Lennox Debates Dawkins — What a Movie!

This is another attempt to keep blogging, in spite of the disgustingly stupid new editor that has been thrust upon us. Our topic today is new post at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute.

Their title is Lennox Versus Dawkins: “Science and Religion as Alternative Explanations”?, and the author is Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I am alerting readers to the upcoming event in movie theaters across the country. Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science stars Oxford University mathematician John Lennox.

Oh goodie — a movie staring John Lennox, the creationist mathematician. He’s not officially a Discoveroid, but they like him a lot. Here’s one of our recent posts about him: John Lennox Says Science Is Faith. Klinghoffer says:

There will be one night only when the film is screened — Thursday, November 19. You can and should get your tickets now. [Link omitted!] Here’s a sample [video embedded in the Discoveroids’ post].

You don’t really need that teaser to encourage you to see the movie, do you? No, of course not! Anyway, Klinghoffer then tells us:

The film highlights debates between Professor Lennox, arguing the case for theism, supported by science, against prominent atheists including Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. The film’s website includes lots of great resources including this gem — the 2008 debate between Dawkins and Lennox, filmed at Oxford’s Natural History Museum!

Lennox versus that intellectual lightweight Dawkins? Wowie — what a movie! Klinghoffer continues:

I think Lennox gets to the heart of a great question by challenging Dawkins on the assumption that science and faith cannot coexist but must be understand as “alternative explanations” for reality. Of course that hopelessly prejudices the question.

Lennox is so much more reasonable than Dawkins! At the end of the post, Klinghoffer introduces another embedded video:

Find the full debate here: “Has Science Buried God?”

And he finishes with this:

In the film, Lennox journeys with actor and interlocutor Kevin Sorbo from Oxford to Jerusalem. It’s very well done. You will enjoy it.

Klinghoffer says you’ll enjoy it and he’s never wrong, so look at the videos and then go to the movie. It promises to be the experience of a lifetime!

9 responses to “Lennox Debates Dawkins — What a Movie!

  1. Michael Fugate

    Kevin Sorbo played Hercules on TV and acted in Christian fantasy films “ In 2014, Sorbo co-starred in God’s Not Dead, a Christian film in which he portrayed an atheist college professor who requires his students to disown their religions on the first day of his class.”

    Against the Tide is more Fantasy
    “ Against the Tide is a travelogue, an examination of modern science, an excursion into history, an autobiography, and more. But at heart, it is the story of one man’s daring stand against the tide of contemporary atheism and its drive to relegate belief in God to society’s catalogue of dead ideas.”

    “Prof. Lennox examines the consequences of an atheistic worldview, as he recounts his travels in Soviet Europe. He brings this experience to his debates with prominent atheists, including Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.”

    I wonder why he didn’t journey to the DRC to discuss colonialism – Leopoldo was a Christian, no?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/04/new-find-reveals-grim-truth-of-colonial-belgiums-human-zoos

  2. Klinghoffer:
    “…science and faith cannot coexist but must be understand as “alternative explanations” for reality.”

    Did Klings actually write that?

    Ok, sloppy proofreading by Klinghoffer not withstanding, let’s go to the question asked as the title of the debate – “Has Science Buried God?”
    My question is, “Which god?” The god of fire? The god of the ocean? The god of thunder? The god of “It’s turtles all the way down”? The god of etc., etc., etc.

    The answer to all is YES! Definitively so! But Klings is talking about the Judeo-Christian God, which for all we know is a mental construct. But we have no way to prove either way, so we need to be content with saying, “We don’t know.” And the word derived from Greek for a person holding that idea is “agnostic”.

    Of course, there are many, many people who feel VERY strongly that God does exist, but they really don’t know any more about that than the rest of us. So, no matter how persuasive they may be, and no matter how many there may be who make a good living touting their proclamations, they should not be allowed to dictate what we, or our children, are to “believe”.

    Science is our means toward understanding the nature of reality. We have a president who seems to take pride in his denial of science, and look where that got him.

    So when it comes to making a choice between believing in God OR believing in science, to me the choice is clear.

  3. @Retiredsg: “But we have no way to prove either way”
    We first need to specify what we mean with (dis)proof, because it’s a rather funny thing. For instance since 1972 we thought for about 15 years that it was proven that superconductivity was impossible above 36 K. Also many people think the Theorem of Pythagoras is proven. Unfortunately our Universe is curved, which means that this Theorem is wrong. Still we use it.
    In the case of the abrahamistic god and its lookalikes – would you say that incoherence is a conclusive disproof?
    Anyhow, when it comes to this topic any Lennox vs. Dawkins/Hitchens debate is not exactly the most informative source, while Kclunckerdunkcer understands even less. Take

    “science and faith ….. must be understand as “alternative explanations” for reality.”
    Which begs the question: what if the scientific explanation and the faith-based explanation are mutually exclusive? Like in the case of IDiocy? Never mind, asking the question is answering it, especially when Cklinkclecklapper is involved.

    “Of course that hopelessly prejudices the question.”
    Yes – the IDiots are the prejudiced ones.

  4. chris schilling

    As Dawkins has pointed out many times, Abrahamists are atheist when it comes to every other god. We can usually relegate a person’s faith to being culture-specific.

    We know the origin stories laid out in Genesis to be essentially false, and Exodus to be historically suspect. Finkelstein and Silberman in ‘The Bible Unearthed’ more plausibly suggest those foundational biblical narratives should be read as theological explanations, rather than straight history.

    “Alternative explanations” for reality might be a more fitting description for the Tanakh (or maybe just ID), hopefully to Klinghoffer’s consternation.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    @retiredsciguy, I had to read that sentence over and over, it doesn’t make sense

  6. There is only one absolute in all the world, for it transcends all faith, all philosophies, all demands of states and rituals of superstitions, and that is evolution, for evolution is the only glimpse of the beginning and the continuance and the proliferation ad infinitum of mankind wherever the planets that surrounds the infinity of stars is found, with the great mystery of the sudden spark that began it all being what we call god because we don’t have anything else to call it, and probably never will. All arguments beyond this is a frivolous and empty attempt at ritualizing ourselves as sturdy but stupid beings who require the benevolence of a divine sky-god of universal and spiritual grandeur who will make us whole. One weeps at the history of religious persecutions of the innocent.

  7. Kae, your first sentence is too short.

  8. Michael Fugate

    The debates are never debates, but just canned position statements – talking past one another. “The god you don’t believe in is not the god I believe in.” If they actually responding to what was said and asked for answers to bald-face assertions like “objective moral values” – an oxymoron if there ever were one. Waste of time…

  9. Dawkins? He’s a brainless turnip by his own rambling diatribe.