After listening to it I thought it would be interesting to visit the popular http://www.richarddawkins.net/ website, to see how the debate was discussed in the forum system that the website provide to members.
What astonished me is the degree to which forum members were supportive of Dawkins, and dismissive of Lennox, even more astonishing is the level of misunderstanding amongst forum member for many of the points that Lennox made.
Lennox is described as "preaching", "repeating himself", of being "smug", he is misquoted, for example one poster states that Lennox said "miracles are real, because God can alter the laws of nature at will" but he did not say this.
Other forum posters describe Lennox as having a "patronizing attitude" of espousing "bullshit", of being "circular in his argument", of employing a "sick logic" and of being "willingly ignorant" and using "strawman" arguments.
Several posters expressed the opinion that the debate had been "unfair" in some way, and of being "especially disadvantageous" to Dawkins.
In reading these posts (which are publicly accessible here) I cannot help thinking that the participants (the bulk of them) are almost zealous in their devotion to Dawkins and in their eagerness to defend him.
Lennox made some rather pertinent points, some of the more important that directly undermine Dawkins position (that is his position as espoused in 'The God Delusion') are
- If it is blind physical forces that underly our actions, then on what grounds can Dawkins criticise religion or those who attacked the World Trade Center? are not these simply inevitable manifestations of those unguided physical forces?
- If Dawkins believes in atheism, then is that not faith? Of course Dawkins claims to base his belief on evidence, but so too does Lennox.
- Lennox said very early that Dawkins, indeed all scientists by defintion, must have faith that nature can be understood and analyzed by the scientific method, this needs to be assumed in order to undertake scientific enquiry and is thus faith.
- Dawkins, during the discussion of morality, referred to "rising above it" when it was pointed out to him that surely our genes in fact lead to evil and the negative issues associated with religions, but what is "Rising above it".
Almost none of the comments posted in the forum made any attempt to honestly assess whether Dawkins is scientifically or philosophically undermined by the issues.
What did you think of the debate and what do you think the forum tells us about Dawkins and his supporters?
