Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox

On Wednesday night, Richard Dawkins (noted author of The God Delusion) debated Christian apologist and professor of mathematics and philosophy of science at Oxford University, John Lennox.

It was broadcast online, and I listened in.

To begin, let me say that from what I have read of Dawkins, I have found him to be aggressive, confrontational, boorish, and smug. Surprisingly (to me), without weakening his strong opinions, he came across very well-spoken during the debate. Of the two, I found Lennox to be a little more aggressive (no doubt he would credit this to being on the defensive in the atheistic fortress of academia--he has related how he was ambushed by a bunch of professors while in graduate study who advised him that if he ever wanted to "make it in science," get rid of the "god thing).

I couldn't help but walk away feeling that Lennox had "won" the debate. To be fair, I'm on his side, he's had a lot of time to read The God Delusion and formulate his attacks, and Dawkins had to respond on the fly.

Further, the forum for the debate was annoying. Although they allowed Dawkins the "last word," every time the two were starting to really get into it, the moderator would interrupt so they could move onto the next point, which would be highlight a portion of the book, give Dawkins and opportunity to explain his position, and the allow Lennox to rip it apart, with little opportunity for Dawkins to rebut.

Frankly, if they had just given them time and let them go, it would have been much better.

The best argument between them concerned the "evil of religion." Dawkins conceded that religious belief was not evil, but that it was specifically fanaticism. In the book, Dawkins had said that all religion was dangerous because it denied people the opportunity to question belief. Lennox responded at least twice that his Christian upbringing was not "brainwashing" but that he was encouraged to read a variety of material, including Marx and Russell. Lennox then went after Dawkins on what basis he could decry religious belief as "bad" or "evil," appealing back to Dawkins's The Selfish Gene in which Dawkins says that human behavior is neither "bad" nor "good," but is merely the "dance of the DNA."

Dawkins said that what we should be doing as humans is "rising above evolution"--I assume he means rejecting that "dance of the DNA" and making conscious decisions. He said that any time a human being chooses to use birth control and enjoy sex for pleasure rather than just procreation he is "rising above evolution." I was surprised that Lennox didn't challenge him on who was doing the "rising over evolution." Surely Dawkins is not appealing to a "soul" of some kind that has influence over the material? It seems to me that the concept of a "soul" would be foreign to a naturalist/materialist like Dawkins.

In his closing comments, Lennox went all preachy, talking about Christ and his resurrection. No doubt this is due to a fervent commitment to "preach Christ" at every opportunity. I'm not sure, in that crowd, that it was the right thing to do. Dawkins responded in his closing comments with what I found to be his strongest argument (though it was entirely an emotional argument). He criticized Lennox for abandoning his strong scientific arguments for deity for what he called the "petty" story of the resurrection of Christ.

All in all I enjoyed listening to the debate. I found it online in .mp3 format so I may be able to send it to anyone who's interested.