Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Oasis Listen with Prime Learn more Shop Men's Shop Women's

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 31 July 2009
So often these sorts of presentations descend into slightly ridiculous scenarios where a highly polished academic athiest is pitched against someone with religious convictions but totally unequipped to debate the issues at the same level. Athiests then use this as further evidence that people with religious beliefs are in the main, poorly-educated weak-minded sheep. However, I'm pleased to say this is certainly not the case here.
The two men debate on practical issues of whether our growing understanding of the world and universe around us through scientific advances undermines the case for a Creator God and the need for a Messiah. The material being debated gets slightly heavyweight here and there, but on the whole I would say it remains understandable to a layperson.
I think most people watching this will have pre-determined views one way or the other, but hopefully it will provoke thought and further discussion. There is no real bias either way and both protagonists put forward decent, thoughtful, intelligent answers.
The interesting things that came out of it for me were: 1. Neither side of the debate has all the answers. 2. The debate is actually more evenly balanced than the liberal media would like you to believe. 3. Both camps should embrace and not be scared of rigorous debate and probing difficult questions.
Please keep these type of debates coming. It can only be a good thing.
55 comments|35 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 23 November 2013
Both speakers take their perspectives. Both are scientists but different in their beliefs and both try to bring science to justify their beliefs. Prof Dawkins used to say science can explain everything but I see him moderating his views in this where he acknowledges that there is much that needs to be done. Prof. Lennox try to put everything in the context of creation and a super designer and the fact we are only discovering what is already there. Just like we are designers of the products, services, methods we use there is a super designer of who and what we are. Since religions are in decline and Atheism is in the ascendance the stand taken by Prof. Lennox is very courageous. The setting is magnificiant and historical, evidence of human creativity that science has yet to prove and evidence of science that can explain the construction of it.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 June 2015
Much of this debate revolved around origins. What was the origin of life and who created God? Dawkins argued that to propose that something more complicated, i.e. God, was responsible for the origin of life and the universe was begging the question. Dawkins seemed to want a simple answer to the question of origins. Lennox was content to assert that God is eternal and the beginning of life as we know it is unfathomable without a creator.

Lennox had more words to say. Often he was cross-examining Dawkins like a lawyer. Dawkins made his points strongly and confidently and seemed content to let Lennox take the lead.

It was a good format, unlike the debate which took place in Birmingham, Alabama. Both men had their say, mostly on topics of their own choosing. It was a genuine interaction.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 October 2013
The content is balanced and clearly presented. Although covering deep subjects it was easy to listen to. I will listen to the DVD again.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 11 January 2015
Very good debate by two very special men.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 31 May 2015
Superfast delivery, great present
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 October 2009
Firstly let me point out that this DVD is produced and published by The Fixed Point Foundation, which clearly states that it is committed to publicly defending Christianity through education [and] events and this is evident in the whole approach to the debate. The debate is presented by and "chaired" by Larry Taunton who is founder and executive director of the foundation, and the director is Michael Lennox, whilst Carson Lennox is another member of the production team - in charge of Location Production Services. A pure coincidence or keeping it in the family?

Dawkins has commented regarding an earlier debate organised by the same organisation, the "God Delusion" debate in Birmingham, Alabama, prompted by his book of the same name, that the format was rather strange, in that it ensured that Lennox got the last word on every single issue. The fact that the foundation produced this debate is very evident in the framing of the debate to constantly require Dawkins to be defending his position, whilst Lennox is never once required to do so.

My most important objection to this DVD is that it failed to deliver what it promised. Based on the description given, I was looking forward to hearing a well-constructed scientific argument that challenged the science put forward by Dawkins. Whether it was more convincing than Dawkins' arguments or not would remain to be seen, but I had expected, from the description, that it would at least challenge me to think it through very carefully. Furthermore, I really wanted to present this to my teenage children, who have already heard Dawkins' arguments, so that they would have a balanced set of arguments on both sides of the debate, in order for them to reach their own conclusions.

In practice, I never once heard Lennox put forward any scientific argument for anything. He constantly waffled around statements of his belief, but without ever providing any substance to support them. One other review says that Lennox's book is far more persuasive than his side of the discussion. Well, if that is the case, it is not only a shame that this debate didn't present those elements, but, given its description, in my opinion downright misleading. After seeing this debate and finding it fall so far short of my expectations, I most certainly do not feel inclined to throw more money away by spending it on his book, so it is an opportunity lost.

As for previous reviews, so Dawkins "admits" that Jesus did exist. Those who have read his books would not be in the slightest bit surprised by this as he has always confirmed this to be the case. His issue with Christians is not about the existence of Jesus but about the claim that Jesus was supernatural. So Dawkins admits that science only explains one of the three big questions posed by our existence, but this is only because he is being completely scientific by not claiming a hypothesis, however scientifically feasible, as being a scientific explanation if no evidence has been found (yet) to confirm it. Both of these big quesions have had highly feasible hypotheses proposed (big bang and primordial soup) and there are even a number of scientific observations that provide strong pointers to these hypotheses but Dawkins quite rightly is not ready to claim these as sufficient to treat the hypotheses as proven explanations.

As Dawkins points out in his summing up, the fact that an explanation has not yet been offered does not justify the conclusion that "in that case it must be magic". If the same rigourous requirements for evidence were applied to the "feelings" presented by Lennox, he would have had to make exactly the same admissions about his theist beliefs. Based on his contribution to this debate one could only conclude that not only could no evidence be presented to support the theist view of these questions, but that there do not even exist feasible hypotheses to lead us in their direction, only his beliefs and those of like minded folk. He certainly didn't present any scientific hypotheses, unless we count his simple statement of beliefs as a hypothesis, and based as these are on significant supernatural elements, they can't help but lack the credibility level of those hypothesis. On this basis, Dawkins inability to provide (admissible) explanations of these two big questions is far from providing automatic victory for the theist viewpoint of them.
1717 comments|29 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 6 March 2015
over priced
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 September 2014
very good
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 December 2012
Enlightening. Amazing to watch these 2 professors talk about God and religion. I bought this for one of my nephews who is a priest in Nice, France and the debate only strengthened his and my belief.
11 comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)