Dawkins vs Lennox - Debate

[Rational Agnostic]

I recently watched this old debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox on the existence of God. In my opinion, Dawkins won the debate handily. Also, Dawkins' closing remarks were extraordinarily elegant, simple, and concise. However, he could have done a bit better, and is slightly weak on the philosophical side. Also---one minor point of disagreement with Dawkins. I would not be so convinced that Jesus existed. I believe that he likely existed, but there is some reasonable doubt to be had. I do not believe Dawkins should have made that concession. In any case, most of Lennox's arguments rested on emotionalism, which Dawkins repeatedly pointed out is obviously not a good reason to believe. Thoughts?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Who are they and why should I care?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Dawkins is still alive? God is such a good sport. Its also strange that God can speak through anyone except for Dawkins. How does he think without God in him? Its perplexing.

 

[serp777]

I recently watched this old debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox on the existence of God. In my opinion, Dawkins won the debate handily. Also, Dawkins' closing remarks were extraordinarily elegant, simple, and concise. However, he could have done a bit better, and is slightly weak on the philosophical side. Also---one minor point of disagreement with Dawkins. I would not be so convinced that Jesus existed. I believe that he likely existed, but there is some reasonable doubt to be had. I do not believe Dawkins should have made that concession. In any case, most of Lennox's arguments rested on emotionalism, which Dawkins repeatedly pointed out is obviously not a good reason to believe. Thoughts?

I think both debaters were fairly weak. I mean Lennox was a disaster though. I remember when Lennox was like: "I just can't see how this could happen", and Richard rightly points out that's just the argument from personal incredulity. Lennox then sayswell you're just arguing from personal credulity and Richard let him get away with that and conceded the point. Terrible! Lennox made a gross fallacy; Richard never argued it was correct because he believed it. Lennox on the other hand was the one arguing that it was incorrect because he couldn't believe it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I think both debaters were fairly weak. I mean Lennox was a disaster though. I remember when Lennox was like: "I just can't see how this could happen", and Richard rightly points out that's just the argument from personal incredulity. Lennox then sayswell you're just arguing from personal credulity and Richard let him get away with that and conceded the point. Terrible! Lennox made a gross fallacy; Richard never argued it was correct because he believed it. Lennox on the other hand was the one arguing that it was incorrect because he couldn't believe it.

Lennox also repeatedly said that he did not want to believe in a universe without a god, because it seemed hopeless and amoral to him, and Dawkins, in his traditional style, continually told him that his desires are irrelevant to truth. But, yeah, I agree, the debate overall was not as good as it should have been.