澳洲悉尼Assignment代写:幽默的笔调

Keywords:澳洲悉尼Assignment代写:幽默的笔调

在整个辩论过程中，约翰·伦诺克斯(John Lennox)用幽默的笔调，成功地提出了自己的观点。他的优点是最终能够对理查德·道金斯所说的一切做出一个好的、令人信服的回答。这些优势也吸引了大部分观众的注意力，他们似乎对伦诺克斯的反应更好，而不是道金斯。例如，在关于盲目信仰的话题上，伦诺克斯以开玩笑的方式质疑道金斯对他妻子的信仰;果然，道金斯无法回答这个问题。这是因为伦诺克斯对“信仰”这个词的含义有非常详细的了解，而道金斯却没有。约翰·伦诺克斯还说，信仰无神论本身就是一种信仰。除此之外，Lennox的另一个优点是他以一种自信的方式提出了自己的观点。举个例子，伦诺克斯谈到了人类的道德问题。按照道金斯的说法，人的道德价值并不是通过一本书来体现的;无论是圣经还是可兰经，而是通过他们自己。他还声称，“空气中有某种东西”正驱使我们在道德上正确行事，而不只是一本圣经告诉我们这样做。伦诺克斯随后提出，“世界各地的人类都表现出一种共同的道德核心，表明我们是按照上帝的形象被创造出来的”。他还说道，道金斯的意思是，伦理不能从科学中提取出来，没有设计、正义或目的。换句话说，道金斯说的是，世上没有善与恶，而构成每个人的DNA并不知道也不在乎，它就在那里。伦诺克斯接着提出了一个强有力的论点，如果道金斯说没有善恶之分，他怎么能确定无神论是善的，有神论是恶的。
澳洲悉尼Assignment代写:幽默的笔调
Throughout the whole debate, John Lennox has managed to present strong points with a touch of humour in it. His strengths were ultimately being able to give a good and convincing reply to whatever Richard Dawkins had to say. These strengths also managed to capture most of the audience’s attentions and they seemed to respond better towards Lennox instead of Dawkins. For instance, on the topic of blind faith, in response to Dawkins, Lennox questioned Dawkins faith in his wife, in a joking manner; and true enough, Dawkins could not reply to the question. This is because Lennox has a very detailed knowledge about what the word “faith” represents, where as Dawkins does not. John Lennox also stated that the belief in atheism itself is a faith.Besides that, another of Lennox’s strengths is that he presented his arguments in a confident way. An example of this is when Lennox talked about the morality of humans. According to Dawkins, the moral values within a human are not embraced through a book; be it the Bible or the Koran, but rather through their own selves. He also claims that “there is something in the air” is driving us to be morally right, rather than just some holy book telling us to do so. Lennox then argued that “humans around the world show a common core of morality showing that we are made in the image of God”. He also says that what Dawkins meant was that ethics cannot be extracted from science, and there is no design, justice or purpose. In other words, Dawkins was saying that there was no such thing as good or evil, and that DNA which makes up of every human being doesn’t know or cares, but rather, it was just there. Lennox then gave a strong argument that if Dawkins said that there was no such thing as good or evil, how can he be sure that Atheism was good, and Theism was evil.