Wow…John Lennox gets arch-atheist Richard Dawkins to concede strong possibility of God!

Posted: October 25, 2008 by limabean03 in Apologetics, Christianity, Contemporary Theology, Current Issues, Pop-Culture
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

I spent some time with John Lennox while I was at Oxford (I doubt he’d remember me). He was a guest preacher at Wycliffe from time to time and taught one or two courses on apologetics. One of my more memorable conversations with him was over a pint of bitter at the Trout pub just outside of town with my dear friend Tom Yearwood who is close to John. Lennox is a fiesty Irishman, brilliant mathematician, and committed Christian. Check out this major development below..

This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn’t believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that

…all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection…Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

In Oxford on Tuesday night, however, virtually the first thing he said was that a serious case could be made for believing that it could.

read it all here

  1. Ah, that article was fun. It gets just enough right that all the rest that’s wrong becomes ridiculous.

    Firstly, Deism isn’t the same as Theism. By a long shot. Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were all Deists.

    I disagree with Deism, but I’m open to it – if a God exists, it would probably be a Deistic God and not a theistic one. I can’t be sure of the original context of Dawkin’s quote, but I’m pretty damn sure that this was the kind of thing he meant.

    Also, the article mentions the panspermia thing (the idea that aliens seeded life on earth). That’s something Dawkins uses to illustrate the regression problem: If life was created by aliens, we would still need to account for where the aliens came from. And he only points out that he’s more open to panspermia than Theism in order to highlight that the basis of Theism is even more ridiculous than that of panspermia, because aliens are at least materialistic, causal agents. God is even less probable.

    Well written piece of theistic public relations. Good for a laugh, but ultimately hollow of substance.

  2. […] To Hell with it…(or) why Americans are losing their belief in Hell 2) John Lennox and Richard Dawkins duel over God, monkeys, and martians 3) Canadian doctors hate that Sarah Palin kept her down syndrom […]

  3. […] Did John Lennox really get Richard Dawkins to say belief in Deistic God likely? Read about it here […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s