After weighing the strength and weaknesses of both Dr John Lennox and Professor Richard Dawkins, we have come to a conclusion that the debate was relatively even. Mainly with how well Dr Lennox opposed with substantial backing evidences on the discussed thesis and also not discounting the efforts of Professor Dawkins’ as he put on quite a commendable contest while he was defending his views. Therefore with that said, we are going to be explaining a few reasons that contributed to their success on the debate. For Dr Lennox, he gave a very detailed framework built around the idea of faith. He says that faith is not entirely blind but it “carries with it the ideas of belief, trust, and commitment and is therefore robust as the evidence for it” and it is with this presumed notion that paves the way for the arrival of modern science.
Dawkins replied to Lennox on his accusation that the principles of going from simple to complex is the belief of the atheist. By saying that if things were to go from simple to complex they would need explaining why. Lennox says that it makes a lot more sense to believe, that there is an eternal Logos and that the universe and its laws is derivative including the human mind form the Logos, it makes perfectly sense. More sense than to accept that the universe is just a simple fact. Dawkins replies that it makes a hell of a lot more sense to start with something simpler than to start with something more complex.
In addition, he believes that “we just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 113). This principle acts as a moral code implying that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end. Overall, Kantian ethics focuses and recognizes the importance of the value of humanity. His categorical imperative ultimately leads to a “kingdom of ends,” in which norms that deny the value of humanity are not permitted. In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life.
Analyzing his claim in the light of science, it seems to be true as science do not believe in non-physical things. Science has not provided any proof of the existence of the God and angels. This point is more attracting for atheists as they only believe in logical and ethical reasoning. Furthermore, he argues that the belief of hell and heaven is no more than “blandishments and threats”. This claim is verified by science as there is no physical existence of these things in the light of science.
Religion is the spiritual belief of a higher being or beings that are overall good. Before the law, religion was a way to get people to act morally, from the fear of abasing their souls to the punishments and rewards to a higher spiritual being or God. The Ten commandments are a set of moral laws that say what one should follow to refrain from being immoral to people as well as God. That people should not inflict harm on each other of any degree. Religion has no proven connection with morality because there is no logical proof that a higher being does or does not exist.
In terms of the second part God commands these actions because they are right, this statement places morality separate from God, there is an independent standard of moral right and wrong that undermine the omnipotence and Omni benevolence of God (Leibniz, 1951). This point is also a response to the objection of the divine command theory, in making morality and God independent we ignore the greatness of God, who as the creator has the right to command and we are obligated to obey His commands (Rachels,
These beliefs are what collectivists believe, along with that being alone “…is the great transgression and the root of all evil” (Rand 17). Also, they believe that if you are not needed by your ‘brothers’, -the people around you, figuratively speaking- there is no reason
One misunderstanding that people also think is that religion is always something good. However, whenever anything good goes wrong they turn to question the belief of religion. We first must realize that God is not the reason for our own suffering. Sadly, in the world we live in people have bad intentions and poor morals. People choose to do the wrong thing and it affect the people around them.
Following that, it would be a mistake to presume that religion and God to be the origin of moral ideas, because humans themselves invented an image of God and the rules that people should obey. Thus, it means that morality does not come from religion but comes from human nature; and people do not have to be religious to develop morality inside them, but definitely religions play a significant role in building a moral basis of the
Something happens – injustice, a threat to a nation or a criminal act. Why is it that some people take actions against the so-called “wrongdoers” while some others remain silent? Who or what determines whether something is an “ethical” decision/action? I believe these questions eventually boil down to ethical dilemmas, which are a conflict between moral imperatives. According to me, no party can be judged to be absolutely right or wrong in any given situation; it is a lot more subjective.