Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox - Has Science Buried God?

[Disciplical]

An interesting debate I came across that was recently uploaded. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCBq15MaYuU

I think both Dawkins and Lennox raise interesting points but Dawkins' main point seems to be "the simplest explanation is best," and to him, the simplest explanation is the universe is a mindless collection of molecules and matter with no real purpose or direction. An impasse is reached here because Lennox cannot accept this notion. Personally, I think it is quite immature of Dawkins to refuse to consider other explanations apart from the most simple. In a way, he's ruling out any explanation he doesn't want to hear apart from his own.

Thoughts on the video?

[RickD]

Disciplical wrote:
Thoughts on the video?

Way too long. Not ADD friendly.

[Nessa]

Disciplical wrote:
Thoughts on the video?

Way too long. Not ADD friendly.

in other words it goes for more than one minute and there are no diagrams...

[Nessa]

Did you listen to the science and God link too? similar themes.

[Jac3510]

I have the day off and a lot of cleaning to do around the house while the wife is at work and the kids at daycare (no woman jokes, Rick!), so I'll listen to it in a bit and share some thoughts. But just from your description, I'd just say upfront that I do think that the simplest solution is the best. But that's not the only criteria. It must also be the simplest solution with the most explanatory power--that is, the one that explains all the data as we have it. I mean,the simplest solution of all is just that we've always been here. No explanation necessary! But that explanation is absurd because it doesn't account for the data as we have it, especially the fact that we have not always been here. Furthermore, the simplest solution also has to be coherent, that is, not self-contradictory. For reasons I can't get into now (although perhaps some here who know where my mind went a long time ago can go there for me ), Dawkins' "simple" solution is actually incredibly complex. How many quintillions of parts does his solution require? And what about the mysterious laws of physics that govern the interactions of all those laws? And how many of those laws are there? And so on.

No, the truly simple solution is actually very simple indeed . . .*

Will watch and say more later.

*Really, I'm as bad as ACB, aren't I? I just have a different hobby horse . . .

[PaulSacramento]

If the universe is a mindless and pointless collection of molecules then why on earth is Dawkins debating ANYONE about ANYTHING ???

[Jac3510]

So I watched the video. It was in some ways frustrating for me, because I think Dawkins was continually missing the force of what Lennox was trying to say, but I also don't feel like Lennox expressed himself particularly well. I'm afraid he might have come off as presenting a god-of-the-gaps argument throughout. Every time he kept referring to the origin of something, be it the laws of physics or of life itself or of consciousness or the whole universe or morality or what have you, he came across as suggesting that science can't answer those questions, so we need to plug in God. In some ways, I think that is his argument, but it is, of course, much more sophisticated. He distinguishes between good and bad gaps and later in the debate takes the typical DA view in which he thinks that God intervened at specific points in the history of the universe. That all lends itself to a god-of-the-gaps interpretation. But his more subtle point, and I think the stronger one that Dawkins completely missed, was the distinction in agency v mechanism. Dawkins wants to explain away the agent by explaining the mechanism. He went so far as to say that if the mechanism doesn't need an agent then you shouldn't posit one. But this is where Lennox had him dead to rights and let the whole thing go. You can have a mechanism that doesn't need an agent to operate it. That's perfectly fine. That's just a fully scientific understanding of the agent. But just because the agent isn't a part of the mechanism, it doesn't follow that no agent is necessary. That's even true if you don't need to posit the agent to account for the historical origin of the mechanism. Lennox' point was that the mechanism itself--its very existence, its very nature--is suggestive of an agent. And it is that point: the intrinsic orderliness and intelligibility not only of the universe but of the physical and biological mechanisms by which it operates and develops, those mechanisms themselves are orderly and intelligible, and that points necessary and unavoidably to the agent. And in light of that, Dawkins was allowed to get away with the basic question: how do you explain intelligibility and orderliness itself? Because however you explain it, you are just going to appeal to a mechanism that is itself intelligible and orderly. The only way to explain it is to assume it, and to assume it is embodied necessarily in the only thing naturally suited to intelligibility and orderliness: Mind. So we come inescapably to a mind under and behind all of creation, such that all the mechanisms of science, far from burying God, simply illustrate His mind!

And that gets to the question of the OP. Dawkins is right insofar as simplicity precedes complexity. But Mind is simpler than physical and biological complexity. And when you really press things, you discover (in my opinion) that the Mind behind all of this is a Simple mind anyway, which is to say, you affirm the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. So says I, anyway.

fakeedit: I've often linked to a paper "Dawkins’s Gabmit, Hume’s Aroma, and God’s Simplicity,” which was published in Philosophia Christi 11 (2009): 113-27. I'll do so again here as it explains in some detail where Dawkins argument regarding simplicity and complexity fails (as well as where it succeeds).

[Disciplical]

I agree with a lot of what you say. Lennox unfortunately didn't seem on point for this particular debate. I felt the agent argument could have been developed much further and Dawkins could have been shown up good and proper.

I felt it very rude of Dawkins to start off almost slandering Lennox at the beginning of the debate, as well as to label anything he doesn't like as "petty." He even labelled the existence of Jesus as petty!

[MBPrata]

If the universe is a mindless and pointless collection of molecules then why on earth is Dawkins debating ANYONE about ANYTHING ???

Is that a rethorical question?
If it is, I humbly think you shouldn't use infantility to discredit a scientist (asking rethorical questions is a childish way of refuting ideas, if you ask me...).
If it isn't, then you're missing a simple logical principle just like Einstein did (according to mr. Deem, that is). Why is mr. Dawkins debating? Because humans have needs and mr. Dawkins wants to debate!

Also, some atheists think that everything is ruled by...well, by rules...including our brain's thoughts. In so being, they do not believe in free will. So, the answer could also be: he's debating because he has no other choice. But meh...just speculating. Sure only mr. Dawkins knows the exact reasons why he did it.

Living the experience of being an atheist may have a lot of disadvantages, but at least we understand atheists better...

[RickD]

MBPrata wrote:
Living the experience of being an atheist may have a lot of disadvantages, but at least we understand atheists better...

Understand atheists better than who? Better than people who used to be atheists?

[MBPrata]

Better than people who used to be atheists?

No; better than people who were not atheists for a significant period of their life.

[abelcainsbrother]

It is sad to see people who were former believers overlook 2nd Timothy 4:1-4, 2nd Thessalonians 2:3,1st John 2:18-19,Luke 21:34-36,etc in order to believe and buy into atheist leaders who live by their own imagination and believe things that are much,much harder and requires far more blind faith to believe than to believe everything in the bible and I believe these people once believed but were hypocrites who never were ever truly born again,maybe a few were and just fell into sin,but most were just warming the pews in church not ever being truly saved because there is Noway after I have been saved for me to somehow think that any of the atheist leaders out there are cooler or more awesome or more of a hero to look up to over Jesus Christ.

[neo-x]

MBPrata wrote:
Living the experience of being an atheist may have a lot of disadvantages, but at least we understand atheists better...

Understand atheists better than who? Better than people who used to be atheists?

Better than people who used to be atheists?

No; better than people who were not atheists for a significant period of their life.

Both these points are moot and hold no credibility on your arguments or understanding of them. The arguments themselves must be weighed in.

[PaulSacramento]

If the universe is a mindless and pointless collection of molecules then why on earth is Dawkins debating ANYONE about ANYTHING ???

Is that a rethorical question?
If it is, I humbly think you shouldn't use infantility to discredit a scientist (asking rethorical questions is a childish way of refuting ideas, if you ask me...).
If it isn't, then you're missing a simple logical principle just like Einstein did (according to mr. Deem, that is). Why is mr. Dawkins debating? Because humans have needs and mr. Dawkins wants to debate!

Also, some atheists think that everything is ruled by...well, by rules...including our brain's thoughts. In so being, they do not believe in free will. So, the answer could also be: he's debating because he has no other choice. But meh...just speculating. Sure only mr. Dawkins knows the exact reasons why he did it.

Living the experience of being an atheist may have a lot of disadvantages, but at least we understand atheists better...

You don't seem the grasp the issue here, which is IF the universe is what Dawkins says it i s, he WOULDN'T be arguing for anything at all.
To sate that an obvious PHILOSOPHICAL comment is infantile because it is , according to you, trying to discredit it a scientist is just a silly argument.
Dawkins IS a scientist and he should stick to what he knows, biology.
The moment he ventures into things that he clearly knows very little about (theology, philosophy) then, will, his ignorance SHOULD be pointed out and, quite frankly, the only person discrediting Dawkins is Dawkins himself.

As for rules, how can one state that the universe is "mindless, pointless and random" and then suggest it has "rules" ?

The reality is that this is NOT an issue of atheism VS theism and never really has been.

This is an issue of epicurinasim.