The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 3 of 3

(Continued from Part 1 and Part 2.)

The fifth thesis of the debate was "One does not need God to be good or evil". Dawkins's initial argument for this thesis is useless. First, he makes the absurd statement one's morals are likely to be "hideous" if they are based on the Bible. Then he sets up two straw men as the two possible reasons - in his mind - that one would need God to be moral: one needs a book to define morality, and one is afraid of God or wants to "suck up" to Him. Dawkins brilliantly demolishes these straw men, but neither represents the biblical position. True, God speaks through his word, and those who do evil should fear him. However, as Lennox points out, morality only has foundation in the holiness and justice of God. He is the absolute and only possible standard for morality.

Dawkins's second argument is that we are all moral in and of ourselves, to one degree or another. We all have an idea of what is right and wrong - he attributes this partly to a vague theory on early human relationships - which he fails to discuss further - as well as to what he calls a "shifting moral zeitgeist" - which he fails to define, other than to emphatically declare that it does not come from religion. Biblical Christians somewhat agree with this second part. The 17th-century Canons of Dort devotes an article to this concept:

To be sure, there is left in man after the fall, some light of nature, whereby he retains some notions about God, about natural things, and about the difference between what is honourable and shameful, and shows some regard for virtue and outward order. But so far is he from arriving at the saving knowledge of God and true conversion through this light of nature that he does not even use it properly in natural and civil matters. Rather, whatever this light may be, man wholly pollutes it in various ways and suppresses it by his wickedness. In doing so, he renders himself without excuse before God. (Chapter III/IV, Article 4)

The first sentence of this article clearly defines Dawkins's "moral zeitgeist", and the rest aptly show why it is "shifting." Lennox didn't need to do much heavy lifting to rebut this thesis.

The sixth and final thesis was "Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true; his alleged miracles violate the laws of nature." This thesis did not get a full treatment due to time constraints. However, Dawkins's position is outlined in his defense of the second thesis, where he indicated that few "sophisticated" theologians actually believe that miracles literally happened, but that the average "unsophisticated" churchgoer clings to them. As I noted with regard to that thesis, insofar as this is the case, it is an indictment of the churches of which such churchgoers are members. But it is also an indictment of many theologians who are too "sophisticated" to believe what the Bible says. Dawkins is rightly critical of both groups.

Nevertheless, truly biblical Christians - "sophisticated" or otherwise - believe that miracles literally happened; moreover, they do not cling to the miracles themselves. When Nicodemus the Pharisee witnessed Jesus' miracles, he did not cling to them. Rather, he rightly observed that they were signs:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." (John 3:1)

A sign points to something, and its value and meaning are determined by that to which it points. For Nicodemus, Jesus' miracles signified that he had "come from God." Likewise, Jesus' disciples wondered about his power over storms:

A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger. The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Master, Master, we're going to drown!"

He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples.

In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him." (Luke 8:23-25)

So, miracles are not to be clung to of themselves; further, they declare that Jesus has power over nature - that is, he is supernatural. Lennox says, "The laws of nature are not violated; the God who controls them is free to introduce events outside of them."

Attacks on the veracity of miracles are not a small matter. As Lennox indicates, the resurrection of Jesus - a supernatural event - is at the heart of the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul states:

If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith... If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Corinthians 15:14-19)

The debate was very interesting. Both men argued passionately, but it strikes me that Lennox's position is saturated with stability, justice, and hope, while Dawkins's is devoid of them. It is the difference between the "life under the sun" described in Ecclesiastes, and life according to the Maker's instructions.

The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 2 of 3

(Continued from Part 1.)

The third thesis in the God Delusion Debate was "Design is dead; otherwise one must explain, who designed the designer?" Dawkins takes the argument here from what happened once life existed to where life came from in the first place. He acknowledges that the existence of God is technically not disprovable, but he thinks it is very improbable. He acknowledges that no explanation is entirely satisfying for him, but the Anthropic Principle coupled with the idea of a multiverse will do for now, and once he's cleared that hurdle, evolution explains the rest.

In my estimation, Dawkins does not really defend the last part of the thesis - why it's necessary to explain who designed the Designer. He only really indicates that he feels it's not satisfactory to "invoke God". As Lennox points out, the entire "Who made God?" argument turns on the premise that God is created. To accept the argument is to accept this premise. But no one believes in created gods. God certainly makes no such claim for himself; nor does Jesus, who shocked the Jewish leaders by claiming to be eternal:

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
At this, they picked up stones to stone him...(John 8:57-59)

Dawkins argues that "you can't evade the issue by saying 'God was always there' - you still need an explanation." But God's eternity is not an evasion, it is the explanation. Dawkins is frustrated by this argument, but he doesn't really come up with a reason for this besides the fact that he doesn't find it satisfying. Of course, he should not find his own "interim" solution satisfying either - as Lennox hints, it still does not explain the origin of the matter and energy itself.

The fourth thesis was "Christianity is dangerous." Dawkins is careful to assure us that he doesn't believe that all religion is bad, or that all religious people are bad. He rightly points out that there is a convention in our society that religion is to be respected and not to be questioned. He declares it an evil that children are taught not to question their faith or seek justification for it. Dawkins wants each child to be given the gift of skepticism. Finally, he postulates that when some of these children eventually do evil things, it is the fact that they do not feel the need to question or justify their actions that allows them to do them. Thus he declares that there is a logical path from religion to evil acts.

For the most part, biblical Christians agree - we are called to be thinking, discerning people; as mentioned with regard to the first thesis, God does not call us to scientific incuriosity either. Lennox strongly declares that Christ's teachings do not allow for the evils Dawkins listed. He also gives several plausible examples of a logical path from atheism to evil acts. Dawkins has a double standard for people who do evil - if they are not atheists, it is because of their religion; if they are atheists, it is not.

What follows is an interesting little exchange on Lennox's thesis that atheism is a religion in its own right. Dawkins defines atheism as not believing in a God, and compares this with Lennox's "atheism" with regard to Zeus. So he claims to be religiously neutral. But humans can not exist in an ideological vacuum. To say that one does not believe in God is not to say that one believes in nothing. It is to say that one does believe that God does not exist, and this belief has consequences; it will affect how one thinks, and, inevitably, what one says and does. For this reason, atheism must be seen for what it is: a worldview, an ideology, a religion.

(See also: Part 3).

The Dawkins Lennox Debate - Part 1 of 3

In October 2007, the Fixed Point Foundation hosted a debate between evolutionary philosopher Prof. Richard Dawkins and Christian scientist and apologist Dr. John Lennox on the topic of "The God Delusion" (a reference to the title of the latest book from Dawkins). The debate can be seen at dawkinslennoxdebate.com and is worthwhile to view.

The debate was civil yet lively, serious but not humourless, and detailed but understandable. Dawkins comes across as eminently thoughtful, reasonable, and scholarly. He is well spoken, and is able to clearly verbalize his argument. Lennox is friendly, forceful, and logical, as one would expect a mathematician to be. He also injected a bit of humour into the debate.

The debate itself can only loosely be called such. Summaries of six theses from The God Delusion were chosen and introduced by the moderator. Dawkins was to elaborate on and give his reasoning for them, after which Lennox was to respond, before the moderator moved to the next thesis. This gave no opportunity for Dawkins to rebut Lennox's arguments, or for any debate in the true sense. It is clear that both Dawkins and Lennox wanted and tried to move to a back-and-forth free debate format, which they managed to do several times. This format held back the possibility of a true debate. Nevertheless, both men were able to clearly articulate and argue their positions.

The first thesis was "Faith is blind; science is evidence-based. Faith teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding." Dawkins's position is that faith removes the need for evidence or the desire to understand. His argument also implies that faith is not evidence-based and science is not blind. Dawkins's premise is that faith is defined as belief of something for which we have no evidence. The writer to the Hebrews wrote:

Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

But it is false to equate what we do not see with what we do not have evidence for. The Bible certainly does not say that we have no evidence for what we believe. Yet, we must be clear that, though the evidence is consistent with our faith, it is not evidence on which we base our faith.

Dawkins asserts that faith teaches satisfaction with not understanding. This is true to this extent, that there are some things which Christians do not need to understand, and which we therefore do and should not pursue (Deuteronomy 29:29). But this satisfaction with not understanding is absolutely not true with regard to scientific curiosity; this is abundantly clear from the example of the many early Christians who were ground-breaking scientists. God and His Word do not call Christians to scientific incuriosity.

The second thesis was "Science supports atheism, not Christianity." There are two points here on which biblical Christians agree with Dawkins: first, "a universe with a God would be a very different kind of universe from a universe without a God"; second, science and religion are not non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). To his credit, though other evolutionists warm him it is damaging to their case, Dawkins unequivocally states that evolution led him to atheism. He also acknowledges that the study of science came out of the Christian faith.

But on this point Dawkins also makes a strong statement:

It becomes even more glaring where you talk about miracles... However much sophisticated theologians may profess their non-belief in miracles, the plain fact is, that the ordinary person in the pew - the ordinary unsophisticated church-goer - believes deeply in miracles, and it's largely miracles that persuade that person into the church in the first place.

Leaving the reality and nature of miracles for later discussion, I think it is an exaggeration to imply, first, that ordinary church-goers are unsophisticated, and second, that it is miracles that draw these people into the church. But if this is true for the average church-goer, it is an indictment on their churches. Churches that teach biblical Christianity teach their members to be personally well-versed in the Scriptures, and there is thus no room for spiritual illiteracy that would have them holding on to mere miracles instead of the gospel to which they point. These are the same Christians who are likely to be, as Lennox put it with reference to the first thesis, "guilty of a lazy God-of-the-gaps kind of solution - I can't understand it, therefore God did it, and of course, God disappears as the gaps close."

Lennox makes some very strong arguments in rebuttal, particularly that one can't even begin scientific study without believing that it is bound by law and order.

(See also: Part 2 and Part 3.)