Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? Bad Arguments

<- Previous

"The New Atheists never tire of citing Bertrand Russell’s reply when he was asked what he would say if God were to ask him after his death why he had not believed: “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.” But then a curious thing happens. When evidence is offered to them, they refuse to examine it. I have already mentioned Richard Dawkins’ contemptuous dismissal of the resurrection in our God Delusion debate; so his attitude is clear. Furthermore, I know of no serious attempt by any of the New Atheists to engage with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (Emphasis mine.)

I commend Lennox for the extraordinary efforts he has surely expended to avoid atheist writing on what he calls evidence for the resurrection. Perhaps he merely read the copyright information of "Not The Impossible Faith" by Dr Richard Carrier, missing the lengthy discussion therein that spawned debates with William Lane Craig and others. He must have hidden from Dan Barker, former preacher and now co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation who speaks of little else. Robert M Price has doctorates in both Theology and NT studies and discusses the subject at inordinate length. I could go on, and those interested in further examples are invited to consult the search feature of Amazon, a step Lennox has obviously not bothered to take.

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Hitler and the atheist baptisms

You may be aware that Mohandas Gandhi was posthumously baptised into the Mormon faith. The same industrious folk also converted the parents of famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal. The noteworthy are not their sole targets; their net is cast so wide that a performer in this proxy baptism charade sued the church for back injuries sustained while performing two hundred immersions.

When first I heard of these tales I pictured two fresh-faced elders of the Mormon church, dressed in trademark black slacks and short sleeve shirts, knocking at the doors of hell and asking politely if they could take the insipid word of Joe Smith to the complex's residents. I dismissed it as an oddity, peculiar to the Latter Day Saints.

Until I found John Lennox trying a similar trick.

Considering the multitudes in his ambitious plan I hope he has opted not to perform proxy immersions. Rather than attempting to swell the ranks of Christianity his goal is to deplete them. Throughout Gunning for God he strives to separate the wheat from the chaff. The True Christians^TM are kept and celebrated, those he discards as failing his almighty judgement are assigned to the atheist pile.

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Chapter 2 Part B. Pilate, Prophecies and Lost in Translation

 
Chapter 2: Is Religion Poisonous? - Part B Pilate, Prophecies and Lost in Translation

<-- Previous Chapter

I ended my last blog post halfway through chapter 2. I did this partially because there is much to discuss, but also because I was rather happy with the closing line and did not wish to see it wasted on a midway point.

In the previous section Lennox went to great lengths to refute himself and then failed to seriously engage with what we Irish euphemistically call "the troubles". There followed a clean division whereafter he returned to Biblical interpretation. Lennox plays a game of association, often enlisting atheists to his cause to confirm the existence of a historical Jesus who was crucified in first century Judea, then making reasonable arguments for an empty tomb. But then he'll glide on to a discussion that presumes the accuracy of all New Testament texts, often with his own interpolations or additions, as seen by his modification of the Ten Commandments and unsubstantiated discussion of Peter's swordfighting ability discussed in previous posts.

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Chapter 2. Lennox refutes Lennox, Northern Ireland conflict.

Chapter 2: Is Religion Poisonous? - Part A, Lennox refutes Lennox, Northern Ireland conflict.

<-- Previous Chapter

Reviewing a book in-depth can be a time-consuming task, so it's always a joy when the author takes the time to refute themselves. Take this quote from Lennox:

"However, the New Atheists undermine their own case in astonishingly naïve fashion by lumping all religions together indiscriminately, as if all religions were equally guilty of the charge of fomenting dangerous behaviour. One would not expect such unscholarly, crass oversimplification to come from authors who loudly praise their “scientific approach”. In this connection it is to be noted that Prospect magazine, which had earlier voted Dawkins a world-class intellectual, described his book The God Delusion as “incautious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory”. After all, it does not take one to be at the cutting edge of academic research into religious thought, to see that classifying the peace-loving Amish with Islamic fundamentalist extremists is culpably and dangerously naïve." (Page 61)

From this it is reasonable to assume that all "New Atheists" consider all religions to be equally dangerous. He cites the example of Amish and Islamic fundamentalists. Let's contrast this with some later quotes:

"It should be noted, however, that Sam Harris appears to have grasped the inadequacy of his colleagues’ approach — possibly because he seems to have certain quasi-religious notions of his own. Consciously breaking ranks with Dawkins and the others, he calls on them to attend to the differences among the world’s religions..." (Page 64)

 Lennox has lost one of the four horsemen. Let us proceed a little further, to where he quotes Dawkins in support of non-violent nature found in Christianity:

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Introduction and Chapter One

I recently had the pleasure of finishing Gunning for God by John Lennox. Read into my phrasing what you will.

Introduction

Lennox opens by listing some of the atheists who have earned his ire. Dawkins takes the lead, a seemingly odd choice for primacy as he is followed by Hawking to whom Lennox recently devoted an entire book. The "lesser calibre" atheists that follow are Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and the "more junior Sam Harris". His targets are spread further afield when he lists Frenchman Michel Onfray and Italian Piergiorgio Odifreddi. Note at this time that Richard Carrier and Dan Barker are not listed. I'll come back to this.

He makes a reasonable criticism of Dennett's attempt to rebrand the godless as 'Brights'. This stillborn move never garnered the sympathy Lennox implies; all he can offer in support of his profession of its popularity is the fact that they possess a website. Is that really a mark of overwhelming adoption? And have the religious not similarly erred? Could we point to a single individual who describes himself as simultaneously the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God, and say that we are not alone in occasionally letting marketing get the better of us?