Liveblogging the Wednesday night debate in Alabama between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. I'm listening over the Moody radio network. . .

[Dawkins is an outspoken atheist and the author of The God Delusion and other books. Lennox is a Christian apologist and scientist and his book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is soon to be released. Both men are Oxford educated.]

My thoughts, added after the debate, in italics. . .

Dawkins is beginning the debate and giving a short bio. He was born in South Africa into an Anglican family. His family's faith was never crammed down his throat, but he gave up his religion when he 1) realized it was simply by chance that he born into a Christian family, and 2) met Darwinism. [I think I also remember Dawkins saying he was sent to boarding school at some age. Poor guy. That explains everything. . .]

Because of his position as a scientist and philosopher, he feels especially qualified to address the question of existence.

Update: Lennox was born into a Christian family, but made the point that he never felt his parents were withholding ideas or truth from him, as Dawkins implies religions do.

Lennox explains his position as being opposite of Dawkins', and quotes Dawkins' book that would place him (Lennox) in the category of "deluded."

Lennox says, "But which is a delusion, atheism or Christianity? That is for us to decide according to the evidence."

 Update: Dawkins says that when you see the beauty of the world, you have a natural "religious" desire to be amazed, to worship something. He says science is seeking to "emancipate" humans from that innate desire or "temptation." He believes it was a triumph of science to show people that the feeling they have that all things were created is simply a delusion--instead, all things have a materialistic origin and can eventually be explained by science. [In other words, Dawkins believes science--by which he means Darwinism--soothes that itchy feeling people normally get that "God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from {creation}." Romans 1. So although we naturally believe in God, Dawkins thinks we should try to supress that feeling, and embrace Darwinism and materialism to help us do so.]

Dawkins: "Science says, 'let's roll up our sleeves and work on it.' Religion says, 'God did it.'"

Dawkins says religion stifles scientific efforts to discover truth.

[There is some truth to what Dawkins' says here: Where religion offers an answer to a philosophical question, people feel no need to invest in a scientific explanation. However, proposing a scientific explanation doesn't show us that the religious answer was untrue. If creation is true, it will continue to be true whether or not Darwin's theory works.]

Update: Lennox distinguishes between blind faith and evidence-based faith. Faith in a "flying spaghetti monster" would be blind, because there's no evidence for it. In contrast, Christianity is faith-based in real things, like science, history, and other believable evidence.

Lennox says it's important to realize science has limits--it can't tell us whether it's morally right to put poison into our grandmother's tea, but can tell us it would kill her if we did.

There are two kinds of "gaps."--Those that science closes and those that it opens. [Meaning science doesn't explain things like morality and meaning, I presume.]

Lennox says theistic religion was not historically responsible for hindering science, but instead for driving it.

Tells Dawkins he is confusing agencies (God) with mechanisms (natural selection, I presume). Mechanisms, when properly understood, bring glory to the God that created them.

 Update: Dawkins attempted to rebut Lennox's point about blind faith and evidence-based faith, but either didn't understand or didn't agree with Lennox's argument that all beliefs have an element of faith in them.

Update: Dawkins disagrees with the concept of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). [Here Dawkins was saying he believes science should bear on religious beliefs, because, for example, a miracle should be believed or disbelieved based on whether it can be empirically shown to have occurred. Lennox agreed. So do I. That's why the Bible so strongly emphasizes eyewitness accounts. If you believe the Bible, although you're ultimately trusting God, you're also trusting those who saw certain events happen and wrote them down.]

Lennox argues that faith is even required to do science, because you have to start with the assumption that the universe can be intelligently studied and understood.

He criticizes Dawkin's reductionism--believing all things, including the mind, is reducible to basic atomic processes--is absurd, because Dawkins has no reason to trust his own thoughts if they are merely the result of random, meaningless firings of the brain.

Lennox says the physical constants (which are fine-tuned for our existence) give evidence of design.

He says the Bible has for centuries showed us that the universe had a beginning--which was never verified scientifically until science found the evidence of the big bang. Of course I disagree with Lennox's argument here, since I'm a big bang skeptic. [But I do believe the Bible revealed many things that have only been scientifically verified in modern times.]

Update: Dawkins says it's a futile explanation to argue that fine-tuned physical constants are evidence for a designer. Just because life is fine-tuned or improbable is not proof of creation.

He invokes the anthropic principle and the multi-verse theory as suitable, if imperfect, explanations for these questions.

Lennox addresses Dawkins criticism of a "created God," and says no one believes such a thing. God is by definition uncreated. He quotes John 1:1-3.

Lennox says science can study the material mechanics of processes, but doesn't explain "why" things happen.

Update: Dawkins says Lennox is missing his point of a "created God". Dawkins explains he is arguing that you can't just say God explains everything--and then not explain God.

Dawkins is responding to the moderator's question about a quote from The God Delusion that faith is harmful to children. He says children are harmed when their parents teach them their beliefs--such as participating in jihad--must be accepted without question because it is their religion. He says he isn't arguing that the majority of religious beliefs or practice are harmful. [I think this can sometimes be true--but aren't children also harmed when they decide to be "skeptical" about their parent's instructions not to play with matches, or not to do drugs? Christianity doesn't only answer life's big question, it provides a moral and social framework that allows people to live healthy, productive lives. Does Darwinism?]

 Update: Lennox expresses shame that events such as the Crusades are associated with Christianity, and argues such people were not truly following Christ, since Christ taught his kingdom was not of this world. [That's a rather blanket statement and simplifies the circumstances of the Crusades, but I digress. . .]

He agrees in principle that children are harmed when they are taught to accept religious beliefs without questioning them, and says he's grateful his parents allowed him to approach Christianity with an open mind.

In response to Dawkins' book's proposition that people "imagine a world without religion", Lennox asks people to imagine a world with no Lenin, no Hitler, or no Pol Pot--three atheistic rulers. 

Dawkins expects people to differentiate between tyrannous atheists and nice atheists such as himself, Lennox says, but doesn't seem to differentiate between separate religions like Christianity and Islam. Why not?

 Update: Dawkins says atheism itself didn't motivate the rulers above, something else "evil" inside them was. In contrast, he says deeply-held religious beliefs can compel people to do hideous acts, and therefore religion itself is dangerous.

Dawkins passionately objected when Lennox charged him with having a religious conviction to his atheism. Lennox says atheism is a religion, just like anything else. I agree. Dawkins is frustrated, either not agreeing or not understanding Lennox's point.

 Update: On the question of morality, Dawkins says people who base their morality on the Koran or the Bible must have hideous ethics.

Dawkins says he doesn't himself have an absolute explanation for the existence of morality, but offers an evolutionary explanation--sexual desire--a the primitive basis of altruism and moral behavior.

Lennox counters that without an absolute definition of good or evil, Dawkins can't condemn Pol Pot or the 9/11 terrorists. They must have simply been responding to their genes.

 Update: Dawkins says that even though we wouldn't want the world to be evil and meaningless, that doesn't prove there is a moral absolute. He says the "selfish genes" are ugly but make beautiful results. Humans can "rise above" the fundamental ruthlessness of Darwinian processes. (By being altruistic, enjoying the pleasures of sex while using contraceptives to prevent Darwinian reproduction, etc.)

 Update: Lennox wraps up by saying Dawkins' world is devoid of meaning, morality or justice. Like a garden, the world is ordered and gives evidence of intelligent design. He concludes by saying his faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ--which if the resurrection is untrue, the terrorists on 9/11 ultimately got away with what they did.

Dawkins says his own point is proved by Lennox's conclusion--that the scientific-sounding Lennox really bases his worldview on his belief in the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He ends by praising Charles Darwin's breakthrough in showing people that they don't have to believe in a creator god to marvel at the grandeur of the universe.

. . . . . .

Overall, I thought Lennox was strong in his position and defended the Christian faith well. I'm not sure what position he takes on evolution in general--whether he is a literal creationist, day-ager, theistic evolutionist, or whatever other camp there is. Lennox didn't focus on creation or evolution much; instead he talked a lot about philosophical points such as morality, the existence of God, the meaning of the universe, the nature of faith, and so on.

I should point out that although I disagree with Dawkins almost in entirety, I think he's being completely consistent with his own foundational beliefs. In contrast to others who, like Francis Collins, hold to Christianity but don't think the Bible is true in matters of science. Dawkins is more consistent than the myriad of those who sit on the fence between Dawkin's position and a complete trust in the revelation of God's Word. If I myself was in Dawkins shoes, being an atheist and an evolutionist, I'd be asking the same questions and coming to the same conclusions he does. I'd think Christians were nuts, too. And I'd be asking the fence-sitters: Why believe in Jesus Christ if the Bible contains proven fairy tales?


Go here to hear people's responses to the debate. Though the site seems to be overloaded, you'll supposedly be able to order an audio copy of the debate at www.fixed-point.org.