Analysis Of Richard Dawkins Has Science Buried God

Richard Dawkins had the better argument in the debate of ‘Has Science Buried God’ because compared to John Lennox, Dawkins’ answers were based on things or theories that had already been proven, the morality of God, and the reason the mind appreciates the idea of a God. Dawkins leaned on the theory of evolution and explained why God didn’t have anything to do with natural selection. Dawkins also used the morality of God in the debate to prove the point that even if there was a God, he was very ‘petty’ and wouldn’t fit the description of a ‘good father.’ In addition to these, he also made a good argument about the reason the mind appreciates having a God to look up to or believe in. So, all personal feelings aside, it is evident that Dawkins made the better argument.
For one, Dawkins doesn’t rely on blind faith but rather what has been proven. He expressed how there was no God driving the evolution of all living things as proven by Darwin. Dawkins brought forward a form of comparison where he compared Evolution to a swerving driver. He said that if a car was werving you would think that an agent was controlling the car and in that case Lennox would be …show more content…
He brought up points such as, why would one believe in a “Sort of God that cares about what you do with your genitals” when he is all powerful and created the universe. Why would he care? Especially when more important things are happening in the world. And if he was all powerful why wouldn’t he just forgive instead of dying on the cross? Although some could strongly argue that God is just and fair in all meanings of the word, than why would he let children die by starvation, why would he let an innocent baby die minutes after exiting the womb? There are many arguments to be had over if God is just, however it was only touched on by Lennox and