Transcript of John Lennox Delivers One of the Greatest Comebacks in Debate History
Pastor Daniel | Truth Unleashed
0:00Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as0:02one of the world's [music] most0:03influential atheists. For decades, he0:05has argued that science has made belief0:07in God unnecessary [music] and that0:09faith is little more than belief without0:11evidence. So, when he sat down with0:13mathematician and Christian [music]0:15philosopher Dr. John Lennox, many0:17expected another strong defense of0:19atheism. But, something unexpected0:21happens. As a discussion unfolds, Lennox0:24challenges Dawkins on science, faith,0:26and the origin of the universe. Then, in0:28one of the most remarkable moments of0:30the conversation, Lennox asks a simple0:32question that leaves Dawkins speechless.0:35Along the way, I'll share my thoughts,0:37and then at the end, I'll give my0:38biggest takeaway from the discussion.0:40Let's watch the video together now.0:42>> I think that0:44when you consider0:47the beauty of the world0:49and you wonder how it came to be what it0:52is,0:53you are naturally overwhelmed with a0:55feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration,1:00and you almost feel a desire to worship1:03something. I feel this.1:05Uh I recognize that other scientists,1:07such as Carl Sagan, feel this. Einstein1:11felt it.1:12We all of us share a kind of religious1:16reverence1:18for the beauties of the universe, for1:21the complexity of life, for the1:25uh uh1:26sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer1:29magnitude of geological time.1:33And it's tempting to translate that1:36feeling of awe and worship into a desire1:40to worship some particular thing, a a1:42person, an an agent. You want to1:45attribute it to a maker, to a creator.1:52What science has now achieved1:54is an emancipation1:56from that impulse to attribute these2:01things to a creator. And it's a major2:03emancipation.2:05Because2:07humans have an almost overwhelming2:09desire to to think that they've2:11explained something2:13by2:15attributing it to a maker. We're so used2:19to2:21explaining things in our own world, like2:24these television cameras, like the2:25lights, like everything that we make,2:27the clothes we wear, the chairs we sit2:29on. Everything we see around us is a2:31manufactured object. And so it's so2:34tempting2:35to believe that that has been made that2:38that that living that living things or2:40that the stars or mountains or or or2:42rivers have all been made by something.2:46It was a supreme achievement of the2:48human intellect to realize that there is2:51a better explanation for these things.2:54That these things can come about by2:56purely natural2:59causes.3:01When science began,3:04the3:06the aim to achieve it was there, but we3:08didn't know enough. Nowadays, at the end3:11of the 20th century, beginning of the3:1221st century, we still don't know3:14everything.3:16But we've achieved an enormous amount in3:19the way of understanding. We now3:21understand essentially how life came3:24into being. We know3:27that3:28uh we are all3:29cousins of all animals and plants. We3:32know that we're descended from uh a3:34common ancestor, which might have been3:35something like bacteria. We know the3:37process by which that came about. We3:40don't know the details, but we3:41understand essentially how it came3:42about. There are still gaps in our3:44understanding. We don't understand how3:46the cosmos came into existence in the3:48first place,3:49but we're working on that.3:52The scientific enterprise is an active3:56seeking, an active seeking out of gaps3:59in our knowledge, seeking out of4:00ignorance, so that we can work4:03to plug that ignorance.4:05But religion teaches us to be satisfied4:08with not really understanding. Every one4:11of these difficult questions that comes4:13up,4:14science says, "Right, let's roll up our4:16sleeves and work on it." Religion says,4:18"Oh, God did it."4:21We don't need to work on it. God did it.4:23It's as simple as that. We have no4:27thrusting4:29force pushing us on to try to4:31understand.4:33Religion stultifies the impulse to4:35understand because religion provides4:38a facile4:40easy, apparent explanation, although as4:42we'll see later in the evening, it isn't4:44really an explanation, and it prevents4:50uh the further work on the problem.4:54>> Richard Dawkins is right that people4:56naturally look at the beauty, order, and4:58complexity of the universe and sense5:00that it points to something greater. The5:02Bible says the same thing. Psalm 19:15:05declares, "The heavens declare the glory5:07of God, and the sky above proclaim his5:10handiwork." From the beauty and order of5:12the natural world to the remarkable5:14information stored in DNA, creation5:17bears witness to God and naturally leads5:19people to ask whether there is a creator5:21behind it all. Where Dawkins and5:23Christianity differ is in the5:25explanation. He argues that the beauty,5:27order, and complexity of the universe5:30are ultimately the result of what he5:31himself calls blind, pitiless5:34indifference operating over billions of5:36years, and that all living things can5:38trace their origins back to a common5:40ancestor. The irony is that Dawkins5:43often criticizes Christians for5:44believing by faith, yet his own5:46worldview requires faith as well.5:49Christians place their faith in an5:50intelligent creator as the best5:52explanation for the universe. Dawkins5:54places his faith in blind, unguided5:56processes to account for the origin of5:58life, consciousness, morality, and the6:01remarkable order we observe in the6:03world. But how does Dawkins' view hold6:05up under scrutiny? Here is Dr. John6:08Lennox's powerful response.6:10>> There are two issues here. Faith is6:12blind, science is evidence-based.6:16I do not agree with the first one, but I6:19very much agree with the second one.6:22Some faith is blind.6:27And6:28blind faith can be very dangerous,6:31especially if it's coupled with a blind6:33obedience to an evil authority.6:36And that, ladies and gentlemen, I would6:37like to emphasize is true whether the6:39blind faith is that of religious or6:42secular people.6:45But not all faith is by blind faith,6:47because faith itself carries with it the6:50ideas of belief, trust, commitment, and6:53is therefore only as robust as the6:55evidence for it.6:58Faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,7:00much beloved of Richard Dawkins, a7:02delightful idea,7:04is7:06blind because there's no evidence for7:08the Flying Spaghetti7:10Monster.7:11But faith in relativity theory is not7:14blind because there is evidence7:15supporting it.7:17I can't speak authoritatively for other7:19religions, but faith in the Christian7:22sense is not blind. And indeed, I do not7:25know a serious Christian who thinks it7:27is. Indeed, as I read it, blind faith in7:32idols and figments of the human7:34imagination, in other words, delusional7:36gods, is roundly condemned in the Bible.7:40My faith in God and Christ as the son of7:43God, is no delusion. It is rational and7:46evidence-based. Part of the evidence is7:48objective, some of it comes from7:50science, some comes from history, and7:53some is subjective coming from7:55experience.7:57Now, of course, we do not speak of7:59proof.8:00You only get proof in the strict sense8:02in my own field of mathematics.8:04But, in every other field, including8:07science, we can't speak of proof.8:10We can speak of evidence, of pointers,8:12of being convinced beyond reasonable8:15doubt.8:17I think it's important in this context8:19to emphasize that science is limited,8:22because it seems to me a creeping danger8:24of equating science with rationality.8:27But, what is beyond science is not8:29necessarily irrational. Science cannot8:32tell us, for instance, whether a poem, a8:34work of literature, or a work of art or8:36music is good or beautiful.8:39Science can tell us that if you put8:41strychnine into your grandmother's tea,8:43it will kill her.8:45But, science cannot tell you whether8:46it's morally right to do so.8:49And the Nobel Prize winner, Sir Peter8:50Medawar, who's quite a hero, I think,8:53for both of us,8:54has pointed out that you can easily see8:57the limits of science, because it cannot9:00answer the elementary questions of a9:01child. Who am I? What is the purpose of9:05my existence?9:07Where am I going?9:10Now, Richard has just contrasted science9:14and religion, religion being content9:16with not understanding, whereas science9:19is unraveling the understanding of the9:21universe. And I understand and feel the9:24force of that objection very strongly,9:26because sometimes Christians, I admit,9:29have been guilty of a lazy9:31God-of-the-gaps kind of solution. I We9:35understand it, therefore God did it. And9:37of course God disappears as the gaps9:39close.9:40But I'd like to point out that there are9:42two kind of kinds of gap, ladies and9:44gentlemen.9:45There are gaps that science closes, and9:48I call those the bad gaps.9:50But there are also gaps that science9:52opens, and we may come to some of those9:54later.9:56But as for the idea itself,9:58Richard referred to the very important10:00fact that science and modern science as10:03we know it exploded in the 16th and 17th10:06centuries,10:08and it arose out of a theistic10:10background. And many philosophers of10:11science have studied this and come to10:13the conclusion that's now called10:15Whitehead's thesis,10:17that human beings became scientific10:19because they expected law in nature, and10:22they expected law in nature because they10:24believed in the lawgiver.10:26I think that is profoundly important10:28because it means, far from religion10:31hindering science, it was the driving10:33force behind the rise of science in the10:36first place.10:37And when Isaac Newton, for example,10:39discovered his law of gravity10:42and wrote down the equations of of10:44motion, he didn't say, "Marvelous, I now10:47understand it. I've got a mechanism,10:49therefore I don't need God."10:52In fact, it was the exact opposite. It10:54was because he understood the complexity10:57and sophistication of the mathematical10:59description of the universe that he his11:02praise for God was increased. And I11:05would like to suggest, Richard, that11:07somewhere down in this you're making a11:08category mistake11:10because you're confusing mechanism with11:12agency.11:14We have a mechanism, it does X, Y, and11:15Z, therefore there's no need for an11:18agent.11:19I would suggest that the sophistication11:21of the mechanism, and science rejoices11:23in finding such mechanisms, is evidence11:26for the sheer wonder of the creative11:29genius of God.11:30>> Dawkins argues that science and11:32Christianity are fundamentally11:34incompatible. In his view, science rolls11:37up his sleeves and searches for answers11:39while religion simply says God did it11:41and stops asking questions. But Lennox11:43responds that this misunderstands the11:45relationship between science and faith.11:48Discovering a mechanism does not11:50eliminate the need for an explanation11:52behind it. Explaining how something11:54works is not the same as explaining why11:56it exists. Lennox points out that many11:59of the pioneers of science saw their12:01discoveries as evidence for God, not12:04evidence against him. When Isaac Newton12:06discovered the laws of gravity, he did12:08not conclude that God was unnecessary12:10because he had found a mechanism.12:13Rather, his understanding of the12:14universe deepened his awe of the12:16creator. For Lennox, science and belief12:19in God are not enemies. The more we12:21understand the order and complexity of12:24the universe, the more reason we have to12:26marvel at the God who made it. But here12:29is where Dawkins challenges Lennox's12:30definition of faith. What follows is one12:33simple question that literally leaves12:35Dawkins speechless.12:37>> Um when you say faith is rational and12:41evidence-based,12:42I mean, if that were true, it wouldn't12:44need to be faith, would it? I mean, if12:46there if there were evidence for it, uh12:48why would you need to call it faith?12:50You'd say it's just evidence. And when12:51you said that we that that faith in12:55relativity in in Einstein's theory of of12:57relativity is is evidence-based, that of13:00course it is, but13:03the but the evidence is is all13:05important. I mean, Einstein's13:06predictions fit in with um13:09with13:10uh13:11uh observed fact. And they and with a13:13whole body of theory. Whereas, we only13:16need to use the word faith when there13:17isn't any evidence.13:19>> No, not at all.13:20I presume you've got faith in your wife.13:22Is there any evidence for that on which13:24you base it? Yes.13:25>> There's of evidence. Um,13:26>> [clears throat]13:27>> I13:35Let's generalize. And never mind about13:36my wife. Let's generalize.13:39>> It's the same with Bible, Richard. It's13:41the same with Bible.13:42>> Let's say Let's say that in general, how13:45do we know that somebody loves us?13:47Okay?13:48>> Yes.13:48>> Um,13:49you can use a word faith for that if you13:51like, but it's not the It's not the13:52right use of the word because because13:55you you know why you know your wife13:58loves you because of all sorts of little13:59signs, little catches in the voice,14:01little little looks in the eye. Um,14:04that's the evidence that it is evidence.14:06That's perfectly good evidence. That's14:08not faith.14:09>> Yes, it is.14:09>> Well, okay. Then then we're coming down14:11to pure to pure semantics.14:13>> What makes this exchange so fascinating14:16is that Lennox exposes a false choice14:18[music] that many people assume is true.14:20We're often told that we must choose14:22between science and God, between14:24evidence and faith, between reason and14:27Christianity. But that is simply not the14:29case. Science is incredibly [music]14:31powerful at helping us understand how14:33the universe works. Christianity answers14:36the deeper questions science cannot14:38answer on its own. Why does the universe14:40exist? [music] Why is it ordered and14:42intelligible? Why do human beings have14:44value, purpose, and moral14:46responsibility? The Christian faith is14:48not a leap into the dark. It is a14:50response to evidence [music]14:52that points beyond itself to a creator.14:54The more we discover about the universe,14:56the more reason we have not only to14:58marvel at creation, but to worship the15:00God who made it.
2,276 words · 398 lines
