Dawkins-Lennox Debate

YouTube
So, I recently watched this debate. After scrolling through the comments on YouTube, I saw that it was filled with atheists criticizing Lennox and theists criticizing Dawkins. Unfortunately, these debates rarely ever convince anyone of anything - people watching will usually pick a side and adamantly stick to that.
I found John Lennox an unusually good debater for a theist - he is an experienced debater and academic, though I suppose. (And bear in mind the only Richard Dawkins religious debate I'd seen prior to this was the one with Wendy Wright). I noticed many people also appreciated him - I even saw a version of the video posted on youtube entitled, "Dawkins tries to debate Lennox, gets OWNED", which gave Lennox cartoon pixellated sunglasses for eyes.
I am interested, though, to hear what you liked and disliked about the debate, about the arguments put forward, what you agreed with and didn't agree with and why. I thought that Lennox should perhaps have pressed more the issue regarding the link between atheism and amorality, and that Dawkins should have focused more on the fact that Lennox happened to be a devout Christian - why was he a Christian, specifically? Lennox made no argument for that, only for the existence of a "God".
The transcript link is below:
http://www.protorah.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-God-Delusion-Debate-Full-Transcript.pdf

The nature of the Dawkins-Lennox debates suggests this conversation would be better to be in the Beliefs and Skepticism area of the forums, mainly because this area of the forums has more rules centered around the protection of religious discussion. In simpler terms with risk, this protects one side of the debate.

That said, I've seen the debate and scanned the transcript to refresh my memory on a few parts.

It is not about liking or disliking the debate, or parts of it.

The bigger issue is pitting explanation and debate from systems of belief (religion) against systems of process (science.) The raw method for both are so different to draw conclusions from that they end up inherently adversarial.

You take any two people who have enough education and aptitude and they will end up having a similar debate that Dawkins and Lennox had, probably down to using some of the same means to get to a conclusion or counter the conclusion of the other.

Someone rooted in science can always ask certain questions that the other will not answer, or return a response not really based on the question asked. Another issue is the same thing is possible the other way and that is because of how a system of belief gives someone answers against how a system of process tries to explain something.

In the interest of being fair (and respectful of where we are in the forums) these debates between science and religion do not move the needle for those in the debate... those watching on the other hand is another matter and it becomes possible to influence someone away from whatever confines they may be in up to that point.

Marrybore said:

YouTube
So, I recently watched this debate. After scrolling through the comments on YouTube, I saw that it was filled with atheists criticizing Lennox and theists criticizing Dawkins. Unfortunately, these debates rarely ever convince anyone of anything - people watching will usually pick a side and adamantly stick to that.
I found John Lennox an unusually good debater for a theist - he is an experienced debater and academic, though I suppose. (And bear in mind the only Richard Dawkins religious debate I'd seen prior to this was the one with Wendy Wright). I noticed many people also appreciated him - I even saw a version of the video posted on youtube entitled, "Dawkins tries to debate Lennox, gets OWNED", which gave Lennox cartoon pixellated sunglasses for eyes.
I am interested, though, to hear what you liked and disliked about the debate, about the arguments put forward, what you agreed with and didn't agree with and why. I thought that Lennox should perhaps have pressed more the issue regarding the link between atheism and amorality, and that Dawkins should have focused more on the fact that Lennox happened to be a devout Christian - why was he a Christian, specifically? Lennox made no argument for that, only for the existence of a "God".
The transcript link is below:
http://www.protorah.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-God-Delusion-Debate-Full-Transcript.pdf

Click to expand...

Fun stuff, on the whole, and glad to have made an opportunity to sit through it. Thank you for the suggestion.

Having watched other debates of a similar stripe, I'm always left with at least a tinge of an impression that I cannot help but feel that, on some level, and please forgive the chess metaphor, the two proponents always wind up being bishops on different colored squares. Which is to say that no matter how much they wish to impact each others arguments, or skewer them, or even corral them, there is always some escape diagonal left undefended. They always slide past each other.

In this particular exchange, I'm very sympathetic to Dawkins' frustration, because the things he has written are forever out there, to be dissected, reassembled, often grotesquely distorted, and leveraged against him. Lennox had what amounted to an unfair advantage, because he was not there defending his own book. In this respect, it was not a debate in the truest meaning of the word. It was Lennox laying siege against Dawkins' book, and Dawkins parrying each thrust. But the irritation was evident on Dawkins' face when Lennox regurgitates the already thoroughly debunked idea that atheism is just another form of religion - as if he hasn't handled that non-argument a thousand times already in his life.

And no less a palm to the face for Dawkins' when Lennox tries to sidestep the issue of who created the creator, by simply projecting John1:1 - that god, being eternal, need not have been created by anyone. As if evidence in a debate about religious belief could be settled by the equivalent of " . . . . but it says so right here in the book!"

In the end, the one who crosses the finish line first will always depend on the parallax bias of the viewer. For me, it was enough fun to watch the two racers still swapping paint on the final home stretch.

Thanks again.

Marrybore said:

YouTube
So, I recently watched this debate. After scrolling through the comments on YouTube, I saw that it was filled with atheists criticizing Lennox and theists criticizing Dawkins. Unfortunately, these debates rarely ever convince anyone of anything - people watching will usually pick a side and adamantly stick to that.
I found John Lennox an unusually good debater for a theist - he is an experienced debater and academic, though I suppose. (And bear in mind the only Richard Dawkins religious debate I'd seen prior to this was the one with Wendy Wright). I noticed many people also appreciated him - I even saw a version of the video posted on youtube entitled, "Dawkins tries to debate Lennox, gets OWNED", which gave Lennox cartoon pixellated sunglasses for eyes.
I am interested, though, to hear what you liked and disliked about the debate, about the arguments put forward, what you agreed with and didn't agree with and why. I thought that Lennox should perhaps have pressed more the issue regarding the link between atheism and amorality, and that Dawkins should have focused more on the fact that Lennox happened to be a devout Christian - why was he a Christian, specifically? Lennox made no argument for that, only for the existence of a "God".
The transcript link is below:
http://www.protorah.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-God-Delusion-Debate-Full-Transcript.pdf

Click to expand...

I watched the debate a few years ago and enjoyed it, I agree too that most who watch it already are on one side or the other, I was keen to see how a mathematician with excellent knowledge of physics interacted with Dawkins.

For me one of the most critical points was where Dawkins referred to "rising above it" when discussing morality, and overcoming base desires. Dawkins was - it seemed - attempting to imply that despite the fact we are the results of mechanistic unfeeling forces of nature, we nevertheless possess an ability to exert influence over that.

Lennox rightly jumped on this and exposed Dawkins' tomfoolery, Lennox is able to identify and magnify the poor logic and reasoning that many atheists fall victim to.

good analysis