Why I'm an Atheist. By Ricky Gervais

[Conn]

What a bunch of junk. Why do atheists so often think the stuff they write is in any way creative, useful, or insightful. Gervais's little article didnt contain a single point that every human on earth hasnt pondered a million times since the age of 5. Why did he feel the need to write that? My guess is a bloated sense of self-importance and desperate need for attention. I guess I would really really want to be important too, in this life, and desperate for attention, if I was sure that this life is all there is.

Speak for yourself. I found this pretty interesting, as I identify with it. You obviously didn't, and that's fine.

"What a bunch of junk" is what I think about organized religion, as well as the existence of a "capital G" God or any other god. Yet I don't think that those who write about, and publish to the world, their beliefs are "a bunch of junk".

Interesting. Who is the one with the more narrow-minded viewpoint, here?

---------- Post added January-23rd-2011 at 12:18 AM ----------

Why are humans the only species that worship a God?

Maybe because we are meant to know that one exists...

Or maybe because we are the only species that has evolved to the point of having high enough brain function to even consider the possibility of a God, or to consider even caring about the fact that we're alive, the meaning of that, etc.

That makes an equal amount of sense, at least.

---------- Post added January-23rd-2011 at 12:23 AM ----------

"what would Love do?". Well, Love does not kill, steal, covet, ect.

I think that hundreds, if not thousands, of years of recorded history have shown us the exact opposite. Love brings about, causes, and sometimes even requires those things.

[PokerPacker]

A person that holds that no special entity exist that has made humans special beyond what can be produced via evolution most hold that our current understanding of biology is seriously flawed or that we do not have free will.

There is absolutely no reason for such a person to hold the same values and morality as other people.

You forget that morality is a construct of our own and that it is ingrained in us from our upbringing and perhaps to some degree hard-coded into our DNA. Just because I don't necessarily believe in ultimate free will does not mean I decide just to throw morality out the window, because I still have at least the illusion of free will and, going the deterministic route, the factors that affect that area of my thought left a moral imprint as my brain was developing.

As for possible mechanism for free will, well fact is we don't know everything about the world. We've got Newtonian Physics down pretty well, but when it gets to a smaller scale with quantum this and that, we don't know how it all works. For all I know, there's something in there that leads to some ability for free will. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. Doesn't really matter, though, because as far as we observe the world, we have our free will. The illusion of it is all we need.

[CrabR]

when someone is defending my faith they represent me as well.

I take this to mean Christian faith and not a denominational faith am I correct? if so

I do not see it that way. I think there are different levels and different beliefs in the Christian religion even different beliefs amongst denominations. No way would I put you in a class with a Southern Baptist, and no way would I put a Southern Baptist in a class with Westboro Baptist

[PeterMP]

You forget that morality is a construct of our own and that it is ingrained in us from our upbringing and perhaps to some degree hard-coded into our DNA. Just because I don't necessarily believe in ultimate free will does not mean I decide just to throw morality out the window, because I still have at least the illusion of free will and, going the deterministic route, the factors that affect that area of my thought left a moral imprint as my brain was developing.

As for possible mechanism for free will, well fact is we don't know everything about the world. We've got Newtonian Physics down pretty well, but when it gets to a smaller scale with quantum this and that, we don't know how it all works. For all I know, there's something in there that leads to some ability for free will. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. Doesn't really matter, though, because as far as we observe the world, we have our free will. The illusion of it is all we need.

That's the quandry that those that don't believe in god find themselves in. It doesn't make sense to believe in free will and doesn't make sense to believe that you should act like you have free will, but then of course you have no real choice to determine how to act.

As the free will wiki entry points out, what we understand about quantum mechanics suggest just the opposite relationship between quantum mechanics and free will:

"Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles regardless of whether or not free will exists.[49] And also that if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself would mean that traditional free will is absent, since such action cannot be controllable by a physical being claiming to possess such free will.[50] Following this argument, traditional free will would only be possible under the assumption of compatibilism; in a deterministic universe, or in an indeterministic universe where the human body is for all intents and neurological purposes deterministic."

Keep in mind that compatibilism holds that computers and the program I described above have free will.

Quantum mechanics is a probalistic behavior. Probablistic systems can produce all sorts of results and even very low probability events, but they can't produce what would traditionally and normally be considered free will.

[Burgold]

Why are humans the only species that worship a God?

Maybe because we are meant to know that one exists...

Well, who woke up and made you Henry Doolittle? Have you spoken with every organism on the planet? Do you know their thoughts on creation? God? I strongly suspect that animals have superstitions... any creature that can respond to operant behavior does. If they have superstitions why is it so unlikely that they believe in higher powers, magic, or perhaps even God? Simply because you lack the facility to understand them does not mean that they don't communicate, empathize, or have various degrees of intelligence.

I find the hubris of this statement preposterous.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I take this to mean Christian faith and not a denominational faith am I correct? if so

I do not see it that way. I think there are different levels and different beliefs in the Christian religion even different beliefs amongst denominations. No way would I put you in a class with a Southern Baptist, and no way would I put a Southern Baptist in a class with Westboro Baptist

I see what you're saying and believe me I do appreciate it, but many who look at Christianity do not see those distinctions. I spend enough time reading through the comments on stories at HuffPost etc, about Christianity to know that many see Christians with monochrome lenses. Is it accurate? Of course not, you and I both know that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's the same when a politician of a particular stripe does something, it does rightly or wrongly, for better or worse reflects upon the whole.

---------- Post added January-23rd-2011 at 08:43 AM ----------

Well, who woke up and made you Henry Doolittle? Have you spoken with every organism on the planet? Do you know their thoughts on creation? God? I strongly suspect that animals have superstitions... any creature that can respond to operant behavior does. If they have superstitions why is it so unlikely that they believe in higher powers, magic, or perhaps even God? Simply because you lack the facility to understand them does not mean that they don't communicate, empathize, or have various degrees of intelligence.

I find the hubris of this statement preposterous.

See I believe that animals do worship God, not in the formalized way that humans do which draws us back to the true reality, but in doing what they were created to do. I think sometimes we place too much of an emphasis on the formalized Sunday worship as the only legitimate expression of worship. Worship is to be lived out every day, in all actions; whether that be lifting up in praise the great anthems of the church or it's washing dishes at a soup kitchen, or teaching a Sunday School class, or living the testimony in your workplace, or loving your family. All of this can be worship.

My guess though, is that this tangent of whether animals worship God is going to come down to a discussion on the definition of worship.

[alexey]

I'm not sure how the physics part helps you at all.

But as I've already pointed out compatbilism isn't really free will. Compatibillist have taken the meaning of free will and applied to something that nobody really thinks is free will (see the quote and link below; or the link to the NYT book review that I already posted):

I have a computer program. The first thing my computer program does is randomly select 0 or 1. It then gets the month from an external system (this would be like one of our senses that take in external information). It adds the number of the month to the randomly selected number. If the number is odd, it goes back to sleep for some randomly selected amount of time ranging from microseconds to days.

If the number is even, it goes on. It then selects a number randomly between 1 and 100.

Then there is a relationship between the number it picked, and the day of the week. If the day is Sunday, and the second number is 10 or less it responds with leave me alone and goes to sleep. If the number is greater than 10 it goes on.

If it is Monday, the samething is essentially done, but to go to sleep the number has to be 20 or less, and etc. for different days of the week.

If it goes on, there is then an interaction between the 0 and 1 it selected above, the number of the month (the external input that it had already taken in), and the number of the day of the week (Sunday = 1). If the result of the addition of the three numbers is odd, it reports that the day of the week is the day of the week using the name of the week (e.g. Sunday). If the result is even, it reports it based on the number of the day of the week (e.g. It is the first day of this week.).

Then it selects another 0 or 1. Repeats the same calculation as above, but using this new 0 and 1.

If the number is even, it then goes to sleep again for a random amount of time.

If it is odd, it goes on. It goes through a cycle of "learning" whether it is am or pm. It has 4 options:

1. It can look at the number of hour digits of the real time using military time. If there is 1, it is am (which we will encode for as a 0). If there are 2, it is a pm (encoded for a 1) (this approach will be right every time).

2. It can use the 0 or 1 it used the start of the process (0 = am; 1 = pm) (this will be right half the time on average).

3. It can externally get the time of sunrise for that day, and the time since or before sunrise for that day. If it is 7 hours since sun rise, then this method says it is pm. Otherwise, it says it is am (this will depend on the season of the year).

4. It can use whether it was am or pm the last time it checked the time (this being right will depend on how long it has last been since it actually checked).

Now, initially, we simply average all the results of our 4 methods up and if the result is less than <.5 the program "guesses" it is am. If it is 0.5 or more, it guesses it is pm. Then it actually checks if it is am or pm. It then "weights" the different methods so that they get more numbers added into the average the next time if they were right.

Let's say only, the first method was right. Then the next time, that one would get its answer factored into the average twice and all of the others only one (so our average is now a function of 5 numbers). Our program can also subtract the number of times each method gets its answer inserted into the average, but each method must at least put its answer into the average once (so if an method is at 1, then it won't go to 0).

We go through several iterations of this. At that time, the computer goes back to the process by which it "decided" if it was going to "learn" and repeats the process so it has the potential to go through multiple iterations learning, but it "remembers" what it learned (i.e. it will keep the weights from the prior iteration so it will improve if it immediately goes through the process again).

However, at some point, it will kick itself out (the above calculation will come back in a manner that causes it to go to sleep). Even while sleeping, it remembers the weights. The weights though do degrade in iterations in which it doesn't "decide" to learn, and the weights all degrade back to one as a function of the number of iterations with a random component based on the iteration (we can make it as a function of the very first variable we produced to determine if we were immediately going to go back to sleep or not (so it wouldn't JUST go back to sleep, it would degrade the weights and then go back to sleep for every iteration where it doesn't "learn")) so over time the program "forgets" if it doesn't keep "learning".

My program takes in external variables, there are interactions between external variables, it makes "decisions" where external variables play a role in the decisoin making, it "learns" as a function of practice, it "forgets" as a function of not practicing. It is essentially unpredictable as the most effeceint way to predict its behavior will be to watch its behavior.

Does my program have free will?

We know what that program has. Does it matter what we decide to call it?

You mean just like you assume that a deity that would create humans specifically and specially doesn't exist?

They are using assume in the context of there is no evidence to support the possibility.

Scientists assume that there is a physical/natural explantion of quantum gravity.

(Because the other option is that it is that way because God made it that way. Scientists assume free will (in the manner that I am talking about) does not exist because the other option is that there is because God made it.)

If option 1 is "free will does not exist" and option 2 is "God made it", and those are the only two options, then there isn't much for us to talk about.

There's also no mechanism that excludes the possibility that CO2 currently causing climate change will simply decide to stop absorbing radiation, but if somebody made the claim that warming wasn't going to happen because of that, you and I would rightfully laugh at them.

Unless we are talking about effects of beliefs, this free will stuff is all philosophy.

Great.

What reasons do you have to think that you have free will in a sense that a computer or the program I described above do not?

Because I think that thinking that way is better.

I think a particular way because I think that way of thinking works best. You have not addressed that very simple construct.

At some point I spent a little bit of time exploring some of these philosophical questions. There is a lot of stuff out there. Philosophers spend their whole lives going back and forth about this free will stuff. My scratching the surface leads me to believe that my approach to this issue resembles Pragmatism. Please feel free to explore Pragmatism. Unfortunately I cannot be very specific in pointing at a philosopher or a work that reflects my position. William James is a great starting point (a point past which I didn't really go). I heard about Richard Rorty, he may provide some good recent back and forths.

Here is a parting thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam#Neopragmatism_and_Wittgenstein

At the end of the 1980s, Putnam became increasingly disillusioned with what he perceived as the "scientism" and rejection of history that characterize modern analytic philosophy. He rejected internal realism because it assumed a "cognitive interface" model of the relation between the mind and the world. Under the increasing influence of James and the pragmatists, he adopted a direct realist view of this relation. Under the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein, he adopted a pluralist view of philosophy itself and came to view most philosophical problems as nothing more than conceptual or linguistic confusions created by philosophers by using ordinary language out of its original context.

[grego]

As Brennan Manning once said, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny him with their life style. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

kevin max is a big fan. lots of truth to that one.

[velocet]

grego,

I believe we've been given a Sign.

Here's a thread about the existence of God that proceeds along nicely

and then **BLAM-O** outta the empyrean blue...

poptart gets mysteriously invoked in the discussion.

I think this settles things.

velocet

[grego]

grego,

I believe we've been given a Sign.

Here's a thread about the existence of God that proceeds along nicely

and then **BLAM-O** outta the empyrean blue...

poptart gets mysteriously invoked in the discussion.

I think this settles things.

velocet

lol. how is he feeling about campbell and al saunders reuniting, i wonder?

[velocet]

I know, right? But one thing about the NFL that I kinda like and can sympathize with poptart about is how a change of scenery works out for people at times. So poptart, Mal, RayderJames and Frag are all going to be treated to the Redskin Retread Regime of Hue Jackson, Al Saunders and Campbell, none of whom did much here. The thing they all have in common is having something to prove and the assemblage might just connect together properly since Hue seems to know how to get the most out of JC and JC *is* familiar with Saunders. Hue could be the proper keystone to make it all fit.

Having Bush and McFadden don't hurt though. But in spite of all this, there are probably some of the atheist persuasion who would consider poptart delusional more because of his Raider faith than his Bible thumpin' one.

[PeterMP]

We know what that program has. Does it matter what we decide to call it?

Because we use words for complex concepts to simplify discussions and reduce the amount of typing and reading people have to do, and it then allows us to have definitions of words that we can then use to reference conversations that others have already had.

If option 1 is "free will does not exist" and option 2 is "God made it", and those are the only two options, then there isn't much for us to talk about.

Well, there are other options. I have been pretty consistent, but it missed in that one particular case, in saying that it is possible that we have a massive flaw in our understanding of evolution and biology. Though that seems exceedingly unlikely to me.

It is also possible that there are other biological systems that have very different fundamental properties.

It is even possible that we aren't real, but part of a simulation of some other biological system that works fundamentally differently that is interested in understanding the differences between true free will and the illusion of free will.

Unless we are talking about effects of beliefs, this free will stuff is all philosophy.

But we are talking about effects of beliefs. Remember, your beliefs interact with your logic and reasoning.

Because I think that thinking that way is better.

I think a particular way because I think that way of thinking works best. You have not addressed that very simple construct.

Is there any reason why I should bother to address what you think, if you can't even give me any reason to believe you actually control what you think?

The bigger issue is there a huge hole in the way you think in that you require evidence for one way of thinking, but then will simply state the way you think is "better" without giving any evidence to support it.

At some point I spent a little bit of time exploring some of these philosophical questions. There is a lot of stuff out there. Philosophers spend their whole lives going back and forth about this free will stuff. My scratching the surface leads me to believe that my approach to this issue resembles Pragmatism. Please feel free to explore Pragmatism. Unfortunately I cannot be very specific in pointing at a philosopher or a work that reflects my position. William James is a great starting point (a point past which I didn't really go). I heard about Richard Rorty, he may provide some good recent back and forths.

Here is a parting thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam#Neopragmatism_and_Wittgenstein

How do you relate this to human behavior with respect to the long term implications with respect to evolution and natural selection?

Any reasonable argument that could be made, you could make just the opposite argument.

You want to say that we might have to assume that we have free will to advance. With as much evidence, I could argue that we might have to accept that we don't truly have will to advance (if I didn't believe that we do have free will).

[Spec138]

After this debate with Professor John Lennox: http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate , Richard Dawkins opens up the next debate with his Oxford colleague stating that, "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." Likewise, I would say that a serious case can be made for atheism. With as little as I understand in these debates, neither the theist nor the atheist seem to be more or less reasonable than the other.

W1XgqSR7WRE

[mardi gras skin]

Dawkins lashes out bravely while in the safe confines of fellow atheists.

Dawkins clearly said there was a reasonably respectable case for a deist god and Lennox was right to pounce on that statement. Dawkins would do better to say, "I misspoke. I do not believe there is a respectable case for a theistic god."

That, or he could admit he rejects reason.

[techboy]

That video of Dawkins is interesting, because he's pulling a rather smarmy stunt, there.

He demonstrates that Lennox misunderstood what he meant by the comment (and really, all he had to do to clarify it was simply do so... most people are going to have the same reaction I do, disbelief that Dawkins suddenly accepted that a good case could be made for deism), but then jumps from misunderstanding to intent, putting up a slide that says "liars for Jesus", but without having the guts to simply make the accusation (that he knows he can't support), instead relying on some weak, unestablished link to a journalist he throws in a passing personal attack on for a good, final measure, plus a slide that he can, if needed, deny applies to any particular person.

Weak sauce.

---------- Post added January-23rd-2011 at 06:39 PM ----------

:Dawkins clearly said there was a reasonably respectable case for a deist god and Lennox was right to pounce on that statement.

It's clear, in context, though that while Dawkins did say a respectable case could be made for a deistic god (a concession in and of itself, and one he had to backpeddle from... though I can accept that he just wasn't clear in his argument, which happens in condensed time format debates), he also said that he wouldn't accept it, so Lennox made a mistake in connecting him to Flew, who did make such a change, and accept it.

It's also worth noting again PeterMP's point, that he doesn't seem to have much reason (beyond silly ridicule) to distinguish between the "good case can be made" (whether he accepts it or not) deistic god, which is powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it, including all physical laws, and a more personal theistic god, that then chooses to intervene from time to time (what... did all that power get used up or something in the first go? )

[PeterMP]

It's also worth noting again PeterMP's point, that he doesn't seem to have much reason (beyond silly ridicule) to distinguish between the "good case can be made" (whether he accepts it or not) deistic god, which is powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it, including all physical laws, and a more personal theistic god, that then chooses to intervene from time to time (what... did all that power get used up or something in the first go? )

The more I think about the less sense this idea makes sense based on human logic.

Who has ever created much of anything, and then NEVER interacted with it in any manner?

It seems to me that you have essentially reject human logic if you believe in diest god, but not an active god.

[Spec138]

Dawkins clearly said there was a reasonably respectable case for a deist god and Lennox was right to pounce on that statement. Dawkins would do better to say, "I misspoke. I do not believe there is a respectable case for a theistic god."

That, or he could admit he rejects reason.

First of all, your description "Dawkins lashes out bravely while in the safe confines of fellow atheists." is ridiculous considering he's one of the largest public figures on this issue in the world. I don't know that I would have the courage to speak out like him in the face death threats and really awful hate mail that he's shared with his viewers.

Second Dawkins clearly said that "one could make a reasonably respectable case for that; not a case that I would accept" in reference to the "god" that created the cosmos and constants and such. John Lennox then used the quote in making a point knowing very well that it wasn't what Dawkins meant in the least. If that's your idea of reason I reject it as well.

[techboy]

John Lennox then used the quote in making a point knowing very well that it wasn't what Dawkins meant in the least.

How do you know that John Lennox "knew very well"? Are you also (along with Dawkins) able to read his mind?

Did you for instance notice that Dawkins seems to think that Lennox got the idea from the oh so horrible journalist, which means that she might have given him the wrong idea?

Since when is acting on bad information (Dawkins' own unproven theory, I'd add) lying?

I have to say, the level of omniscience required for this exercise is somewhat ironic...

[Spec138]

How do you know that John Lennox "knew very well"? Are you also (along with Dawkins) able to read his mind?

You're right. There is a chance that Professor Lennox doesn't know what "not a case I would accept" means. Sort of embarrassing considering the audible laughter of the crowd after that point.

[techboy]

You're right. There is a chance that Professor Lennox doesn't know what "not a case I would accept" means. Sort of embarrassing considering the audible laughter of the crowd after that point.

And yet, as Dawkins notes, he didn't bring it up in the debate. Kind of odd, huh?

So... maybe he didn't hear the addition "not a case that I would accept" (Dawkins speaks pretty fast), or maybe someone later gave him wrong information (as Dawkins himself suggests, while at the same time implying Lennox is a liar without having the guts to actually say it), or maybe something else happened altogether.

"Liar" is kind of a leap of faith.

[alexey]

Because we use words for complex concepts to simplify discussions and reduce the amount of typing and reading people have to do, and it then allows us to have definitions of words that we can then use to reference conversations that others have already had.

This is not a discussion that can be simplified that way. A discussion about Free Will is really a philosophical discussion about definitions.

But we are talking about effects of beliefs. Remember, your beliefs interact with your logic and reasoning.

I believe that I have free will. You believe that you have free will.

If we are talking about effects of beliefs, then we ought to be in agreement.

The bigger issue is there a huge hole in the way you think in that you require evidence for one way of thinking, but then will simply state the way you think is "better" without giving any evidence to support it.

You cannot apply a scientific method to philosophical questions.

How do you relate this to human behavior with respect to the long term implications with respect to evolution and natural selection?

Any reasonable argument that could be made, you could make just the opposite argument.

You want to say that we might have to assume that we have free will to advance. With as much evidence, I could argue that we might have to accept that we don't truly have will to advance (if I didn't believe that we do have free will).

Exactly. Free Will is a philosophical construct, so anybody can say anything.

I do not think it is entirely accurate to call my thoughts "faith" or "beliefs", but let me do that in order to try and make a point in your context. You have faith in us having free will because you have faith in God. I simply have faith that we have free will.

Is there any reason why I should bother to address what you think, if you can't even give me any reason to believe you actually control what you think?

I am comfortable allowing you make that decision by relying on what you believe to be your God given Free Will.

Meanwhile I will continue to make a similar decision using what I believe to be the same kind of Free Will that you have.

[mardi gras skin]

Dawkins clearly said that "one could make a reasonably respectable case for that; not a case that I would accept" in reference to the "god" that created the cosmos and constants and such. John Lennox then used the quote in making a point knowing very well that it wasn't what Dawkins meant in the least. If that's your idea of reason I reject it as well.

I do not understand Lennox to say that Dawkins has converted to theism. I understand him to say that Dawkins is moving in a direction. That this is a new admission from Dawkins. If Dawkins has always affirmed reasonable arguments for theism, I and Lennox are wrong. But as I understand it, Dawkins has not been one to affirm reasonable theistic arguments in the past, in which case it is very reasonable for Lennox to point out that Dawkins is moving in the same direction as Flew.

There was a time that Flew saw certain arguments for theism as reasonable while personally rejecting those arguments. But Flew was eventually swayed by those reasonable arguments. Based on Flew's "conversion" and a new admission by Dawkins, Lennox sees the possibility that Dawkins' personal views will change over time as well.

[Spec138]

And yet, as Dawkins notes, he didn't bring it up in the debate. Kind of odd, huh?

So... maybe he didn't hear the addition "not a case that I would accept" (Dawkins speaks pretty fast), or maybe someone later gave him wrong information (as Dawkins himself suggests, while at the same time implying Lennox is a liar without having the guts to actually say it), or maybe something else happened altogether.

"Liar" is kind of a leap of faith.

Once again you're right, maybe he didn't hear it. Maybe god revealed it to him in a vision, maybe a little bird told him, I'll never know for sure. I should have never said he knew "very well" since trying to prove that has a Russell's Teapot quality to it. In the case he didn't hear it I'm bothered that he, and Oxford Professor, used an article that was obviously filled with bias and speculation. I don't think it's wrong to hold the men who debate serious topics like this and influence a large segment of society to a strict standard of academic honesty and I would expect a much more rigorous review of something that, in the wrong light, appears to be a substantial concession.

In the case he lied, well I think we both agree lying is bad.

[alexey]

The more I think about the less sense this idea makes sense based on human logic.

Who has ever created much of anything, and then NEVER interacted with it in any manner?

It seems to me that you have essentially reject human logic if you believe in diest god, but not an active god.

I see the idea of an "active" god to be related to an idea of a "sentient" god. It does seem strange for a god to just sit there, have ideas, and do nothing about them

[Spec138]

I do not understand Lennox to say that Dawkins has converted to theism. I understand him to say that Dawkins is moving in a direction. That this is a new admission from Dawkins. If Dawkins has always affirmed reasonable arguments for theism, I and Lennox are wrong. But as I understand it, Dawkins has not been one to affirm reasonable theistic arguments in the past, in which case it is very reasonable for Lennox to point out that Dawkins is moving in the same direction as Flew based on what Dawkins said.

The problem with this, and Lennox's reasoning, is that he's not actually conceding that you could make a good case for a deistic god. As he explains in the video he's saying that you could make arguments to have a debate about the existence of a deistic god but he didn't have to do that because Lennox believes in the god of the Bible.