Throughout the debate, Dr. John Lennox's most meritorious strength is his confidence. He instills a great sense of poise and credence. Confidence is created through knowledge and experience. Hence, those factors have indubitably boosted his confidence that makes him a great debater. He is very calm and collected in the debate. He did not show any signs or behaviors of frustration. When one is capped with such confidence, he has won the hearts of the audience more favorably than Dr. Richard Dawkins has. While Dr. John Lennox is trying to prove a point, he did not recoil nor did he display an instinctive reaction to fear. He convinces Professor Dawkins and the audience about his theories with a smile occasionally which is also a show off of his confidence he possesses. This is proven when it was his turn to speak for the second thesis, he just smiled away and he was immensely confident in his understanding of Professor Dawkins’s theories. He was of the same opinion with Professor Dawkins of a few unchallenged points. In the course of the first thesis, Dr. John Lennox agreed with the latter but disagree with the former after Professor Richard Dawkins said that faith is blind and science is …show more content…
Lennox’s confidence has proved it is a prerequisite to a successful debate. His confidence is linked to his charisma. His ability to refute Professor Dawkins’s points is enthralling. Dr. Lennox seemed to be a very outstanding analyzer in a critical situation. Furthermore, he easily and plainly able to comprehend whatever Professor Dawkins was attempting to say. This is proven when Professor Dawkins said that faith is without evidence because there is no evidence we call it faith. Nonetheless, Dr. Lennox responded with “ I presume you have faith in your wife, or do you have any evidence for that?” Professor Dawkins then returned with “ Yes plenty of evidence, I…” Professor Dawkins was instantly caught off guard by promptly counter his preceding
Kelly James Clark, who is a former Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, wrote “Without Evidence or Argument” which is published in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. The article starts off with the scenario of a stranger giving a man a note that his wife is cheating on him. However, there is no evidence and her behavior has not changed at all, how should he react? Does he take the note as complete truth and confront her or should he find security in the trust that he has built up with his wife over the past years together (Feinberg 138)? Clark uses this example, as well as others, to bring attention to the connection between significant beliefs and evidence. Furthermore, Clark goes on to state his
He keeps his argument strong through emotional appeal, strong evidence, use of authority, and great warrants. References Barnet, S., & Bedau, H. Eds. of the book. (2005). The 'Standard' of the 'Stand Current issues and enduring questions: a guide to.
The other answer to the question is that faith is doubt. This basis relies on the fact that since there is so little proof, one must doubt therefore one must have faith.
Another problem found for hypothetico-deductivists comes in this statement, “Personal opinions have no place in science” this quote is extremely trivial. The scientific world would not be where it is today without the speculation a...
In his Letter to The Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo challenged the widely accepted religious beliefs of the time, claiming that the conflict lies in their interpretation, not the context. In Galileo’s eyes science was an extremely useful tool that could and should have been used in interpreting the Scriptures. He argued that “the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven not how heaven goes” (Grand Duchess). The purpose of science was not to counter what the bible teaches; rather its purpose was to help explain the teachings of the scriptures. Furthermore, it was “prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood” (Grand Duchess). However, because of the terminology in which the bible was presented the perception of what the Scripture defined as truth was skewed. The Bible was written so that the common man could understand it and follow its commandments. The people also showed a greater inte...
The debate team of Wiley College faced many colleges to be recognized and finally in the end winning a debate against the reigning debating champions, Harvard University. One of the debaters who caught my attention was James Farmer Jr., the youngest on the team that started out as an alternative. James Farmer sought recognition from adults and wanted to show everyone he was capable of debating. James Farmer incorporates a lot of Ethos and Pathos into his speech making, allowing him to leave his audience filled with emotions and in awe. Although James Farmer interested me, especially the way he presented his final speech, James Farmer and I are very different in the way we deliver our speeches.
The main argument which Galileo’s opponents used against his theory was that in many places in the Bible it is mentioned that the Earth stands still and that the Sun revolves around it. Galileo himself was a devout Christian and did not mean to question God’s power or the Holy Writ with his work. As a result, to support his claim, he developed three logical arguments in his letter, which he backed with the opinions of leading Christian authorities, in order to prove that science can reinforce religion rather than discredit it.
Darwin's theory of Evolution have been known by the world for many centuries. Even so, not all scientists supp...
He says that it is harder for him to doubt something deliberate, and the idea that he can have opportunities that are up to him to decide that fate of an outcome. He goes on to say that we must be wiser with our principles and start adjusting our theories to our data and avoid tailoring our data to our theories.
William Lyon Phelps, an American educator, journalist, and professor, believed, “If you develop the absolute sense of certainty that powerful beliefs provide, then you can get yourself to accomplish virtually anything, including those things that other people are certain are impossible.” Phelps believed that certainty is the key to overcoming the impossible. He believed that absolute certainty and confidence in oneself will allow one to accomplish anything he or she put her mind to. It is common for underdogs in different competitions to side with Phelps because they are told that it is impossible for them to win. These competitors use the doubters claims as fuel to motivate themselves and become absolutely certain that they can and will overcome the impossible. On the other hand, Bertrand Russell stated, “I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt.” Russell, a British author, mathematician, and philosopher. believed that doubt will allow to people to adjust their opinions and envision what their decision may or may not lead to. He believed that nothing is ever truly certain; therefore, there would always be a period of doubt in the decision-making process. This view was extremely common in the minds of people in scientific or academic fields because they know that in the process of perfecting an idea includes multiple trials, errors, and periods of
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
One of the most visible critics of science today, and the progenitor of the anti-science sentiment is the religious community, specifically the conservative Christians. One can hardly read the newspaper without reading of one religious figurehead or another preaching on the "fallacy of science," pushing their own brand of "truth" on whoever would hear them. As Bishop writes "It is discouraging to think than more than a century after the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859), and seventy years after the Scopes trial dramatized the issue, the same battles must still be fought."(256) And the loudest rallying cries to these battles can be heard issuing from the throats of the ranks of zealots and their hordes of followers.
...wever, in the best interest of advancing education and an enlightened society, science must be pursued outside of the realm of faith and religion. There are obvious faith-based and untestable aspects of religion, but to interfere and cross over into everyday affairs of knowledge should not occur in the informational age. This overbearing aspect of the Church’s influence was put in check with the scientific era, and the Scientific Revolution in a sense established the facet of logic in society, which allows us to not only live more efficiently, but intelligently as well. It should not take away from the faith aspect of religion, but serve to enhance it.
That notwithstanding, together with William James, there are philosophers that are not for evidentialism like Alvin Plantinga, Jack Meiland, Ronald Nash, Blaise Pascal, Nicholas Woterstorff, Thomas Reid among other who argue that belief in cosmic divine being is rational, reasonable and right even without proof. In other words they argue for the rationality of belief in God. Now that we have patterns of what, according to evidentialist, make up evidence that justifies belief, in our question are we are to examine whether belief in God could endure the scrutiny of reason that holds; 1] if there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God, then belief in God is rational; 2] There is sufficient evidence for the existence of God 3] Therefore belief in God is
Some feel that scientist are atheists. Some scientists say we still believe in God. St. Thomas answers some questions about faith and science and why faith cannot be tested by the rules of science. In obj.4 he says, “ Because the object of science is something seen, whereas the object of faith is the unseen, as stated above”(258). What he is saying is science is something that has to be seen and proven whereas faith is something as unseen and relies solely on an individual 's beliefs. St. Thomas also says, “ In like manner it may happen that what is an object of vision or scientific knowledge for one man even in the state of wayfarer, is , for another man, an object of faith, because he does not know it by demonstration”(258). Meaning that what one person sees as scientific and fact, can appear to another man as just another sign of faith, faith has no bounds whereas science has boundaries and