Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox | Has Science Buried God? Debate

The debate is set in Oxford's Natural History Museum, commemorating an 1860 debate on Darwin's Origin of Species. The central question for this 21st-century discussion between Professor John Lennox and Professor Richard Dawkins is 'Has Science Buried God?'. Three main topics will be covered: science, gaps and faith & evidence, and morality and purpose.

Richard Dawkins begins by categorizing different conceptions of God, from Einstein's poetic God to a deist God, before focusing on the Christian God, specifically challenging John Lennox's belief in miracles like Jesus turning water into wine and walking on water. Dawkins finds such beliefs 'profoundly unscientific' and 'petty' compared to the grandeur of the universe. Lennox responds by asking how Dawkins accounts for the universe's rational intelligibility if he believes it's a 'freak accident' without a mind behind it.

Dawkins argues that Darwinian evolution demonstrates that apparent design in biology is an illusion, a blind process working without foresight. He suggests that while the cosmos hasn't had its 'Darwin' yet, invoking a Creator for cosmic origins is unhelpful as a Creator would be even more complex and require explanation. Lennox counters that the sophistication of biological processes and the 'digital database' of DNA point to a mind, arguing that the biblical concept of an eternal 'logos' (Word/Reason) provides a coherent explanation for the universe's order and the origins of mind.

Dawkins labels Lennox’s reliance on unexplained phenomena like the origin of life as a 'god of the gaps' argument, a 'cowardly copout.' Lennox differentiates between 'bad gaps' that science closes and 'good gaps' that science can reveal as pointing to God. He argues that science provides evidence, not proof, for God's existence through the universe's mathematical describability and fine-tuning. He also suggests that miracles are special acts of God that can only be recognized if there are regularities (laws of nature).

Dawkins reiterates his view that the Christian God, concerned with sin and specific historical events like the crucifixion and resurrection, is 'petty' when compared to the vastness and majesty of the universe. Lennox argues that these events are central to addressing the fundamental human problem of alienation from God and provide a basis for ultimate justice and hope, which atheism lacks. Dawkins dismisses this, stating that comforting beliefs don't make them true. Lennox challenges Dawkins' dismissal of historical evidence for Jesus's existence and resurrection.

The discussion shifts to meaning and purpose. Dawkins believes meaning is a human construct, a functional attribute of brains selected for survival. Lennox argues that ultimate meaning comes from a personal God who is the source of life and meaning, and that a relationship with this God offers a 'fullness of life' and hope beyond death. Dawkins views this as 'childhood illusions' and a 'flight from reality,' advocating for standing 'tall in the universe' and facing its cold indifference.

Lennox addresses a question about similarities in religions, attributing common moral codes to humans being made in God's image. He distinguishes Christianity by its emphasis on God's gift of forgiveness through Christ, rather than human merit, and Christ's claim to be 'the way, the truth, and the life.' Dawkins, asked about purpose in religion, acknowledges that individuals find purpose in religion but considers it a 'tragedy' to devote lives to 'fanciful imaginary purposes.'

When asked about 'deficiencies' in human design given an omnipotent designer, Lennox points out that all design involves compromise and that his belief in a 'damaged universe' explains perceived imperfections. Dawkins addresses the origin of the laws of physics, stating he doesn't know but argues that positing a conscious intelligence only creates a bigger question. He discusses the anthropic principle and Multiverse theory as potential naturalistic explanations for the universe's fine-tuning, emphasizing that the answer 'cannot be God' as it creates an explanatory regress.

Lennox concludes by stating that faith in God was a major driver for the rise of science, citing the argument that the universe’s rational accessibility points to a divine 'logos.' He emphasizes that Christian faith is not anti-scientific and that historical evidence for Christ's resurrection should be taken seriously. He also questions where morality can be derived from pure naturalism, drawing attention to the potential erosion of moral values if there's 'no good, no evil, no justice.' Dawkins, in his closing, reiterates that science thrives on not knowing everything and actively seeking answers, rather than resorting to 'magic' or 'God' as explanations for difficult problems. He hails Darwin's solution to the 'really big problem' of life's complexity as a 'parable' that encourages scientists not to give up on other unsolved mysteries.