Lennox Life Events Contribute to What He Learned About Religion

Please respond to the question by clicking on the discussion link above. After responding to the initial question(s), please comment on 3 of your classmates’ responses. Please respond by making constructive responses or by raising other questions that will promote further discussion and learning by all of us.

Finally, it is best practice to post early and continually participate throughout the session. You will be graded not only for your posting, but your participation in this discussion.

Please review the rubric attached to the discussion.

The Student 1 is Avery Pate

Discussion 3: Debate Response

What can you discern about each person’s lens which they are seeing the world based on their arguments?

These mens world view began when they were a child through their different experiences and schooling. It began as a child and continues from there to grow and build. Lennox let the experiences of his life add to what he knew about God and how God is good. Hitchens let his experience mold him to believe there is no purpose to anything and it is better to live without a God. These influences were then used to influence their political beliefs and they become experts in the field of defending what they believe. World view begins to be molded from a young age no matter your life experiences.

How is that lens affecting how they understand reality?

Hitchens and Lennox’s view of reality is formed through this lens that they fear the world. Hitchens believes that there is no greater power and that the world just is. “Don’t call it intelligent design; it may have been rather crudely designed, but there is nothing intelligent about it.” (Hitchens & Lennox 2017). Now Lennox believes the complete opposite to Hicthens, he believes everything has purpose and everything has meaning beyond survival. “”By the new Atheist direct fire at a number of religions, but mainly Christianity and as a I am a Christian I’m going to concentrate there.” (Hitchens & Lennox 2017) Both men are speaking from what they believe and passionately back it up with what they are observing in our world.

Based on what we have learned about so far in this class, who had the more compelling argument and why?

When we look at these two arguments next to Sire’s 7 basic questions in Naming the Elephant, I believe Lennox had the more compelling argument. He began his argument by aligning atheistic views and Christian views by giving them common ground. He was apologetic to how some believers have carried themselves saying that is not how Jesus lived.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPBdaz0n094&feature=youtu.be Hitchens, C., & Lennox, J. (2017). Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox | Can Atheism Save Europe? Debate. Retrieved 20 October 2020, from

Student 2

Holly Rougier

RE: Discussion #3

Question #1-What can you discern about each person’s lens through which they are seeing the world based on their arguments?

This debate between John Lennox and Christopher Hitchens hinges on the pendulum of why do we need God to make sense of reality as opposed to the realization of reality that points to a transcendent being which is God. Hitchens argues that religion is bad for the world by stating, “Europe needs to be met with a very firm, humorous, by all means tolerant, broadminded, but firm and determined reassertion of secularism as a core principle of our democracy.” (Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox Can Atheism Save Europe Debate, Caption section of the video on YouTube, Colorado Christian University, n.d.). Lennox believes, “That faith in God is based on historical evidence. In addition, it was Christianity that gave Europe its universities that educated the new atheists. The liberty that permits them to propagate their views and the law that protects them” (Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox Can Atheism Save Europe Debate, Caption section of the video on YouTube, Colorado Christian University, n.d.).

Question #2-How is the lens affecting how they see reality?

Lennox and Hitchens reality are affected based on their understanding of Jesus. Hitchens stated, “Jesus of Nazareth said he came not to bring peace but a sword.” (Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox Can Atheism Save Europe Debate, Caption section of the video on YouTube, Colorado Christian University, n.d.). Lennox stated, “That’s absolutely right, and the sword was a division and those who are prepared to accept Him and trust Him and those who would reject Him.” (Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox Can Atheism Save Europe Debate, Caption section of the video on YouTube, Colorado Christian University, n.d.). Your perception and view of Jesus will affect everything. According to Sire (2015), “Each set of actions illustrates a different life form or worldview.” ( Sire, J. 2015, p. 71, Ch. 5).

Question #3-Based on what we have learned in this class, who had the more compelling argument and why?

I believe Lennox’s argument was more compelling because the Christian worldview answers the longings of the heart that pertain to meaning, morality, origin and destiny. As mentioned by Philip, Brown, Stonestreet (2008), “Christianity affirms that science is a valid means of uncovering truth about the physical world, but Christianity goes further and affirms the existence of real things beyond the reach of scientific investigation.” (Philip, W. G., Brown, W. E., & Stonestreet, J., p. 70, Ch.4).

References

Colorado Christian University. (n.d.). Christopher Hitchens vs. John Lennox Can Atheism Save

Europe Debate. Retrieved from Blackboard.ccu.edu (Session 3: Discussion)

Philip, W. G., Brown, W.E., & Stonestreet, J. (2008). Making sense of Your World: A biblical

World View. Salem, W. I. Sheffield Publisher.

Sire, J. S. (2015). Naming the Elephant. (2^nd ed.). Worldview as a Concept. Downers Grove,

IL. InterVarsity Press.

Student 3

Kayla Preston

Session 3 Discussion

COLLAPSE

What can you discern about each person’s lens through which they are seeing the world based on their arguments?

This debate was between an atheist, Christopher Hitchens, and a Christian, John Lennox. Hitchens’ disbelief in Christianity and God is firmly decided by science and skepticism. I honestly couldn’t follow his reasoning behind his unbelief, but it could be because I am a Christian and know Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. Lennox made strong arguments when explaining his viewpoint, and the way he used comparisons that the audience was able to connect with him, and understand who God is and why he exists.

How is that lens affecting how they understand reality?

Unfortunately, Hitchens doesn’t understand the reality of Christianity and Christ. He is real and alive today. He based his opinions off of scientific data, where Lennox proves the history behind Jesus Christ.

“By the blanket statement, religion poisons everything, followed by a litany of the evils of religion, is as about useful as saying, ‘Science poisons everything,’ followed by the litany of the evils of science poisoning the environment and creating napalm and poison gas.” –John Lennox We see here, that Lennox provides an argument that seems to unravel Hitchens’ blanket statement of religion poisoning everything. Again, I will say I was able to follow Lennox throughout the debate.

“Sir Peter Medawar said, ‘Science cannot answer the questions of a child. What we are here for and what is the meaning of life.’ ” –John Lennox In Matthew, God urges us to have child-like faith to believe in Him. We may not understand it all, but with faith, we trust how real He truly is. “He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:2-4, NIV)

Based on what we have learned so far in this class, who had the more compelling argument, and why?

In my opinion Lennox had the more compelling argument. Before even watching the debate, I knew who I would be able to agree with since I am a believer of Christ. Hitchens was very hard to follow through the debate, which I’ve said before, but I just couldn’t come to terms with his arguments. Lennox pointed out atheists whose purpose for disproving the existence of God had flaws in their viewpoints. I think Lennox did great overall and was prepared for the debate to stand for Jesus. I loved the comparison Lennox made of it being terrifying that God is watching over us and seeing everything, and explained that God watching over us has two sides. “Firstly the care and attention, which is foundational to me in my life and in my family life. Secondly, the fact that there’s a God watching means there’s going to be justice.” He goes on to say that he could make marriage look bad, as other people do God, since there is a woman who watches everything he does, and could write off marriage that way. I’m sure there are non-believers who are terrified to think this, but as for myself, I asked God daily to watch over me, my friends, and family.

References

Holy Bible, New International Version Study Bible. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1973).

Hitchens, C. & Lennox, J (2017), Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox/Can Atheism Save Europe?Debate. retrieved October 20, 2020 from