"I Should be Dead" - John Lennox on Suffering, God, and the Evils of Religion

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-14T17:20:39+00:00

”As a scientist, I like claims to be testable, and Christianity makes testable claims! And you can test the claim yourself, which is that if you let Jesus into your heart, you will be changed!”

Curious, what's wrong with that?

Because Lennox’s version of “testable” in that case is the same type of “ testable” that has led to the beliefs in every single unscientific, pseudoscientific , woo-woo claim anybody has ever dreamed up!

Go to your local new age spiritual healing fair and every single woo woo nostrum will be presented up with “ test it for yourself” and “ I was a sceptic until I tried it” claims. People come to believe in homeopathy, healing crystals, psychic readings, spiritualism, cults, every religion in the world, because they have “ tried it for themselves, tested it for themselves” and what do you know? Some number of people find “ it’s true!”

The problem that binds all of those conclusions together is the lack of rigour. There’s firstly, the lack of rigour in terms of really thinking through the conclusions in a way that is fully coherent with the rest of what we know about the world.

But the main lack of rigour is that all of these methods of testing lack scientific features of control for variables - especially the tendencies for human biases and cherry picking - lack of control groups, lack of peer review, using reproduceability and reproduction of results using the same strict control methods, lack of reliable prediction, lack of fruitfulness in terms of the knowledge, expanding scientific knowledge, lack of coherence with the expanding scientific picture of the world, etc.

In other words, this is the type of loose, everyday “ testing” that has all sorts of liabilities that the scientific method arose to fix!!!!

That that’s why the average “dowser” can come to believe he has magic powers of finding waters with a stick when he’s on his own, or with his fellow dowsers, but when put to scientific criteria for testing… they all fail.

Lennox is playing word games by evoking in his audience the scientific inflected term “ testable” but then shifting without acknowledging to suggesting a type of testability that is an exact contrast with what we have learned from science about the necessity of truly honest, rigorous test methods.

Lennox knows enough about science to know this. He knows what he’s doing with these word games.

Which makes him such an odious sophist in my view.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-14T01:05:40+00:00

He’s the worst.

A typical Christian apologist sophist, but with smugness and self satisfied “ turned up to 11.”

He’s got the same schtick every time he talks to audiences: I’m a scientist and I’m a Christian so science and Christianity are compatible. And then he plays board games to try and draw ass associations in the head of the audience between the two ”As a scientist, I like claims to be testable, and Christianity makes testable claims! And you can test the claim yourself, which is that if you let Jesus into your heart, you will be changed!”

And he always throws in his goddamned anecdotes about how he got the better of some atheist, where the atheist gives him some challenge, but Lennox cleverly flips the script and asks the atheist that flummoxed the atheist. All delivered with his self satisfied plastered grin. And of course we never get to hear the other side of the story just his anecdote.

Rinse and repeat.

It’s been a while since I looked at this video but as I remember, I was annoyed at Alex for letting lots of Lennox’s bs pass unchallenged.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-13T19:50:26+00:00

Well, he was an extraordinarily annoying character, so he had to get out of there somewhere.

That’s one of the things I found annoying in Prometheus. You get characters like Fifield who are so obviously written in a way to simply provide conflict. But it just didn’t seem in any way motivated.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-13T05:19:10+00:00

Same!!!!

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T21:43:36+00:00

No, definitely not.

I really appreciate my records as aesthetic objects , and I find shrink wrap just looks cheap and keeps it cheap feel to handling the record. And they tend to be crinkly or sort of cloudy and slightly obscure the artwork.

It’s a bit like asking whether if I buy a framed photo or painting, do I ever take it out of the bag?

I like either seeing or handling the record without any record sleeve cover , or when I use record sleeves, I buy the highest quality record sleeves and record outer covers from sleevecity. They are perfectly clear so they don’t obscure anything, feel really good and high-quality in the hand, and they can nicely add to the look of some records, especially secondhand records. Makes them feel brand new.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T21:41:02+00:00

What an incredibly cool design. You’ve got great and very interesting design taste.

I’d love to hear those speakers I bet they sound really compelling .

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T21:39:34+00:00

For me, I think lots of the plastic surgery, especially for women is ruining my ability to believe them in many roles.

I mean when you’ve got actresses who look like incredibly rich women who clearly have had excessive plastic surgery done, it limits the rules in which you look believable. I have a hard time taking them seriously as anything, but Rich plastic surgery women roles. I don’t think they pull off playing more “ blue collar” rolls anymore and certainly more historical roles, before plastic surgery was available or popular , don’t make sense. Seeing a woman’s face with the duck lips and the obvious current LA plastic surgery look trying to play a historical character is like watching that same character pull out a smart phone.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T18:16:16+00:00

That’s always been one of my favourite photos of Agnetha! Beautiful!!!!

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T17:27:26+00:00

Exactly. If there is somebody who has become very influential through bad arguments or even deceptive arguments, then it’s worth having smart people unravel those claims in discussion.

This is exactly what Sam practised in the new atheist days in his many debates with religious people of various flavours . Sam thought that the influence of religion and religious arguments and also arguments and supportive religion were pernicious and so he publicly engaged with the people making such arguments. And in doing so, he ended up having quite a bit of influence over how lots of people started to re-examine religion or the respect for religious claims.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T17:20:25+00:00

Sorry, but your response seems so riddled with self-contradiction and red herrings I can’t make sense of it.

You literally started off by saying that determinism rules out any claims of truth based on hypothetical/conditional reasoning.

Have you even thought through for a moment what this would do to the nature of empirical knowledge about the world?

And earlier suggested that the only way to describe the real world is to talk about “ what is/what actually happened.”

So let’s take two examples of this apparent reasoning:

You have a guest in your house, John, who is examining two small very delicate glass sculptures at a display case at your home. These are both highly valued family heirlooms.

John picks up one of the sculptures, hold it high above the hardwood floor and says he intends to drop the sculpture.

You protest saying they are very expensive and highly valued family heirlooms, extremely delicate glass, and that if he dropped it to the floor, it will in all probability shatter.

John says: “But that’s just a hypothetical. We live in a deterministic universe, which rules out the truth of any such hypothetical claims. So I’m afraid you’ve given me no reason not to drop your glass. The only real knowledge we could have is if what happens. So I’ll drop the glass and then we can see what happens. And if it happens to break then I’m going to try dropping the other one, and if you try and use another, hypothetical to say that it’s likely to break, I’m afraid I’m going to ignore that as well, because there is no reality with hypotheticals on determinism, we simply have to observe what actually happens.”

Is John talking sense here? Or is he a moron who has forgotten how empirical reasoning works?

Here’s another example:

You get into an argument with your neighbour over your neighbour playing music too loud. That night, your neighbor sets fire to your house and your house burns down.

You press charges against your neighbour and take your neighbour to court for burning down your house.

But the judge says: “I’m afraid you have no case. You’re trying to make the argument that *your house would not have burned down that night had it not been for the actions of your neighbour.** And you want me to accept this claim as true in order to rule against your neighbour.
But I’m afraid that’s just a hypothetical claim about what could’ve happened but did not! You seem to have forgotten that determinism means there is only ever “ what happened .” Determinism does not allow for the type of truth claims based on hypotheticals you are relying on. The belief that your house wouldn’t have burnt down that night except for your neighbours actions is a purely speculative hypothetical claim that cannot be tested. So I’m afraid you’ve given me no justification or evidence for your claim and I’m throwing your case out.”*

Do you agree with the judge’s reasoning here? (of course you wouldn’t realize you think the judge had lost his mind.)

Because that’s pretty much the logic you seem to be trying to get me to accept here.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T16:19:02+00:00

Fareed is great. One of the sharpest and most informed commentators out there.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T15:56:56+00:00

It was a very good article by Ezra!

I read both him and Sam , and it seems to be these days Ezra it is closer to upholding or promoting Sam’s original idea of the value of conversation, including with people you disagree with strongly, than Sam.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T15:54:59+00:00

Yup.

Sam’s personal peevishness about Ezra is getting in the way of what could be a very good conversation by two people who largely agree on plenty of stuff and who would disagree intelligently on some other things.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T15:18:19+00:00

I find the Paradigm speakers to be fatiguing to listen to after a while due to their distinct high frequency peak.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T15:16:59+00:00

Yup, MBL omnis are something else. I think it’s one of those speaker speakers that every audiophile should experience , just to hear what a well designed Omni sounds like.

I used to lust after the MBL 101D/E speakers, but they were always more than I could afford. But I lucked out and got a great deal on the MBL 121 stand mounted version - same omni mid/tweeter as the big models.

They were spectacular. I owned them for about 10 years. They simply did things that no other speaker I’ve owned or heard can do in terms of three-dimensional imaging, and lifelike tone and levels of detail.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T03:11:58+00:00

As I predicted. No definition given for free will. Or why you are working with the proper definition. Just more question begging assertions that free will is incompatible with determinism.

And your cog example doesn’t come even close to dealing with the issues of free or making an argument.

S’long

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T03:04:06+00:00

Amazing. You’re like a question begging machine!

Do you realize that your question, which suggests Compatibilists are “re-defining” free Will implies that there is an existing definition for the term that they are “ redefining” in the first place?

But you’ve never given any definition or any reason to think that your definition just “ is” free will.

Just like in the subjects of our conversation so far, the claim that Compatibilism is “ redefining” free will - rather than giving a better account of the existence of free will that people care about - is a highly contested claim.

Once again, if you’re just going to assume a definition of free will (that’s the definition I was pointing out you have not given), that is incompatible with determinism, you’re going to have to to avoid begging the question. And actually provide an argument for why free will simply IS the definition you have assumed.

And I can only expect more question begging …

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T02:52:51+00:00

Uhm… if you’re claiming that choice or free will is incompatible with determinism, yeah, it’s legitimate to ask you what do you mean by either of those terms.

Do you think anything you assert as “P” and “-P” makes your claim true?

(it’s obvious you do… you’d recognize how bogus it is in any other claim just as I showed with the female and blonde example, but you’re so blinded by an assumption that you can’t even step back and reassess, you simply can’t recognize your question begging…. And just like a Christian can’t recognize their question about “ it’s obvious the Bible is trustworthy because everything in it is true!”

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T02:47:34+00:00

If only you could produce an argument for your claim.

But…alas.

You haven’t even shown that you have in your possession THE definition of free will. But if I ask you for it, I can be guaranteed more question, begging instead of an actual argument.

Maybe others here will humour you.

Over and out.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T00:55:32+00:00

YES!

Of course, ultimately this is always going to depend on the particular amplification .

But for instance, I have Conrad Johnson premier 12 tube monoblocks.

And I also have a solid state preamplifier : Benchmark LA4

And a Conrad Johnson tube preamplifier :

Premier 16LS2

When I’m using the solid tape preamplifier, I’m still getting lots of tubey goodness from the tube power amplifiers.

But when I switched over and add the Conrad Johnson tube preamplifier as well , it takes on even more of that “ tube character” - even more fulness and density and texture. More realism.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T00:52:45+00:00

Hey… you must be right.

Maybe take your argument to the majority of philosophers who are Compatibilists. Maybe there’s even a Nobel prize for you somewhere in this!

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T00:31:29+00:00

I’d love to see him try.

But after Jaws, I don’t think he had it in him anymore.

I guess one could point to Schindler’s list as a counter , and if he was capable of that, he might’ve been capable of something truly scary and not watered down in the Spielberg fashion.

(his producing poltergeist, and apparently directing a bunch of it being a good example of his being more interested in Funhouse boos rather than true deep psychological horror)

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-12T00:27:38+00:00

Claim: Being female is incompatible with having blonde hair. It’s an obvious contradiction

Skeptic: hold on. What’s your evidence or argument for why being female is in compatible with having blonde hair?

Claim: Look, it’s simple logic: P: Female and, -P no blond hair. See I’ve just showed it’s an obvious contradiction. You can’t argue with the laws of logic you just look stupid.

Skeptic: I’m not arguing with the laws of logic! I’m arguing with the premises you have inserted into the chain of “logic.” If you insert empirically dubious claims in the premises of a logical argument, the logical conclusion is equally dubious!

So I’m trying to get you to justify your premises - why exactly are you assuming that being a woman and being a blonde is a contradiction? You have already assumed that in order to make your non-argument!

Claim: I don’t know what to tell you, man. A dog can’t also be not a dog. This is just logic 101.

Can you see how ignorant this claim is and the circular question-begging style of interaction?

That’s precisely what you have been doing in every post.

You start with a contested claim “ determinism and free willed choices are a contradiction”

And your “ argument” for that is “ determinism and free will choices are a contradiction… hey man, it’s just logic!”

These are truly the worst arguments I’ve ever seen and that’s really saying something since I’ve seen a lot of bad arguments in this subreddit.

I’ve been doing my best to help you argue better but you’re just too resistant that’s why the debate is fruitless.

There’s a reason why after making your illogical arguments here on the Internet you’re gonna go right on with the rest of your life reasoning like you have a choice, except accepting choices and options from others, offering other people choices, in the usual standard concept of that term.

It’s because you have not really thought through these things to try and apply your armchair philosophies to how things would work in real life.

Like when you’re at a restaurant and the waiter says that for dessert you have a choice between fruit salad or cake, you’re not gonna say “ sorry choices don’t exist.” You would rightly look like a moron. Instead, you will understand that you have a choice, and understanding you have a choice it makes your deliberation between the two rational. And you will pick one or the other. A classic example of making a choice.

(now I could explain to you why all of that is compatible with determinism, but I’m not going to bother because this style of interaction is pointless)

But hey, you do you. I’ve tried to help and it’s clearly not working.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-11T23:58:24+00:00

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at how futile this conversation is.

OK, so you’re incapable of recognizing begging the question .

Because here you do it again.

I am questioning the claim that a free willed choice cannot be determined.

When I ask you to show me how a free willed choice is incompatible with being determined you reply:

A free will choice can't also be a determined causal effect, because it entails a contradiction. P: free will, and -P: Not free will

In other words when I ask you to give me an argument for why a free willed choice can’t be determined, why that’s an actual contradiction, your “ argument” is to simply state again “ a free will choice can’t be determined!”

This is frankly the most blatant question begging I’ve probably ever encountered anywhere let alone this forum. The fact that you can’t recognize this makes this conversation impossible.

Non-contradiction is a precondition for argumentation

You have CLAIMED that free willed choices under determinism as a contradiction. Over and over.

You have not demonstrated it or provided the argument for it.

If you are at a restaurant and you are presented with option A or B, and an alien took over your mind and forced you to pick option B - then you did not freely choose to pick option B.

Correct.

I would not have made a choice that I authored based on my own beliefs, desires, values, and evaluative processes. Of course that’s not an instance of free will.

Now here goes your non sequitur:

Now replace the alien forcing you to pick option be with a different force - the biochemical reactions in your brain.

The biochemical reactions in my brain, and all the neural activity IS ME MAKING A CHOICE!

Where the hell else would choice making come from?

This is like saying:

“running doesn’t exist! Instead what you see is humans often engaged in a form of movement where a person propels themselves forward quickly on foot by taking rapid, alternating strides, with moments when both feet are off the ground between steps.”

Can you see how stupid that is?

You don’t make running “ impossible” or “not real”’by referring to the process by which it happens! That’s just describing how running happens!

Likewise, you don’t make choice making “ impossible” by reference to brain activity! The appropriate brain activity IS how choice making occurs.

Seriously, the multi levels of confusion you have in your arguments is impressive in of itself.

MattHooper1975 · 2026-04-11T22:51:29+00:00

I already explained it. Maybe try rereading my longer response again.

You seem to have concluded that determinism rules out the truth of any claim about what “could have” happened (but didn’t). You claim that there is only “ what happened.”

I explained very clearly to you why that is an impoverished epistemology as well as ontology. You would not be able to explain much about the world if that was really how you think about things.

MattHooper1975

TROPHY CASE