Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Dr. John Lennox on the Religion Report, Radio National

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by banoobi, Jan 16, 2009.

  1. Irish-born Dr John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, visited Australia in 2008 and debated the existence of God. He is on the side opposing Richard Dawkins- and speaks with John Cleary about the evidence for belief in God.

    Transcript not working unfortunately, audio option only, link below to download or listen.

  2. that was an interesting discussion, he makes interesting points but i cant see why he blurs his philosophical concept of god into the diety yahweh.

    perhaps christianity is the most comforting and convinient religion for him
  3. .. or perhaps it's just expecting too much for the atheists at the ABC to conduct anything resembling a balanced discussion on a matter which is totally outside their frame of reference or personal experience.....
  4. An interesting discussion. However his argument is still based on HIS faith or trust as he likes to call it.

    "If you ask the question 'who made God' you are by definition thinking of a created god... Most of us have known for centuries that created gods are a delusion".

    He's still taking and leaving bits of the bible as it suits his opinion and interpretation. This is precisely what allows him to sleep at night with the idea that science and religion are not in conflict. However, if a religious person is not going to take their chosen authoritative document as gospel, what makes any religious person more or less correct (or authoritative) than any other?

    His idea that the fact that we can DO science is evidence of (a) god doesn't sit with me at all. Again he's choosing to follow an "unknown" that suits him. I think his opinion that the atheistic world view undermines the rationality of science to me is too much of a step. I prefer to follow the "unknown" that my brain allows me to think, so what I think IS.

    It's the perfect circle.
  5. He doesn't come from the viewpoint that god is a 'philosophical concept' - he believes in the Christian God.

    But in comparing the two ideas, do you really think he's 'blurring' them?
    Some of his comments are quite galvanising; as it is very difficult for people to speak and understand from a totally pure philosophy on either side.

    If you don't believe in a god; then a lot of things become completely irrelevant [including what any of us believe about religion] - but questions about evil and suffering in the world still bother even atheists, because we DO seem to possess a desire for universal justice.

    However, if you do believe in a god - then you also believe in what is taught of that god through religious text: in most cases, that the god is more powerful and intelligent than any of us - and they have reasons for everything whether we understand them or not.
    Yet, a non-believer will not usually accept the idea that a god would be all-powerful and knowing, because for them those notions are moot until the issue of 'existence' is resolved.

    OR, if one was to take the notion of the Christian God for hypothetical truth; then one might instead know the Bible says that the Christian God 'reveals' himself to some (including Dr John Lennox), and appears to be complete foolishness to others ^_^
  6. You can't be serious? The ABC are athiest fascists now are they?

    I'm greatly disappointed that the Religion Report was axed, but the ABC is the only channel that really bothers to have any quality religious reporting. Compass alone is more than any other TV channels show, for example.

    Or is it more that they don't show the Christian propoganda you'd like to see?
  7. Within 5 minutes this interview runs into trouble.

    The interviewer cites people like Hitchens and Dawkins and then claims that their ideas have three basic points, which he says are:

    1. The God of the Gaps is no longer necessary

    2. Morality no longer needs god

    3. "therefore Occam's Razor says that god is no longer necessary"

    Points one and two are certainly part of the things talked about by Dawkins, et al, but his point three is completely wrong. If you're going to call an argument flawed, at least get the facts straight.

    (Facts! Haha!)
  8. This guy is saying that the fact that we can do science is evidence for god.

  9. The basic laws and rationality of the universe, and the potential of an eternal universe or a singularity is far too complicated and convenient to simply be. Therefore, a god must exist who set that into motion. By definition, the god that did that must be considerably more remarkable to be able to do such a thing. The argument is saying that something is unlikely, and replacing it with something even less likely. Not an impossibility, but calling it evidence is a stretch.

    His next major pitch, is that he thinks it is unfair that there might not be justice in the face of evil. He thinks it is unfair that there might not be disaster without hope. Therefore there must be a god, because if there isn't you still have all the same problems but without eternal life and an ultimate judgment. I'm sorry, but that is still an argument based entirely upon which alternative appeals most. The fact that life can simply be unfair is another hypothesis, one with many magnitudes greater likelihood.

    The evidence of a judgment is the resurrection. Wha!?

    And then his comparison between having faith in a relationship and faith in a particular god is telling. Divorce rates sort that one out.

    And yes, like gsxxer, I missed the bit where he made the leap from the necessity of a god (for his peace of mind at least) to a Christian god. And certainly I missed the bit where he formed any evidence for a god interested in day to day matters, listening to prayers and meddling with goings on.
  10. * DON'T double post two messages in a row; edit your original message

    Terms and Conditions
  11. What?
  12. That's the way. Don't engage the debate, just quote some T&Cs at me and hope we'll all forget that I asked you a question.

  13. I happend to chance on Richard Dawkins audio book when i borrowed a friends mp3 player during lunch time. I have to admit that a his argument is very convincing. His argument is very logical and it traps you with how logical it sounds.

    It goes along the line of

    "A = B
    B not = C
    Therefore A not = C"

    I was almost convinced. But when you look at the whole picture of his argument, it doesnt work out for me.
  14. Yeah, I think you'll find his arguments are a little more detailed than that!
  15. FASCIST!

  16. He always comes across to me as a very bitter and disturbed man trying vainly to look happy and content, unsuccessfully I might add.
  17. Your perception of the man is irrelevant when it comes to debating his ideas.
  18. Going back to the radio interview in the OP:

    hornet - what do you think about the final part of the interview where the guy is talking about the dogmatic interpretation of the Bible? (The word "day" in Genesis, etc.)
  19. Tarmac please try and keep your posts in one post rather than post to post to post.
    what you are doing is annoying and almost like bumping your thread.
    Yes we all do it from time to time but you are a repeat offender,

    P.S keep sticking it to the bible thumpers :wink:
  20. I see it as two completely different posts that people can quote and respond to more easily this way. But I'll try to avoid it in future if it's perceived as annoying. (I'm a repeat offender at last! Daddy said I could amount to something if I tried. :) )