Skip to content

October 4, 2007

5

Dawkins vs Lennox 2 – a few points transcribed

by quaesitor

Haven’t been able to listen yet – but Faith Central on the Times site has helpfully provided a transcript of a few of the exchanges – here are one or two (though of course we have no way of knowing the context to what was said just yet):

On faith

Dawkins: If it were evidence based, why would you need to call it faith? You would just call it evidence.
Lennox: I presume you’ve got faith in your wife is there any evidence for that?
Dawkins: Yes plenty.
Lennox: There you go.

On the Big Bang and the Bible

Dawkins: There are two possibilities, either the universe was here for ever, or it had a beginning, getting it right [that there was a beginning] isn’t that impressive, there were only two possibilities.
Lennox: At least it [the Bible] got the right one.
Dawkins: Toss a coin and you had 50 per cent chance of getting it right.

On ‘who created the creator?’

Lennox: Your book assumes God was created, no wonder you call it the God Delusion, created Gods are by definition a delusion. I don’t believe in the God you don’t believe in. I need to know what you mean by God, none of us, Christians, Jews, Muslims, believe in created Gods. The point is not whether God is created or not, it’s about simplicity. We can’t just postulate complexity we have to go back to simplicity…We need some kind of ultimate explanation for the complex object. You can’t evade the issue by saying God was always there – you still need an explanation.

On Atheism and faith

Dawkins: This is supposed to be a debate and I feel intensely frustrated. Teaching children that faith is virtuous. It is teaching them that you don’t have to justify what you do. The convention that we have all bought into that religious faith is something to be respected, not to be questioned. In most cases that’s quite harmless, but if you take your faith really literally, then it’s the fact that you were educated as a child in a madrassah and which if you happen to be unstable or violent, leads to the sort of terrible acts in the name of religion.I would not for a moment say that all religion is bad or dangerous, only a minority of religious people are bad or do bad things.

Lennox: I agree with you on many points, and am ashamed as a Christian for many of the historical acts like the Crusades undertaken in the name of Christianity. But your attempt to airbrush out the atheistic regimes in your book concerns me that a scientist who is very concerned with historical evidence is content with a superficial analysis of the Cold War. I would like you to write another book in which you differentiate between religions.

Dawkins: I agree that Stalin, and Pol Pot did bad things, it may even be their Marxist, their Atheism that led them to do bad things. Those 19 men who flew planes into targets in the US – they weren’t psychopaths, they were well educated, rational people, who thought they were good, the same thing could be said of the Taliban. Once you grant people the premise of their faith, then the terrible things that they do follow.

__________________________

Lennox Atheism is a faith as well
Dawkins: It’s not
Lennox: Don’t you believe it?

Will post more as i hear of it…

5 Comments Post a comment
  1. May 16 2008

    Hahaha:
    Dawkins: If it were evidence based, why would you need to call it faith? You would just call it evidence.
    Lennox: I presume you’ve got faith in your wife is there any evidence for that?
    Dawkins: Yes plenty.
    Lennox: There you go.

    Great🙂

    I believe the universe is intelligent/has spirit. If someone would like to call the universe/existence for “God”, well fine. Traditional religions carefully and compassionately, and wisely read could probably be a very healthy thing, that brings truth and love into being, but often the opposite is common.

    When i hear what people has said or done in the name of God im a great disbeliver, but when look in the structure of the cell, or at the complexity of the brain, the simplicity of a flower, or ask myself what an human emotion is, or the enigma of mathematics, or a painting by Monet then i have no problem in beliving in what some humanoids refer to as “God” at all. That is my own premature philosopy, hope it didt offend anyone.
    Take care.
    /Björn.

    Reply
  2. steveheath
    Jul 28 2008

    Seriously, Dawkins makes me want to poke my eyes out.

    “This is supposed to be a debate and I feel intensely frustrated. ”

    Why?

    Because people don’t see it the way you do.

    Reply
  3. Aug 12 2008

    You really need to read his book as opposed to this doctored nonsense.

    steveheath – I would suggest that Dawkins is particulary frustrated by ridiculious questions like “I presume you’ve got faith in your wife is there any evidence for that?” and then the vacuous reply “there you go”. What does this mean? Please Bjorn, explain to me how this is great.

    Where is Dawkin’s answer to the “who Created the Creator” question. Seems rather one sided don’t you think?

    Reply
    • pablo360
      Apr 25 2013

      If you ask who created the Creator, you may as well ask who created the Big Bang. You have to stop somewhere. We choose to stop at God.

      Reply
  4. Jake
    Jun 23 2009

    Facts may be one sided but that is that. The Creation of God is not the issue of any reasonal debate. Its stupid.
    Reason being, if there is a God, its stupid to ask if there is another even if he does exist. God is our God, and he judges us.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Note: HTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to comments

%d bloggers like this: