32:41 - Lennox: The historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead is central, and far from being petty, it is God speaking to us in a special way, it is to be taken quite seriously. Why does D think it's petty? (Dawkins: It makes a huge difference, if it is true. But L has jumped from the origin of the universe to a man who lived two thousand years ago, was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. That's petty, because does L really think the creator of this magnificent, expanding universe couldn't think of a better way than to have himself tortured in order to forgive? It is He who does the forgiving, couldn't he just forgive?) This is a moral universe. Just forgiving doesn't make sense. (D - He has to get himself killed, tortured?) God sends His Son into the world to provide forgiveness, to provide a basis on which He can bring forgiveness justly to me.
L is exaggerating about Jesus: his resurrection was highly disputed by his contemporaries, so it is belief, rather than fact. At the time, some people thought he'd risen from the dead, and some didn't think so. But L is right in that we live in a 'moral universe', more precisely, humans are far more interested in 'how should I act?' than in the structure of the reality in which they ask that question. Belief in God is shaped largely by the moral questions that arise with the onset of puberty: 'how should I act to achieve sexual fulfilment?' and 'how should I assert myself in the world?' A world with God (through notions like love, sin, forgiveness) provides clear rules for achieving relative fulfilment, including some controversial rules. A world without God is less restrictive, also less clear, but more opportunistic. Many adolescents prefer opportunity (i.e. no God), only to shift towards more definite rules (i.e. some god-concept) later in life. But the question 'Is there a God?' is structural, and thus remains intellectually as open as the rest of the structural questions, it can only ever be closed emotionally.
34:46 - 36:50 Lennox: In D's world, where is justice? (Dawkins: Justice is a human construct of great importance in human affairs. It's something most of us have a sense of, and can probably be given some sort of Darwinian explanation. But where is L taking this?) Is there any ultimate justice? D says this is petty. L finds himself in a broken world with massive injustice. D and L are so privileged to live in Oxford, to have enough money to live on, etc. Many people can never have that. In a world without God, there is no ultimate justice. The resurrection is central, because it gives us real hope that there will be a rational evaluation and fair justice at the end of the world. But atheism doesn't give you that. (Dawkins: Suppose there is no hope or justice. Suppose there's only misery and darkness and bleakness. Nothing we would wish or hope for. Too bad. Just because God would make us feel good, that doesn't make it true.) (L agrees.) (Dawkins: Then why does L make that argument up?) Because L believes there is evidence that it is true. He doesn't believe in the resurrection just like that. Faith is based on evidence. (Dawkins: L has changed his ground again. He was saying before that there was no hope without God.) (L agrees: D has just admitted that.) (D disagrees - If that's true... so what. Didn't say it was true. But anyway, if that's true, so what.)
D does say there's no hope in the world without God; what he doesn't say is there's also more opportunity for the individual to assert themselves. He agrees that most people have a sense of justice, and that that is important for human affairs, and probably has some Darwinian explanation. That will be paradoxical. Though primates have a simple sense of justice (1 banana for you, 1 for me; you're in trouble, I must help; you didn't help when I was in trouble, so I won't help you now), only humans have the abstract notions for a more sophisticated sense of justice. Intra-species solidarity gives a survival edge, so when a species (only humans so far) attains self-reflection, it may notice a contrast between 'survival of the fittest' and 'survival of those helped by the fittest'. The latter leads to human moral rules which are at odds with the former. The individual has the conflicting instincts of helping others within the species and fending for themselves in order to survive, and the tension between the two instincts is magnificently resolved by the Judeo-Christian God, who is thought to compensate in eternal life for whatever the individual lost while helping others (within God's rules). There have been all kinds of attempts to introduce surrogate concepts that would serve the same function, but they have failed, hence the paradox: when you've reduced human qualities to mechanical processes, you've only understood the individual with their contradictory instincts, but not how communities thrive. Throughout history, all stable and prosperous communities have relied on gods/God, which doesn't make God true, but at least suggests that there is a function for 'God', whatever the structural truth will turn out to be at the end of time. In order to convince, D should be able to say 'of course, there is hope of ultimate justice in the world without God, because...', and take it from there.
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése