Professor Richard Dawkins is my choice. Besides I agree on his point of view who is atheism, I believe solid evidence and scientific proves. Professor Richard Dawkins is an interesting person to analyze and I would definitely like to talk about his argument in this debate.
I chose to write on the debate of Dr. John Lennox. It is because I have always been curious on the theory of God as the creator of this universe. Dr. John Lennox, a faithful Christian follower will be able to come out with logical and strong points on the existence of God. His education background has also catch my attention and would like to know more about this arguments.
List down what were the 6 thesis they were debating. Summarize in point form, not more than 2 lines, the 6 main points of your debater.
(1) Faith is blind, science is evidence spaced.
Richard Dawkins: Religion acts as a virtue to satisfy its follower without understanding. This stops people from looking for answers.
John Lennox: Christian faith towards God is rational and evidence based. Science is limited while God is the giver of everything and driving force behind science.
(2) Science support Atheism not Christianity.
Richard Dawkins: The idea between Science and Religion do not overlap each other. There is no evidence to favor the god hypothesis.
John Lennox: Atheism has undermines science and try to create rationality from irrationality. Theism claims the reason science is possible.
(3) Who design the designer?
Richard Dawkins: Creative designer cannot be a satisfying explanation due to its complexity.
John Lennox: God was not created but eternal. There is no theory of everything (TOE). God is more complex than what is being explained.
(4) The Christianity is dangerous.
Richard Dawkins: Faith is a terrible weapon because it justifies the performance of terrible acts, which do not justify by reason or evidence. Religion is unquestionable.
John Lennox: Religions are not all the same. Fanatical religions bring violence. Crusades were not following Christ. Atheism is the motivation of communism.
(5) No one need god to be moral.
Richard Dawkins: Moral is not a religion. Moral is a universal acceptance in Human from different cultures that the doings is right or wrong.
John Lennox: Foundation of morality concept is found through God. Atheism does not give an explanation to morality, but dissolves it.
(6) Christian claims about Jesus is not true, is a ledge miracle violated laws and nature.
Richard Dawkins: Jesus' miracle is against the law of nature.
John Lennox: Miracles do not violate laws of nature. Law of nature describes what normally happens. God have the liberty to feed in new events into the universe.
Write down 3 strengths and 2 weaknesses, overall of your debater. (This can be either presentation or arguments)
Professor Richard Dawkins brought out a strong point where he made a difference between science and religion, he said that when there are a questions that can be solve, scientist will try their best to find the logical answer with proves, but for a religious way of thinking, they would say that it is the creation of God or any answer that related to the God. It is a pure ignorance of seeking out the truth. Professor Lennox agreed on his point.
Professor Richard Dawkins does make some sense when he stated that we do not need Holy Bible to teach ourselves to be moral. Moral is not something that should be written down and obeyed by peoples because of them afraid that they will be punished by the God if they do horrible things. This would make peoples seem like they have moral value because of their God but not by themselves, it is either they will get reward if they are good or being punish if they disobey. Moral should not be learnt by anyone because there are reasons for why they learn, moral should be learnt by everyone without the expectation of getting anything in return, and either it is rewards or punishments.
Professor Richard Dawkins disagrees with John Lennox about the prediction of Big-Bang from the Holy Bible. There are only 50 to 50 chance either it is eternal or beginning. By not knowing the origin of the universe, Richard Dawkins stated that the Anhropic principles with a multi-verse idea is not a good explanation but better than saying the god did it, so we should stop investigating and do nothing. Therefore this is the strongpoint of his statements. John Lennox replied by saying there are no satisfy explanation for creative designer.
Professor Richard Dawkins was saying that he believes the universe does not have good or evil. From what he said, he had made a mistake that he removed himself from the category of his point to discuss about morality. "There are no good or evil" is a strong statement. He needs a strong stand to support his statement with which he does not have any of it. And, he made himself to have weakness from his point. It causes him to be full with opportunities where Professor Lennox can make a comeback.
Professor Richard Dawkins said that faith can't be questioned but just to be respected and believed. He said that some religion, not all, will do hideous things because of faith after he was fought back by Lennox by saying Dawkins is being superficial. Professor Richard Dawkins was tentatively nervous and his face shown his expression that he was under pressure while he was trying to explain it. Then he said that because of people scare to be punished by God, and it was an order from God therefore they thought it was rational to do such hideous activity. Based on this, he stated that atheism is not faith. Then Lennox fought back again said that there are 2 alternatives explanation in atheism and theism because both have faith systems.
The first strength of Dr. John Lennox is his clear and easy-to-understand examples. Most of the examples are easy to visualize in one's mind. For example, he gave the example of 'sitting on a branch of a tree and cutting off the branch' to explain the irrational question of Dawkins on who created God. Besides, he stated that the English native archeologist has made thing more complex than he is explaining. Lennox also used the example of 'a rock falling on someone's head' to explain the matter of motion with no good and evil. His arguments are well-explained by these examples and make the point presented to be solid.
The next strength of Dr. John Lennox is he questioned the opponent's weak argument effectively. Dawkins pointed out that 'Faith is blind, science is evidence based'. However, Lennox argued it by saying even science is the element people used to find out God's ability. He gave the example of Isaac Newton-the great scientist who discovered gravity, had praised God over the brilliant creation of gravity. Besides, Dawkins mentioned 'We do not know the origins of the universe' which does not make sense for atheism who believes the big bang theory. Lennox wrangled this by stating that universe is created by God and God is eternal.
Furthermore, Dr John Lennox is a better debater compared to Professor Dawkins. Lennox constantly interacted with the audience through eye contacts, gestures and addresses. He grabbed the attention of the audience by greeting them every time he made his argument. Besides, his sense of humor kept the harmony atmosphere throughout the debate. He popped-out with question such as 'Do your wife have faith in you?' He has also showed his professionals in answering Dawkins' question and critics. Lennox has sustained the same tone throughout the debate and never get angry over the opponent' speech.
The first weakness of Dr. John Lennox is there is no solid prove for his arguments. Most of his arguments cannot be proven through experiment, research or history. It is because God is immaterial and cannot be proven through science. Lennox supported all his arguments through evidence from the Holy Bible or from the religion point of view. It was not convincing for atheism and people who only believe in solid evidence. Besides, to prove his theory, he gave many illustrative examples. This has placed him in a weaker position compared to Dawkins who gave the example of real life happening incidents such as communism lead by religious leaders. Dawkins was able to come out with a lot of scientific facts and figures which are very convincing.
There are certain parts of the arguments which put Lennox in a weaker position. Firstly, Dawkins has successfully raise the 'God of the gap' issue which make Lennox's argument seems unreliable. Dawkins did this by clamming that Christians put every single uncertainty in God's hand and stop finding explanation and reasoning for things. This has stopped them from getting the truth and real answers. Besides that, Lennox was only giving the examples based on Christianity views while Dawkins was arguing the irrational believes of God or creator as a whole. He has an advantage in arguing there are certain fanatical religions which are dangerous that Lennox had to agree.
Debate with your classmate regarding who you think won the argument and why? (Can be a tie or if neither of you can agree who won, state why you couldn't agree.)
In our discussion, we do not judge the debaters on how they speak and present in the debate. We truly judge based on logic, rationality and the evidence for their debates. Both Atheism and Theism have its very strong points. Even though both sides have given strong points to support their theory, there is insufficient backing up of evidence to prove their statement. In addition, they failed to prove and bring evidence in the debate between the relationship of creationist or evolutionist theory with the universe. It was a debate with strong points but weak proves. Both parties have their own individual strengths and weaknesses. As a result, based on our rational discussion, we believe that Dr. John Lennox will win the debate.
First and foremost, John Lennox holds on to his faith towards Christianity and that Jesus Christ is the savior. He believes in the Word of the Holy Bible and that God is the creator of universe. His every argument is supported by evidence from the Holy Bible and his believes as theism. For every argument and question come out by Professor Dawkins, Lennox is able to give rational and convincing answer. He has done sufficient research and read the book 'The God Delusions' from the way he quoted that book. Besides, there is a clear and obvious point being related to Christianity and believes in God for every theory he mentioned. We have no doubt Lennox has supreme knowledge in religion especially Christianity. He is not only debating on the issue of the existence of God but being involve in it as he has been a Christian since he was a child. He is also not only applying the knowledge from Bible or books but with his faith and personal experiences. These make Lennox a stronger debater.
On the other hand, Professor Richard Dawkins which is Atheism stated his point based on facts that are based on science. He has a lot of strong points to support himself but there are still uncountable mysteries that have yet to be solved. Therefore, he lacks of evidence to prove his theory. Furthermore, unlike Lennox who focused mainly on the creation of God, Dawkins has a lot uncertainty in his points that made him unable to comeback due to lack of evidence to back up. We have also found out that Professor Richard Dawkins do not analyze his information clearly. It surely gives Dr John Lennox ample opportunities to make a comeback for Dawkins' argument. From the debate we can see that Professor Richard Dawkins gets annoyed and impatience. This has made him halting in his debate thus making him a bad speaker.
Last but not least, we think that Dawkins is missing out the points that Lennox was giving. He has used to recycling his basic arguments that limits himself to listen. He has also stick to the thesis which is being taken from his book with no new supportive idea. Professor Richard Dawkins cannot understand his atheism is eliminating believes of good and evil. He only claims it but actual fact is he does not truly act that way. Dawkins is only trying to repel Lennox in evolutionary morality. Lastly, Professor John Lennox has more advantages as he uses more time to explain his ideas than his opponent. We are definitely sure that Dawkins can make a comeback if he is to use the same amount of time that Lennox has used.
In conclusion, from our observation and analysis of this debate, Dr. John Lennox will win for all his strengths in arguments and the faith he engaged in.