on Lennox vs. Dawkins 10/21/08

I fear I may never finish this, so I will post it as incomplete:

This is a commentary on the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at The Natural History Museum in Oxford on 21st October 2008. I used the youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw&NR=1&feature=endscreen and will use time stamps on some of my comments.
I actually already commented on part of this debate in section (3) of my previous post "thoughts from 4 atheist talks".  As a general comment, I must say that Dawkins proves quite adept and showed how some of my arguments were invalid (as far as we can tell).


6:45 Dawkins opens by saying that God's method of forgiving sin though crucifying Jesus was unnecessary and stupid. See my previous post "thoughts from 4 atheist talks" for a reply to this.
9:00 Lennox opens with a reference to the design argument. I don't think design argument are very useful in their pure form because they deal with possibility/probability and suggestion. However, Dawkins responds in way that brings about useful points which I will exploit, though Lennox does not.
10:50 Dawkins responds by asking for an explanation of how the creator "came into existence". I like the way he phrased that because it hints of time, of which God is independent. God doesn't "come into existence" if he always was, or saying without time, is the I AM.
11:20 He continues by saying that God is more complicated than the universe (which makes the universe preferable when we consider coming into existence), which he phrases as "a few physical constants". I have said before, people may see it different, but I see the universe as an uncountable number of individual particles, whereas God is a single, infinite being who creates the universe. Granted in a sense he is more complicated, as the human spirit is complicated, but he is one being, whereas the universe is many.
12:20 Lennox diverts the discussion a little and says that an minds developed according to natural selection do not find truth, only reproduction, such that accepting the concept of natural selection undermines the thinking that brought it forth. I think this argument might work if the correspondent definition of truth was used (The three definitions of truth are longstanding philosophical concepts), which poses truth as what actually exists. To this Dawkins could respond that correspondent truth is impossible to acquire given the limits of perception, and some counterarguments could be made. However, Dawkins uses the pragmatic definition of truth and handles the question quite well.
13:15 Dawkins responds by saying that natural selection tends to choose brains that deal with truth. He goes on to say, without labeling it, that he is using the pragmatic definition of truth, that truth is what works, an understanding of the universe that allows us to deal effectively in it.
15:30 Again Lennox diverts and says that the design of the natural selection system itself points to God. I think I can see why Dawkins didn't get this question at first and dismisses it quickly once he does. He takes the universe as a given, assumed, the starting point, and therefore takes the laws of science as simple results of the universe, with no designer. However, Lennox takes God as a given (based on arguments to support Gods existence, I'm sure), not the universe. So in a sense, if Lennox understands Dawkins position thoroughly, this is a fruitless question. Instead he should move to the choice of which to hold as absolute before everything else, the universe or God?
16:20 Here Dawkins responds in an effective but perhaps inaccurate way. He describes how the process of natural selection is blind, not designed. Really, the question was raised about the design of the process, not the nature of the process itself. Dawkins may have addressed the question properly when he said "what survives, survives" alluding to the idea that natural selection a natural function of the universe and does not really beg a designer.
[We have now moved into the part of the video that I commented on in my previous post]

17:45 Lennox sees that Dawkins may not have grasped his question and restates it.
18:30 Dawkins fails to understand the question correctly again (or so it seems).
18:50 Lennox states his question for the third time, clarifying that he sees God as an design agent in building the mechanisms of the universe, not that he put design into the mechanism itself.
19:45 Here Dawkins understands and responds that God as an agent is superfluous to the mechanisms of nature, demonstrating the emptiness of the question (from his perspective), if you'll remember, of who designed those mechanisms. He does well, I think, in honing down to the question Lennox really should have been asking: the universe or God (+ the universe)?
20:25 Lennox responds by honing down as well, saying that evolution doesn't deal with the origins of the universe. The universe that Dawkins assumes is so well made, it calls for a designer.  Personally I might add in explanation that this universe that we are discovering is not a chance set of laws and mechanisms, chance would not have produced such a well-working universe. (Of course, now I bring in the issue of chance, and responses may be made to that)
20:55 There is some back and forth. Dawkins asks if Lennox is trying to move on from evolution. Here is a matter of form in debate (like Peter Pan would say 'bad form!' in fencing). It is fairly true that we are no longer dealing with evolution, and perhaps Lennox should have tried to attack the internal structure of evolution. But perhaps evolution inside itself is pretty good. If you take a lot of lies as assumptions, you can use proper reasoning to come up with a large body false ideas that are internally sound. But when you consider a concept, you ought to also consider its implications, who thought of it, its origins, etc. So Lennox is simply moving to its origins.
21:05 Lennox suggests that Dawkins holds, as a principle, that things move from simple to complex. This is a very philosophical, general observation that I find interesting because it deals with Occams razor and design. I don't have much to say on it yet, though.
21:15 Dawkins denies it, I think. He says we need an explanation when things go simple to complex, which is evolution.
21:25 Lennox dives into the origin of life. He says that life has a language (DNA, I think), and the only thing that can produce language is mind (implying God). I thinks he is sloshing around in definitions and categories too much, bending the boundaries of the categories.
22:00 Dawkins points out one of the jumps Lennox made, namely that DNA is not human language, so DNA could be produced by non-mind.
22:15 Lennox clarifies a little, saying that such a complex thing as DNA could only be produced by mind.
22:50 Dawkins says, basically, you don't believe it can work, so what? This begs Lennox to make a more specific attack on evolutionary processes.
23:00 Lennox now attacks the basic movement from simple to complex, saying that the theist view, of starting with something very complex, makes more sense. Dawkins asks where did God come from, and Lennox says he existed since eternity.
23:30 Dawkins says "Well then, in what sense is it an explanation?" This sparked a huge thought process for me. I apologize, I wrote it down somewhere but misplaced it so this is a recycled version. Basically, Dawkins will only accept an explanation (e.g. God) if it itself can be explained (where it came from). Well then this defeats all of science! Suppose that we are some years in the past and have only discovered atoms. We can't explain where atoms came from or what they're composed of, so...do we not accept atoms as an explanation? NO! That's silly. This argument could be turned on nearly every construct of ideas ever posed. To attack the atheists, where did the universe come from? Where did the material from the big bang come from? Etc, etc. In the end, you need to finish with something that does not require an explanation. 

TO BE CONTINUED?

instinctive/manifest evangelism

I can't tell you how many times I have heard good sermons or sermonets wind up their content with what feels like a general call to "go out there and evangelize, be the church outside of these walls, in your work, with your extended family," etc, etc. The feelings I get are kind of an excitement, a near and present need to go evangelize. This is good, but it's missing something.

See, each time we hear this, we get fired up. But when we actually step outside the doors, what happens? We don't know what to do.
There is a disconnect between the simple "go out and love people" and actually doing it. When we actually hit specific situations, we freeze up or simply don't remember the urgency. It's not that we don't care, it's not even that we're treating it like a duty that must be accomplished. We can truly love these people, respect them, be under Gods will, and still be fumbling about. I think this is because we haven't explained how we are to be the evangelical church.

Well, there are hundred different responses to that question, a hundred different nuggets of wisdom put forth by many dozens of authors. Nearly all of them are true, because most of them deal with specific situations or different mindsets we are to have, different truths about the people we are speaking with, different truths about God, and they're all true. However, very few I have found deal with the general manner in which we speak.

Where do our thoughts come from? How do we make decisions? When do we speak or stay silent, love or bring truth, preach or live? We go out there and freeze because we know that we need to do something, but we have no framework for how to do it.

Here is the main points of this post:
We must focus on taking those many truths and ingraining them into our hearts and subconscious such that we naturally behave with regards to them, and therefore evangelize with the appropriate frequency and manner.

Here are several examples: If God truly is your greatest joy, that fact will come up naturally in conversation and be shown naturally through the way you act. If you truly believe in both the urgency of salvation but the respect for human will, you will naturally speak as much as you should and stop when you feel you are going too far. If you truly believe that God has you back, that you need worry about nothing, that no one can truly hurt you, then all the inappropriate anger, fear, self-justification, defense, and pushing beliefs unto others will die out. If you truly know that it is God and God alone who does work in peoples lives, we being only the instruments of his word (though very respectable and awesome instruments), then you will not be overzealous or resort to mean measures to convert people, leaving only the bold simple truth of the gospel for all to see.

Knowledge is valuable, to use knowledge is power.

Know the truth and the appropriate actions will naturally manifest themselves out of it. "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." Matthew 6:33. John 4:13-14 "Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 

So, my friends, discipline your hearts and mind. Take and eat of the truth of the word, "These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates." Deuteronomy 6:6-9.

May the peace and joy of God, utter delight in him, fill you up, guarding your hearts and minds as you are enclosed in the loving arms of our savior Jesus, making you bold because you are loved, to face all whom you may meet with undeserved love.