Dawkins Left LITERALLY Speechless | EPIC DEBATE

The clip you are about to see features a conversation between Oxford mathematician John Lennox and the notorious Richard Dawkins. It's a fascinating clip. I want you to listen in particular to Dawkins' line of reasoning at the beginning and then listen to John Lennox analyze sort of the epistemological assumptions embedded in Dawkins' worldview. This is actually very good, let's get into it and then I'll give some of my thoughts. In the end, they look around the living world and see how impressive it is, so that level of impressionability is completely destroyed by Darwin and Darwin, of course, does not explain the origin of the universe, which is why I invoke the anthropic principle and the Multiverse, it is true that it is less satisfactory, but science advances, the only thing you can be absolutely sure of is that a creative designer cannot be a satisfactory designer. explanation Dr.

Linux, the anthropic principle as you said, Richard, I think it's a complete no-brainer, of course we have to be on this or that type of planet of the type we could appear on, that doesn't answer the question of how we come to exist. and I'm afraid I have to disagree with your Darwinism. Darwinism doesn't explain life, it can explain certain things about what happens when you have life, but evolution, assuming it assumes the existence of a mutant replicator, doesn't explain how that replicator came to exist. exists in the first place now that it is an important discussion.

I want to address the question of who designed the designer because it's the old school guy's question of who created God. In fact, I'm very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because God is supposed to be created and I'm not surprised that you call the book The God Delusion because created gods are by definition a delusion. Now I know and I have to explain that Richard doesn't like people who tell him they don't believe. in the God he doesn't believe in, but I think this is possibly hitting a sore spot because you leave yourself very open to the accusation, after all you are arguing that God is a deception and to weigh your argument I said that are you the one who is arguing that God is a hoax?

Oh, I'm sorry, and to weigh that argument I need to know what you mean by God and if you say that if there is a God, you have to ask who created God, that means you are narrowing it down. to think about created gods, well, none of us believe in created gods, Jewish, Muslim or Christian, and I think that argument is then beside the point and maybe you should put it on your shelf marked Heavenly Teapots where it belongs, but ultimately one word. about miracles, this is a huge topic, you affirm what David Hume says that miracles violate the laws of nature, well, David Humes, a very curious person to quote on this topic because David Hume didn't really believe in laws of cause and effect, on which laws of nature it is founded, he did not believe in causality and he did not seem to believe in the principle of induction, so he is not a very good authority to cite secondly.

I do not believe that miracles are violations of the laws of nature because The laws of nature describe what normally happens. God, who is the God of this universe and created it with his regularities, is perfectly free to fuel a new event in the universe, as C.S Lewis points out if I put two dollars plus two dollars on my desk tonight for four dollars if I discover in the morning that there is a dollar I am not saying that the laws of arithmetic have been violated I am saying that the laws of Alabama have been violated I think that the book The God Delusion gives away the game and the dedication at the beginning of the book to Douglas Adams where it says : Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are also fairies in the background?

Now you do a brilliant job of getting rid of it. of fairies, although it must be said that most of them did not believe in them anyway, but when you see the beauty of a garden, for example, in a new college in Oxford, do you think that there is no gardener or owner, that its sublime beauty has arisen? of pure Nature by pure chance, of course, not so that the Gardens are distinguished from pure Nature by the operation of intelligence and I think what you are doing in your book presents us with an obviously complete set of Alternatives, or do we take the Gardens on their own or the garden plus fairies, but they don't appear on their own, they have gardeners and owners, just like the universe.

You say there is no evidence for God, and yet your very description of the universe as a garden testifies that the evidence is everywhere. Please note that faith can be very dangerous, especially if it is accompanied by blind obedience to an evil Authority and that, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to emphasize is true whether the blind faith is of religious or secular people, but Not all faith is blind faith. because faith itself carries with it the ideas of belief, trust, commitment, and is therefore only as strong as the evidence that supports it. I cannot speak with authority about other religions, but faith in the Christian sense is not blind, and in fact I do not know any serious Christians.

Who thinks that's actually how I read it? Blind faith in idols and figments of human imagination, in other words, delusional Gods, is roundly condemned in the Bible. My faith in God and in Christ as the Son of God is not a delusion, it is rational and evidence. Some of the evidence is objective, some comes from science, some comes from history, and some is subjective and comes from experience, but evidence is very important. I mean, Einstein's predictions fit observed facts and a whole body of Theory, while we only need to use the word faith when there is no evidence.

Suppose you have faith in your wife. Is there any evidence of that? The way John Lennox approaches this

debate

is by focusing on the broad assumptions embedded within the naturalistic worldview that Dawkins holds and saying, well, wait a second, you're using these supposed prerequisites to deny your belief in God, you're applying to God. to a standard that you have already accepted and in this sense Dawkins' worldview becomes circular because again, exactly as he says in the clip, if God is a material being, if God is a physical being, if God could be put under a microscope if it existed. somewhere in the universe and we haven't seen it, we can't find it, we have no physical evidence of it, so you could say, well, first of all, maybe we haven't found it in the universe yet, but you would say not yet.

We don't have enough physical evidence of him, so we don't believe in him, but that is precisely misunderstanding what we mean when we talk about God. God is precisely not a created being, precisely he is not part of creation, precisely the divine intelligence that he is. the source of all time, space and matter, so it is wrong in exactly the same way to search for God in the universe as it would be to search in a painting for the artist or inside a computer for Steve Jobs. He is doing exactly the same thing. epistemological error, so to speak, and this is really what happens if you look at materialism and I know some people have made the distinction between atheism and materialism, but for all practical purposes they really come to the same point if you look at materialism. make this key mistake by expecting to find Steve Jobs inside the computer or Michelangelo on the canvas of the painting that is precisely incorrect rather the existence of the computer itself tells you that there is a designer the existence of the painting itself tells you that there is an artist, this is the difference between the kind of argument you see here from Dawkins and what you see from John Lennox, so a lot more could be said about this, these videos should be relatively short for the moment, at least I.

I'm also looking forward to bringing other voices here on the channel, maybe also hosting some

debate

s or some conversations. With all that said, I hope you enjoy this clip and there will be more to come, in fact, I'll give it to you. one here to immerse yourself and enjoy this daily wisdom in dust, goodbye, foreigner