Faith arguments Part 1

In 2017, renowned atheist-geneticist Richard Dawkins and Christian-mathematician John Lennox had an instructional debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVEuQg_Mglw) at Oxford on whether science has 'buried' God. They invoke arguments that more of us should be using, miss points we should not be missing, and warp their logic in ways we may find useful to note for future reference. This series will catalogue God (counter)arguments and fallacies based on the debate in the link, with commentary/dos and don'ts*.

6:59 - 8:25 Dawkins: Has science buried which God? A reasonable, though personally unacceptable, case could be made for the deist God that created the laws of physics and mathematics. But Lennox as a scientist believes that Jesus turned water into wine and walked on water, and also believes in a petty concept of God who had himself killed to rid the world, this small speck of dust in the vast universe, of sin and so that he could forgive himself. This is profoundly unscientific and small-minded.

The words 'petty' and 'small-minded' are conspicuously unscientific. Dawkins' use of these words suggests an emotional, as opposed to level-headed scientific, approach to the subject. His irony about God ridding the world of sin and forgiving himself borders on being a straw man (i.e. an intentionally inaccurate description), and suggests that he responds highly emotionally to the notion of 'sin' (i.e. just hates the idea).

8:25 - 10:30 Lennox: Dawkins believes the universe is a freak accident with no mind behind it, yet he sits there with one of the best minds in the world. God becoming human and Jesus dying on the cross is the opposite of petty, and atheists do not deal with the problem of humans alienating from God (because they'd have to believe in God to do so). Both D and L believe the world is rationally intelligible, which makes sense if there's a rational Creator God behind it. How does Dawkins explain his assumption that the world is rationally intelligible?

No mind behind human minds? A pertinent question. Atheists don't deal with alienation from God - bad point, should be avoided. Why assume - without a rational God - that the world is rationally intelligible? There's the rub.

TBC

*Why in English, all of a sudden? To reach a broader audience on this broader subject. The language switch may occur more frequently, though, in future.