Singer vs Lennox: Is There a God?

[The Magic Pudding]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/09/06/3310342.htm

Anything new?
Probably not.
Affable, clever but frustrating christians aren't new.

Peter Singer is Ira W DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He first became well-known internationally after the publication of "Animal Liberation". His extremely controversial views on animal rights and other issues in bioethics have received much attention over many years. Singer's other books include "Democracy and Disobedience", "Practical Ethics", "The Expanding Circle, Should the Baby Live?", "How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death", "Ethics into Action: How Ethical is Australia?", "The Way We Eat" and "The Life You Can Save".

John Lennox is Professor in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, University of Oxford. Possessing doctorates from Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Wales, he travels widely speaking on the interface between science and religion. Lennox has debated atheists ranging from Victor Stenger to Richard Dawkins and is the author of "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?"

[xSilverPhinx]

The talk has left me curious to know just how Lennox's brainwashing process went...Stockholm Syndrome much?  

As for the rest, uncompelling arguments as always, the usual equating atheism with religious faith, all the fallacious arguments about communism and atheism and an oddity I've never heard till now, rationality can't exist if there is no god. ???

And of course, the same old "morality can't exist without god" too. Overused and lacking in elegance and explanatory power beyond it's use as an authoritative statement...as always.  

[Recusant]

I love how some Christians (Lennox, in this case) try to deny that science has its roots in (mostly) European thought which preceded Christianity, and attempt to brand science as a creation of Christianity alone. There is something inherently dishonest in that line of thinking, and whenever I hear somebody spout it, I can't help but begin to distrust them.

Lennox in his opening argument: "There's clearly something wrong here..." Yes, what is wrong is his caricature of atheism.

"...the fundamental assumption on which atheism is based. That is that ultimate reality is impersonal (mass/energy), and [that] all the rest, including mind and intelligence is derivative. So that atheism is forced to derive the rational from the irrational."

This is a blatant misstatement, and I think Lennox creates the misstatement purposely. The rational is not derived from the irrational, it's derived from the non-rational. The irrational is a mode of thought, just as the rational is. What those who do not accept a divine creation and a non-physical basis for thought are saying is that matter (non-rational, but by no means irrational), once it has become part of a living thing, can and does produce thought. Thought may be rational or irrational, but both are derived (in the naturalistic view) from non-rational matter. Given that there is absolutely no substantive evidence that any kind of thinking can exist in a disembodied entity, such a view is definitely rational.

Lennox then goes on to state that the concept of egalitarianism is a product of Judeo-Christian thinking. I suppose that by ignoring the Enlightenment, and its rejection of Judeo-Christian hierarchical thinking (Biblical promulgation of slavery, divine right of kings and so on) one could assert this, but it's very similar to the attempt to co-opt science as a creation of Christianity, and is just as dishonest. By this point in his speech, I've begun to develop an aversion to Lennox.

Fortunately for my opinion of him, shortly after the above mendacious assertions he drifts into what is essentially preaching. For some reason I'm much more comfortable listening to Christians preach than I am listening to them lie.

I suppose I should sit through the Singer's opening speech as well, though I can't say I'm looking forward to it...

Singer doesn't bring anything novel to the argument. While he makes a reasonable case for atheism, I wouldn't say that it's all that compelling.

Oy vey, now that I've listened to the opening speeches, I find myself interested in hearing the rebuttals.

One of the first things Lennox does in his rebuttal is fall back on a "god of the gaps" argument: Science has not explained how life first arose, and the complexity of the DNA molecule points to a designer. He had earlier said something which might have led the credulous to think that he wouldn't be using such an argument, but here it is. Then in tackling the "if a god created the universe, what created god" question, what Lennox does is shrug it off. He essentially says that the Abrahamic faiths deny that this is a valid question: We define our god as eternal and not created, so there. *dusts off hands; job well done* Then he tries to turn it around: "If the universe created you, who created your creator?" This assumes that there must be a creator, when in reality, the necessity of a creator is after all one of the questions on the table. Lennox seems very pleased with his own sophistry here though. Then he asserts that the Bible is evidence in support of Christianity. Oh well. Yes indeed it is. He makes a good point about the genetic fallacy though. Just because his parents were Christian and he is Christian does not mean that Christianity is false. This is the first time in the debate when I agree with a point that Lennox makes. (Second if you discount poor Captain Picard.)

Singer easily rebuts Lennox's lame first cause defense. Then he goes on the offense, attacking the Bible's usefulness as evidence. That's not going to cut any ice with Christians.    On shakier ground, he tries to posit a quasi-objective basis for morality. Not as positive as Harris, but still seemingly trying to avoid the conclusion that morality is essentially subjective. I don't buy Harris's ideas, and I don't buy the weaker version that Singer attempts to put forward. He does at least call Lennox out on his assertion that Christianity is the basis of egalitarianism.

The whole "atheist Russia shows us that atheism is anti-freedom" line put forward by Lennox is pathetic, and somewhat offensive. When called on it by Singer, Lennox seems to admit that he really didn't have any solid ground on which to stand. I guess he just threw it in, hoping that he wouldn't have to defend it. Lennox tries to argue for the historicity of the New Testament. Well that's not going to cut any ice with atheists.

This was a nice change from listening to William Lane Craig and his emulators, so I thank you for that, Magic Pudding.  Good to see you around here again, by the way.

[The Magic Pudding]

Good to see you around here again, by the way.

Thanks


This is from Lennox, there isn't a full transcript as far as I know.

....it was put there because the conviction that there is one god confirms the unity and coherence of the world and it gave rise to the science of the sixteenth and seventeen century.  As CS Lewis put it, men became scientific because they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver.

Well I'd say "men" seek a unity and coherence of the world and that gave rise to god.

I don't know how many became scientific to be closer to god, probably would have been wise to offer deference if you didn't want to find yourself on a pier.  God's minions had until recently controlled the planet, so obviously god has patents on all science for the last few millennia. We won't mention how discoverers of scientific truth often found themselves stars of a sadistic spectacle, a cautionary example for all to learn from.


I would recommend Lennox as an insomnia cure, he has a stupefying effect that quickly causes the brain to seek the safety of sleep.

[xSilverPhinx]

I loved how he tried to argue that DNA is "the longest word", with some sort of semantic value that eventually translates into proteins and tries to tie that to "In the beginning there was the Word".

The lengths that people go to to validate their beliefs...