Dear Brother Lennox,
Thank God for the open doors he has provided for you.
I think though that the supposition of experience of life, (example; I was raised an athiest or a christian), is inapplicable.
As to a belief in God, yes being raised in a theistic environment or an athiestic environment may sway my opinion but, the simple fact is that God has revealed himself from creation to conscience to His word and now His Son.
We must reject the knowledge that He exist contrary to His evidences given from the time we can comprehend such things as children.
Atheism isn’t and can never be unbiased because it is a result of rejection.
The same with false religion. Romans 1 and 2 (the Bible).
I know you know these things and are far more learned than I but I say this for those reading, it is a decision based on acceptance or rejection of God-given evidence, let us not deceive ourselves in our pride of thinking otherwise.
I have just seen the snippet of video above and have missed the rest of the argument put forward if I am repeating the obvious I do apologize.

I heard Dr. Lennox for the first time this morning on radio. He was filling in For Ravi Z. I’m impressed and glad that this site exist. I am a long time Christian who realizes that too often both Christians and non-Christians are afraid to consider seriously the others thinking. We all are closed minded at times. Thank you Dr. Lennox.

Mr. Lennox.... I just wanted to say that I have so graciously enjoyed your body of work… When I was able to first view a few segments of your debates you grew on me..  So great that in this day and age with anti-christian movements growing by the day I find this great speaker who is defending the faith.  You are such a wise man I wish I could spread the gospel with your knowledge…

God bless you Mr. Lennox.

Regarding Message left by Jay M Ramsurrun on 2:33pm, 22/06/2010 GMT

Mr. Ramsurrun:
I have no doubt you would categorize yourself as a good person without religion. However, your remarks on Dr. Lennox betray your evil. I hope you yourself could indeed have moments of quiet reflection.

The answer to that question seems pretty clear to me: Wishful thinking.
The Atheist worldview is not very comforting, I’m afraid.

Thank you David Wright (on 1:53am, 16/11/2010 GMT) for the URL to Richard Lewontin’s quote that you argue is abused by John Lennox.
Having read that quote in context. I confess that I am convinced that John Lennox’s understanding of its meaning is correct and yours is in error.

It interests me that Richard Lewontin goes on to say:
“Conscientious and wholly admirable popularizers of science like Carl Sagan use both rhetoric and expertise to form the mind of masses because they believe, like the Evangelist John, that the truth shall make you free. But they are wrong. It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth. Our dilemma is that we do not know how to provide that power.”

Lewontin’s argument is clearly that the masses should trust the experts like himself and Carl Sagan and not anyone who talks of some alleged supernatural being who might perform miracles, which materialism rules to be impossible, regardless of evidence to the contrary. That was exactly John Lennox’s point in quoting Lewontin. I would add that anyone can prove anything about anything so long as one’s perspective is narrow enough.

Is the holy spirit too simple for you? Clever talk has its place of course, Paul was a superior intellect, but you have your own issue with God, personally, which, when recognised will lead you into freedom and effectiveness and the real reality of the gospel.

John is a brilliant man! An accomplished scientist/mathematician, great speaker superb author with a very compelling style of writing. He is right in what he observes. Russell and Wittgenstein were close collaborators with an interchangeable set of knowledge yet both came to very different conclusions on the matter of Religion. It shows that the evidence is not the critical factor as by definition it has to be interpreted and made meaningful. Critical comprehension. We tend impose our own patterns and understandings on data in accordance with cognitive dissonance theory. That is true for everyone, especially those who reject the possibility that there may be some merit to the contrary viewpoint.

“Are we to think that God overlooked that this stand-off would happen? Can we believe that God does not allow the materialist an outright victory but nevertheless, He concedes a stalemate?”

“The problem is choice.”

Crappy movie quotes aside, I believe the sentiment of the statement is true. The reason that God has allowed this stalemate is so we can see both sides and choose freely. If God were to give us infallible proof that can only mean His existence then our free choice will be gone. God refuses to mess with the free will of mankind.

Even with the resurrection of the Son of God (aka. Jesus Christ) people still refuse His existence and indeed the existence of the Resurrection.

Thank you Dr Lennox for your work. You have provided an interesting perspective which has inspired me to look at some things I thought were so a little differently! God bless & keep up the good work!

I’m surprised that professor Lennox was caught off guard by this question.

Are we to think that God overlooked that this stand-off would happen?  Can we believe that God does not allow the materialist an outright victory but nevertheless, He concedes a stalemate?

What is needed is an indisputable tie-breaker.

That tie-breaker was provided.  It is Jesus’ resurrection.  That’s exactly what it is for.

Does someone dispute the resurrection?  Have a look at it.  The stalemate has not been yet achieved.

Thank you for your work Professor Dr. Lennox. I will never lose my faith in Jesus thanks to you. In times like these, in a secular and anti-Christian society we need fathers to make us understand that we are on the right path. I am very angry and powerless when I see humanity today. Yet with thinkers like you Professor Dr. Lennox I must say there is still hope. Hope that one day many people will choose Christ and not dust. God Bless you and your loved ones.

First thank you Dr, Lennox, I am an apologist here in the Cleveland OH area. I teach what one can only refer to as blue collar apologetics. I am sorry but I refer to you as the plumber. Your arguments are very honest and true. It is all about a starting point of total objectivity. I spend a lot of time witnessing on collage campuses and I have yet to meet such a person. I have read about such a person who has claimed to be totally objective. He said that he had absolute understanding and was actually there at the beginning. The truth be known all objectors should start with the absolute claims Jesus made concerning the truth. Put the science behind for a moment, for if what he said is true science cannot tell you. It can at best only point with a twitching finger. For scientist are always at work discrediting what they had just exclaimed to be scientific fact. Who can even keep up ?

I have a major problem with your citing of Lewontin’s statement that materialism is an “a priori” assumption of science.  I really have to wonder whether you’ve read the article it’s been extracted from at all, much less applied your supposedly open mind to it.  It is not, as you frame it, a proud statement of his beliefs.  It forms part of a biting critical review of a book by Carl Sagan (and also rather sternly criticises, among others, Richard Dawkins); the a priori assumption of materialism is explicitly framed as a criticism of science.  The entire article, in fact, is an exercise in examining why non-scientific beliefs like creationism and alien abductions persist, and uses the fact that science is built on the a priori acceptance of materialism - and the fact that people like you (wrongly) seize on it as apparent article of blind faith - as an example of why the public struggles to accept what science has to say on the matter.

I would strongly suggest - and I’m absolutely certain Lewontin would agree with me - that the materialist hypothesis must be (and has been) subjected to the harshest scrutiny precisely because it must be assumed, a priori, for all subsequent reasoning in science.

You are free to argue that materialism should *not* be assumed.  You may find Lewontin’s reasons for assuming materialism lacking.  But it’s not okay to portray materialism as an article of blind faith for scientists.  It’s telling that you quote Lewontin as saying “we can’t allow a Divine Foot in the door”, but choose not to repeat the justification he gives afterward (he quotes Lewis Beck: “To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured").  You may find that a poor reason to accept materialism, but presenting his comments as explicitly rejecting theism just because it’s theism - and what is worse, to then extrapolate those views to atheistic scientists in general - is tantamount to quote mining. And at least where I come from, quote mining is not truthful.

The full article is located here, for anyone interested in reading it. http://www.drjbloom.com/Public files/Lewontin_Review.htm

Dr. Lennox, thank you very much for this video. This is a question that both theists and atheists seem to ask very often. And I think that it is an important question that might lead us to greater tolerance and understanding for other people’s world views. Although it does require us to stop viewing the opposing side as our enemy. This has always been a challenge for me, since I have always been very sceptical, felt lost and rocked back and forth between different views on life.

Sometimes it feels like people try to convince themselves by convincing others. Like the very fact that there are people with different views than them threatens them. It might even cause us to ridicule the opposing side, or simply call them crazy. It makes it hard to get along in a pluralistic world.

The new atheism and the bold way of his articulating himself seems to me quite strange. There is so few relevant contributions he can put into discussion. I was raised up to be an atheist and at that time would not have been able to imagine things like the New Age, which we have been able to observe over the past 30 years. But these things are there, regrettably. And at the same time new atheists try to act without taking notice of all this and to indoctrinate their neighbours atheistically. Very thankful I am for John Lennox.

I am Roman Catholic and it seems Atheists are attacking our beliefs calling them stupid. I can’t imagine the pride and egoism that causes one to think they know more than another. In fact, they are arguing over opinions. They have their own opinion, but at least be respectful.

Dr Lennox, as an impressionable 19 year old, I am pounded day after day with anti-religious statements and propaganda. I came across your article in the Daily Mail and loved it! Your ideas and open mindedness made me appreciate life in a new way and restored my already depressed mind. Richard Dawkins can try all he can to persuade the world that he’s the only (so called scientist) in the entire Universe that is absolutely right about one thing, where as a true scientist would say “I don’t know”.
I’m a Christian, quite liberal and well spirited. Your article really spoke to me! Keep up the good work!

In addressing Mr. Ramsurrun’s point below, I will acknowledge that everything he says could be true.  But I don’t think so.  I cannot prove God exists based on the five senses. However, the five senses are not the only measure of proof. There is subjective experience which in American jurisprudence would consist of personal testimony which is given whatever credible weight a jury would give it.  There is the testimony of historical antecedents which can form a preponderance of evidence.  Finally, there is the residue of design and the signature of a prime reality, namely God, that exists in the very mechanics of physics and the operation of a living cell.  I find it interesting that of the 6 billion people in the world the vast majority are religious whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.  They run the gamut from being very unlearned to very learned.  Pray tell, what do atheist know that we who are religious do not?  Everything in the material universe can be reduced to a quark, but why stop there?  There is nothing in the physical universe that serves as a model that does not have a physical antecedent or cause and effect.  How can I intelligently believe that matter has always existed?  That requires too much faith for this religious person.  A better explanation for me is that the maker of matter has always existed.  Please focus on that question and the life of Christ not the theological idiosyncrasies that might make you fearful. For “good” people (what is your moral basis for defining what good is?) to be “evil” (and what would you say that is?) they simply reject being “good” and choose “evil,” whether using the facade of religion or not. Many blessing to you and anyone else who considers these issues.  If helpful, ponder more.  If not, be a “good” person and pray for me.

M. Ramsurrun: I have the same reaction to Lennox’s talks. I’ve attended a couple of them, one being a debate with Hitchens in Edinburgh. He uses the same cliches all the time. Most laughably, he appeals to the general public by essentially saying “not only am I a religious person, but I’m also a mathematician and scientist and therefore know what I’m talking about and you have to believe me”. Wooaoo! People who are not in universities are thirsty for characters like him, i.e. religious academics. People can then justify their religiosity by arguing that since a learned academic says so, it ought to be so. But if you see/read Lennox’s arguments you cannot help it but smile at how naive they are.

I suppose Lennox appeals more to religious folk on the other side of the Atlantic (like the fellow from Alabama above). Like Blair. They take their preaching to the US and become hits.