The “God Delusion” Debate

Richard Dawkins and John LennoxLast night at 7 PM Chicago time, a debate was broadcast on Moody Radio Network between Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” and John Lennox, professor of Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, both at Oxford University, England. Dawkins is considered one of the leading intellectuals in science today, and a spokesman for the “New Atheism.”

The debate was held at The Alys Stephens Center at the University of Alabama, and was sponsored by a group called Fixed Point Foundation. I heard about the debate from my brother Barry, and also saw it advertised in Christianity Today magazine.

The debate was positioned to center on Dawkins’ views as expressed in his book, and their validity over and against the Christian faith. Lennox is a well-know Christian apologist, and has written a rebuttal to Dawkins’ book entitled: “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” Dawkins was given the first and last words for the evening debate out of “Christian charity” as the host humorously noted.

I was able to listen to the first 30 minutes before attending a previous commitment. In that time I heard introductions of the speakers by the moderator, and a 5 minute biography introduction by each debater.

I plan to purchase the DVD of the event through the Fixed Point website as soon as it is available. I’ll do a more detailed analysis after viewing that.

What I found personally interesting is that when I was in Oxford in 2006 for the RZIM Summer School (see my 2006 Summer School Posts), John Lennox was one of the lecturers that I heard on a daily basis. We also heard our evening lectures from Ravi Zacharias and other RZIM speakers, in the British Museum of Natural History, where Richard Dawkins has his office.

Kind of ironic!

Zactrust Summer School – Oxford, England – Day 6

Randal with another Summer School Student10:41 PM

Am getting packed and and ready for the morning check out after breakfast. Had a great “Hog Roast” dinner out in the quad. Said good-bye to friends I met this week. Had a great conversation with Maynard Colondam, my new friend from Indonesia, and a few others (Maynard took the photo at right, and many others on this blog).

Of course, I joked around a bit with Simon & Simon, my Zactrust Intern friends. I told them about the American TV series about two private-eye brothers, and we had a good laugh.

I was also able to get a few minutes with Ravi, and bring him greetings from the Wolgemuth family, and chat about my week. He was very encouraging, and told me that Robert had emailed him that I would be there. He asked if the week was what I had hoped. It was a great conversation and way to end a great week in Oxford. Thank you to my family! Most of all, thank you Deb for thinking of and organizing this fantastic gift! — I love you!

Ravi Zacharias8 PM

I have just returned from Ravi’s lecture. We first watched a DVD of the Wellspring Ministry that his daughter Naomi runs.

Ravi used the text of the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, to make observation on the following 4 points:

  1. The Heart and Soul of the Giver: According to Ravi’s favorite author, F.W. Boreham, there are three options where every heart will end eventually up. Hardened, Broken or Tender. He told us an unbelievable story of coming face to face with the sex trade in Bombay, India and the impact it had on him. It was the beginning of what eventually became Wellspring.
  2. Binding the Wounds/Opening the Heart of the Receiver: Ravi quoted from Eleanor Stump, that people actually become more and more hardened by exposure to evil. The antidote is to do acts of kindness, mercy and gentleness to those who need it. We need our hearts to be tenderized in this way, or the constant exposure to all the evil in the world will eventually harden us.
  3. The Will & Courage of the Practitioner: Again citing Boreham, he told the story of the death of a baby, and the mother who brought the child to him asking for a burial. As the result of his simple actions with this woman on that day, she showed up for the next 35 years at his church, without fail. All because he was available and willing to meet this poor lady in her need.
  4. The Result & Impact of the Observer: Jesus asked the expert in the law, so who was this man’s neighbor? “The one who had mercy” was the answer. “Go and do likewise,” Jesus told him. The context of this exchange is immediately after Jesus asked him what the law said about inheriting eternal life. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” These are inextricably intertwined.

Ravi encouraged us to learn to give from our hearts (not just our money) but from all the resources gifts and talents that we have been blessed with. He reminded us that we have so much by the world’s standards… way more than we actually need. To respond to whatever the Lord calls us to – and to just do it.

That gets the ideas and dreams flowing! I have a lot to process personally on that topic!

6:11 PM

I am getting ready for tonight at 6:30, we will gather at the Oxford Museum for a last lecture by Ravi Zacharias on “With All Your Heart,” the theme of this conference. Following that will be a Hog Roast and Dinner at Keble College in the Hayward Quad (my room overlooks this quad).

5:30 PM

The Rabbit RoomI just took a stroll over to the Eagle & Child for a pint of beer and a look around. It was my last chance. The place has a number of photos and plaques on the walls explaining the history of the pub. I took a photo of the “Rabbit Room” where the “Inklin’s” met. It’s a nice and very old place.

When Deb and I were in Oxford in 1980, they had not fixed it up quite as nice back then. All we saw at that time was a small brass plaque on the wall… that was all! It’s been upgraded since then!

I heard or read somewhere while I was here, that St. John’s College had recently bought the Eagle & Child and plan to continue preserving it. They also own the “Lamb & Flag” across the street, where the Inking’s were also known to meet from time to time.

4:30 PM – Michael Green – Searching Issues

I just returned from an afternoon lecture from Michael Green on the Searching Issues of approaching Atheism & Agnosticism.

Michael Green Notes

He noted that we have moved from a rationalistic and reason-based “modern” world, to a predominantly “post-modern” world based upon feelings. Postmoderns are skeptical that we can know truth, and of traditional moral values. Postmodernism spells virtual defeat for Atheism. Note: Alister McGrath wrote a book on this topic called: “The Twilight of Atheism.”

After all, who among us after 9/11 and Iraq and Pol Pot, really believes that mankind really has a heart of gold at its core? Who really belives that science will solve all the worlds problems? Most people today have realized that it was in fact atheistic regimes that are responsible for the greatest atrocities of the 20th century.

So how do we approach the atheist today?

First, we must recognize that there are real reasons for Atheism. There is the problem of pain and evil in the world that must be answered. Often there are real personal issues the atheist needs answered such as a personal tragedy or loss, or a terrible childhood experience at the hands of a “theist” person.

As Christians, we must be person-centric in our approach. We must point out that God cannot be proved or disproved any more than we can prove anyone else’s personal existence. You simply “meet” a person, and thereby know they exist. We need to encourage our atheistic friends to take the time to think deeply about their position. It is often a position they have not really thought through.

Many have drunk deeply from the well of “intellectualism” and never explored those who have abandoned it, and why. We must lead them to the realization that their belief is based on just as much “faith” as the theist, and that the real question ought to be, what position has the best reasons and evidence to base belief upon?

How do we approach the agnostic?

Agnostics are often just as dogmatic in their belief as atheists. However, there are also real reasons agnostics have that need to be addressed. Michael asks, “How did we make it to the mid 20th-century without agnosticism?”

We need to point out to our agnostic friends that there is a compatibility of reason and revelation. They are complimentary. For instance, if we see a big hole in the ground near our house, with dirt and rocks around it, we may say to ourselves… something is going happen there! If we see additional materials showing up such as lumber, bricks and shingles, we may say, I think a building is going to be built.

There are two ways we can know for sure. First, wait until the end of the process and see if we were right. The other, is to go and find the architect/builder and ask what he is doing. If we love our agnostic friends, we will encourage them to use the latter method, and ask the creator about the plan. They may not have time to wait until the end.

Michael gave us 7 “Signposts” that help the atheist or agnostic believe.

  1. The World: What accounts for conscious life to have developed only here so far as we know? Was it really all just chance happenstance?
  2. Design: How can we account for such things as the complexity of the human ear, or the focusing mechanisms of the human eye? How does a world develop by chance that is custom made for human life? There is a designer at work.
  3. Personality: Love emotion, mind… can anyone explain it? Science can’t. Where does it come from?
  4. Values: take life itself – why do we value it? If it is all random chance, why would we have a problem with someone taking it? Why do we value creativity, fidelity, and yet reject the idea of a Creator?
  5. Conscience: This internal law-maker is more than just the result of societal pressures. There has always existed a general condemnation of murder, infidelity, pedophilia, etc. Why? Where does that come from?
  6. Religion: We are a religious animal. Many powers have tried to abolish religious faith in history and none have succeeded. USSR, China, Pol Pot… and others. Sociologists predicted the demise of religion, yet is has mushroomed. It appears that we WILL worship something, no matter what. Why?
  7. Jesus: Why is Jesus still the central figure of history? Why did he claim to be God? To know him is to know the God we cannot see. Who raised him to life, to never die again?

Michael Green Notes

London Terrorist Bombings2:00 PM

This morning we finished our series in Revelation, lead by John Lennox at the Rhodes House, followed by a lecture by Michael Ramsden on “The Uniqueness of the Cross.” Michael is the director of The Zacharias Trust in the UK, and a gifted speaker.

At noon, we paused for a minute of silence in memory and honor of those who lost their lives or loved ones a year ago today in the bombings that took place in London.

Afternoon Session – Michael Ramsden

Michael prefaced his presentation by saying he would approach the subject from the vantage point of a non-believer who would ask:

  • “How can a loving God, judge people and send them to Hell?
  • “How can it be fair for one person to die to save someone else?”

On this topic, Michael highly recommended a book by John Stott, as the best book in the 20th century on the subject of the cross: “The Cross of Christ.”

He also cited a song by the Black Eyed Peas called “Where is the Love?” A line of which is: “If you’ve never known truth, then you’ve never known love.”

“Love cannot exist with the absence of correct judgment. It is not unloving to pass judgment”

The very meaning of “compassion” is that you see something that deeply disturbs you, you make a judgment as to what needs to be done to correct it, and it moves you do take action.

Michael then wrapped up his comments on the the idea that one difference that the cross proclaims to our world, is that when we are attacked and assaulted, we want revenge on the perpetrators. We retaliate personally, or we go to war against the enemy as a natural reaction. God is not like that. Even before the foundation of the world, God foreknew we would rebel against him, and in his joy, he was happy to provide a way of salvation, paying the price himself. How different we are from that.

“The idea of substitution is at the heart of the cross.”

There was a time of Q&A that followed . One young American asked about the whole issue of what do you say to a non-believer who asks: “If you are a Christian, why is your President who claims to be a Christian, so eager to go to war?”

Michael answered that you have to approach this on 2 levels. One level is more theoretical. There is a place for war when a government is making a decision based upon the best knowledge they have at the time, on behalf of its people for the greatest good. He suggested one of Amy’s books that covers the “just War” theory.

But there is also a personal level. Can we as an individual support that government’s decision? It will depend on whether or not you believe your leaders have acted with integrity making the best decision they could make under the circumstances. Do you believe and trust the leaders? For himself, Michael said he believes Tony Blair made his decisions about Iraq with integrity. Only time will tell if those decisions were good or bad, right or wrong.

The Uniqueness of the Cross – Notes

The Uniqueness of the Cross

12:54 PM

Going to lunch after a full morning. Here are notes from the final morning session on Revelation.

Final Notes on Revelation

Intelligent Design in Oak Park, Illinois

Oak Park is the community where I live and we have 2 local weekly newspapers. On October 26th, 2005 the Wednesday Journal ran an open letter from a local resident, which read:

An open letter to my religious brethren on intelligent design

To my evangelical friends:

Why not consider evolution to be God’s concept of intelligent design?

To deem such a thought as invalid is to restrict the magnificence of our Almighty Creator. And certainly it would be blasphemous to claim to know the mind of God.

Unless we believe that Jonah literally survived the juices of the belly of the whale, then we must recognize the allegorical beauty of the Bible.

Allegory teaches us theological and moral truth in a way that stimulates both the intellect and the imagination. We need not take things literally to know there truth.

So too, the Bible … an incredibly revelatory book when read with a biot of insight and imagination.

Your liberal friend,

Paul Moroney
Oak Park

I don’t know why Mr. Moroney decided to write this letter at this particular point in time. Maybe his concern has something to do with the ID vs. Evolution cases in other states that have been in the news recently? – I’m not sure.

Based upon his letter, apparently Mr. Moroney thinks that it is “evangelicals” who are leading the crazy questioning of evolution. Otherwise, why address this to evangelicals? And what’s with the “liberal friend” thing — Is this a political issue? Is he not aware that it is the scientific community itself that is leading the way in questioning Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Here are some facts for Mr. Moroney to deal with:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology,” says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York’s best doctors by New York Magazine.

“We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others,” added Egnor. “The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things.”

“More scientists than ever before are now standing up and saying that it is time to rethink Darwin’s theory of evolution in light of new scientific evidence that shows the theory is inadequate,” said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture. “Darwinists are busy making up holidays to turn Charles Darwin into a saint, even as the evidence supporting his theory crumbles and more and more scientific challenges to it emerge.”

The list of signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

Darwin’s Black Box

Has Mr. Moroney even read the pivotal book by Dr. Michael Behe called “Darwin’s Black Box,” in which he put forth his theory of irreducible complexity? This book and theory had nothing to do with evangelicals or religion. Dr. Behe was looking at the claims of Darwinian evolution, and noting how it did not fit with his scientific observance at the microbiological level.

As one of the “evangelicals” that Mr. Moroney is addressing in his open letter, I simply respond with… “Why should I consider (the theory of) evolution as God’s concept of intelligent design, when (the theory of) evolution itself does not hold up under rigorous scientific scrutiny?”

Pursuit of Truth is the Scientific Method

We evangelicals believe that all truth is God’s truth. We don’t claim to know everything, regardless of how the media portrays us. We actually like science, and believe Christians ought to be involved in science. In fact, as a group we have made many important contributions to science! We happen to think that evolution should be put to the test, just as intelligent design, global warming and any other scientific theory should. We are all about discovering the truth. The issue with evolution vs. intelligent design has nothing to do with religion or God. After all, even if Intelligent Design were to become a widely held theory, it would not answer the question of — WHO was the intelligent designer?

The manner in which some people get so defensive about their beloved Darwin and his theory, makes you wonder who is really interested in discovering truth. Why would someone want to blindly continue to defend a worn out, increasingly suspect theory from the Victorian era? What’s wrong with questioning evolution?

Darwinian Evolution as Religion

Mr. Moroney and others like him have based their worldview squarely upon Darwinian evolution. When something comes along that threatens that worldview, they get all shaky. This response is not very scientific. The scientific method keeps an open mind, and is willing to continually look for truth based upon the evidence. It is always challenging presuppositions, and seeking to break down the ways of thinking that are blinders. I don’t see much of that going on here.

Instead, Mr. Moroney’s letter reads an awful lot like the response you get from a person who holds blindly and firmly to a religious belief and you start asking some probing and challenging questions. The similarity in response is so striking that I would theorize that many people have made Darwinian Evolution their religion, and can’t face the possibility they might be wrong. Sadly, I’m afraid this is what the open letter is really all about.

Mr. Moroney… if you are out there, I welcome your response. Please let me know what is so solid about evolution that should stop me from questioning it’s scientific basis. And, let me know what my being an “evangelical” has to do with it.

Your “evangelical” neighbor,

Randy