Dr. John Lennox In The God Delusion Debate

I chose to listen to Dr. John Lennox in the God delusion debate because I am a Christian as well. I am very interested and eager to know the arguments that Dr. John Lennox have prepared to present in this debate because I have encountered criticism from an Atheistic point of view towards religion and I find myself not knowing how or having the knowledge to oppose certain arguments that are similar to the ones raised in this debate by professor Dawkins.

The strength of Dr. Lennox in this debate can be seen in his arguments during the fourth thesis which is “Christianity is dangerous”. Lennox agreed with Dawkins that the danger of the fanatic religion fans the flame of violence (1:03:08). Dawkins said in his book to imagine a world without religion

Lennox who won the God delusion debate. Throughout the debate, it can be observed that Dr. John Lennox opposes professor Dawkins’ criticism with incredibly intelligent statements that were very strong. His arguments were well phrased and logical which made it convincing enough to believe that there is a God. This can be witnessed throughout the six theses of the debate. Dr. Lennox supported his arguments with valid facts and he also backs it up with relevant examples so that his arguments can be easily understood by the audience.

One of the strongest points Dr. Lennox presented that the both of us agreed on was his argument during the first thesis, “Faith is blind, science is evidence based”. During the discussion, Dawkins criticized the nature of faith, saying that it was blind as it was not supported with evidence like how science was. This argument is valid and is accepted by many as it is often used to deny the existence of God. However, Lennox argued that not all faith is blind faith. He stated that his faith in the Christian God is no delusion, it is rational and evidence based. He also added that if faith needed evidence, it would not be considered as faith in the first place. This statement bridges the gap between faith and evidence and it can be considered a winning rebuttal of this