Page 1 of 3

Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox

PostPosted: October 30th, 2008, 10:49 am
by moogdroog
Maybe old news, but...


PostPosted: October 30th, 2008, 12:57 pm
by postodave
Well that's interesting. I wonder where this is all going.
I had noticed a change in Dawkin's views. In River out of Eden he says that the question of why there is something rather than nothing there is a meaningless existential question - presumably a criticism of Sartre who said it was the most important metaphysical question. More recently he has said it is something scientists are working on. Now I can see which bit of scientific work he was referring to. Does this imply that a question changes its status and becomes meaningful once there is a possibility of a scientific answer?

PostPosted: October 30th, 2008, 6:39 pm
by postodave

PostPosted: October 30th, 2008, 11:03 pm
by girlfreddy
I just finished watching the first video also. What a treat it was, watching two highly intelligent people debate such a subject.

Anyway, my impression tended to lean towards Dawkins being quite surprised at not winning every point, as I'm sure he is usually able to. Lennox was relaxed, disciplined and quite adept at listening to each and every point that Dawkins expounded upon, and then argued or agreed in such a passionate way, and yet still countered Dawkins well.

One thing that did stick in my mind was where Dawkins spoke of "faith vs. evidence" (about a 1/3 of the way through) and Lennox kind of nailed him on it a bit. Kind of funny really, for I've heard that argument used often.

Although I had to pause this half-way to run out a get a Halloween costume for my great-niece and therefore didn't really get the full effect of it, I still quite enjoyed myself.

Makes me wonder if the Oxford debate is online too.

PostPosted: November 3rd, 2008, 12:07 am
by postodave

PostPosted: November 3rd, 2008, 6:11 pm
by postodave

PostPosted: November 4th, 2008, 2:58 am
by girlfreddy

PostPosted: November 15th, 2008, 2:36 am
by splashen
In the article, Richard Dawkins says, "A seriou case could be made for a deistic God."

WHAT?!?! The anti-theist atheist admits there is a possibility for God?!?!

Well what do you think about that?!?! I've read bits & pieces of his work The God Delusion before, & he practically belittles religious believers, & has even argued that atheists should be referred to as brights.

Is he now backpeddling(even if he is admitting the possibility for a deistic God)?!?!

PostPosted: November 15th, 2008, 10:46 am
by postodave

PostPosted: November 15th, 2008, 2:17 pm
by Lioba

PostPosted: November 15th, 2008, 2:30 pm
by alecto

PostPosted: November 15th, 2008, 4:02 pm
by postodave

Dawkins and Lennox on Premier

PostPosted: November 15th, 2008, 10:15 pm
by postodave
And then there is this:
[url]http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={6F957207-7564-4B70-AA1E-AD9474E8C768}[/url]

PostPosted: November 16th, 2008, 7:12 am
by Jservic2

PostPosted: November 16th, 2008, 6:59 pm
by Lioba