discussion.py

# Source: http://www.protorah.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-God-Delusion-Debate-Full-Transcript.pdf
# Proprocessed to remove footnotes

transcript = """
Prof. Richard	Dawkins
I	was	born	in	Africa. I’m	a	child	of	what	was	in	those	days	the	British	Empire.	Descended	
from	a	long	line	of	khaki	shorts wearing,	hairy	kneed,	brown	shoed	Colonial	officers.	I	had	
every	opportunity	to	become	a	naturalist,	because	Africa	as	you	know	is	a	wonderful	place	
to	be	a	naturalist.	Unfortunately that’s	not	the	way	it	was.	I	never	was	much	of	a	naturalist	
much	to	my	father’s	disappointment	I	suspect,	he	is	a	very	good	naturalist.	I	suppose	that’s	
a	preamble	to	saying	that	my	interest	in	the	science	and	biology,	which	is	what	I	specialise	
in,	came	more	from	an	interest	in	fundamental	questions	than from	the	love	of	watching	
birds	or	insects	or	pressing	flowers.	I	wanted	to	know	why	we’re	all	here,	what	is	the	
meaning	of	life,	why	does	the	universe	exist,	why	does	life	exist.	That’s	what	drew	me	to	
science.	
My	parents	left	Africa	when	I	was	about	eight	and I	came	with	them.	I	was	sent	to	
boarding	school	In	England. I	suppose	part	of	the	point	of	this	autobiographical	notice	to	
give	a	kind	of	religious	background	since	we	are	talking	about	religion tonight.	I	had	a	
harmless	Anglican	upbringing. I	could	never claim	that	I	had religion	thrust	down	my	
throat in	the	way	it might	of	been	had	I	been	brought	up	in	a	more	militant	faith.	
Anglicanism	as	you	know	is	a	very	civilized	version	of	Christianity.	No	bells	and	smells	and	
no	creationist	lunacy.	I	was	confirmed	into	the	Church	of	England	and	at	the	time	I	
sincerely	believed	it.	I	had	a brief	period	of	doubt	at	about	the	age	of	nine,	or	about	three	
years before	my	confirmation.	This	doubt	was	caused	by	the	realization that	there	are	lots	
of	different	religions	in	the	world,	and I	recognized	that	it	was	an	accident	of	my	birth	that	I	
happened	to	have	been	born	to	the Christian	faith.	I	recognised	instantly that say	had	I	
been	born	in	Afghanistan	or	born	in	India	I	would	have	believed	very	different things.	
That	quite	rightly	shook	my	faith	in	the	particular religion	I	had	been	brought	up	in.	
Weirdly, and	I	don’t	know	why, I	seem	to	have	lost	those	doubts	when	I	was	about	13	and	I	
was	confirmed	into	the	Church	of	England.	I	went	to	Oxford	after	having	lost	my faith	for	
good	of about	the	age of	15	or	16	and	that	was because	I	discovered	Darwinism and	
recognised	that	there	was	no	good	reason	to	believe	in	any	kind	of	supernatural	creator.	
And	my	final	vestige,	last	vestige	of	religious	faith	disappeared when	I finally	understood	
the	Darwinian	explanation	for	life.	I	went	to	Oxford,	I	got	a	doctorate	at	Oxford	eventually,	I	
went	to	the	University	of	California	at	Berkeley	as	a	very	young	assistant	professor
teaching	in	those	days	animal	behaviour,	and	then	went	back	to	Oxford	after	about	two	
years	at	Berkley	and	continued	my	career	as	a	student	of	animal	behavior.	
About	1972	there	was	a	general	strike in	Britain,	and	there	was	no	electric	power	
and	I	couldn’t	do	my	research	and	so	I	thought	I	would	write	a	book.	And	I	started	to	write	
a	book	which	eventually	became	my	first	book	The	Selfish	Gene however,	unfortunately	the	
 
  5
electric	power	came	on	again	and	so	I	shelved	the	first	two	chapters	of	the	book	that	I	had	
already	written of	the	book,	put	them	in	a	drawer and	forgot	about	them	until	about	three	
years	later	in	1975	when	I	got	a	sabbatical leave	and	resumed	writing	The	Selfish	Gene.	
Since	then	I’ve written	about	eight	more	books: The	Extended	Phenotype,	The	Blind	
Watchmaker,	River	out	of	Eden,	Climbing Mount Improbable,	Unweaving	The	Rainbow,	A	
Devil’s	Chaplain,	The	Ancestor’s	Tale,	and	most	recently	The	God	Delusion	which	is	the	
subject	of	tonight’s debate.	
I	regard	it	as	an	enormous	privilege	to	be	alive,	and	I	regard	it	as	a	privilege	to	be	
alive	especially	at	the	end	of	the	20th century	beginning	of	the	21st c entury,	a	privilege	to	be	
a	scientist	and	therefore	to	be	in	a	position	to	understand something	off	the	mystery	of	
existence, why	we	exist.	I	think	that	religious	explanations although	they	may	have	been
satisfying	for	many	centuries,	are	now	superseded	and	outdated.	I	think	moreover that
they’re	petty	and	parochial and	that	the	understanding we	can	get	from	science	of	all	those	
deep	questions	that	religion	once	aspired to	explain are	now	better,	more grandly,	in	a	
more	beautiful	and	elegant	fashion	explained	by	science.
Moderator
Thank	you	Professor	Dawkins. Dr Lennox
Dr John	Lennox
Well	ladies	and	gentlemen,	thank	you	very	much	for	inviting	me.	I'm	delighted	to	be	here.	
Each	one	of	us	has	a	biography	and	a	worldview.	Our	set	of	answers	to	the	big	questions	
that	life	throws	at	us.	And	so	a	little	about	my	biography:	I’m	married	to	Sally,	we	have	
three	children	and	four	grandchildren.	I	work	now	at	the	University	of	Oxford	as	a	
mathematician and	as	a	philosopher	of	science. I	was	born	in	the	middle	of	the	last	century	
in	a	country	with	the	tragic	reputation	for	sectarian	violence: Northern	Ireland.	My	parents	
were	Christian but	they	were	not	sectarian.	In	the	book	The	God	Delusion Richard you	say	
that	religion	teaches	us	that	it	is	a	virtue	to	be	satisfied	with not	understanding.	Well,
whatever	other	religion	this	may	apply	to, it	certainly	did	not	apply	to	the	Christianity	my
parents	taught	me from	the	Bible.
They	encouraged me	to	be	intellectually	inquisitive	because	they	were	like	that	
themselves.	Not	in	spite	of	their Christian	faith,	but	because	of	it. And	I	owe	them an	
immense	debt for	setting	me	free	to	read	everything	from	Marx and	Russell	to	C.S. Lewis,	
and	developed	in	those	days	an	interest the	big	questions	of	life. I	was	very	fortunate	to	get	
the	chance	to	leave	Ireland	and	go	to	Cambridge	where	I	could	indulge	my	passion	for	
mathematics	and	for	science	in	general. And	Cambridge	not	only	gave	me	the	opportunity	
to	develop	those	intellectual	pursuits,	but	it	gave	me	the	opportunity	to	meet	many	people	
of	other	worldviews who did	not	share	my	background	and my	convictions.	As	a	result	I	
developed	a	considerable	interest	in atheism, an	interest	which	led	me	subsequently	as	an	
Alexander von	Humboldt	fellow	to	study	in	Germany	and	then	travel	very	frequently	to	
Eastern	Europe	during	the	period	of	the	Cold	War.	After	the	fall	of	Communism	I	went very	
often	to	the	academies	of	science	at	universities	in	Russia	to	discuss	and	reason	about	these	
things	and	to	see	at	first	hand	the	effect	systematic	exposure	to	atheist	indoctrination	of	the	
preceding	70	years.	And	so	I	too	am very	privileged	to	live	at	this	time	and	to	be	involved	in	
the	public	discussion	of	these	issues.
 
  6
Now	reading	Richard’s	book,	I	found	absolutely fascinating	because	it	strikes	me	as	
an	impassioned	crusade	to	warn his	fellow	human	beings	of	the	slavery, the	oppression	and	
the	mental	and	possibly	physical	tortures	imposed	on	them	by	religion.	And	I	actually	feel	a	
lot	of	sympathy	for	you	on	this	particular	point, because	I	myself	am	totally	opposed	to	any	
religion	that	seeks	to	impose	itself	by	force	or	that	takes	advantage	of	or	abuses people	in	
any	way.	You	cannot	impose	truth	by	force.	Both	of	us	I	think	hold	all	that	religion	should	
be	debated	in	a	rational	way	as	anything	else.	I	share	his passion	for	truth,	neither	of	us	
mercifully as	a	post-modern relativist.	 But	as	a	passionate	atheist	Richard	is	committed	to	
the	idea	that	God	is	a	delusion.	For	him, ultimate	reality	I	take	it	consists	of	the	impersonal	
man, matter	and	energy	of	the	universe. I	believe	the	exact	opposite.	God	far	from	being	a	
delusion	is	real.	Ultimate	reality	is	a	personal, eternal	and	supernatural	God	who	has	
revealed	himself	in the universe.	It	is	where the	Bible	and	supremely	in	Jesus	Christ	His	son
who	is	Lord	and	God	incarnate. I'm	very	aware	that	this	puts	me	according	to	Richard's	
book	firmly	in	the	category	of	those	who	sit	fluttering	among	the	dove coats	of	the	deluded,
sucking	my	religious	dummy	or	pacifier	as	you	call	an	Alabama.
You	suggest	that	religion	builds	a	firewall	in	the	mind	against	scientific	truth.	Well	
that might	be	tragically	the	case	with some	religions	but	it's	not	so	with	biblical	
Christianity.	Indeed	the reason	ladies	and	gentlemen	that	I'm	passionate	about	truth	is that	
God	is	the	God	of	all	truth.	One	of	the	most	famous	statements	that	Jesus	ever	made	was	“I	
am	the	truth.”1 An	astonishing	assertion	that	as C.S. Lewis	pointed	out	long	ago:
“Is either	megalomaniac, pathologically	mistaken	or	valid	since	He (Jesus)	is	
claiming	not	merely	to	say	true	things,	although	that	is	so, but	claiming	to	be
ultimate	truth	itself. The	ultimate	truth	behind	everything	from	the	Andromeda	
nebula,	to	human	life,	conscience	and	mind.” 2
Please	note	that	what	divides	us	is	not	science.	We’re	both	committed to	it.	What	
divides	us	is our	worldviews, his	atheistic	mine	theistic	and	Christian. Now	his	book	
presents	to	us	a	grim	world.	It	is	a	no	holds	barred	attempt	to	deliver	people	from	the	
dragon	of	religion	so	that	they	can	lead	a	life	of	uninhibited	self	fulfilment	unencumbered	
with	a	background	threat of	an	imaginary	God.	And	he	says	it	looks	bleak	and	cold	
especially	from the	security	blanket	of	religious	ignorance,	but	ladies	and gentlemen	we	
need	to	take	it	seriously.	If	that's	the	way	it	is, that	that's	the	way	it	is and	we to	face	it,	but	
we	need	to	discuss	seriously	and	look	at	the	evidence.	Neither	of	us	wishes	to	base	his life	
of	a	delusion,	but which	is	the	delusion?	Atheism	or	Christianity?	That	is	for	each	of	us	to	
decide	on	the	basis	of	the	evidence	of	course.
First	thesis:	“Faith	is	blind;	science	is	evidence	based.”
Moderator
Thank	you.	The	first	thesis	of	Professor	Dawkins’	book,	and	each	of	these	reflected	in	your	
program	is	a	summary.	It’s	not	a	direct	quotation,	but	the	summary	is:	“faith	is	blind.	
																																																							 1 John	14:16
2 Reference	unknown.
 
  7
Science	is	evidence	based.”	I	have	one	excerpt	at	the	top	of	page	126	to	illustrate	your	
argument	Professor	Dawkins:
“One of	the	truly	bad	effects	of	religion	is	that	it	teaches	us	that	it	is	a	virtue	to	be	
satisfied	with	not	understanding.”	(Dawkins,	2008,	p.	126.)
Could	you	please	elaborate?
Prof. Richard	Dawkins
Science uses	evidence	to	discover	the	truth	about	the	universe.	It’s	been	getting	better	at	it	
over	the	centuries	in	the	teeth	of	opposition	from	religion, although	it	has	to	be	admitted	
that	of	course	science	grew	out	of	a	religious	tradition.	Religion, as	the	quotation	that	Judge	
Pryor read	out,	teaches	us	to	be	satisfied	with	not	understanding. I think	that	when	you	
consider	the	beauty	of	the	world, and	you	wonder	how	it	came	to	be	what	it	is, you	are	
naturally	overwhelmed	with	a	feeling	of	awe,	a feeling	of	admiration.	And	you	almost	feel	a	
desire	to	worship	something. I	feel	this	and	I	recognise that	other	scientists	such	as	Carl	
Sagan	feel	this, Einstein	felt	it.	
We	all	of	us	share	a	kind	of	religious	reverence	for	the	beauties of	the	universe,	for	
the	complexity	of	life,	for	the sheer	magnitude	of	the	cosmos,	the	sheer	magnitude	of	
geological	time.	And	it	is	tempting	to	translate	that	feeling	of	awe and	worship	into	a	desire	
to	worship	some	particular	thing;	a	person,	an	agent.	You	want	to	attribute	it to	a	maker,	to	
a	creator.	 What	science	has	now	achieved	is an	emancipation	from	that	impulse	to	
attribute	these	things	to	a	creator and	it’s a	major	emancipation	because	humans	have	an	
almost	overwhelming	desire	think	that	they've	explained something	by	attributing	it	to	a
maker.	 We’re	so used	to	explaining	things	in	our	own	world	like	these television	cameras,
like	the	lights, like	everything	we	make,	the	clothes	we	wear,	chairs	we	sit	on.	Everything	
we	see	around	us	is	a	manufactured object, and	so	it's	so	tempting	to	believe	that	living	
things	or	the	stars	or mountains	or rivers	have	all	been	made	by	something.	
It	was	a	supreme	achievement	of	the	human	intellect	to	realise	that	there	is	a	better	
explanation	for	these	things, that these	things	can	come	about	by	purely natural	causes.
When	science began, the	aim to	achieve	it	was	there	but we	didn't	know	enough.	Nowadays	
at	the	end	of	the	20th century, beginning	the	21st century, we	still	don't	know	everything	
but	we've	achieved	an	enormous	amount	in	the	way	of	understanding.	We	now	understand	
essentially how	life	came	into	being.	We	know	that	we	are	all	cousins	of	all	animals	and	
plants;	we	know	we	are	descended	from	a	common	ancestor	which	might	have	been	
something	like	bacteria.	We	know	the	process	by	which	that	came	about,	we	don’t	know	
the	details	but we	understand	essentially	how	that	came	about.	
There	are	still	gaps	in	our	understanding.	We	don't	understand	how	the	cosmos	
came	into	existence	in	the	first	place, but	we	are	working	on	that.	The	scientific	enterprise	
is	an	active seeking,	an	active	seeking out	of	gaps	in	our	knowledge, seeking	out	of	
ignorance	so	that	we	can	work	to	plug	that	ignorance.	But	religion	teaches	us	to	be	satisfied	
with	not	really	understanding.	Every	one	of	these	difficult	questions	that	comes	up	science	
says “right, let's	roll	up	our	sleeves	and	work	on	it”.	Religion	says, “Oh God	did	it.	We don't	
need	to	work	on	it.	God	did	it.	It’s	as	simple	as	that.” We	have	no	thrusting	force	pushing	us
on	to	try	to understand. Religion	stultifies	the	impulse	to	understand	because	religion	
 
  8
provides	a facile, easy, apparent explanation	although	as	we’ll	see	later	in	the	evening	it	
isn't	really	an	explanation and	it	prevents	the	further	work	on	the	problem.

Dr John	Lennox
There are	two	issues	here:	faith	is blind,	science	is evidence	based.	I do	not	agree	with	the	
first	one, but	I	very	much	agree	with	the	second	one.	Some	faith	is	blind.	And	blind	faith	can	
be	very	dangerous	especially	when	it’s coupled	with	a	blind	obedience	to	an	evil authority.
And	that	ladies	and gentleman	I	would	like	to	emphasise	is	true	whether	the	blind	faith	is	
that	of	religious	or	secular	people.	But	not	all	faith	is blind	faith	because	faith	itself	carries	
with	it	the	ideas	of	belief, trust, commitment, and	is	therefore	only	as	robust	as	the	
evidence	for	it.	Faith	in	the	flying	spaghetti	monster	much	beloved	of	Richard	Dawkins, a	
delightful	idea, is	blind	because	there	is	no	evidence	for	the	flying	spaghetti	monster.	But	
faith	in relatively	theory	is	not	blind	because	there	is	evidence	supporting	it. I	can't	speak	
authoritatively	for	other	religions	but	faith in	the	Christian	sense	is	not	blind, and	indeed	I	
do	not	know	a	serious	Christian who	thinks	it	is.	
Indeed,	as	I	read	it, blind	faith	in	idols	and figments	of	the	human	imagination, in	
other	words	delusional	gods, is	roundly	condemned	in	the	Bible.	My	faith	in	God	and Christ	
as	the	Son of	God	is	no	delusion	it	is	rational	and	evidenced based.	Part	of	the	evidence	is	
objective and	some	of	it	comes	from	science, some	comes	from history, and	some	is	
subjective	coming	from	experience.	Now of	course	we	do	not	speak	of	‘proof’.	You	only	get	
proof	of	the	strict	sense	in	my	own	field	of	mathematics, but	in	every	other	field	including	
science	we	can't	speak	of	proof, we	can	speak	of	evidence	of	pointers	of	being	convinced	
beyond	reasonable doubt.	I	think	it's	important	in	this	context	to	emphasise	that	science	is	
limited	because	it	seems	to	me	a	creeping	danger	of	equating	science	with	rationality, but	
what	is	beyond	science	is	not	necessarily	irrational.	
Science	cannot	tell	us	for	instance	whether	a	poem	or	work	of	literature	or	a	work	of	
art	and	music	is	good	or	beautiful.	Science	can	tell	us	that	if	you	put	strychnine into	your
grandmother's	tea	it	will	kill	her,	but science	cannot	tell	you	whether	it	is	morally	right	to	
do	so.	And the	Nobel	prize-winner Sir	Peter	Medawar	who	is	quite	a	hero I	think for	both	of	
us, has	pointed	out	that	you	can	easily	see	the	limits	of	science	because	it	cannot	answer	
the	elementary	questions	of	a	child: who	am	I, what	is	the	purpose	of	my	existence, where	
am	I	going? Now	Richard	has	just contrasted that	science	and	religion, religion	being	
content	with	not	understanding	whereas science	is	unravelling	the	understanding	about	
the	universe. And	I	understand	and feel	the	force	of	that	objection	very	strongly	because	
sometimes	Christians	I	have	met	have	been	guilty	of	a	lazy	“God	of	the	gaps” kind	of	
solution. “I	can’t understand it, therefore	God	did	it.”	And	of	course God	disappears as	the	
gaps	close.		
But	I	like	to	point	out	that	there	are	two kinds	of	gaps ladies	and	gentlemen: there	
are	gaps	that	science	closes,	and	I	call	those	the	bad	gaps, but	there	are	also	gaps	that	
science	opens	that	we	may	come	to	some	of	those	later.	But	as	for	the	idea	itself	Richard	
referred	to	the	very	important	fact that	science	and	modern	science	as we	know	it	exploded	
 
  9
in	the	16th and	17th centuries	and	it	arose	out	of	a theistic	background,	and many	
philosophers	of	science	have studied	this	and	come	to	the	conclusion	that’s	now	called	
Whitehead’s	thesis, that	human	beings	became	scientific	because	they	expected	law	and
nature, and	they expected	law and	nature because	they	believed in	the lawgiver. I	think	that	
is	profoundly	important	because	it	means	far from religion hindering	science	it	was	the	
driving	force	behind	the	rise	of	science	in the	first	place.	
And	when	Isaac	Newton for	example	discovered	his	law	of gravity	and	wrote	down	
the	equations	of	motion, he	didn't	say	“marvellous	I	now	understand	it.	I’ve got	a	
mechanism	therefore	I	don't	need	God.”	In	fact	it	was	the	exact	opposite.	It	was	because	he
understood the	complexity	of	sophistication	of	the	mathematical	description	of	the	
universe	that	his	praise	for	God was	increased.	And	I	would	like	to	suggest Richard	that	
somewhere	down	in	this	you’re making	a	category	mistake,	because	you're	confusing	
mechanism	with	agency.	We	have	a	mechanism	that	does	XYZ	therefore	there’s	no	need	for	
an	agent.	I	would	suggest	that	the	sophistication	of	the	mechanism, and science	rejoices	in	
finding	such	mechanisms, is	evidence	for	the	sheer	wonder	of	the	creative	genius	of	God.
Second	thesis:	“Science	supports	atheism	not	Christianity.”
Moderator
Our	next	thesis	is	that	science	supports	atheism	not	Christianity. And	on	this	thesis,
Professor	Dawkins, I	would	like	to	read	to	excerpts	from	your	book.	The	first	is	on	page	67.	
You	are	quoting	your	colleague	the	Chicago	geneticist	Jerry	Coyne	with	approval, and	he	
writes:
“To	scientists	like	Dawkins	and	E.O. Wilson, the celebrated	Harvard	biologist, the	
real	war	is	between	rationalism	and superstition.	Science	is	but one	form	of	
rationalism	while	religion	is	the	most	common	form	of	superstition.” (Dawkins,	
2008,	p.	67.)
Several	pages	earlier on page	59	you	write:
“NOMA” (which	is	the idea	that	religion	and	science do	not	overlap;	non-overlapping	
magisteria)” (Dawkins,	p.	59).
Would	you	care	to	elaborate?		
Prof. Richard	Dawkins
Yes.	First	I'd	like	to	respond	to	a	little	bit	of	what	John	said	on	the	previous	occasion. I’d feel	
happier	if	we	could	have	a bit	more	of	a	dialogue	rather	than	this. When	you	say	faith is	
rational	and	evidence-based, I	mean if	that	were	true	it	wouldn't need	to	be	faith	would	it?	
If	there	were	evidence	for	it,	why	would	you	need	to	call	if	faith? You’d	say	it	was	just	
evidence.	And when	you	said	that	faith	in	relativity in	Einstein's	theory	of	relativity	is	
evidence-based, that	of	course	it	is, but	the	evidence is	all-important.	I	mean Einstein's	
predictions	fit	in	with	observed fact	and	with	a	whole	body	of	theory whereas	we	only	need	
to	use	the	word	“faith”	when	there	isn't	any	evidence.

Dr John	Lennox
No	not	at	all.	I	presume	that	you’ve	got	faith	in	your	wife.	Is	there	any	evidence	for that?	
Professor	Richard	Dawkins
Yes,	plenty of	evidence!	(Audience	laughter).	Let’s	generalise	it.	Never	mind about my	wife.	
Let's	say	that	in	general,	how	do	we	know	that	somebody	loves	us?	Ok?	You	can	use	a	word	
faith	for	that	but	it’s	not	the	right	use	of	the	word.
Dr John	Lennox
Oh	it	is!
Professor	Richard	Dawkins
You	know why, you	know	your	wife	loves	you	because	of	all	sorts	of	little	signs,	catches	in
the	voice, little	looks in	the	eye, and	that's	the	evidence.	That’s	perfectly	good	evidence,	
that’s	not	faith.	
Dr John	Lennox
Yes	it	is!	
Professor	Richard Dawkins
Well,	we’re	coming	down	to	pure	semantics.
Dr John	Lennox
I	think	you've	influenced	too	much	by	Kant you	see.
Professor	Richard	Dawkins
Umm,	let’s	go	on.	Which	of	these	which	of	these	statements	are	we	now	on? It	didn’t	seem	
to have	much	connection	with	the	quotes	from	The	God	Delusion. You	read	a	quote	from	
Jerry	Coyne	about	the	real	war	being	between	supernaturalism	and	naturalism.		The	
context	of	that	quote	was	the	turf	wars	in	the	sense	in	American	education	between	
creationism	and evolution, and	are	within	that	context	I	have	been	accused	of	letting	this
side	down	because	as	you	know	there	is	a	problem	with	American	education	where some	
nutcases	are	trying	to	introduce	creationism	into	American	schools	which	is	obviously	very	
bad	for science, and	my	scientific	colleagues	are	deeply	worried	by	this	and	are	trying	to	
fight	it	and	all	power	to them.	
They	complain	that	I	am	not	helping	matters	that	I'm	in	a	sense	rocking	the	boat	by
saying	quite	openly	that	it	is	my	understanding of evolution	that	has	led	me	to	atheism.	And	
they	point	out	again	quite	rightly	that	if	I	was	called	up	in	a	court	of	law	testifying	in	favour	
of	evolution	and	against	teaching	creationism	and	the	lawyer	said, “Mr	Dawkins	is	it	true	
that	evolution	is	ready	to	atheism?”	I	should	have to	say	yes whereupon	he	would	turn	to	
the	jury	and	say	my	case	rests.	It	doesn't	do	the	cause of	science	any	good	to	unite	
evolution	with	atheism.	That	was	the	context	of	Jerry	Coyne's	remark.	Coyne was	saying	
okay	if	you're	concerned	only	with	the	with	the	narrow	political	battle	of	saving	American	
science	in	the	schools, then	you	should	button	your	lip and	stop	talking	about	atheism.	If	on	
the	other	hand	you	think	as	Coyne	does,	that the	real	war	is	between	supernaturalism	and	
naturalism, then	you	would	say	well	the	battle	over	evolution	and	creationism	is	only	a	
skirmish.	
 
  11
The	real	war	is	over	something	rather	more	profound.	That	was	the	context	of	that.	
NOMA	was	the	second	quotation that	you	read, that's	non-overlapping	magisteria. The	late	
Stephen	Gould argued	that	there	was	no	real	battle	between	science	and	religion	because	
they	what	about	non-overlapping	magisteria, different	things, ships	that	pass	in	the	night,
no	contact	between	them.	They	are	about totally	different	things. I	don't	think	that	for	a	
moment. I	think	that	religion	really	is	in	a	sense	about	science; I	think	that	religious	claims	
about the	universe	are	scientific	claims.	I	suspect	that	John	and	I	may	agree	about	this.	
Claims	about	the	universe	are	scientific	claims	a	universe	with	a God	would	be	a	very	
different	kind	of	universe	from	a	universe	without	a	God.
Scientific	methods	are	the appropriate	methods	or	at	least	the	scientific	way	of	
thinking,	is	an	appropriate	way	of	thinking, for	deciding	whether	we	live	in	this	kind	of	
universe	with	a	God	or	that	kind	of	universe	without	a	God.	It	becomes	even	more	glaring	
where	you	talk	about	miracles	which,	I	mean however	much	sophisticated	theologians	may	
profess	their	nonbelief	in	miracles, the	plain	fact	is that	the	ordinary	person	in	the	pew,	the
ordinary	unsophisticated	churchgoer, believes	deeply	in	miracles	and it’s	largely	miracles	
that	persuade	that	person	into	the	church	in	the	first	place.	
If	there	are	miracles	they	are	to	be	judged	as by scientific	means.	If	there	was	a	
virgin	birth,	if	somebody	was raised	from	the	dead, these	are	strictly	scientific	claims	that	it	
be	difficult	to	verify, but	as	I	said	in	the	book	The	God	Delusion if	you	could	imagine	
hypothetically	that	DNA	evidence	could	be	discovered	showing	the	Jesus	never	had	a	
father,	that Jesus	was	born	of	a	virgin, then	can	you	imagine	any	theologians	saying,	“Oh	no,
not	relevant.	They are	separate	magisteria. Science	has	no	bearing	on	this	case.”	Of	course	
they	wouldn’t. Science	has	every	bearing	on	this	case.	That	that's	what	I	have	to	say	about	
NOMA and	I	think	I’ve	probably	run	out	of	my	five	minutes.
Moderator
Thank	you	Professor	Dawkins.		
Dr John	Lennox
I	agree	with	you	very	much	on	the	NOMA	issue	Richard,	and	of keeping	science	and	religion	
separate.	Actually	if	you	read	the	small	print	on	NOMA,	they	rather	disconcert you because	
it	says	that	science	deals	with	reality	and	religion	and	everything	else and	of	course I'm	not	
very	happy with	that. I	certainly	agree	with	you	that	the	modes	of	logical	analysis	that	
science	has introduced	to	you	are	the	right	ones	to	deal	with	many	of	the	central	claims	of	
Christianity. I	would	widen it	a	bit. It’s	historical	science	of	course	we're	dealing	with	
events	of	the	past.	But Christianity	is	falsifiable	in	that technical	sense	I	would	very	much	
support	that.	
Now	the	thesis	here is	that	science	supports	atheism	not	Christianity. I	think	that	
atheism undermines science	very	seriously. Because	if	you think	of	the	basic	assumption	
that	all	of	us	who	are	scientists	have,	that	is we	believe	that	the	rational	intelligibility	of	the	
universe.	And	it's	interesting	to	me	that	scientists	of	the	eminence	of	Eugene	Wigner	and	
Albert Einstein	use	the	word	“faith”.	They	cannot	imagine	a	scientist	without	this	faith
because	of	course	they	point	out	that	you’ve got	to	believe	in	the	rational	intelligibility	of	
the	universe	before	you	can	do	any	science	at all.	Science	doesn't	give	you	that.	Now	the	
 
  12
interesting	thing	is	this:	suppose	we	now	look at	that issue	against	the	background	of	the	
two	worldviews	were	discussing	tonight, atheism	and	theism.	 Atheism	tells you, at	least	
Richard	tells	us	in	his	book, that:
“Since	human	life	has been	cobbled	together	by	(unguided) evolution, it	unlikely	
that	our	view	of	the	world	is	accurate”.
3
Quite	so. And	if	you	are	a	reductionist,	as you	must	be	as	a	materialist, reducing	
beliefs	to	the	physics	and	chemistry	of	neurological	structures, then	it	raises	a	very	big	
question	ladies	and	gentlemen.	If	in	the	end my	beliefs,	my	theories,	my	scientific	theories	
are	the	results ultimately	of	the	motions	of	atoms	in	my	brain	produced	by	an	unguided,
random, mindless	process, why	should	I	believe	them?	In	other	words	it's	like	someone	
sitting	on	the branch	of	a	tree	cutting	off	the	branch	on	which	they’re	sitting.	And	it	seems	
to	me	that	therefore	atheism	actually	undercuts	the	scientific	endeavour	very	seriously.	
That for	my	mind	is	a	fatal	flaw.
An	argument	that	purports	to	derive	rationality	from	irrationality	doesn't	even	rise	
in	my	opinion	to	the	dignity	of	being	an	intelligible	delusion.	It	is	logically	incoherent. But	
theism	tells us	that	the	reason	science	is possible, the	reason	that	I	can	access	the	universe	
at	least	in	part	through	my	human intelligence, is	because	the	same	God	who	created	the	
universe	is	ultimately	responsible	for	the	human	mind	in	here.	So	that's	the	base	level, but	
when	we	come	up	a	level now,	and	look	at science	itself, we	have	the	fine-tuning of	the	
universe.	The	fact	is	that	the	basic	constants	of	nature	have	got	to	be	very	accurate	in	order	
to	have	a	universe	just	like this	one.	Now	I	know	that	some	people	“prefer”,	that's	the	word
that	Sir	Martin	Rees	uses, an	explanation	in	terms	of	a	multiverse	which	actually	doesn't	in	
my	opinion	solve	the	logical	problems.	But I'm	very	interested	in	the	verdict	of	Arno	
Penzias who won	the	Nobel	Prize	for	discovering	the	microwave	background, and	he	says:
“Astronomy	leads	us	to	a	unique	event,	a	universe	which	was	created	out	of	nothing,	
one	with	the	very	delicate	balance	needed	to	provide	exactly	the	right	conditions	
required	to	permit	life,	and	one	which	has	an	underlying	(one	might	say	
‘supernatural’)	plan.”4
So	that physics	itself	looking	at	the	constants	and	the	very, very	specified	numbers	
they	had	to	have comes	that	kind	of	conclusion, and	incidentally, and	the	Bible	gets	very	
easily	dismissed	I'm	afraid	also	in	The	God	Delusion, Penzias added:
“The	best	data	we	have	[concerning	the	Big	Bang]	are	exactly	what	I	would	have	
predicted,	had	I	nothing	to	go	on	but	the	five	books	of	Moses,	the	Psalms,	the	bible	as	
a	whole.”5
It’s	interesting	ladies	and	gentlemen	isn’t	it that	we	only	got	the	idea	that	the	
universe	had	a	beginning, evidence	for in the	1960’s,	and	it	was	very	exciting	I	remember	it
well.	Because	for	centuries	Europe	was	dominated	by	the	thinking	of	Aristotle,	which	put	
the	earth, fixed	at	the	centre	of	the	universe	and	everything	rotating	about	it	and	
																																																							 3 Exact	quote	does	not	appear	to	be	found	in	The	God	Delusion.	
4 H.	Margenau &	R.A.	Varghese	(1992,	p.	83).	Cosmos,	Bios,	and	Theos.	La	Salle,	IL: Open	
Court. 5 Arno	Penzias	to	the	New	York	Times, March	12,	1978
 
  13
everything	existing	eternally.	The	fascinating	thing	is	this: that	when	the evidence	began	to	
arrive, that	there	was	a	finite	beginning	to	space and time, some	leading	people	in	the	
journal	Nature, the	editor	Maddox, said	this	is	dangerous	we	don't	like	this	because	it	will	
give	too	much	leverage	to those	who	believe	in	creation. Now	what	I	find	very	interesting	is	
this: the	Bible	is	frequently	dismissed	as	being	anti-scientific	because	it	makes	no	
predictions.	Oh	no,	that’s incorrect! It	makes	a	brilliant	prediction!	For	centuries	it's	been	
saying	there	was	a	beginning, and	if scientists	had	taken	that	a bit	more	seriously	they	
might	have	discovered	evidence	for	the	beginning	a	lot earlier	than	they	did.
Third	thesis:	“Design	is	dead	otherwise	one	must	explain	who	
designed	the	designer.”
Moderator
Professor	Dawkins.	I	understand	your desire	in	some	ways	to	respond	to	Dr Lennox	but	I	
think	this	next	topic	and the	excerpt I	will	read will	allow	you	to	both	advance the	
discussion	of	the	next	thesis, which	is	that	“design	is	dead otherwise	one	must	explain	who	
designed the	designer.” I	think	it	will	allow	you	to	advance that	well.	The quote	that	I'm	
going	to	read, the	excerpt, is	on	page	109	and what	you	wrote	is	this:
“The	whole	argument	turns	on	the	familiar	question	‘Who	made	God?’,	which	most	
thinking	people	discover	for	themselves.	A	designer	God	cannot	be	used	to	explain	
organized	complexity	because	any	God	capable	of	designing	anything	would	have	to	
be	complex	enough	to	demand	the	same	kind	of	explanation	in	his	own	right. God	
presents	an	infinite	regress	from	which	he	cannot help	us	to	escape.	This	argument,	
as	I	shall	show	in	the	next	chapter,	demonstrates	that	God	thought	not	technically	
disprovable,	is	very, very	improbable	indeed.” (Dawkins,	2008,	p.	109.)
Prof. Dawkins
First, I	find	it	deeply	unimpressive	that	the	Bible	it	can	be	said to	predict the	big	bang.	
There	are	only	two	possibilities: either	the	universe	began	or	it’s	been	here forever.	Just	
two	possibilities.	To	get	one	of	them	is	really	not	that	impressive.
Dr John	Lennox
At least	it	got	it	right.
Prof.	Dawkins
Toss	a	penny	and	you	have	50%	chance	of	getting	it	right.	Right,	“design is	dead otherwise	
one	must	explain	who	designed	the	designer.” Well,	we	skate	over	a	lot	when	we	day	
“design	is	dead”. I	think	probably	John	and	I	would	agree	that life	is	explained,	Darwin
explains	life	and	no	serious	scientist	doubts	that, so	we	go	back	to	the	previous	and rather	
more	difficult	stage	in	the	understanding	of	where	we	come	from	it	is	the	origin	of	the	
universe	itself. And	that	really	is	genuinely	difficult.	We	don't	know.	We	understand
 
  14
essentially	biology; we	don't	understand	cosmology.	In	a	sense	we	could	say	cosmology	is	
waiting	for	its	Darwin.		
John mentioned,	in an	answer	to	the previous	question, the	idea	of	the	physical	
constants	being	finely	tuned.	It	is	quite	true	that	many	scientists,	many	physicists maintain	
that	the	physical	constants, the	half-dozen	or	so	numbers,	that	physicists	have	to	simply	
assume	in	order	to	derive	the	rest	of	their	understanding, just	have	to	be	assumed.	You	
can't	provide	a	rationale	for	why	those	numbers	are there, and	physicists	have	calculated	
that	if	any	of	these	numbers	was a	little	bit	different, the	universe	as	we	know	it	wouldn't	
exist.	We	wouldn't	be	here. The	universe	would	have	perhaps	fizzled	out	in	the	first	
yoctosecond and	so	we	wouldn’t	be	here or	other	things would	have	gone	wrong.
It’s	tempting,	once	again,	to	import	the	easy,	facile	idea	of	the	designer	and to	say	
that	the	designer	twiddled the	knobs of	the	universe	at	the	big	bang	and got	them exactly	
right for	the	gravitational	constant	right,	the	strong	force	right,	the	weak	force	right	and	so
on.	But	it	seems	to	me	to	be	manifestly	obvious	that	that	is	a	futile	kind	of	explanation	
because	as	the	quotation	says, “Who	designed	the	designer?” You	have	explained precisely	
nothing	because instead	of	just	saying,	“Oh	the	knobs	were	just	tuned	to	the	right	values	
anyways”,	you	say	“oh	there	was	a	God	who knew	how	to	tune	the	knobs	to	the	right	
values.” And	if	you’re	going	to postulate	that, then	you	have	in	a	sense	sold	the	pass.	
Some	physicists	solve	that	problem by	not invoking	God	of	course, but	by	invoking	
the anthropic	principle	saying, “well	here	we	are, we	exist, we	have	to	be	in	the	kind	of	
universe	in	which	is	capable	of giving	rise	to	us.”	That	in	itself	I	think	is	unsatisfying	and	as	
John	Lennox	rightly	says, some	physicists	solve that	by	the	multiverse idea, the	idea	that	
our	universe	is	just one	of	many	universes.	There’s	a	sort	of foaming	bubble,	a bubbling
foam	of	universes and	the	one	in	which,	the	bubble	in	which	we	are	is	only	one	of	billions	of	
universe	and	each	of	these	universes	has	different	fundamental	constants.	Most	of	them	
have	fundamental constants which	are	unsuited	to	give	rise	to	the	sort	of	permanence	and	
the	sort	of	chemistry and	the	sort of	the	conditions	that	give biological evolution,
Darwinian evolution	the	chance	to	get	going.	
A tiny	minority	of	those	universes has	what	it	takes	to	give	rise	to Darwinian	
evolution, ultimately	chemistry,	and	then evolution.	And	that	tiny	minority	has	to	include	
the	universe	in	which	we	sit because	here	we	are. The	anthropic	principle, the	principle	
that	we	have	to	be	in	a	university	of giving	rise	to	us, plus	the	principle	of	the	multiverse,
provides	at	least	an	interim, satisfying	explanation	in	a	way	that	creator	couldn't	possibly	
be	a	satisfying	explanation	for	the	reason	that	I’ve given. Then	having	got	ourselves	into	a	
universe	which	is	capable	of	generating	stars,	capable of	generating	chemistry	and	
ultimately	capable	of	generating	the	origin	of	life, then	biological	evolution	takes	over	and	
now	we	are	on a	clear	run.	
Now	we	understand	what	happened once	biological	evolution	gets	going	then	it's	
easy	to	understand	most	of	what's	difficult, most	of	the	difficulty	of	understanding	universe	
lies	in the	vast	complexity	of	life.	That's	what	really	truly	impresses	people.	That's	why	
people	who	believe	in	God	mostly	do	believe	in	God	because	they	look	around	the	living	
world	and	they see	how	impressive	it	is. So	that	level	of	impressiveness	is	completely	
destroyed	by	Darwin, and	Darwin	of	course	doesn't	explain	the	origin	of	the	universe	and	
 
  15
for that	I	invoke	the	anthropic principle	and	the	multiverse, less	satisfying	admittedly	but
science	makes	progress.	The	one	you	can	be	absolutely	sure	is	that	a	creative	designer	
cannot	be	a	satisfying	explanation.
Moderator
Dr Lennox
Dr John	Lennox
The	anthropic principle,	as	you stated	Richard, I	think	is	a	complete	truism.	Of	course	we	
have	to	be	in	such-a-such kind	of	planet	of	the	kind	that	we	could	appear	on.	That	does	not	
answer	the	question	of	how	we	came	to	exist	on	it.	And	I	fear	I	have	to	disagree	with	your	
Darwinism.	Darwinism	does	not explain	life.	It	may	explain	certain	things	about	what	
happens	when	you've	got	life, but	evolution	assumes the	existence	of	a	mutating	replicator.	
It	does	not	explain	how	that	replicator	came	to	exist	in	the	first	place. Now	that's	a	major	
discussion. I	want	to	address	the	“who	designed	the	designer”	question	because	it's	the	old	
schoolboy	question, “who	created	God?” I	am	actually	very	surprised	to	find	it as	a	central	
argument	in	your	book	because	it	assumes	that	God	is	created and	I'm	not	surprised
therefore	that	you	call	the	book	The	God	Delusion, because	created	gods	are	by	definition	a	
delusion.
Now	I	know	and	I	ought to	explain	that	Richard	doesn't	like	people	who	say	to	him	
that	they	don't	believe	in	the	God he	doesn't	believe	in	but	I	think	that	this	is	possibly	
touching	a	sore	spot	because	you	leave	yourself	wide	open	to	the	charge. After	all, you	are	
arguing	that	God	is	a	delusion	and	in	order	to	weigh that	argument	I	need	to	know	what	
you	mean	by	“God”.	And	if	you	say,	“If	there	is	a	God	you	have	to	ask	who	created	God”, that	
means	that	you	reduced to thinking	about	created	gods.	Well none	of	us	believe	in	created	
gods;	Jews,	Muslims or	Christians. I	think	that	argument	then	it's	entirely	beside	the	point	
and	perhaps	you	ought	to	put	it	in your	shelf	marked	‘celestial	teapots’ where	it	belongs.
The God	who	created	the	universe	ladies	and	gentlemen	was	not	created.	He	is
eternal.	This	is	the	fundamental	distinction	between	God	and	the	universe.	It	came	to	exist,
He	did	not. And	this	is	precisely	the	point	that	Christian	apostle	John	makes	at	the	
beginning	of	his	gospel:	“In	the	beginning	was	the	word”6. The	word	already	was.	All	things	
came	to	be	by	him. God	is	uncreated.	The	universe	was	created	by	Him. Now	I	don't	know	
whether	Richard	has	difficulty	with	the	concept	of	the	uncreated. I	don't	know	and	I'd	love	
to	know	whether	he	believes	as	a	materialist	that	matter	and	energy	of	the	laws of	nature	
were	always	there, because	if	they	were	he	does	believe	in	something	eternal.	So	perhaps	
the	difficulty lies	in	believing	in	an	eternal person.
But	I	want	to	probe	deeper	into	this	because	he	suggested	that	introducing	God	
would	mean	an	end	of	science. God	is	no	explanation	since	by	definition	God	is	more	
complex	then the	thing	you	are	explaining.	Now	this he states	is the	central	argument	of	his	
book. I	would	not	have	expected	an	argument	like	this	from	a	scientist because	
explanations	in	science	themselves	are	usually	in	terms	of	increasing	complexity.	An apple	
falling	is	a	simple	event. The	explanation	of	terms	of	Newton's	law	of	gravitation	is	already	
																																																							 6 John	1:1
 
  16
stretching	the	minds	of	many	people,	but	his	explanation	in	terms	of	a	warp	in	space-time
is	stretching	the	minds	of	the	cleverest. Simplicity isn’t the	only	criterion	of	truth.	Let me	
give	you an	example:	suppose	you’re	an	archaeologist and	I’m	exploring	a	cave with	you,
and	you’re a	Chinese	expert. On	this	cave you	see	two	scratches and	you	say,	“Human	
intelligence!”	And	I say,	“Pardon? They’re	just	two	scratches.”	And	you	say	“but	those	are	
the	Chinese	character 人 (rén) which	means	a	human	being.”	But	I	say,	“Look	Richard,	
that’s	no	explanation	at	all!”
You’re postulating	something	as	complex	as	a	human	brain	to	explain	two	scratches.
That	means	that	your	explanation	is	more	complex	than	the	thing you're	explaining. That’s
no	explanation	at	all.	And that	seems	to	me	that's	exactly	what	you're	saying	in	your	book.	
The	reason	we	can	deduce	something	as	sophisticated	as	human	intelligence	from	two	
scratches on	a	cave	wall	is	because	they	have	a	semiotic dimension.	They	carry	meaning.	
And	that	fascinates	me	as	a	mathematician	because	the	reductionist	is	committed to	
deducing things	that	carry	meaning, and	I	would	include	the	DNA molecule	among	them.	Is	
committed	to	explain	you	those	in	terms	of	the	basic	materials.	
But	as	was	pointed	out	a	long	time	ago	by	Nobel	Prize	winner	Roger	Sperry, the	
meaning	of	the	message	is	not	going	to	be	found	in	the	physics	and	chemistry	of the	paper	
and	ink.	And	it	fascinated	me	too,	to see	that	you	approved	in	your	book of	the	physicist	
looking	for	a	TOE, a	‘theory	of	everything’, but	that's	a	theory	where	the	buck	stops.
Incidentally there	is	no	hope	for	a	TOE as	Stephen	Hawking	has	said	in 2004	on	the	basis	of	
Gödel's	mathematics	and	its	application	to	physicists.	 So	I’m	interested	that	you were	
prepared	as	I	understand	it	to	agree	that	a	TOE	was	a	good	thing	in	physics,	as	perhaps	
you’d	like	a	TOE	provided	there	is	no	God	attached	to	it.	
Fourth	thesis:	“Christianity	is	dangerous.”
Moderator
Professor	Dawkins. My	next	excerpt, we’re	going	to	change	gears	to	some	extent to	the	
fourth	thesis,	which	is	that “Christianity	is	dangerous”. I	think	you'll	like	this	one.	It	comes	
from	the	very	first	page	of	the	book,	from	the	preface.	You	write,	and	I	have	a	few	excerpts	
to	read:
“Imagine,	with John	Lennon,	a	world	with	no	religion.	Imagine	no	suicide	bombers,	
no	9/11,	no	7/7,	no	Crusades,	no	witch-hunts,	no	Gunpowder	Plot,	no	Indo/Pakistan	
partition,	no	Israel/Palestine	wars,	no	Serb/Croat/Muslim	massacres,	no
persecution	of	Jews	as	‘Christ-killers’,	no	Northern	Ireland	‘troubles’,	no	‘honour	
killings’,	no	shiny-suited	bouffant	haired televangelists	fleecing	gullible	people	of	
their	money (‘God	wants	you	to	give	till	it	hurts’).	Imagine	no	Taliban	to	blow up	
ancient	statues,	no	public	beheadings	of	blasphemers,	no	flogging	of	female	skin	for	
the	crime	of	showing	an	inch	of	it.” (Dawkins,	2008,	p.	24.)
You	then	write,	on	page	303,	that:
“Even	mild	and	moderate	religion	helps	to	provide	the climate	of	faith	in	which	
extremism	naturally	flourishes”.	(Dawkins,	p.	303.)
 
  17
And	finally,	you	write,	on	pages	347	and	348:
“More	generally	(and	this	applies	to	Christianity	no	less	than	to	Islam),	what	is really	
pernicious	is	the	practice	of	teaching	children	that	faith	itself	is	a	virtue.	Faith	is	an	
evil	precisely	because	it	requires	no	justification	and	brooks	no	argument.”
(Dawkins,	pp.	347-348.)
Prof. Richard	Dawkins
This	is	supposed	to	be	a	debate	and	I	feel	intensely	frustrated.	I'm	going	to	reply	to	what	
John	Lennox	said	about	(inaudible).	 “Who	created	God?”	I	mean	the	word	“created” was	
smuggled	in	by	somebody	else.	I	didn’t,	or	maybe	I	did,	but	that’s	not	the	point.	The	point	is	
not	whether	God	is	a	create	thing or	not.	The	point	is	this	issue	of	simplicity	which	you	
rightly	went	on	to	talk	about.	In	order	to	understand	the	existence	of	complexity, we	can't	
just	postulate	complexity. We	have	to	go	back	to	simplicity.	Now	John	used the	illustration	
of	an	archaeologist	wasn't	it,	who	found some	scratches	on	a	cave? It	was	supposed	to	be	a	
powerful	argument	that	said,	“Well	these	scratches	are	very	simple,	but	the	person	who	did	
this	if	was	complex.”	That's	nothing	to	do	with	the	argument	I'm	putting. The	argument	I'm	
putting	is	that	if	we’re trying	to	explain	complexity,	we	need some	kind	of	an	ultimate	
explanation	for	the	existence	of	a	complex	object,	an improbable	object.
Certainly	the	scratches	on	the	cave	are	simple	and	certainly	that	made	those	
scratches is	complex. If	you	found, if	you	went	to	another	planet	and	you	found some	
scratches	that	indicated	the	existence	of	life, you	would	of	course, we	would both	postulate	
the	existence	of	a	complex	living	being.	But	we	would	both need	an	explanation	for	where	
that complex	living	being	came	from.	And	I	put	it	to	you	that	just	to	say	“it	was	always	
there” or “it	just	happened” is	precisely	kind	of	non-explanation	which	creationists	accuse
evolutionists	of	erecting.	They	say, “How	could an	eye	come	about	by	sheer	chance?”	 Well	
of	course	an	eye	couldn’t come	about	by	sheer	chance.	It	has	to	come	about	by a	gradual,
incremental	process	from	simple	beginnings.	Exactly	the	same	is	true	of	anything	complex.
And	a	God, you	can’t	just	duck	the	issue,	you	can’t just	evade	the	issue	by	saying, “God was	
always	there”. You still	need	an	explanation.
So	it tells	you	nothing	to	say	that	the	scratches	on	the	wall	are	simple.	And	by	the	
way	the	idea	that physics	is	complex	because	it	is	difficult, that’s	a confusion	of	the	two	
words,	of the	two	meanings	of	the	word	simple.	Simple	meaning	‘easy	to	understand’,	and	
certainly modern	physics	isn't	too easy	to	understand.	But	there is	a	sense	in	which	it's	
simple	in	the	way	that	biology	isn’t. I	haven't	got	much	time	to	deal	with	the…
Moderator
I’ll	give	you	a	couple	extra	minutes.
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
Sorry,	I didn't	mean	to	steal	that.	Let	me	come	onto	the	thing	about	Christianity	being	
dangerous. The	reading	from	the	preface, the	quote	from	John	Lennon imagine	no	Taliban	
and	all	that, that	I	think	is	self-explanatory	and	I	won't	go	into	that.	I	think	what	I	will	do	is	
zero	in	on	a	particular	point	of	the third quotation	I	think	it	was, which	was	about	children	
 
  18
and	the	evils	of	teaching	children	that	certain	things	are	true	without	evidence.	Teaching	
them	that that	faith	is	a	virtue. I	would	not	for	a	moment	say	that	all	religion	is	bad	or	all	
religion	is	dangerous	or Christianity	is	dangerous. Certainly only	a	minority	of	religious	
people	are	bad	or	do	bad	things.
The	point	about	teaching	children	that	faith	is	a	virtue,	is	that	you	are	teaching	them	
that	you	don't	have	to justify	what	you	do	you.	You can	simply	shelter	behind	the	
statement, “That's	my	faith	and	you're	not to question	that”.	What	I'm	objecting	to	is	the	
convention	that	we	have	all	of	us	bought	into	whether	we	are	religious	or	not, that	religious	
faith	is	something	to	be	respected, something	not	to	be	questioned,	and	if somebody	says	
“that’s my	faith” then	you	simply	have	to	respect	it,	tiptoe	gently	away	and	say nothing	
more. In most	cases	that's	quite	harmless, but	if	you	are	the	kind	of	person	who	takes	your	
faith really	literally, and	who believes	that	Allah	has	ordered	you	or	that	it	be	the	will	of	
Allah that	you	go	blow	somebody	up,	then	it	is	the	fact	that	you	were	educated	as	a	child	in	
madrassa to	believe	implicitly	in	the	faith	that	you	were	taught	and	not	to	question	it	which	
if	you	happen	to	be	of	an	unstable	turn	of	mind	or	if	you	happen	to	be	of	a violent	turn	of	
mind	leads	to	the	sorts	of	terrible	acts	which	are	done	in	the	name	of	religion.
I	must	stress	again	I'm	not saying	that	the	majority	of	religious	people	do	terrible	
acts. I	am	saying	that	faith	is	a	terrible	weapon	because	it	justifies	the	performance	of	
terrible	acts	which	do	not	have to	be	justified	by	reason	or	evidence. The	one	gift	I	would	
wish	to	give	to	any	child	is	scepticism.	Don't	believe	something	just	because	you're	told	it,
don't	leave	something	because	of	your	tradition, don't	believe something	because	it's	in	a	
holy	book. Look for the	evidence	and question	sceptically. If	everybody did	that	we	
wouldn't	be	suffering	some of	the	terrible	things	that	are	going	on	in	the	world	the	
moment.
Moderator
Dr Lennox
Dr John	Lennox
I’d dearly	love	to	come	back	on the	first	one	Richard.	I	think	there	is	a	slight	obsession	with	
the	simple	to complex.	If	you're	building	a	factory,	say for	manufacturing	computers, you
dig	a	hole	in	the	ground	first	and	that	sounds very	simple,	but	it gets	more	complex	as	it
goes	up. Everything	comes	from	the	mind	of	the	planners, and	what	I'm	talking	about	is	
inference to	the	best	explanation,	and	the	inference	when	we	look	at	this	semiotic	say	of	
DNA	and	the	fact	that	it	carries	a	biological	message	so	to	speak	to	an	intelligent	designer,
seems	to	me	to	be	much	more	sensible	than	the	inference	to	mindless	processes	that	we	do	
not	know	can	do	any	such	thing.	
But	that's	a	big	debate	and	we’ve both	written	about	it	and	you	have	to	be	referred	
to	the	literature, because	I	want	to	come	to	this topic	about	Christianity	being dangerous
and I	want	to	agree very	largely	with	a	lot	of	what	you	say. The	danger	of	fanatical	religion	
that	fans	the	flames	of	violence. And	quite	frankly	I'm	ashamed	as	a	Christian	of	the	
reputation	particularly	in	the	Middle	Ages, the	Crusades	and	so	on, that	they	are	associated	
with	Christianity. But	I	would	like	to	point	out	that	the	perpetrators	of	that	kind	of	atrocity	
were	not	following	Christ but	they	were	actually	disobeying	his	explicit	command	as	he	
 
  19
prohibited, very	famously	as	you	know, his	followers	from	using	physical	weapons:	“My	
kingdom	is	not	of	this	world”	He	told	them;	He	told	Pilate. 7
And	it’s	very interesting to	my	mind	that Christ	was	actually	put	on	trial	for	being	a	
fanatical	terrorist.	That	is	very	easy	to	forget.	And	he	was	publicly	exonerated	from	the	
charge by	the	Roman	procurator.	Truth	cannot	be	imposed	by	violence,	particularly the	
truth	that Christ	had	come	into	the	world	to	bring	a	message	of	God's	love	and	forgiveness.
So	I	would	agree	with	you	and	the	danger	of	training	children	to	be	fanatics	by	not	allowing	
them	to	question	is	a	very	serious	one. And	I'm	so	glad	that	I	had	parents	who	encouraged	
me	to	think	and	part	of	parcel	of	the	Christian	faith	was	that	thinking.
You	ask	is	to	imagine	with	John	Lennon	a	world	without	religion.	Well I'd	like	you	to	
imagine	with	John	Lennox a world	without atheism:	with	no	Stalin, with	no	Mao, with no	
Pol	Pot, today	the	heads	of	the	three	officially	atheistic	states.	A world	with	no Gulag,	no	
Cultural	Revolution,	no	Killing	Fields. I	think	that	would	be	a	world	worth	imagining	too.	
And I must	say, I	am	very	disturbed	in	your	book	by	what	seems	to	me to	be	an	attempt	to	
airbrush	out	the	atrocities	of	the	Communist	world.	I’ve spent	a	lot	of	time	visiting	that part	
of	the	world	and	I	don't	recognise	any	thing that	you	say.	Atheism	was	not	peripheral	to	
Marxism.	For	Marx the	criticism	of	religion	was	the	foundation	of	all	criticism.	And	so	it	
concerns	me that	a	scientist	who	is	very	interested	in	historical	science	in the	sense	of	
evolutionary	biology	unravelling	history, is	content	with	a	very	superficial	analysis	of	the	
period	of	the	Cold	War. And I’m even	more	disturbed	to	read	things	like	this:
“Even	if	we	accept	that	Hitler	and	Stalin	shared	atheism, they	both	also	have	
moustaches	as	do	Saddam	Hussein.” (Dawkins,	2008,	p.	309).	
So	what? Well	yes!	All three	of	them	had noses	in	common	with	the	rest	of	us,	but
what	kind	of	reasoning	is	this? We	are	not	talking	about	shared	characteristics	in	general,	
but the	motivating	ideology	that	drove	these	men	to murder	millions	in their	attempt	to	get	
rid	of	religion	whether	Jewish,	Christian	or	anything	else.	So	I’m very	disturbed	at	your	
historical	analysis.	You	write:
“I	do	not	believe	there	is	an	atheist	in	the	world	who	would	bulldoze	Mecca	— or	
Chartres,	York	Minster	or	Notre	Dame.”	(Dawkins,	2008,	p.	249).	
But	what	about	the thousands	of	churches	that	were	demolished	in	Stalin's	Russia,
and	the	forced transformation	of	them into	museums? I	can	understand	why	one	would	
want	to rewrite	the	history	of	the	20th century	to	airbrush	out	the	role	of	atheism, because	
one	can	very	easily	draw	a parallel	between	the	antireligious	agenda	of	the	new	atheists	
and	the	attempt	of	communism	to	obliterate	religion. That's	not	going	the	right	way	I	think	
and	I'm	sure	that	you	would	be	rightly	insulted, and	I	wouldn't	suggest	it for	a	moment, if I	
were	to	say	that	because	you	and	Stalin	were	atheists	that	you	would	have	approved	of	the	
ruthless	elimination	of	millions. You	rightly	expect	me	to	differentiate	between	atheists.	I	
would	like	you	to	write	another	book	in	which	you	differentiate	between	religions	because	
they	are	not	all	the	same.	Some	support	fanaticism	others	don't.
Then finally	you	contend	that	the	teachings	of	moderate	religion	an	open	invitation	
to	extremism. Well	that is	not	true	of	the	teachings	of	Christ. I	can't	speak	for	other	
																																																							 7 John	18:36
 
  20
religions,	but	what	about	the	moderate	teaching	of	atheism? I’ve sat	beside	a	young	girl	of	
thirteen of	the	GDR	(German	Democratic	Republic) who	just	been	told	as	the	brightest	child	
at	the	school	that	she	cannot	have	any	more	education	since she	is	not	prepared	to	swear	
public	allegiance	to	the	atheistic	state. I	will	call	that	intellectual	murder, and	it	was	
committed many	times	in	the	name	of	atheism.	But according	to	you,	it’s	far	worse	than	
bulldozing	buildings,	but	you	say	there	is	not	the	smallest	evidence	that	atheists	do	such	
things? But	there	is.	But	perhaps	I’ve misunderstood	you.
Prof.	Dawkins
Yes	you	did.	
Moderator
(To	Richard	Dawkins)	Do	you	want	to	take	a	moment?
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
Well	I'm	very	happy	to	give	up	on the	next	one.
Moderator
Which	would	you	prefer?
Dr John	Lennox
I’m	very	happy.	I	would	like	Richard	to	choose	what	he	wants to	do	because	I’ve	made	some	
strong	statements.
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
In	The	God	Delusion I	very	deliberately	made	very	little	of	all	the	individual	evils	of	religion.
I	mention	them	occasionally	but I	didn't	go	on about	the	Crusades,	the	Conquistadors or	
anything	like	that. I	am	not	trying	to	say	that	religion, that	religious	people	do	bad	things. I	
agree	fully	that	Stalin	and	Hitler and	Pol	Pot	and	Mao	did	terribly	bad	things.	It	may	even	be	
that	atheism	was	an	integral	part	of	the	Marxism	which	led	them	to	do	terrible	things	if	
indeed	it	was	their	Marxism	that	led them	to	do	bad	things. What	interests	me	is	that	I	
think	that	there	is	a	logical	path from	religion	to	doing	terrible	things and I	kind	of	touched	
on	it	in	the	last	in	the	last	answer	when	I	was	talking	about	faith leading	you	to	things.
There	is	a	logical	part	that	says	if	you	really, really, really	believe	that	your	God,
Allah, whoever	it	is, wants	you	to do	something,	you	go	to	heaven,	you	go	to	paradise	if	you	
do	it,	then	it's	possible	for	an entirely	logical	rational	person	to	do	hideous	things. I	cannot	
conceive	of	a	logical	path	that	would	lead	one	to	say	“because	I	am	an	atheist	therefore	it	is	
rational	for	me	to	kill	or	murder	be	cruel	to	some	horrible	thing.” I	can	easily	see	that	there	
are	plenty	of	individuals	who	happen	to	be	atheists	maybe	even	individuals	who have	some	
other	philosophy	which	incidentally	happened	to	be	associated	with	atheism. But	there	is	
no	logical	path.
Those young	men	who	bombed	the	London	subway	and the	buses,	those	19	men	
who flew	planes	into	various	targets	in	the United	States	in	September	2001, they	were	not	
psychopaths, they	were	not	downtrodden ignorant	people.	They	were	well-educated
rational	people	who	passionately	believed they	were	right.	They	thought	they	were	
 
  21
righteous, they	thought	they	were	good, by	the	likes	of	their	religion	they	were	good.	The	
same	things	could	be	said	of	the	hideous	things	done	by	the	Taliban,	the	oppression of	
women. These	people	believe	deeply	in	what	they’re	doing	and	it	follows	logically	once	you	
grant	them	the	premise	of	their	faith then	the terrible	things	that	they	do	follow	logically.
The	terrible	things	that	Stalin	did	did not	follow	from	his	atheism.	They	followed from	
something	horrible	within	him.
Christopher Hitchens	has	made	the	point	that	Stalin	was	in	effect	a	new	Tsar of	a	
country	which	for	centuries	had	been brought	up	to	believe	that	there	was	a	semi-divine
king,	the	Tsar,	and	it	would	have	been	madness	for	Stalin	not	to	have	exploited	this	cringing	
loyalty in	the	peasantry that	had	been	for centuries	subjugated to	the	Tsars.		It	would	have	
been	madness	for	Stalin	not	to	have	done	that.	It	would	be	madness	for Hitler, whether	or	
not	Hitler	himself	was	religiousness, and	there’s	some	dispute	about	that,	there's	a	good	
case	to	be	made	that	Hitler	was	religious,	but I	don't	care	whether	he	was	not.	The	fact	is	
that	Hitler’s	terrible	deeds	were	done	by	Christians	who	were, I	think	I	leave	that.	Even	
that's	not	relevant.	The	point	I	would	return	to	yet	again	is	that	you	will	not	do	terrible	
deeds	because	you	are	an	atheist.	You	may,	not	for	rational	reasons, you	may	well	for very	
rational reasons	do	terrible	things	because	you	are	religious.	That's	what	faith	is	about.	
That's	what	faith	means.	I	suppose	you	could say	that	there	was	a	kind	of	faith that	
motivated	Hitler's	followers	and Stalin's	followers	as	well but	that’s	a	separate	point.	
Moderator
Let’s have	a	brief	response.	We	do	want	to	get	through	all	of	the	topics	tonight,	but	Dr
Lennox
Dr John	Lennox
Well	I	would	want	to	argue	that	there	is	a	logical	path	from	any	ideology that	is	fanatical	
and	oppressive to the	kind of	behaviour	you	say	whether	it's	religion	or	atheistic,	because	
atheism	is	a	faith	of	course	as	well.
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
It's	not.
Dr	John	Lennox
Of	course	it	is.	Don’t	you	believe	it?
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
You’re	an	atheist	with	respect	to	Thor,	Wotan,	and	Zeus.
Dr	John	Lennox
That’s	right.	I	don’t	believe	them,	but	you	believe	atheism.	It	is	your	faith.
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
No,	I’m	in	exactly	the	same	position	with	respect	to	your YHWH,	your	Jehovah,	what	ever	
you	call	him.	I’m	in	exactly	the	same	position	with	the	respect	to	him	as	you	are	to	respect	
to	Zeus.	And	I	cannot	imagine	not	believing	in	Zeus	leading	one	to	do	terrible	deeds.	It’s	
exactly	the	same	with	not	believing	in	God.
 
  22
Moderator
I’m	going	to	wrap	(inaudible). I	mean	it	now	this	time	Dr Lennox.	If	we’re	going	to	get	to	the	
rest	of	the	debate.
Dr John	Lennox
Yes,	let’s	go	on.	Let’s	go	on, I	think	the	issue	is	nothing	to	do	with	Zeus	and	so	on.	They are	
non-existent	deities.	 The	issue	is	to	deal	with	two	alternative	explanations	of	the	universe
and each	of	us	have	our	faith. I	believe	there	is	a	God	behind this	universe; you	believe	the	
universe	is	all	there	is. The	cosmos	is	all	there	is.	Those are	both	statements	of	faith.	You	
have	evidence	you	believe	for	them.	
Fifth	thesis:	“No	one	needs	God	to	be	moral.”
Moderator
The	fifth	thesis is	that “no	one	needs	God	to	be	moral”. I	only	have	one	quote.	It’s	from	page	
226:
“We	do	not	need	God	in	order	to	be	good	or	evil.”	(Dawkins,	2008,	p.	226.)
Prof. Richard	Dawkins
If	you	think	about	why	you	might	need	God	in	order	to	the	moral,	I	could	only	think	of	two	
reasons	how	that	might	come	about.	You	might	say	you	need	a	book	to	tell	you	what’s	
moral.	Well	as	for	that	I	sincerely	hope	that	nobody	in	this	room	bases	their	morals	on	the	
Christian	Bible	or	the	Quran	because	if	they	do then	their	morals	are	likely	to	be	hideous.		
Needless	to	say,	you	can	find	some	decent	verses	(audience	clapping)	you	can	find	some	
decent	verses	in	both	the	Bible	and	the	Quran and	if	you	pick	and	choose those	verses	you	
can	say	with	hindsight,	“this	verse	fits	in	with	my	view	of	what’s	moral,	that	verse	doesn’t,	
so	I	can	ignore	that	verse	and	choose	this	verse” but	you	didn’t	need	the	Bible	in	order	to	
do	that	picking	and	choosing.	You	did	the	picking	and	choosing	on	the	basis	of	something	
else,	something	which	we	all	have	in	common	whether	we	are	religious	or	not.		
We	are	all,	to	a	greater	or	lesser	extent,	moral,	some	of	us	more	so	than	others.	
Whether	we	are	moral	or	not	has	nothing	to	do	with	whether we	read	the	Bible.	Some	
people	are	kind,	some	people	are	sympathetic;	some	people	care	about	suffering,	other	
people	don’t.	It	has	nothing	to	do	with	the	Bible.	The	other	reason	why	you	might	need	
religion	in	order	to	be	moral	is	that	you	are	either	afraid	of	God,	you’re	afraid	if	you’re	not	
moral	you’ll	get	punished,	or	you’re	trying	to	suck	up	to	God	(audience	laughter)	and	be	
good	so	that	you’ll	get	a	reward.	Neither	of	those	two	is	a	very	noble	reason	to	be	good	to	
say	the	least.	
Now	you	might	say	that	that	forces	me	into	a	challenge:	how	do	I	know	what’s	
moral?	I	don’t	on	the	whole,	but	the	point	I	want	to	make	is	that	there	does	seem	to	be	a	
kind	of	universal	human	acceptance	that	certain	things	are	right	and	other	things	are	not.	If	
you	look	cross	culturally,	look	at	different	anthropologic	findings	on	different	cultures,	
you’ll	find	there’s	a	kind	of	agreement	that	certain	things	are	wrong	and	other	things	are	
right,	there	is	disagreement	in	detail.		The	golden	rule,	“do	as	you	would	be	done	by”,	“do	
 
  23
unto	others	what	you	would	expect	them	to	do	to	you”.		This	is	a	very	widespread	principle,	
and	it	almost	amounts	to	common	sense	in	a	way.		You	certainly	don’t	need	a	Holy	book	to	
tell	you	to	do	that.	
Now	as	an	evolutionist, I	think	it	comes	partly	from	our	evolutionary	past. I	think	
that	there	was	a	time	in	our	history	when we	lived	in	small	kin	groups	and	we	lived	in	small	
groups	where	good	deeds	could	be expected	to	be	reciprocated and	under	those	conditions	
we	developed a	kind	of	lust	to	be	good	which	was	parallel	to	the	lust	for	sex,	which has	
obvious	Darwinian advantages.	Now we	no	longer	live	in	small	villages, in	small	clans, and	
so	the	Darwinian	pressure	to	be	good	is	no	longer	so	strong	nor	is	the	Darwinian	pressure	
for	lust as strong	as	it	once	was	because	nowadays	we	often	use	contraceptives	and	
therefore	sexual	behaviour does	not	lead	to	the	reproductive	consequence	which	is	of	
course	the	Darwinian	reason	for	it.	But	that	doesn’t	matter.	The	point	is	that	our	
evolutionary	past	built	into	us	a lust	for	sex and	by	the	same	token	it	built	into	us	a	lust	to	
be	good.	A	lust	to	be friendly,	a	lust	to	cooperate.	A lust to	be	sympathetic	towards	
suffering.	
So	I	think	it	partly	comes	from	that, but	I	think	it	also	comes	from	something	less	
easy	to	define	but	which	is	clearly	there,	something I	call	it	the	shifting	moral	zeitgeist.	It’s
something	that	changes	from	decade	to	decade.	Living	as	we	do	in	2007	it	would	be	a	broad	
consensus	of	what’s	right	and	wrong.	Racism	is	wrong, sexual	discrimination	is	wrong.
Cruelty is	wrong,	which	characterize	how	we live	in	the	early	21st century,	which would	not	
necessarily	have	characterized	our	ancestors in	this	place	200	years	ago.	The	consensus	
has	moved	on	and	I	find	this	a	very	interesting,	fascinating	fact	which suggests	that	there
really is	a	kind	of	something	in	the	air	about	what	is	regarded	as	moral, and	it	clearly	has	
nothing	to	do	with	religion	because	it	doesn’t	come	from	scripture.	Scripture	doesn’t	
change	over	the	decades	in	the	way	our	attitude	to	slavery,	our	attitudes	towards	women	
etc.	do.	There	really	does seem	to	be	a	powerful	shifting	Zeitgeist	effect	which	doesn’t	tell	
you	anything	in	itself,	but	which	indicates	that	there	is	something	in	the	air,	some	other	
force,	something	which	we	can’t understand	with	sufficient	sociological,	psychological	
sophistication,	but	whatever	else	it	is, it’s	not	religion.
Moderator
Dr	Lennox
Dr John	Lennox
The	question	is, “Do	we	need	God	to	be	moral”. If	we	formulate	it	as, “Can	an	atheist	be	
good?”	of	course.	Because	as	I	see	it, the	very	fact	that	human	beings	all	around	the	world	
show	a common	core	of	morality	is evidence	for	the	truth	of	the	Biblical	claim	that	we	are	
moral	beings	made	in	the	image	of	God.	So	what	I	would	want	to say	is	this: of	course	we	
can	be	good	without	God	in	the	sense	of	our	personal	behaviour, but	I’m	not	sure	whether	
we	can	find	foundations	for	the	concept	of	being	good	without	God.
You	admit	that	you	cannot	get ethics	from	science in	your	book	A	Devils	Chaplain.	
Science is	no	method for	deciding	what	is	ethical	and	I	find	it	very	interesting	reading	one	
 
  24
of	your	other	books,	River	Out	of	Eden, to	find	what	I	understand	is your	analysis	of	what	
the	universe	is	like	at bottom,	in	a universe	of:
“…blind	physical	forces	and	genetic	replication,	some	people	are	going	to	get	hurt,
other	people	are	going	to	get	lucky, and	you	won’t	find	any	rhyme	or	reason	in it,
nor	any	justice.	The	universe	that	we	observe	has precisely	the	properties	we	should	
expect	if	there	is,	at	bottom, no	design, no	purpose, no	evil,	and	no	good,	nothing	but
pitiless	indifference. DNA	neither	knows	nor	cares.	DNA	just	is.	And	we	dance	to	its	
music.” (Dawkins,	1996,	p.133).
Now	that	seems	to	me to	be	saying	that good	and	evil	don’t	exist, so	I	don’t	even	
know	where	you	get	the	moral criteria	to	discuss	it.	If	a	rock	falls	off	of	a	mountain onto	
your	head	and	kills	you, it	makes	no	sense	calling	the	rock evil.	It	just	exists. If	Pol	Pot	
chooses	to eliminate a	million	intellectuals or	the	9/11	terrorists choose	to	fly	hundreds	of	
people	to	their	deaths into	the	twin	towers, how	can	you	call	them evil	if	they	were	simply	
dancing	to	their	DNA? Now	that	strikes	me	as	a	hideous	world	you’re	delivering	us	into.	
That	is	no	morality	at	all.	
And	so	therefore	just	pushing this	a	little	bit	further,	if good	and	evil	don’t exist,	
there	is	no	evil	and no	good,	nothing	but	blind	pitiless	indifference,	how	can	it	possibly	
make	sense	to	talk	of the	evils	of	religion	or	of the	good of	atheism?	Now I	know	that	you	
suggest	elsewhere	that	we	have	to	rebel	against	our	genes, but	that	creates	to	my	mind	an	
immense problem	with	what	you	say	because	if	we	are	nothing	but	our	genes dancing	to	
the	tune	of	our	DNA,	what	part	of	us can rebel	against	them?	So	I	want	to	suggest	this, that	
far	from	atheism	delivering	an	adequate	explanation	for	morality it	dissolves	it,	and	it’s	a	
problem	that’s been	around	for	centuries.	How	can	something	mindless	and	impersonal
like	the	universe impose	a	sense	of	morality	upon us?	And David Hume, a	philosopher	
whom	you	quote,	pointed	this	out very	clearly.	He said:
“You	just	cannot	get	an	ought	from	an	is.	You	cannot	derive	morality	and	ethics	from	
matter	and	energy.	You	can	not go	from	facts	to	values.”8
And	what	concerns	me	greatly	is	that	although	you	don’t	say	it	in	your	book,	is	that
this	kind of	philosophy,	that	has	no	base for	morals	in	a	transcendent	God,	has	got	to	find	
morality	either	in	raw	nature	or	a	combination	of	nature	and	society,	and	often	leads to	a	
kind	of	utilitarianism.	And	we	are	in	serious	ethical	confusion	I	think	in	our	contemporary	
world,	in	the	legal	sphere,	in	the	ethical	and	the	medical	sphere,	and	in	the	business	sphere,	
because	the	foundations	are	crumbling.	And	I	want	to	suggest,	I know	it’s	provocative,	but	I	
want	to	suggest	that	Dostoevsky	was	very	perceptive, and	I’ve	had	many	Russians	agree	
with me	when	he	said:
“If	God	does	not	exist, everything	is	permissible”.9
																						
 
  25
He’s	not	saying	that	people	can’t	be	good;	he’s	saying	that	the	foundations	of	
morality	are	removed,	and	Niche	predicted	exactly	the	same	thing.	So	I	find	that	trying	to	
get	morality	elsewhere	is	something	that	is	doomed	to	destruction.	I	would	love	to	spend	
time	discussing	the	Bible.	I	think	your	view	of	the	Bible	is	a	bit	one	sided.	There	are	things	
there	to	be	discussed.
Moderator
We’re	about	to	turn	to	it.
Dr	John	Lennox
Ok,	fine.	
Sixth thesis:	“Christian	claims	about	the	person	of	Jesus	are	not	true.”
Moderator
The	last	thesis,	“Christian	claims	about	the	person	of	Jesus	are	not	true.” His	alleged	
miracles	violate	the	laws	of	nature.	I'm	going	to	read	to	excerpts	Prof	Dawkins.	The	first	
comes	from	page	92	of	your	book:
“The	historical	evidence	that	Jesus	claimed	any	sort	of	divine	status	is	minimal.”
(Dawkins,	2008,	p.	92.)
The	next	comes	from	page	257:
“Jesus	was	a	devotee	of	the	same	in-group	morality — coupled	with	outgroup	
hostility	- that	was	taken	for	granted	in	the	Old	Testament.	Jesus was	a	loyal	Jew.	It	
was	Paul	who	invented	the	idea	of	taking	the	Jewish	God	to	the	Gentiles.	Jesus	would	
have	turned	over	in	his	grave	if	he	had	known	that	Paul	would	be	taking	his	plan	to	
the	pigs.” (Dawkins,	p.	257.)
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
Once	again	I	can't	let	pass.	That	rhetoric	of	mine about	blind physical	forces	and
indifference	and	nature neither	cares,	DNA	neither	cares	nor	knows; maybe	you're	right	
that	that	portrays	a	hideous	world.	Well	maybe	the	world	is	a	hideous	world.	It doesn't	
make	it	not	true.	That's	the	fundamental	point	that	I	would	wish	to	leave	with	you,	that	you	
can	talk	to	your	blue in	the	face	about	how	it	would	be	nice	if	such-and-such	were	true,	it	
would	be	nice	if the	world	were	friendly	to	us,	it	would	be	nice	if	the	world	was	not	such a	
hideous	one.	But	I	see	it	as	first	it	tells	you	nothing	about	whether	it's	true	or	not. We have	
to	decide	whether	or	not separately.	
It	gives	us, if	it	is	a	hideous	world, it	gives	us	something	to	rise	above	and	we	clearly
do	rise	above	it.	You	raise	the	question	“how	do	we	rebel?”	and	seem	to	think	there	was	
some	kind	of	contradiction. There	is	no	contradiction	with	rising	above Darwinian	dictates.	
We	do	it	every	time	we	use	a	contraceptive.	It’s easy!	Every	time	you	use	a	contraceptive	
you	are	defying the	Darwinian	imperative	to	reproduce.	You’re enjoying	sex	using	the	
Darwinian, the	pleasure	with	built into	your	brains	by	Darwinism	because	normally	sex	
leads to	reproduction.	You're	cutting	off	that	link	and	you're	using	sex	for	pure enjoyment	
 
  26
without	reproduction.	That's	defying, that's	rebelling	against	the	selfish	genes	and	we	can	
do	a	grand	job	of	rebelling	against	the	hideous	blind	physical	forces	that	put	us	here.	We	
understand	what put	us	here.	We	understand	that	we	are	here	as	a	result of	a	truly	hideous	
process, never	mind	about	the	effects on	humanity.	Natural	selection,	the	process	which	
guides	evolution, the	process	whereby…
Moderator
I’m	going	to have	to	cut	you	off.
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
Ok.	Natural	selection	is	an	ugly	process	that	has	beautiful	consequences.	We	humans	can	
rise	above	it.	That's	only	2	1/2	minutes.
Moderator
Well, our	time	has being	used	a	lot	by	pre-exchange.
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
I	understand.	
Moderator
If	you would	like	to	take	thirty seconds	to	wrap up.
Prof. Richard	Dawkins
What	about	the	final	wrap up	that	we’re	going	to	do?
Moderator
We	will	do	that	and	that’s	our	best	opportunity	if	it’s	still	left.	Dr	Lennox
Dr	John	Lennox
Which	question	do	you	want	me	to	refer	to?
Moderator
Well	it’s	your	choice	I	guess.
Dr	John	Lennox
Well	I	think	I’d like	to	make	a	comment	on	what Richard	just	said because	I	think	you are	
talking	about the	about	two	different	things.	My	point	was	this: that	if	you	believe	that	the	
universe	is	at	bottom, there	is	no	good	and	evil, you	remove	from	yourself	the	categories	
you’re using	to	discuss	morality.	That’s my	point.	You're	assuming	it's	true. I’m arguing	on	
the	basis	of	its	truth that	you	are	removing	those	categories	and	therefore you	leave	
yourself	powerless	to	comment.	
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
You	make	a	good	point	that	I've	removed	any	absolute	standard	of	morality.	The	empirical	
fact	is	however	that	we	all	very	largely	share	what	they	regard	as	morality and	that’s	a	very
interesting	fact.
Dr	John	Lennox
 
  27
It	goes much	further	than	that.	If that's	what	you	meant	you	should	have	written that.
Prof.	Richard	Dawkins
Well,	I	kind	of	did.	
Dr	John	Lennox
Saying	 “there’s	no	good	or	evil” is	a	very	strong	absolutist statement	I	would	have	thought.	
Moderator
How	about…
Dr	John	Lennox
But	I	want	to	refer	to	this…
Moderator
How	about	the	topic.	
Dr	John	Lennox
Let	me	say	something	about this	thesis	about	the	person	of	Jesus	and	so	on. Again	I	have
concerns	about	The	God	Delusion in	its	treatment	of	the	authority and	reliability	of	
Scripture	because	those	who have studied it in	detail,	I	see	you’ve	referenced	a	very	few
scholars	in	his	book, have come	to	the	conclusion	that	say	for	example	the	historian	Luke,	is	
one	of	the	most	authoritative	historians	of	all	ancient	history. And	A.N.	Sherwin-White	of	
Oxford,	a Roman	historian, says	that:
“It	would	be	absurd	to	suggest	that	Luke’s basic	historicity	was	false	even	in	matters	
of	detail.”10
And	I'm	concerned	too not	only	about	your	attitude	to	history	Richard, but	your	
description	of	Jesus	as	belonging	to	a	person	who	practised	an	‘in-group	morality	and	outgroup	hostility’.	And	your	interpretation	of	“love	your	neighbour”11, which	I	note doesn't	
come	from	a theologian	but	from	an	anaesthesiologist, and	I	think	he	just	might	have	put	
you	to	sleep	just	a little	bit	as	you	read	it, because	in	Leviticus	which	quotes	“love	your	
neighbour	as	yourself” just	a	bit	further	down	it	says:
“And	if	a	stranger	dwells	with	you	in	your	land,	you	shall	not	mistreat	him.	The	
stranger	who	dwells	among	you	shall	be	to	you	as	one	born	among	you,	and	you	
shall	love	him	as	yourself;	for	you	were	strangers	in	the	land	of	Egypt…”12
So	in point	of	historicity, you	are	totally	wrong	about	the	attitude	of	Jesus.	In	fact, I	
would	have	thought you'd	have	been	very	familiar	with	the	parable	of	the	Good Samaritan,
and	in	the	parable	it	was	a	Samaritan,	one	of	the	strangers	that	showed	mercy.	And	that	
															
 
  28
was	precisely	the	parable	that	Jesus	taught	to	illustrate	the	“love	your	neighbour	as	
yourself” of	Leviticus. A mistake	like	that	seems	to	me	to	be	very	serious	indeed.	I	mean	I	
react to	it	a	bit	like	this: what	would	you	think	if	I	got	all	my	reviews	of	Darwin	from	an	
engineer,	and never bothered	to	read	the	Origin	of	Species?13 I	think	you	would	be	
distressed	by	that.
Finally	a word	about	miracles:	this	is	a	massive	subject.	You	claim	with	David	Hume	
that	miracles	violate	the	laws	of	nature. Well David	Hume	is	a	very	curious	person	to	quote
on	this	topic	because	David	Hume	didn't	believe	really	in the	laws	of	cause	and	effect, on	
which	laws	of	nature	are	founded.	He	didn't	believe	in	causality	and	he	didn't	appear	to	
believe	in	the	principle	of	induction.	And	so	that	he’s	not	a	very	good	authority	to	quote.	
Secondly, I	do	not	think	that	miracles	are	violations	of	the	laws	of	nature. Because	the	laws	
of	nature	describe	what	normally	happens. God, who	is	the	God	of	this	universe, and	
created	it	with	its	regularities,	is	perfectly	at	liberty	to	feed	a	new	event	into	the	universe.	
Just	as	CS	Lewis	makes	the point, if	I	put two	dollars	plus	two dollars	in my	desk	tonight, (I	
have)	four	dollars.	If	I	find	in	the	morning	there	is	one	dollar, I	don't	say	that	the	laws	of	
arithmetic	have	been broken. I	say	the	laws	of	Alabama have	been	broken,	and	I call	for	a	
federal	judge (audience	laughter).
Moderator
Well,	the	Federal	Judge	is	going	to	ask	that	you	continue	your	remarks	with	the	
understanding	that	you	really	are	needing	to	conclude them	within	the	next	couple	of	
minutes to	give	Professor	Dawkins the	last	word.	There	is	a	broadcast	audience	and	that’s	
part	of	the	reason	for	our	time	limits.	
Dr	John	Lennox
Where	those	meant	to	be	my	concluding	remarks?
Moderator
No,	I’m	giving	you	an	extra	minute	or	so	to	make	your	conducing	remarks	before	giving	the	
last	word	to	Professor	Dawkins.
Concluding	statements:
Dr	John	Lennox
Well	ladies	and	gentlemen, it's	been	an	interesting	discussion. I'll have to	make	my	remarks	
very	briefly. I	do	not	think	the	answer	is	atheism	though	I agree	with	much	of	the	criticism	
that	Richard	makes	of	religion. I	think	the	book	The	God	Delusion gives	the	game	away	in	
the	dedication	of	the	front	of	the	book	to	Douglas	Adams	where	he	says:
“Isn't	enough	to	see	that	the	garden	is	beautiful	without	having	to	believe	that	there	
are	fairies	at	the	bottom	of	it	too?” (Dawkins,	2008,	p.	7)
																		
 
  29
You	do	a brilliant	job	of	getting	rid	of	the	fairies,	thought	it must	be	said	that	most	of	
them	didn't	believe	in	them	any	way.	But when	you	see	the	beauty	of	a	garden,	in	say a	new	
college	in	Oxford, do	you	believe	there	is	no	gardener or	no	owner?	That	its	sublime	beauty	
has	come	about from	raw	nature	by	pure	chance?	Of	course	not. For	gardens	are	to	be	
distinguished	from	raw	nature	by	the	operation	of	intelligence, and	what	you	doing	in	your	
but	I	think	is	presenting	us	with	an	obviously	false	set	of	alternatives.	Either	we	take	
gardens	on	their	own	or	the	garden	plus	fairies, but	they	don't	appear	on	their	own.	They	
have	gardeners	and	owners.	So	does	the	universe.	You	say	there	is	no	evidence	of	God,	and	
yet your	very	description	of	the	universe	as a	garden	bears	witness	that	the	evidence	is	all	
around	you.	
Atheism	ladies	and	gentlemen	is	not	only	false, it	contains	no	message	that	deals	
with	the	central	problem	of	human	rebellion	against	God.	History	is	littered	with	attempts	
to	build	a	godless	utopia, each	one	of	them	based	as	the	book	of Genesis	suggests that	they	
would	be, on	a	denial	that	God	has ever	spoken	or	even	that	He	exists. And I	would	remind	
you	that	the	world	that Richard	Dawkins	wishes	to	bring	us	to	is	no	paradise	except	for	the	
few.	It	denies	the	existence	of	good	and	evil, it	even	denies	justice. But	ladies	and	gentlemen	
our	hearts	cry	out for	justice,	and	centuries	about	the	apostle	Paul	spoke	to	the	
philosophers	of	Athens, and	pointed	out	that	there	would	be	a	day	in	which	God	would	
judge	the	world by	the	man	that	he	had	appointed, Jesus	Christ,	and	that	he	had given	
assurance	to	all	people	by	raising	Him	from	the	dead.	And	the	resurrection	of	Jesus	Christ,	a	
miracle, something	supernatural, for	me	constitutes	the	central	evidence	upon	which	I	base	
my	faith	not	only	that	atheism	is	a	delusion, but	that	justice	is	real	and	our	sense	of	
morality	does	not	mock	us,	because if	there	is	no	resurrection, if	there	is	nothing	after	
death,	in	the	end	the	terrorists	and	the	fanatics	have	got	away	with	it.
Moderator
Ok,	thank	you.	Professor	DawkinsProf.	Richard	Dawkins
Yes,	well	that	conclusion	rather	gives	the	game	away	doesn’t	it?	And	all	that	stuff	about	
science	and physics,	and the	complications	of	physics and	things,	what	it	really	comes	down	
to	the	resurrection	of	Jesus.	There	is a	fundamental	incompatibility	between	the	sort	of	
sophisticated	scientists	which	we	hear	part	of the	time	from	John	Lennox, and	its	
impressive	and	we	are interested	in	the	argument	about	multiverses	and things.	And	then	
having	produced some	sort	of	a	case	for	a	kind	of	deistic	God,	perhaps	some	God	the	great	
physicist	who adjusted	the	laws	and	constants of	the	universe,	that's	all	very	grand	and	
wonderful	then	suddenly	we	come	down	to	the	resurrection	of	Jesus.	It’s	so	petty,	it so	
trivial, it’s	so local, it's	so earthbound,	it’s so	unworthy	of	the	universe.	
When	we	go	into	a	garden	and	we	see	how	beautiful it	is, and	we	see	coloured	
flowers	and	we	see	butterflies	and the bees, of	course	it's	natural	to	think	there	must	be	a	
gardener. Any	fool	is	likely	to	think	there	must	be	a	gardener. The	huge	achievement	of	
Darwin was	to	show	that	that	didn't	have	to	be	true.	Of course	it's	difficult, of	course	it	had	
to	wait	until	the	mid-19th century	before	anybody	thought	of	it.	It	seems	so	obvious	that if	
you've	got	a	garden	there	must	be	a	gardener	who	created	it	and	all	that	goes	with	that.	
What	Darwin	did, was	to	show	the	staggeringly	counterintuitive	fact	that	this	not	only	can	
 
  30
be	explained	by	an undirected	process, it’s	not	chance	by	the	way	entirely	wrong	to	say	it’s
chance, it’s	not	chance.	
Natural	selection	is	the	very	opposite	of	chance	and	that's	the	essence	of	it.	That	was	
what	Darwin	discovered.	He	showed	not	only	a	garden	but	everything	in	the	living	world,
and	in	principle	not	just	on	this	earth	but on	any	other	planet, where	ever	you	see	the	
organised	complexity that we	understand	that	we	call	life, that	it	has	an	explanation	which	
can	derive	it	from	simple	beginnings, by	comprehensible,	by	rational means.	That	is	
possibly	the	greatest	achievement	that	any	human	mind	has	ever	accomplished. Not	only	
did	he	show	that	it	could	be	done, I	believe	that	we	can	argue	that	the alternative	is	so	
unparsimonious	and	so	counter	to	the	laws	of	common	sense	that	reluctant	as	we might	be	
because	it	might	be	unpleasant for	us to	admit	it, although	we	can't	disprove	that there	is	a	
God, it	is	very, very	unlikely	indeed.
Larry	Taunton:	
We	are	told	that	in	the	earlier	part	of	the last	century,	that GK	Chesterton	and	George	
Bernard	Shaw	engaged	in a	lively	but	very	friendly	debate.	It may	be	said	that	perhaps	we	
haven’t seen	anything	quite	like	that	until	tonight.	Ladies	and	gentleman, please	join	me	in	
thanking	them.
"""