Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | The God Delusion Debate 

Ah, yes. Back when two opponents could have a civil, reasonable debate without emotional outbursts and useless name-calling.

Regardless of whether it was a Christian or Atheist world, we would be far more advanced if people could have more civilized discussions like these two.

07:28 Dawkins Intro 13:10 Lennox Intro 19:40 Dawkins elaborates on qoute 25:25 Lennox response 30:55 Dawkins elaborates 38:32 Lennox response 44:33 Dawkins elaborates 51:03 Lennox response 57:00 Dawkins elaborates 01:04:40 Lennox response 01:11:15 Dawkins 01:15:27 Lennox 01:17:20 Dawkins elaborates 01:22:55 Lennox response 01:28:30 Dawkins elaborates

A British atheist, an Alabama judge, and an Irish Christian walk into an auditorium…

These discussions should be displayed in schools. Respect from both sides and no evil condemnation. I'm sure society would benefit enormously.

I really like Dr. Lennox. He doesn't have to attack the person to make a point. Such s good speaker. Calm and composed.

Why can't presidential debates be this civilized?

Recorded in 2007, looks like 1999, lol. Crazy how tech changed so quickly.

Every debate video comment section ever: The guy supporting my side was very logical and won the debate, the other guy made bad points and clearly lost.

Ex-muslim here and a follower of Jesus Christ now!

the only delusion is to think the moderator helped this debate....

Watching this reminded me how much we are starved in the U.S. for long form civil debates and discussions like this. conversations where both speakers leave you wanting to learn more about their point of view. This was absolutely wonderful but also made me sad that we can’t disagree like this very often.

This debate could have been better run by sending the moderator to the pub for its duration.

~Simply love Dr. John Lennox...yes, he knows how to hold a debate with utmost care & knowledge. Cannot get enough videos of the heart felt words of Dr. John.

It’s refreshing to see two very intelligent men discuss their ideas in a civilized manner.

I really wished they had set a more conversational type of debate for Professor Richard Dawkins to respond too well. I am becoming frankly impressed by the rebuttals they made; it is turning the entire debate into a higher dimensions of wisdom. John Lennox really did a very good defense of the Christianity here!

British people are so polite when they debate. When their time is up, they immediately stop, even when given the permission to continue. If they were Americans, they'd be screaming over each other.

Gotta love how John Lennox went over to Richard's with extended arms and beaming face. Whatever the difference of opinion were you could tell he had nothing but respect and good regards for his opponents as a person.

Why exactly do I continue to look in the comment sections of debates

Watching in 2023. The level of interllect, decorum, civility displayed by both is quite exemplary. God bless Prof John Lennox for such erudicity.

This wasn’t even a debate. This whole thing should’ve just been a preface to their debate. After this, they should’ve just had a conversation and argument with each other.

It's nice to see people able to civilly disagree with each other on such a deep topic, though I wish it were more of a flowing back-and-forth true debate. Unfortunately this is an ability that we don't see much anymore in our "modern" world.

SHUT UP AND LET THE MEN TALK TO EACH OTHER! We'll learn more! Good debate and thoroughly fun to listen to.

I can certainly understand Dawkins' frustration with the format of the debate. Read an excerpt from Dawkins' book, have Dawkins elaborate, then have Lennox tear it apart, then move on to the next excerpt. Thank goodness Dawkins forced some dialogue into the equation so that an actual debate could take place.

The interview sequence was unfair. Should have been: 1. Richard's book excerpt 2. John's objection 3. Richard's defence 4. (optional) John's brief reply Despite this, they both made some excellent points.

They want to debate, and the moderator says, "no, no, no!"

Richard Dawkins: "Because I am an atheist, I cannot conceive of a logical path that would lead me to kill or do some other evil or hideous thing" Also Richard Dawkins: "There is no good and evil - just blind pitiless indifference"

The moderator lost this debate.

John Lennox is an absolute unit

I don't get why they are not allowed to be engaged in dialogue, this statements-like monologues kill all the passion of the discourse and many points which could have been debated are simply lost. What a pity

im thankful for learning in highschool that whoever hurls character insults in a debate typically does so because they are losing the debate. it helps me remain civil when discussing things, but it also helps me understand these debates and where the speakers stand.

Only half way through, but I really feel dawkin's frustration at this format, and I'm sure lennox would like some back and forth as well.

I will admit that the structure of this was off. Like there was no room for rebuttal

The one thing atheists and Christians can finally agree on..... the was the worst example of debate moderation we’ve ever seen.

Scientist here and I am a born again believer. The Universe was created by something greater than itself. The Bible says Jesus holds the universe in his hands. I envoke the principle that God being everywhere through the universe as he created it, literally set the principles in motion such as gravity etc. We are being held together by God. Every electron orbit spinning, every strong and weak force, every ray of light is held together by God. This is very intriguing and challenges me to say, "How so".. this is how we discover new things in the universe. The drive the intrigue, the search, all come from God to discover God. He said the creation proves himself. Much live my friends. Turn to God he will direct your path. ❤😊

Where are debates like this nowadays? I'm drinking in these words. Refreshing to hear solid arguments spoken so clearly.

Two great minds one will be spending eternity cursing God,and one will spend eternity praising him .

I really hate how they dont let them actually debate.

“Whoever denies me before men, i will deny him before my father”

Such a respectful debate, as all debates should be.

This was well worth the watching. Thoughtful discussion, respectfully presented (but with rhetorical flourishes) by two people well-qualified to engage in the discussion.

Dr John Lennox is very humble intellectual and learned man of God. He interprets deepest Biblical truth in a simple English language. English is not my first language. I have been studying Bible in Urdu language and I speak Punjabi. Dr. Lennox has always blessed me to understand different world views.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 🤖 The debate features Richard Dawkins and John Lennox discussing the conflict between new atheism and religion. 01:30 🛡️ The fixed Point Foundation aims to address mischaracterizations of beliefs in the cultural discussion around atheism and religion. 03:11 💼 The debate is focused on Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" and its assertions against Christianity. 05:28 🎙️ The debate begins with opening statements from Dawkins and Lennox, followed by a structured discussion on key themes. 13:22 📚 John Lennox shares his biography, emphasizing the intersection of his Christian faith with his pursuits in mathematics and philosophy. 20:08 🤔 Richard Dawkins argues that religion promotes blind faith and inhibits the pursuit of understanding through evidence-based reasoning. 25:29 💡 John Lennox counters Dawkins' assertion, distinguishing between blind faith and evidence-based faith, and highlighting the role of Christianity in the rise of science. 30:46 🧐 Science is claimed to support atheism rather than Christianity. 31:17 📜 Noma suggests religion and science have non-overlapping domains, but Dawkins believes religious claims are scientific claims. 32:40 🤝 Faith relies on lack of evidence; evidence-based claims do not require faith. 37:01 🌌 Claims about the universe, like a universe with or without God, fall within the realm of science. 38:24 👥 Miracles and religious claims are subject to scientific evaluation, not separate from it. 40:13 🕊️ Atheism challenges the rational intelligibility assumption of science, raising questions about belief in a universe guided by randomness. 41:23 🔧 Theism posits that God, as an uncreated being, underpins rationality and the universe's order. 43:12 🌠 The Bible's prediction of the universe's beginning is debated, highlighting its potential relevance. 44:07 ⚙️ Design argument leads to "who designed the designer?" dilemma, which Dawkins finds unsatisfactory. 46:05 🌍 Darwin's theory explains life, but its origin is still uncertain, leaving room for debate. 46:46 🧪 Complexity isn't the sole criterion for explanations; science often explains by increasing complexity. 52:05 🕊️ Uncreated God is eternal, unlike created gods, addressing the "who created God?" question. 53:28 📚 The distinction between uncreated God and created universe underlies the theistic explanation. 54:35 🧪 Science often explains complex phenomena, even when meaning is involved, paralleling the argument for God's existence. 56:11 🧬 DNA's semiotic dimension carries meaning that transcends the underlying physics and chemistry. 57:13 🚀 Christianity's perceived dangers are discussed, referencing John Lennon's famous quote. 57:26 🌍 Imagine a world without religion: no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, and more. 58:18 🌐 Moderate religion can provide a climate in which extremism flourishes, by teaching faith as a virtue and discouraging questioning. 59:19 🤔 The debate delves into the question of whether God was created, with a focus on the need to explain complexity and ultimate origins. 01:02:07 📚 The danger of teaching children that faith is a virtue, limiting their ability to question and leading to potential extremism justified by faith. 01:15:11 🌄 Dawkins asserts there's a logical path from religion to terrible deeds, driven by deep belief in divine commands, whereas no such logical path exists for atheism. 01:19:48 💡 Moral sense seems to be influenced by evolutionary history and a shifting moral zeitgeist, rather than relying on religious scriptures. 01:22:46 📜 The shifting moral zeitgeist indicates that moral values evolve over time and are not solely derived from religious texts. 01:23:03 🧐 The debate revolves around the relationship between atheism and morality. Lennox argues that common moral values support the idea of humans being made in God's image. 01:24:13 😕 Lennox argues that a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication implies no ultimate good or evil, while Dawkins responds that such a universe doesn't imply a moral foundation. 01:25:36 😮 Lennox questions how morality can exist without a transcendent God, while Dawkins argues that humans can rise above evolutionary imperatives, as seen with contraceptive use. 01:27:38 🤔 Lennox contends that atheism's lack of a moral foundation leads to ethical confusion and a collapse of values, citing Dostoyevsky's notion that "if God does not exist, everything is permissible." 01:31:28 🧐 Lennox critiques Dawkins' view of Jesus, challenges his interpretation of love, and defends the historicity of Jesus by referencing biblical passages. 01:35:12 🤨 Dawkins responds to Lennox's criticism on his view of miracles, arguing that the laws of nature don't necessarily preclude miracles, and mentions C.S. Lewis' analogy to support his point. 01:36:20 😤 Lennox concludes by asserting that the universe's beauty and design point to a Creator, contrasting atheism's denial of purpose with his belief in God's judgment and the resurrection of Jesus. 01:40:02 😒 Dawkins criticizes the focus on Jesus' resurrection as trivial compared to the complexity of scientific arguments, suggesting a fundamental difference between Lennox's sophisticated scientific arguments and his reliance on religious claims.

Lennox is a full professor too at Oxford...

Dr. John Lennox is very very very good. Respect to Dr. Richard Dawkins for being impressive as well. This debate was an enriching experience for a guy like me. Many thanks for organising the event and sharing this on RU-vid.

No one wins here. Both have a very very solid argument. But man, this Lennox guy has a very clear explanation, also, if you noticed, he's unbiased. He accepts also whats lacking with Religion. This is amazing debate. Wish all debater are as good as them, a professional debater too.

Really loved this debate... and especially loved the final statement by Dr. Lennox who brought the Gospel of Jesus to the audience.

I'll have myself a cup of tea.

This man says he is a scientist. What is his null hypothesis? What evidence does he use to prove it? Making fun of some strange and extreme religious attitudes is not adequate proof of no God.

Dawkins says he feels the need to worship something, but science has emancipated him from the feeling....but he still feels it....hmmm

You can't call it a debate and restrict the participants from debating.

This is the most absurdly structured debate I've ever seen.

The bottom line really, is whether we believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead. If he did, then nothing else needs to be debated.

I’m neither Atheist nor Christian. I’m still searching for my “place” to belong. But listening to this debate and solely objectively speaking, Lennox definitely won here by faaaar. This guy is insane clever. I would stay that was a 7:3 for Lennox definitely.

Big mistake by Dawkins calling the resurrection of the Messiah “petty.” That altered the tone of the debate in many ways.

Wow….who ever put this event together really messed this entire discussion and dialogue up royally! No engagement or dialogue or anything. Literally ruined the entire event with these two extremely intelligent and intellectual humans.

I liked the debate, but I felt very frustrated for Richard's case because it felt like a 2on1 and deeply scrutinizing Richard's book. Where an excerpt would be shared, Richard would elaborate, and Lennox would rip him up and there's no defense. It wasn't later where it was pushed for more dialogue which I prefer. I'm a Christian and I felt frustrated for Richard because it felt unfair in the beginning to Richard on how the "debate" was formatted. I deeply enjoyed hearing both dialogue, to hear both sides and actually having a debate.

It's a sad commentary on our times that everybody is so delighted that the two gentleman can discuss, and argue politely.

In contrast, the ontological arguments are conceptual in roughly the following sense: just as the propositions constituting the concept of a bachelor imply that every bachelor is male, the propositions constituting the concept of God, according to the ontological argument, imply that God exists. There is, of course, this difference: whereas the concept of a bachelor explicitly contains the proposition that bachelors are unmarried, the concept of God does not explicitly contain any proposition asserting the existence of such a being. Even so, the basic idea is the same: ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God.

Unbelievable job by both speakers! Moderator and/or event planner, why even call it a debate if during their actual debate time, you make it a personal Q/A?

Why are there time limits on these debates? They are so interesting and I would listen to them all day

Towards the end things got very interesting! I'd love to see these 2 in an open discussion to really hash out everything they went over tonight and I feel like 5 minutes wasn't enough.

Thank you for uploading this gem.

I am a christian but i feel Dawkins wasn't given much space to express himself. Nevertheless i enjoyed it

This debate retired Dawkins from debating Christians.

It was such a delight to listen to Lennox...

The moderator tried his hardest to limit these two intellectual giants to the confines of the small box of current thinking. I think this explains to me why the federal justice system is so inept at times at dealing with these bigger questions and societal beliefs. Rather than let these men have a discussion and a back-and-forth exchange of ideas He continually tried to force them to MoveOn and talk about the next point even if it wasn’t relevant and hindered the context of what they were discussing

Thank you John Lennox, God bless.

i was born into a Buddhist family and found my way to Christianity. Edit: forgot to mention that i was born into Muslim majority country

Dr Lennox just gleefully says, “Jesus says he’s the truth” when there is no evidence anywhere Jesus actually existed yet alone had a secretary taking notes right at the time. How anyone can keep saying that God always existed really is a circular argument.

Very good and professional debate. Wish I saw these more often. I miss them.

I have no idea what Richard is saying, Lennox, is succinct, illuminating and clear in his speech and reasoning arguments.

Did dawkins learn about Jesus from a mosque?

The religiously rooted violent acts of man are a misguided and desperate attempt to atone for sin. It’s foolish to blame religion as we all need to be held accountable for our choices.

I believe John Lennox read Richard Dawkins' books more carefully than Dawkins did.

If only presidential and political debates in general were like this, especially today...

the form of this debate makes it flow more like an interrogation of Dawkins' book.

Chris Rock once said: ‘Its impossible to win a debate against a woman. Because women don’t have a need to make sense.’ I feel the same situation is with theists. How do you debate them when they don’t care about logic…?

I enjoyed this well humoured and intelligent exchange. It’s a Shame that it was set out so poorly, with the debaters having to almost apologise for taking the time to respond to each other. That aside I enjoyed it.

starts at 7:27

Dawkins can't conceive of a person saying that because they are an atheist, it is rational for them to kill. But because naturalism means that morality is subjective, so there isn't an absolute standard, it would not be rational to not kill. It would neither be rational to kill or not kill, morally speaking. Moreover, under naturalism, people are predetermined. If you have a predetermined impulse, caused by chemicals in your brain, etc., then it is entirely rational that you would listen to the impulse and kill. You have no choice to not do it.

Not believing in God CAN lead to terrible things because God makes new creatures of us if we believe in him! Consonant with His peace and Love Richard!

Lennox should have a book and ask Dawkins to criticize it as a sequel to this apparent debate.

I want these two charming gentlemen to go out for coffee/tea and I would love to just sit in the room and listen as they have a dialogue

Moderator "Richard, I think you will like this quote" Read's from Richards book.

Iam fascinated by the intelligence of John Lennox but I really respect the politeness of R. Dawkins . What a brilliant debate!

I love it when people can talk about their different opinions without flipping out

Ain’t no debate ! The Lord is my King

This was beautiful. Two people with different beliefs concluded in an argument that wasn’t hostile. We have much to learn from these two. How to disagree in a non hostile manner to even shake hands at the end with smiles on their faces. No disrespect whatsoever.

Are you saying that the reason you aren't a violent individual yourself is because of your faith? Did it occur to you that conscious non-violence can be as effective a survival strategy as going to war?

On February 2, 2003 I encountered God. Having all the same questions as everyone else, on that day near midnight I got on my knees and prayed if there was a God who could hear me then and there who really did send His Son into the world to save it then I needed Him. I mean..sex, drugs, education, money, a nice apartment, friends, a race car…none of it mattered. These gave no absolute meaning to life. Until that night when He showed up. He ended this debate for me. When I hear there is not even one shred of evidence I say, for you but not me (and countless others by the way). God is wonderful; He is awesome. God bless

Dr. Lennox: impeccable logic and charismatic delivery.

Dawkins blushing Lennox chillin

Lennox keeps saying that if the laws of physics are immoral, the is no morality. That's confusing two different levels of description. It's like saying that if the atoms can't speak English, humans can't speak English. Or if atoms aren't wet, water isn't wet. Morality is a pattern of thought and communication at a human and social level, not something that has to be directly described by the laws of physics.

All humanity is naturally disposed to have faith. From the moment we are born, faith also stirs into being.

I would prefer they stayed with the first point each made and that they kept debating that each of their statements. In that way it would have been a debate. In my view it would have been a much more interesting one.

Dr. Lennox is a necessary vanguard for the Christian faith. Healthy debate.

Such great apologetics and crystal clear command of logic from Dr. Lennox! Thank you John Lennox!

It is very brilliant preaching, Mr.Lennox, clear and insgthful!

And why did the first scientist come from the church? Because priests were taught to read and the first libraries were in religious organisations. But when those priest/scientist findings went against the church beliefs they were prosecuted, and burned to death in most instances.