have human enquiry, and we'd still be living in caves. We literally search out truth. When someone says that the gods control our crops and prevent disease, but another person says "actually we know of micro-organisms like mildew and blight and we should pay attention to these", which one do you think is right?