Some pretty lame criticisms there. You think I'm in the same position as Lennox? I include my qualifications in my Medium bio because I'm not a celebrity. No one knows who I am, so I'm trying to stand out from the crowd on the teeming internet. Lennox is a big-time apologist with multiple PhDs and a big Wikipedia page that anyone can find. He's in academia so he's not just competing with internet writers, and I'm not writing a biography of him here.
"Devious" isn't necessarily pejorative since its top meaning is "circuitous, indirect." My point is that there's a switcheroo pulled in his case for Christianity in that talk. He says the religion is "true," but it turns out that what he means is just that it works or that it's useful, since he downplays the religion's "theoretical" aspect (the one that's most likely to conflict with science).
I said the Incarnation is preposterous speculation, not just the virgin birth. In any case, you're judging based just on this article, whereas I've written hundreds more on religion and atheism. So when I say it's preposterous speculation, that's based on a lot of prior thought and writing. I make the case specifically for the preposterousness in the article linked below, for example.
Regardless, the hypocrisy charge fails since, no, that's not at all my criticism of Lennox here. I'm not saying he hasn't thought about atheism or Christianity, so he's just making stuff up. I'm saying his apologetical arguments are so simplistic that they end up being devious red herrings. He's written numerous books on science and Christianity, so he's obviously thought a lot about them. But that doesn't mean his thinking is sound or even honest. Modern Christian apologetics is fraught because the cognitive default has shifted towards secularism and naturalism.
I don't know if I'm going to review Lennox's book, but I've already written another article on some of his arguments. I said the arguments I've seen so far are feeble. The fact that I said "so far" means I'm not close-minded since I'm leaving open the possibility that his written arguments are better than his spoken ones. I'm just calling them as I see them, building up my generalizations as I go through his work. That doesn't mean I'm entirely open-minded to the point of being empty-headed. As I said, I've already built up my view of Christianity, based on years of study and writing.
