The God Delusion Chp. 2: The God Hypothesis

[christopher]

I don't know if this belongs here or not, and I'm not butting into the conversation (since I haven't read the book), but I just found this debate saved on my computer the other day and I decided to listen to it while cleaning my carpets today. I've posted a link below for anyone who's interested in this discussion.

It's between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins (both from Oxford) in 2007 talking about the God Delusion. It has some pretty good exchanges, but I have to admit I was a little disappointed in the format.

My impressions of the debate might shock you Mo. But I actually thought Dawkins had an unfair disadvantage in this format as he was the first to speak and didn't really have the opportunity to refute the rebuttal (although he took those opportunities when the moderator tried to change topics). It almost seemed more like an interrogation of Dawkins at times rather than a debate. I think both did pretty well over all on their respective viewpoints, and I thought Dawkins was a little more humble than he's been in the past (that perhaps may be a matter of the spoken word rather than the written...as I have not heard him speak often). Also, Lennox was a little more jocular than I thought appropriate for a public setting. It's one thing to take friendly jabs in a private conversation (I get the impression these two are friends), but it's quite another when you have an audience that's is seriously try to weigh the arguments.

Anyway, here it is.

www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm

Scroll down to a little past the middle of the page to a heading called "Alister McGrath debates and others" and select the "John Lennox vs Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion Debate" 2007" link. It's about 2 hours long.

Enjoy.

[moritz]

Aug 23, 2008 18:35:20 GMT -8 christopher said:

I don't know if this belongs here or not, and I'm not butting into the conversation (since I haven't read the book), but I just found this debate saved on my computer the other day and I decided to listen to it while cleaning my carpets today. I've posted a link below for anyone who's interested in this discussion.

It's between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins (both from Oxford) in 2007 talking about the God Delusion. It has some pretty good exchanges, but I have to admit I was a little disappointed in the format.

My impressions of the debate might shock you Mo. But I actually thought Dawkins had an unfair disadvantage in this format as he was the first to speak and didn't really have the opportunity to refute the rebuttal (although he took those opportunities when the moderator tried to change topics). It almost seemed more like an interrogation of Dawkins at times rather than a debate. I think both did pretty well over all on their respective viewpoints, and I thought Dawkins was a little more humble than he's been in the past (that perhaps may be a matter of the spoken word rather than the written...as I have not heard him speak often). Also, Lennox was a little more jocular than I thought appropriate for a public setting. It's one thing to take friendly jabs in a private conversation (I get the impression these two are friends), but it's quite another when you have an audience that's is seriously try to weigh the arguments.

Anyway, here it is.

www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm

Scroll down to a little past the middle of the page to a heading called "Alister McGrath debates and others" and select the "John Lennox vs Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion Debate" 2007" link. It's about 2 hours long.

Enjoy.

Thanks for the link Chris. I've started listening and got through the first half hour. Don't know when I'll find the time to listen to the entire debate. It is highly appreciated though

As for Dawkins having a disadvantage: I've noticed that in a couple of youtube videos already. Dawkins was invited to different television shows to discuss his book or add his two cents in a debate. They often didn't really listen to what he was saying. They are often missing the point.

Example: in the first half hour of the debate you privided, Professor Lennox oposes Dawkins claim that religion teaches people to be satisfyed with not knowing. It is absolutely needless to say that Dawkins didn't mean: the holy book literally says "don't ask questions". You, Chris, are a perfect example of what Dawkins actually means: There are questions. Important questions that require an answer. But even a self-proclaimed truth seeker as you (I don't mean this depreciatory) says things like: "God has his plan, we don't have to know everything, I'm fine with not knowing everything". That's exactly Dawkins point. That's one thing he criticizes about religion.
Do you understand? That's how people who deal with Dawkins arguments often miss the point. In the worst cases, you'll find Dawkins interviewed, then when his time is up he leaves, and then a group of religious authorities enters and starts the rebuttal. They miss the point once again, but Dawkins is already gone and can't sort it out. One of the most terrible examples I've seen is this:



Maybe you have 5 minutes to watch this video. Note how Dawkins is permanently being cut off. I even think the anchorman is talking more than his guest. Please tell me that Americans do not listen to Bill O'Reilley!

[christopher]

I'll take a look at the clip when I get a chance. But I'd like to say that I think it is probably not uncommon for a host of a show (on any side of any issue) to dominate the time and try to look favorable for their audience (hey, they gotta keep their ratings up somehow right?).

Bill O'Reilly wouldn't be a good representative sample however because he is known to be a hot head. I don't like listening to him, but I know many people who do for some reason.

[moritz]

Chris, in my desperate need of procrastination I've remembered the debate you recommended and finally listened to it. I'd like to thank you again. I really would have loved it to go on. It's always good to hear such knowledgeable people as the two at hand exchanging their views. Thanks again.

[christopher]

You're welcome.

There was also a follow up informal discussion recorded between Lennox and Dawkins which I thought was much more irenic and pleasant to listen to. Did you happen to catch that one? It's on the same site.

[Josh]

Chris,

I just looked at the webpage with the lennox/dawkins debate.
Nice.

I'm glad to see you taking advantage of the best apologetics that catholics have to offer