The first main point argued by Dawkins is that the size and the difficulty of the world tempt us to feel that there is a creator, a God. Knowledge however, managed to emancipate us from detailing everything all around us using the term God. Technology works on responding to question based on evidence. Religious beliefs uses trust to disregard the question and pushes it to God. He further argues that the only real time faith is necessary is when there is absolutely no evidence.
Dawkins' second point areas that the medical method is the correct way to choose between atheism and Christianity. He clarifies that religion is approximately science and their statements are also considered to be scientific says. He argues that science supports atheism. He backs this up by utilizing a hypothetical situation in which if he was questioned in court by a lawyer as to if the theory of advancement led him to atheism, he'd answer yes.
The third point argues that it is very tempting to conclude that there is a custom who made the universe as it is because of its efficiency. Faith uses God to evade the issue by declaring God created it. He says that Darwin's theory of advancement shows us how difficulty is explain through straightforwardness. Thus Darwin proved is that a 'garden' might not exactly necessarily have a 'gardener' (God).
In his fourth point, Dawkins talks about that religion demonstrates to us to not question our beliefs and this inhibits us from justifying our activities so long as it is in the name of God. He argues that using a faith justifies dreadful acts because it allows us to avoid reasoning. Thus this clarifies the irrational function that was done in the history of mankind. He also promote skepticism because it encourage us do not have confidence in anything without looking for data.
His fifth point areas that religion is not the source of your morality. He argues that even if we take versus that suit us for a holy book, we still choose this versus with our own rationality. Therefore we dint need the holy reserve to begin with. He uses evolution to explain our lust for good deeds. He clarifies that there surely is somethng that is causing our moral consensus has shifted over decades. This shift is definitely not cause by faith it is because a religious scripture does not change over time where as our moral consensus do.
In his last point, he argued that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a issue and it is unworthy of the universe. He further talks about that rather than the postulate that mankind is established in the image of God by God himself, all lives difficulty can be describe by deriving it from simple beginning by comprehensible rational means.
During the question Dawkins' argument about how precisely mind boggling the pure magnitude and complexness of the universe tempts us to worship a creator. He says that people translate the sensation of awe into a feeling to worship a God. He contributes that it is simple to say than a creator tuned the world. Matching to him, this says nothing and it is merely using God to evade the problem. He exhibited that no matter how complex anything maybe, it does not necessary desire a designer. He demonstrates this using Darwin's theory to make clear something as complex as life.
Besides that, Dawkins also discuss another important point which is the fact that knowledge has freed us from our desires to explain what to a creator. He represents that research works on responding to question while faith ignores the questions. He disagreed with the offer by Steven Jay Gould which basically states that faith and technology do not overlap. He thinks that religion is approximately science and religious claims are clinical claims. The methodical thinking is the correct way to decide whether these statements are true. He even discussed scepticism which shows us to get for evidence rather than to blindly have confidence in something. That is parallel to the scientific method of talking about our environment and aspect.
Another strong debate conveyed by Dawkins was his opinion about faith. He feels that faith only involves play where there is no evidence. This can be seen through the issue when he said 'if trust is evidence centered, then we wouldn't have to call it faith'. Additionally, he argues that whenever we implicitly have confidence in the trust, it enables us to act rationally; this is because the words faith can justify any work no matter how unreasonable or immoral it might be. This can be postulated when he said 'faith is an awful weapon that justifies the awful performance of terrible act'
Lastly, he argued that our morality is independent from faith. He says that if we think we require a god or a holy book to be moral, this means that people are deluded. When we pick versus that people feel suitable from a holy booklet, our company is actually deciding on what our morality should be predicated on our rationality. Thus, he argues that we don't need neither a holy e book nor God to begin with. Inside the other cases, we've a religious beliefs only due to concern with God or worries of not heading to heaven. These serves aren't moral in the first place.
During the span of the argument, Dawkins demonstrated several weaknesses. Included in this is that he cannot convey his point about the thesis clearly. The evidence for this is seen throughout the whole issue. In his first try to elaborate the six theses, he could not exhibit his ideas in a self-explanatory manner. It is only in his reply where we can get a better notion of what he was striving to say.
Besides demonstration, he also shown weak arguments in the next thesis. The second thesis was 'research supports atheism and not Christianity'. His quarrels were mainly about the offer given to him. The quotation by Jerry Coyne areas that the real argument was between rationalism and superstition. Knowledge is but one form of rationalism and religious beliefs is the most typical superstition. Another part of his being debate was about the offer by Steven Jay Gould. As stated, the quote says that faith and research do not overlap. Dawkins explains why he disagrees with the quotation and talk about the scientific approach to solving a problem. However, throughout the next thesis, he did not explain why or how science supports atheism.
For this paper, we have decided to choose John Lennox. We selected Lennox because in person, both of us are being raised in a Religious family and have indeed, always wished to learn more about Christianity and its own mystery of thousands of years.
List down what were the 6 thesis these were debating. What were the main points of that debater and what evidences do he provide to support his main points?
Faith is blind, Science is evidence based.
John Lennox argues that trust is not blind, at least not for Christian faith. Christianity has its own evidence to aid this case.
Science supports atheism, not Christianity.
John Lennox disputes that the Holy Bible forecasted the creation of the universe, and that only God might well have created it.
The design is lifeless; normally one must explain who designed the custom made.
God is too complicated to explain and that He created the universe.
Christianity is dangerous.
Lennox disagrees and cases that one doesn't have to be spiritual in committing wicked things. He said that the true teachings of Christianity will not promote assault but promotes love.
No one needs God to be moral.
Lennox argues that religious beliefs provides the basis of what is morally right or incorrect.
Christian cases about Jesus aren't true. His alleged miracles violate the laws and regulations of aspect.
Lennox says that you need to treat others how he would prefer to be treated by others.
Throughout the whole debate, John Lennox has managed to present strong tips with a touch of humour in it. His strengths were ultimately having the ability to provide a good and convincing reply to whatever Richard Dawkins possessed to say. These strengths also managed to capture the majority of the audience's attentions and they seemed to react better towards Lennox rather than Dawkins. For instance, on the topic of blind faith, in response to Dawkins, Lennox questioned Dawkins faith in his wife, in a joking manner; and true enough, Dawkins could not reply to the question. This is because Lennox has a very detailed knowledge about what the term "faith" represents, where as Dawkins does not. John Lennox also mentioned that the belief in atheism itself is a beliefs.
Besides that, another of Lennox's talents is the fact that he presented his quarrels in a comfortable way. A good example of this is when Lennox discussed the morality of humans. Regarding to Dawkins, the moral beliefs within a individual aren't embraced through a book; whether it be the Bible or the Koran, but instead through their own selves. He also cases that "there is something in the air" is generating us to be morally right, somewhat than simply some holy reserve telling us to take action. Lennox then argued that "humans across the world show one common central of morality displaying that we are created in the image of God". He also says that what Dawkins meant was that ethics cannot be extracted from science, and there is absolutely no design, justice or purpose. Quite simply, Dawkins was saying that there was no such thing nearly as good or evil, and this DNA which makes up of every human being doesn't know or cares, but rather, it was just there. Lennox then offered a strong argument that if Dawkins said that there was no such thing as good or evil, how can he make certain that Atheism was good, and Theism was wicked?
Furthermore, another power of Lennox was more ready as the format of controversy was at his favour. He totally utilised this to his benefits, by constantly questioning Dawkins. For instance, when Dawkins said that "believing in Zeus was exactly like not thinking in God", Lennox simply responded to that both Zeus and God experienced their own respective trust systems and Zeus is merely an idolized deity and does not can be found, unlike God.
Unfortunately, this argument also encloses a few of Lennox weaknesses. Among the weaknesses which Lennox possessed was that almost all of his arguments were opinion-based, rather than factual. Which means that his arguments hadn't much evidence, but still was logically possible and logical. This can be easily distinguished when he said that "God had not been created, but is eternal". Besides that, the second weakness of Lennox's discussion is that religion is more towards to immateriality and theory, when compared with Dawkins' arguments which is mostly predicated on observations and conclusions to clarify his tips.
After countless of deliberating and looking at, we are delighted to obtain finally matched our many judgments and opinions to indicate a significant success in this highly debatable dispute between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. We unanimously feel that John Lennox was the winner for this question. There are several reasons to why we think Lennox was the definitive victor.
First and foremost, John Lennox can be an sensible man and he had evident advantages throughout the deliberation. He was much more eloquent and well-spoken as compared to Richard Dawkins. Lennox was very direct in answering all the questions and directing out wherever Dawkins was wandering away. For example, during the 5th thesis, "No-one needs God to be moral", was relating to about good and bad in the universe. Dawkins instantaneously started out talking about how he attains at judgements of good and evil and travelled off on an angle just having to do with good and evil, but not how one justifies or discovers it from subject or energy. Lennox immediately recognized where Dawkins broke any form of reasoning to decide on at his conclusions.
Furthermore, Lennox also seemed to be very accustomed with Dawkins' reserve, The God Delusion, as well as the people Dawkins would offer. For instance, Dawkins had misused David Hume's estimate in the connection of the laws and regulations of character. John Lennox remarked that Hume did not have the understanding of the regulations of causes and results, which dished up as the foundation of the laws and regulations of dynamics. Lennox quoted Hume, "You can't derive morality and ethics from subject and energy. "
Last but not least, Lennox were able to counter Dawkins point on that trust was wicked. Dawkins said that people who have confidence in faith are quite simply lazy because they tend to use faith to explain everything unexplainable in life. Lennox disproves this particular declaration by Dawkins, stating that folks do not believe blindly in beliefs but with evidences including the Judeo-Christian Bible, history and personal experiences. This therefore, crashes Dawkins' point on the matter that trust is blind.
In final result, Lennox is the chosen winner of this debate because he has fact and facts on his debate and managed to produce good reasons behind them. The points given by Dawkins are weakened when compared with of Lennox's things; therefore he was not the winner of the debate.