if you die tonight are you going to heaven?

Is there a God? Lennox and Singer head to head

4:22pm Thursday, 21st July 2011  

David Wilson

Angry Atheists, jumping up and down on the spot, slandering all types of religious belief and vitriolic in their attacks on the Christian faith. Pathetic Christians, highly unintelligent, bland and boring, moralistic and out of touch with what’s really going on out there. Such are the stereotypes. But any thought of these stereotypes were shattered in the Melbourne Town Hall last night as Professor John Lennox of the University of Oxford debated Professor Peter Singer of Melbourne and Princeton Universities. Singer, the Atheist, was respectful, gentle and calm. Lennox, the Christian, was confident, intelligent, humorous, and engaging. So much for stereotypes!

The debate was around the question ‘Is there a God’ and the content from both sides was predictable and yet well presented. Singer posted his arguments against the existence of God by stating that the idea of God was no longer necessary to explain questions of origin or design. Although there may be some psychological need in some people to believe in the existence of God there was certainly no scientific need.

On the other hand, Lennox stated that the various pointers to the existence of God included the incomprehensibility of Creation, the revelation of God in the Bible and in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and subjectively, his own experiences of God throughout his life. He claimed that the results of Science pointed to an affirmation of the existence of God rather than a denial of that belief.

The strongest argument for Singer against the existence of God as Christians understand Him is the problem of suffering. He claimed that no-one had been able to answer his concerns about that in an adequate manner and that this continued to be the biggest sticking point for him. In his reply to this argument Lennox agreed that this was one of the bigger questions that demanded something more than simplistic answers. Singer congratulated Lennox for such honesty. Lennox discussed the difference between moral and natural evil as causes of suffering and that the problem of suffering must not be divorced from discussions around the presence of God in the midst of suffering, the Justice and Fairness of God, and the fact that death is not the end of the story. Singer concluded that his questions remained unanswered.

The whole debate swung on questions regarding the reliability of the Bible. Lennox took such reliability for granted, quoting freely from Biblical passages as authoritative in defending his arguments. Singer denied and openly questioned such a reliance on the Bible, calling into question its reliability by mentioning what he perceived to be inconsistencies, mistakes, and the need to reject some of its moral teachings as archaic and no longer relevant. To Lennox the Bible is a record of God speaking to humans. To Singer it is not.

Another interesting part of the debate was the discussion on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Singer remarked that he was not denying the possibility of such an event to occur but that it would need to have very good objective evidence that it had happened before he could believe that something that violates all natural laws was true. He remains unconvinced due to what he perceives as a lack of such evidence.

The debate was brought to Melbourne by the Fixed Point Foundation, an Organization based in the USA, committed to promoting ‘a confident Christianity in the public square by fortifying the minds of Christians and challenging the faith of skeptics’. It was moderated by Fixed Point’s founder and Executive Director, Larry Taunton.

 

Dr David R Wilson

Bible Society Australia

Sophia Think Tank

the largest Christian newspaper
in Australia. Get it delivered for free

Subscribe to Eternity news email