Gordon B. Hinckley vs. Richard Dawkins*
*not the real Richard Dawkins or GBH of course
Setting: A well-lit, formal debate hall with a live audience. The two debaters are seated across from each other. Gordon B. Hinckley, former president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is dressed in a suit and tie, exuding calm confidence. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and prominent atheist, sits with a composed but assertive posture. The debate topic is “The Existence of God,” with a focus on whether or not God can be proved or should be believed in.
Moderator:
“Good evening, everyone. Welcome to tonight’s debate. The topic is ‘The Existence of God.’ On one side, we have Gordon B. Hinckley, former president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On the other side, Richard Dawkins, a scientist and leading voice in atheism. We ask that both speakers respect the time limits and engage in a thoughtful exchange. Let’s begin with opening statements. Mr. Hinckley, you may go first.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Thank you. My brothers and sisters, and to all who are gathered here tonight. I stand before you not to claim the exhaustive proof of God’s existence, but to testify of what I have experienced, and what millions of others have experienced across the world. We live in a universe of incredible order, design, and purpose, which compels me to believe that there is a divine hand behind it all.
I understand that many people, including Dr. Dawkins, may seek empirical evidence for God’s existence. And indeed, our belief is not without reason. There are things in life beyond the scope of science, things that science itself cannot explain—things like love, purpose, and the very human longing for meaning. You can’t measure love in a lab, but it is more real to us than any equation or theory.
Consider for a moment the universe itself. The cosmos, with its astounding precision, is not a random series of events. The complexity of life and the fine-tuning of the laws of nature point towards a creator, one who designed the universe for a purpose, with us in mind. I invite you to ponder the thought that this divine presence is not something that can merely be explained away through materialistic reasoning, but something deeply embedded in the fabric of our very existence.
God is not distant; He is near. He communicates with us through prayer, scripture, and the quiet whisperings of the Spirit. Those who seek Him with sincere hearts often find His presence in their lives. It is a personal relationship, one that transcends science, logic, and human understanding.”
Richard Dawkins:
“Thank you, Mr. Hinckley. I appreciate your words, though I must respectfully disagree. I believe that the universe is governed by natural laws—laws that we can study, understand, and explain. There is no need to invoke a supernatural being when science provides us with answers. The existence of life, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the complexity of biology can all be explained through the processes of evolution and the laws of physics.
We don’t need a god to account for the existence of the universe. The multiverse theory, for example, suggests that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with different physical laws. This vastly increases the probability that one universe, like ours, would be finely tuned for life. And as for the origin of life itself, Darwinian evolution explains how simple organisms evolved over billions of years into the complex forms we see today.
Now, you speak of love and purpose—qualities that are indeed real in human experience. But these are simply the products of our evolution as social creatures. The brain evolved to produce emotions like love, because they helped our ancestors cooperate and survive. Purpose, too, is something we create for ourselves. It is an illusion that arises from our desire to make sense of our existence, not a divine gift.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Dr. Dawkins, I respect your perspective, and I understand your reliance on scientific explanations. But I would caution that science is a tool—a very powerful tool—but it is not all-encompassing. It can help us understand the ‘how,’ but it is inadequate when it comes to answering the ‘why.’
You speak of the multiverse and evolution, but let us pause and consider: evolution may explain the mechanism by which life changes over time, but it does not explain why life exists at all. The multiverse theory, even if true, does not answer the question of why we are here in this specific universe, with its precise conditions for life.
At some point, science must confront the fact that we are here—conscious, thinking beings—capable of moral reflection, creativity, and love. These are not mere accidents of biology. They are signs of something greater, a divine hand that not only created the universe but continues to care for it. The deeper we search for answers in the universe, the more we find ourselves confronting the profound mystery of our own existence, a mystery that science alone cannot solve.
Furthermore, I would ask: what is the origin of morality? If we are simply products of evolution, how do we account for the universally recognized sense of right and wrong? Why do we feel guilt when we do wrong, and a desire to seek redemption? These are not mere survival mechanisms; they are part of something transcendent—a moral lawgiver, a God, who instills in us a sense of accountability and love.
Let me share something from my own experience. When I pray, I don’t do so out of a desire for self-deception. I do it because I have felt the presence of God in my life. I have seen the hand of the Almighty in the lives of those who seek Him. This is not a superstition; it is a lived reality, one that I cannot simply dismiss as a byproduct of evolutionary psychology. It is a deep and personal truth.”
Richard Dawkins:
“Mr. Hinckley, I understand your experience, and I respect your deeply held beliefs. But your personal experience, though real to you, is not evidence for the existence of a god. Just because something feels real doesn’t mean it’s objectively true. People throughout history have had ‘spiritual experiences,’ but these have been explained by psychology, neuroscience, and cultural conditioning, not divine intervention.
As for morality, I would argue that morality is a product of social evolution. We live in societies that require cooperation, and our sense of right and wrong has evolved to foster that cooperation. We have empathy because it helps us live together in harmony. There is no need for a divine lawgiver to explain why we act morally. It’s a natural consequence of being social animals.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Dr. Dawkins, I acknowledge that you approach these questions with a scientific mindset. But I would ask you to consider that science, for all its brilliance, does not answer all of life’s deepest questions. The fact that we can have a meaningful conversation about morality, love, and purpose suggests that there is more to life than mere biology. There is a divine spark within each of us, placed there by a loving Creator.
You are right to say that we must not confuse personal experience with objective proof. But consider this: faith is not the absence of evidence; it is the courage to move forward despite the limits of human understanding. We may not have all the answers today, but our faith leads us to act with kindness, compassion, and hope. And that is something that transcends any argument.
Ultimately, the existence of God is a matter of the heart as much as the mind. Yes, science can explain many things, but it cannot explain the fullness of the human experience, the richness of our hopes, dreams, and aspirations. These point to something greater—a God who loves us and invites us to come closer to Him, not because we can fully prove His existence, but because we can feel His presence in our lives.”
Moderator:
“Thank you, both, for your thought-provoking statements. We move on to the second debate.”
Oliver Sacks vs. Gordon B. Hinckley
Setting: A grand university lecture hall with a large audience eager to witness a clash of perspectives. On one side, Dr. Oliver Sacks, a renowned neurologist, author, and expert in brain science, is seated with a calm demeanor, ready to discuss the science of the human mind. On the other side, Gordon B. Hinckley, former president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, exudes warmth and confidence, ready to defend his faith. The debate focuses on the existence of God, and both speakers are prepared for a rich discussion.
Moderator:
“Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to tonight’s debate on ‘The Existence of God.’ On one side, we have Dr. Oliver Sacks, a distinguished neurologist and author. On the other, Gordon B. Hinckley, former president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We will begin with opening statements. Dr. Sacks, you may go first.”
Oliver Sacks:
“Thank you. It is a privilege to be here tonight. I believe that the question of God’s existence is a deeply human one, but it is also, for me, a question that must be approached through the lens of science and our understanding of the human mind. As a neurologist, I have had the profound opportunity to witness firsthand the complexities of the brain, the nature of perception, and the ways in which our consciousness shapes reality.
I don’t deny that many people have profound religious experiences—experiences that they describe as encounters with the divine. But from my experience, I have found that these experiences often stem from neurological phenomena. Our brains are complex organs, and when under stress, trauma, or certain conditions, they can produce vivid religious or spiritual experiences. Conditions like epilepsy, migraines, or even sensory deprivation can lead to hallucinations, altered states of consciousness, and a deep sense of connection to something larger than oneself.
I do not argue that these experiences are not meaningful for those who have them. I only ask us to consider that the sensation of divinity, like the sensation of love, may be more a product of the brain’s neural activity than a confirmation of an external divine being. When we study the brain, we see that what we call ‘spiritual experiences’ are often rooted in the brain’s electrical activity, not in a direct encounter with a supernatural entity.
Therefore, while I respect the significance of these experiences for individuals, I cannot accept the conclusion that they provide definitive evidence for the existence of God.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Thank you, Dr. Sacks. I acknowledge the importance of your work, and I do not dismiss the extraordinary complexity of the human mind. Indeed, I have great respect for the advances that science has made in understanding how our brains work. But there is one thing I believe we must not overlook: the human experience is not merely a product of neurological processes. There is something more to us than the sum of our physical parts.
Yes, our brains are capable of profound experiences, including religious ones, but that does not mean these experiences are only the result of brain chemistry. From my perspective, I believe that there is a transcendent aspect to human existence—a divine presence that guides us, provides us with moral direction, and is capable of reaching us in ways that go beyond the purely material.
Many people who have had deeply spiritual experiences report that these experiences are transformative—they lead to a greater sense of peace, purpose, and connection with others. These experiences cannot be fully explained by science alone. It is not just the brain firing neurons; it is the soul reaching out, responding to the divine, and connecting with a higher power that transcends this world.
We believe that God is not only real but that He communicates with us in ways that can be experienced by our spirits, regardless of the physiological processes in our bodies. This is the foundation of my testimony, which is based on personal experience, and it is shared by millions around the world. You see, it is not simply a matter of neurological activity; it is a profound spiritual reality.”
Oliver Sacks:
“I appreciate your words, Mr. Hinckley, but I must emphasize that while we may interpret experiences differently, it is essential that we ground our understanding in what we can observe, measure, and verify. The human brain, with its vast array of neural networks and systems, is responsible for a wide variety of experiences, including those we describe as spiritual.
When we look at religious experiences through a scientific lens, we find that they often share common features. People from different cultures, facing similar challenges or stresses, report similar spiritual visions or feelings of divine presence. This suggests that these experiences are more about how our brains process certain stimuli and less about an actual divine being interacting with us.
Furthermore, the fact that neurological conditions like temporal lobe epilepsy can induce intensely spiritual experiences speaks to the power of the brain to produce feelings of awe, reverence, and connection. It doesn’t mean these experiences are any less meaningful or real to the individuals who have them, but it does suggest that the mind, not an external God, is the source of these feelings.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Dr. Sacks, I cannot deny that the brain plays a significant role in how we perceive the world, including spiritual matters. But I believe that this only adds to the wonder of God’s creation. The fact that we, as human beings, have been given minds capable of such experiences suggests that there is a higher purpose to our lives—a purpose that transcends the physical and reaches into the spiritual.
You speak of the brain’s ability to create experiences of the divine, but I would argue that this ability points to something greater than the brain itself. After all, if the brain can produce such experiences, what is the source of that capacity? Is it merely a random occurrence, or does it point to a divine Creator who designed us in such a way that we can experience His presence?
Yes, we can explain certain phenomena through science, but not all of life’s most profound questions can be answered by science alone. Science can explain the mechanics of a car, but it cannot explain why it was built in the first place. It can explain how the human body functions, but it cannot explain why we have a sense of purpose, of meaning, or of moral responsibility. These are questions that science cannot answer, but faith, and a belief in God, can.”
Oliver Sacks:
“I understand your perspective, and I do not want to diminish the importance of faith or the meaningfulness of the experiences people have. But I think we must be cautious in attributing these profound feelings to a divine being without considering the brain’s remarkable capacity to generate them. We must differentiate between what we can experience as real—emotional, psychological, and physiological—and what can be considered objective evidence of God’s existence.
As a neurologist, I see the brain not as something separate from the rest of the human experience, but as its foundation. The feelings of love, purpose, and connection that you speak of can be understood as complex interactions within the brain’s neural pathways. That doesn’t make them any less valuable; it simply means that these experiences, which many people interpret as divine, are still the products of the human mind.
The important thing is not to diminish these experiences, but to seek truth through careful study and understanding. If we do so, we may find that the source of these experiences is not something external, but something deeply embedded within our biology.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Dr. Sacks, I respect your reasoning, and I agree that the brain is a remarkable organ, capable of incredible complexity. But I still believe that there is something beyond biology. Yes, the brain is a tool, but it is not the source of the answers to life’s ultimate questions. The mind, the spirit, reaches for something beyond itself—a Creator, a God who gives us the capacity for love, purpose, and meaning.
I believe that while science can help us understand the ‘how,’ it cannot answer the ‘why.’ The ‘why’ speaks to something deeper, a truth that resides not in the workings of the brain, but in the spirit.”
Moderator:
“Thank you both for your thoughtful contributions. The audience has heard two compelling arguments, one rooted in faith and spiritual experience, and the other grounded in the biological and neurological processes of the brain. Now, on to the next debate.”
Gordon B. Hinckley vs. Ivan Pavlov
Setting: A large conference hall filled with an eager audience. The lights dim as the two figures prepare to take the stage. Gordon B. Hinckley, the former president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sits with composed serenity, radiating confidence and kindness. Ivan Pavlov, the renowned Russian physiologist and psychologist known for his work on conditioned reflexes, approaches the debate with a scientific and analytical mindset. The debate centers on the existence of God, and both speakers are poised to make their case.
Moderator:
“Good evening, everyone. Welcome to tonight’s debate on the existence of God. On one side, we have Gordon B. Hinckley, former president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a spiritual leader with a deep conviction in the presence of God. On the other side, Ivan Pavlov, a pioneering scientist whose work in classical conditioning has shaped much of our understanding of behavior. Our topic tonight: ‘The Existence of God.’ We’ll begin with opening statements. Mr. Hinckley, you may go first.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Thank you. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak tonight. For many, the existence of God is not merely a matter of intellectual debate, but a deeply personal question that touches the very essence of who we are. I believe in God because I have felt His presence in my life. I have seen His influence in the lives of countless others, and I have seen the fruits of His guidance, His love, and His care.
The universe around us, with its remarkable order, complexity, and beauty, speaks to the hand of a Creator. From the tiniest cell to the vastness of the cosmos, everything has a purpose, and everything functions in harmony. I believe that the existence of this order is not a random accident but a sign of divine intention. Our lives, too, are not random; they are part of a divine plan.
God’s presence in our lives is not something abstract or distant; it is something personal. Through prayer, through Scripture, and through the whisperings of the Holy Spirit, we can feel His love and guidance. Science may explain many of the mechanisms of the world, but it cannot fully explain why we are here, what our purpose is, or how we should live our lives. These questions point to the existence of a Creator who knows and loves each one of us.”
Ivan Pavlov:
“Thank you, Mr. Hinckley. While I understand your belief and the comfort it brings, I must approach this question from a scientific perspective. For me, the question of God’s existence must be rooted in observable evidence and empirical data. As a scientist, I have spent my life studying behavior, specifically the ways in which organisms respond to stimuli.
What I have discovered through my experiments is that much of what we perceive as conscious decision-making, intention, and even emotion is a result of conditioning. My work with dogs demonstrated that behaviors could be conditioned to occur in response to certain stimuli. This is not limited to animals, of course; human beings, too, are subject to conditioning and the influences of their environment.
When we observe the world around us, we see patterns that suggest behavior is shaped by external forces—whether it is physical laws or psychological conditioning. I do not deny the importance of human experience, but I believe that what we call ‘spiritual’ experiences can be understood as conditioned responses, influenced by culture, upbringing, and individual psychology.
As for the idea of a divine creator, I see no empirical evidence to support the existence of God. I believe that human beings have the capacity for great meaning, but this meaning is not imposed by an external force. Rather, it arises from our minds, shaped by our environment and our experiences.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Dr. Pavlov, I appreciate your scientific approach, and I understand that science seeks to explain the world through observable phenomena. But there are some aspects of human experience that science cannot fully explain. Our feelings of love, our desire for meaning, and our innate sense of right and wrong all point to something beyond mere conditioning.
While you have studied how behavior is influenced by external stimuli, you must acknowledge that our ability to reason, to reflect on our purpose in life, and to search for truth, speaks to a higher level of consciousness—a level that is not solely determined by conditioning or physical laws. These capacities suggest that there is more to the human being than a mere response to stimuli. There is a soul, a spirit, that reaches for something greater.
The very fact that you and I are having this conversation, engaging in the search for truth, speaks to the deeper, spiritual nature of humanity. People do not just respond to external stimuli; they seek answers to questions of meaning, identity, and morality. These are not behaviors that can be reduced to simple conditioning. They point to a Creator who has endowed us with the ability to recognize truth, beauty, and love.”
Ivan Pavlov:
“I understand your perspective, Mr. Hinckley, but I must insist that we approach this question with the tools that science provides. Behavior, whether human or animal, is a product of stimuli and response. When we consider spiritual experiences, it is entirely possible that these, too, are conditioned responses. People are raised in environments that reinforce certain beliefs, and they internalize those beliefs as part of their psychological makeup. What we call ‘faith’ or ‘divine experiences’ may simply be responses to these ingrained patterns of thought and behavior.
You speak of love, morality, and purpose as evidence of a divine hand, but I believe these are concepts that arise from the complex interactions of our biology, psychology, and society. Our sense of right and wrong is shaped by social conditioning, and our experience of love is deeply tied to evolutionary processes that foster connection and cooperation. These are not supernatural phenomena but natural ones, deeply rooted in the workings of the human brain and the environment.
While I respect your faith, I believe that we must rely on observable evidence and scientific understanding when examining the existence of God. Without empirical proof, we cannot conclude that God exists in any objective sense.”
Gordon B. Hinckley:
“Dr. Pavlov, I respect the contributions you have made to understanding human behavior. However, I believe that there is more to the human experience than what can be observed and measured by science alone. The human capacity for faith, for spiritual insight, and for moral reflection cannot be reduced simply to conditioning or external stimuli.
If morality, love, and purpose are merely conditioned responses, then why do we feel such a deep sense of right and wrong, even when no one else is watching? Why do we seek to transcend our limitations and reach out for something greater than ourselves? These yearnings suggest that there is a divine source of our morality, a Creator who has placed within us the ability to choose and to act with love, compassion, and justice.
Moreover, personal experiences of the divine are not simply conditioned responses. They are transformative. Millions of people throughout the world testify of encounters with God—experiences that have changed their lives for the better, giving them peace, purpose, and hope. These experiences cannot be dismissed as mere psychological phenomena. They are real, they are profound, and they point to the existence of something greater than ourselves.”
Ivan Pavlov:
“Mr. Hinckley, I do not wish to diminish the value of personal experience, nor the significance of faith. But we must be careful not to confuse deeply meaningful experiences with objective truth. What we perceive as divine encounters may be shaped by the brain’s wiring, influenced by societal beliefs, and reinforced by our upbringing. These experiences, while valuable on a personal level, do not provide empirical evidence of God’s existence.
The search for truth must be grounded in what can be observed, tested, and understood through scientific inquiry. Until there is tangible, objective evidence for the existence of God, I must hold that the divine is a concept created by the human mind rather than a verifiable reality.”
Moderator:
“Thank you both for your insightful and thought-provoking arguments. We now open the floor to questions from the audience.”
Leave a Reply