John Lennox on atheism, God, science and debating Dawkins
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- Prof John Lennox talks to Justin Brierley about the way science and faith fit together in his new book 'Cosmic Chemistry'. They also talk about the evidence for God and Christianity and about his debates with leading atheists, including Richard Dawkins.
Video shared with permission of Lion Hudson.
For John's book 'Cosmic Chemistry
UK: spckpublishing.co.uk/cosmic-c...
USA: www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Chemist...
For more thinking faith & a free copy of my audiobook: linktr.ee/JustinBrierley
Great interview. As a clinician/scientist I always believed in God. However, as I progressed in my studies I questioned my beliefs more and more. Dr. Lennox has been one of a couple Christian scientist that helped me make sense of it all. God bless Dr. Lennox. As we’ve become more secular we’ve become more lost. Just take a look around you. Praise God for everything I have learned. God bless people like Dr. Lennox that helped me understand how a creator and science don’t oppose one another. but, actually strengthen one another.
Amen
Ooh That's amazing :') I pray to be like you(and Dr. Lennox of course) in my studies..
"As we’ve become more secular we’ve become more lost. Just take a look around you." Ask yourself, would you rather live in a secular society or a theocracy? Look around you at the secular society you live in. Then compare it to theocracies of both the present and the past. Which do you think is better? Yes, secular society is challenging. You can't rely on authority to tell you what to do or what to believe. And you have to practice tolerance and inclusion of people who are different from you. Those things are difficult. But they are worth it.
@@81Wordsworth The idea that people are more tolerant and inclusive in a secular society is bullshit. You get jailed in the UK for simply disagreeing with the current narrative for example. In US you get thrown out from your working place if you don't agree with everything the left is telling you to think. In Sweden it is the same. I would love to live in a society which you describe but if you're telling me that our societies here in the west are such than you out in space and floating in a little rocket.
I wasn't aware that Lennox was a scientist. And, "Christian scientist" = oxymoron
J Lennox is priceless. So much wisdom
I love watching John Lennox.
John Lennox is brilliant and Justin Brierley is a skilled interviewer. Enjoyed this thoroughly!
I also thoroughly enjoyed this interview... what a wealth of knowledge John Lennox has and I thought Justin Brierley's interviewing skills were excellent - he brought out a careful, considered examination of the topic... very well guided, and very well answered!
Thank you Justin and Prof John Lennox for this. Great to watch a fresh face-to-face conversation again. God bless you both!
Thanks Wesley!
Really enjoyed this interview @justin - FYI you can add chapters in CZcams that can be really helpful when watching longer videos :)
What a beautiful conversation! Thank you both so much for it.
Great coversation!! Thank you!
Excellent conversation. Thank you Justin and Prof Lennox for this delightful video. Yes, indeed in the beginning was Logos. The problem is that we humans have chosen Paul Anka's "My Way" instead of Handel's "Messiah" as our preferred music. The main conflict is between two irreconcilable worldviews. Sadly there's no natural remedy for that malady. That's why He wept. And we should weep like Him too. Praise Adonai! Adonai Eloheinu Echad. Ap. 22.21
There are many individuals that do not
Believe in evolution:
God
Christ
Moses
David
Noah
Daniel
12 Apostles
Only two world views. Can you imagine that? A world with nearly 8 billion people. Simply amazing.
@@jakecostanza802
Apparently you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me repeat it:
"The main conflict is between two irreconcilable worldviews."
That doesn't mean what you misunderstood. Please, read it again, but do it carefully. Feel free to ask what you don't understand. I'll gladly explain it. Thanks.
@@janwaska4081 oh, ok, I misread it. You’re right. Isn’t it wonderful that in billions of world views there are only two that are considered “main views” and that (imagine the odds) all the others don’t raise conflicts or that those conflicts are deemed to be irrelevant? Really looking forward to see what such a well-informed person like you have to say. Thank you in advance.
@@jakecostanza802
Apparently you took my words out of context. I was referring to the main topic of this video: "atheism, God, science and debating Dawkins". The main conflict (in the topic of this video) is between two irreconcilable worldviews (atheistic belief and Christian belief). There's no conflict between belief in God (revealed in the Christian scriptures) and science. There could be conflicts between belief in (imaginary/made-up) gods of the gaps and science. But the God revealed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures is the God of the entire show.
Brilliant Lennox.
Such a brilliant interview! Thanks for the video.
A good CHRISTIAN is not a grave to bury GOD's mercies, but a temple to sing HIS praises. GOD Bless
Amen, A good Christian is consistently Honest with other men. Atheists are continuously dishonest with themselves first and foremost, much less with another.
Praise the hate god for the genocides he committed and demanded his followers commit
Tea time, good chat.
Why Matilda made the cake?…..love motivated her….
Or maybe she was hungry.
Lennox's reasons for belief in God is brilliant........Big fan of unbelievable channel
Please turn up the volume so we don't have to strain to hear.
I don't think I fully understand what he means as mathematics being word based. And finding biology is being found to also be word based...
Is there more material on this? Would love to read more into it. Thanks!
I am puzzled at the move to decolonise science and maths? Is there a misconception about what these are ?
In the beginning
09:10. Is this true what Dr. Lennox said, The Natural History Museum of Oxford was funded by O.U.P. sales of Bibles?
Should ask more challenging questions.
All those angles. 😁
It's much easier to hold atheism as true than to believe in God Who commands us to "Deny self, take up your cross, follow me."
33:00.
John Lenox is such a true pure soul. God really did not die but lives in all of us, and this man is proof.
Man, I love this!
God didn't die, HE instead, sort of disappeared from sight & got into us-us who believe.
Notice how no one is writing books arguing that math is true.
Godel?
No, they're writing books stating that chemicals acvidentally arranging themselves into animals is true.
Maths involves the relationship between necessary propositions. Maths can be false, it's called miscalculation.
@@andrewjohnson8232
Have you ever even read a book?
@@ezbody
Yes, including a few on mathematics, the existences of which you're ignorant. Would be happy to introduce them to you.
@@ezbody have you ever read the book?
Argue against Evolution by all means but please please stop referring to it as a random process, yes there are random components to evolution but only a small although important part. The process and principles of evolution are far more complex and deterministic. The mind and brain for example are not just the end process. Intelligence and learned responses are evident in single celled organisms.
Evolution is guided but not by what you think. The majority consensus amongst evolutionary biologists today is that modern synthesis does not have sufficient explanatory power to explain morphological speciation. It can only explain small changes within a species' genome. DNA mutation is a random process where the extremely rare positive mutations are sometimes selected due to their benefits. This consensus is based on multiple different avenues of research that show DNA mutation is not an evolutionary driver.
It turns out that epigenetics is the most likely explanation and this is guided by its own regulatory programming. The questions that is most in debate is how did this information come about if the original common ancestor had the same system 3.8bn years ago. So today the barn door of the Theory of Evolution has blown wide open again as scientists try to come up with the most likely model.
@@iain5615 Exactly. Although mutation it is argued is still a driver but not as big as earlier speculations and even less as a 'random' process. Although expanding on your analogy the doors have open up on evolution (although to many the doors were always open) and not that the roof has blown off.
@@criticalthinker8007 Agreed - the roof is still on because nobody actually doubts the Theory itself.
However, the doors were not that open historically, it was based on DNA and slow evolution changes. Punctuated evolution was rejected not because the evidence disproved it but because they could not find a way to fit it into the agreed upon model.
That model has now been found to not have sufficient explanatory power and biologists do believe in punctuated evolution and so completely new models are now being researched.
You know of determined evolutionary processes that aren't random chance mutations?
Could you share this mechanism with the rest of the world? There's bouns to be a Nobel in it for you.
@@andrewjohnson8232 epigenetics. Scientists took bacteria removed the flagellum and associated DNA. Grew the bacteria in a nutrient rich.medium then left the bacteria. As the nutrients ran out bacteria began to die because they could not move. Within a few generations some bacteria grew new flagella and staryed moving to areas where nitrients were.
This was achieved by the regulatory proteins rereading other DNA differently. That was directed with an end goal by the bacteria's epigenetic system. There was nothing undirected or unplanned about it. The new flagella differed from the old and the complexity of flagella is mind boggling.
The Bible records a limited time when people had extremely long lives, when inbreeding didn’t cost the genome because mutations were virtually non-existed. According to the Bible, in the beginning people routinely lived to be more than 900 years old. However, we know at least this much: mutations are clearly implicated in aging. So, if there were initially no mutations, wouldn’t you expect man to live longer? From this position, apart from mutations, human ages of hundreds of years would not be so fanciful after all. It would be logical, why shouldn’t we live longer?
If man had written a religious book like the Bible claiming that there was a God that created the heavens and the earth and all life forms; would he state that the oldest man lived to be 969 years old if he wanted his account to be believed! It is illogical it would not be accepted, as is the case today! People read this in Genesis and laugh! They see it as far fetched! It is just a fairy story to them. But by all accounts it is quite possibly true; for as we go back each generation the mutational genetic accumulation lessens and the genome becomes more perfected.
can we explain Gospel Matimatically?
if we add 1 + 1= 2.
Matimatically we get this different result.
God revealed himself for one that. believing + receiving = different result
1 + 0 = 1 the same result no change
believing + 0 (no receiving) same result or no charge.
or
we go like this simply
Adam + Christ = everlasting life.
Christ -- Adam = everlasting death
Science is a relative truth.
The word of God is an absolute truth.
Except that there is no truth in the word of god, well the word of men who claim to speak for a god.
1 Hour in - The 3rd way is not as Prof Lennox likes to put it discrediting evolution it actual supports it, it does not discredit the god hypothesis either. It does weaken the case for Neo Darwinism which in any case is a narrow view of evolution.
Molecular Biology does provide fascinating insights into life and shows complexity in the smallest of things. Demonstrates intelligence in simple protein structures. It is beginning to show how memory, intelligence, creativeness and mindfulness could, I repeat could have developed over time natural.
The modern look at evolutionary mechanisms des not rule out a God as an independent creator, however the seems to be less of a need for one - ie life and complex life is not dependant on the need for a God.
Highly complex and early life is intelligence based DNA, an honest look at creation should leave you astounded at the creators ability. There is no accident to life and the need for a creator. Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
So what is your excuse? Is it just laziness to check out the facts ? Question the theories you believe in because they have No basis in science facts.Just keep asking for evidence.
@@garyavey1822 If your argument is that all life and more specifically intelligent life has to have a creator. Then all has to mean ALL because I assume your definition of a creator would be intelligent therefore would necessitate its own creator. If you argue that the creator (i.e. god) is internal then that is a valid proposition but sure then you are accepting the premise that not all intelligence has a creator. That is the intelligent creator himself and you also asserting that not everything has to have a beginning.
With respect how do you know if my theories are based in fact or not because you do not know what my theories' are, in any case they are more a balance of probabilities than actualities.
In terms of evidence of course I cannot provide evidence of no creator and would not argue either way in absolute terms. What can be provided is evidence of simple life forms gaining information that was not there before. For example when food is sparse a virus infecting a slug so it changes into the very plant it species feed of. Or amoeba learning their way through the maze and that memory being learned by other amoeba when they eat that amoeba .
@@criticalthinker8007 I believe that everything that had a beginning had a cause Jehovah did not have a beginning and is eternal. The first thing He created was his Son the logos or the Word Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. As you mentioned DNA shows that intelligence was required to write its complex code twice as complex as computer code. Amazing things we see in creation are testament to our glorious creator who has built into them from the beginning. Like the slime mould that can navigate mazes, it just shouts to you glory to the creator. I am a builder and know that work that I have done has gotten me praise for my skills ,how much more should we give glory to our grand creator. Hebrews 3:4 ) Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
If you would like to know what Gods kingdom is going to do for the earth ,just ask. Take care Gary
@@garyavey1822 If Jesus was created in the image of the invisible god then he too would be invisible.. The idea that Jesus as depicted in the bible and the Quran was the son of god and of his pre existence did not appear in scripture until around the 4th century AD. According to various accounts off the time Jesus made no reference to his authority and spoke against the God of the old testament.
The biggest issue I have here, is that if you are making the logic argument that a brick had to have a creator, a wall that the the brick was placed in has to have a creator, the building that the wall was placed in had to have a creator, that the town the building was placed in had to have designer/creator and the country the town was build in had to have a creator and that oh no wait that creator did not have a creator because that creator had to be eternal. Well if that logical argument is true then why should the eternal creator be at point 0 - the creator god of the universe why cant the eternal point be 1 the universe itself.
@@criticalthinker8007 You must remember the spirit creatures dwelling in the heavens which is of a higher dimension to us are only invisible to us they can see each other and we can only see them if they materialise. Hebrews 2:5-9) For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But in one place a certain witness said: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or a son of man that you take care of him? 7 You made him a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone.
So when Jesus came to earth as a perfect human being to give his perfect life as a ransom to redeem mankind so in the future we can be granted everlasting life.
Jesus in no way spoke against Jehovah but he said he loved the Father and only did what his Father told him to do (John 5:19) Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner.
That is why we copy Christ then we are copying Jehovah and do things in His image.
You really need to have a Bible study with one of Jehovahs witnesses.Go to JW.ORG
Oh, come on. He complains that Dawkins titled his book "The Good Delusion" but then didn't consult a psychologist? Dawkins doesn't claim that a belief in God is literally a psychological disorder! Dawkins is a biologist, not a psychologist, and most of the claims in his book are based on biology. If you're going to engage with his book, then engage with his actual claims. If you want to talk psychology, engage with Sam Harris. Yeesh. A bit of intellectual honesty, please!
Did you read Lennox books? If you're going to engage with Lennox's ideas then at least have a full understanding of his statements, not what he briefly and concisely replies in a timed interview! A bit of intellectual honesty please.
Will you go to Heaven?
Here’s a quick test: Have you ever lied, stolen, or used God’s name in vain?
Jesus said, “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
If you have done these things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart, and the Bible warns that one day God will punish you in a terrible place called Hell. But God is not willing that any should perish.
Sinners broke God’s Law and *Jesus paid their fine. This means that God can legally dismiss their case:*
*“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have you life.”*
Then Jesus rose from the grave, defeating it. Today, repent and trust Jesus, and God will give you eternal life as free gift. Then read the Bible daily and obey it. God will never fail you. (living waters/ray comfort)
God bless you
This sounds truly insane. Breathtaking that anyone believes this delusional garbage.
"For Christ sent me ... to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; *but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.*
For it is written, *I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.*
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? *hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?*
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, *Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.*
*Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.*
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world *to confound the wise;* and God hath chosen the weak things of the world *to confound the things which are mighty;*
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
*That no flesh should glory in his presence.*
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God *is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:*
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."
*Again, "hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"*
Norman Threlfall
MY OWN PERSONAL COMMENTS
A structured tower of time has been erected by secular humanists; beginning with James Hutton who brought a book out suggesting the earth was millions of years old; published 1795, after this came the advent of Charles Lyell a Scottish lawyer and his contemporaries who built on James Hutton’s theory and wrote a book called Principles of Geology published in 1830. In which he illustrated the ideal geologic column of time which he invented in order to discredit the Biblical account of the Creation, the fall of mankind through sin and redemption through Jesus Christ. He invented the column and applied millions of years to 12 rock layers which he called geologic periods; even before Radio Metric Dating was invented, which does not work anyway; as it is full of hidden assumptions as previously mentioned. Charles Darwin read both books before adding his own to the collection by enlarging on the previous two works through his imagination; he added to their theology the Tree of Life. Reference: “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, [My comment: pure fantasy and imagination] however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University in “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol 86 [May, 1977], p 14. The nodes are kinds within species. The Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races is a good theory for secular humanists; but has still not been addressed by any scientific evidence. Evolution is a religion and a continual library of on- going theories trying to rescue the main theory continually.
“Origin of Species Not addressed in 1859, and is still a mystery in 1998… Both the origin of life and the origin of major groups of animals remain unknown.” -Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia 1998, Fossil section.
Nothing has changed decades down the line. Fossil evidence only displays micro-evolution i.e. kinds within the specie. There is no evidence of macro-evolution in the rocks i.e. any transitional fossils starting with fish to amphibians etc. No such thing as a fossil demonstrating half mammal- half ape, leading up to half ape- half human. It is purely speculative theology. The whole chain of imaginary evolution is missing! “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between extinct species must have been inconceivably great!” Quote by the author himself: Charles Darwin- Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races.
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” DR. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission USA
We have strongholds of deceit in the citadels of learning and science faculties around the world. The abuse of the system and the lies that are being taught to students can only be classed as fraudulent pseudoscience. The PhD's gained in sciences directly applied and associated with the work of evolutionary propaganda are not worth the paper they are printed on. Religion is being taught in universities and schools across the world as science. Evolution is indoctrination not education as it is not based on true science. The definition of factual science is related to the scientific method i.e. things we can observe, test and study not a world of fantasy and imagination based on bias and prejudice towards the existence of God.
Cambrian Explosion Puzzle
Let us think critically; the fact that all life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record in the Cambrian layer without any evidence of evolution in Precambrian rock is a problem for evolution. These creatures appear suddenly fully formed; separated from possible ancestors by vast systemic biological gaps, [missing intermediate fossil evidence] in spite of the many random geological gaps [missing rocks] is a major problem for all theories of evolution from Darwin to Stephen J. Gould [Harvard University] and Richard Dawkins. Attempts to solve the crisis have concentrated on fossil gaps. Stephen J. Gould came up with the idea of “punctuated equilibrium.” For example: A bird hatching from a dinosaur egg. In order to try and eliminate the problem of transitional fossils! The discovery of the Cambrian explosion of fully formed organisms was made by geologist Charles Doolittle Walcott in a field trip investigating [1910 0nwards] what is known as the Burgess Bestiary. [Canada] Over several years he and fellow workers collected 65,000 unique specimens; many of which are extinct to day. The Cambrian explosion of life was a mystery to him; having no precursor evolutionary development in pre-Cambrian rocks, leading up to fully formed creatures in Cambrian. Walcott ever the geologist postulated that continents and sea-levels changed over time changing the geology of the earth and that under sea sedimentary layers contained the ancestors of the Cambrian rocks. In short, the transgression and regression of ancient seas have hidden the fossil evidence which is inaccessible to discovery. It is known as “The Artifact Hypothesis.” This theory was disproved with the advent of offshore drilling technology in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960, as oil companies began to drill through thousands of feet of marine sedimentary rock. As geologists examined the contents of these drill cores, they did not find Walcott’s predicted Pre-Cambrian fossils. Another theory trying to rescue the main theory of Darwinian Evolution -bites the dust!
Discoveries in China put the “Artifact Hypothesis” to bed for good. In 1998 a Chinese Paleontologist J. Y. Chen and a Chinese-American marine biologist Paul Chien discovered soft bodied sponge embryos in late Pre-Cambrian rocks [supposedly to be 2000-4000 million years old!] preserved in the “Doushantuo Phosphorite” formation in China. It was noted that; these Precambrian layers did not preserve remains of any clearly ancestral or intermediate forms leading to the other main groups of Cambrian animals. When we find that tiny sponge embryos are clearly preserved; it most strongly indicates that such intermediate forms were simply never present in the Precambrian layers. What no transitional fossils! [It has been duly noted that the conditions for preservation of fossils is perfect in Pre-Cambrian rocks more or less universally].
Interesting that Lennox criticizes the title of Dawkins book on the grounds that "delusion" is a psychiatric term and Dawkins didn't research the psychiatric basis of the term. If I remember correctly, Dawkins wanted to call the book something else but his publishers liked "The God Delusion" as a title. But "delusion" seems to me a perfectly adequate term for religious belief. All religions have a basis in a supernatural reality. As no supernatural realm has ever been discovered, a belief in such a thing would be classed as delusional. A better example would be the literal belief Catholics hold that the actual body of Jesus is present in a communion wafer. That is utterly delusional. If a person was going around claiming that the body of Napoleon or Elvis was present in their bread, they'd be locked up.
Why approach the the question of the supernatural with an example it takes no effort to dismiss?
Of all professor Lennox argued in this, why is it the relatively insignificant comment on Dawkins' book title that catches your interest?
"Why approach the the question of the supernatural with an example it takes no effort to dismiss?" Are you saying that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is provable? Or can we easily dismiss it?
Well, I had to start somewhere. And I was only pointing out that there was some validity to the title of Dawkins book. But I would also disagree with Lennox when he claims that "science proves God". Most scientists are non-believers
@@colinmatts
Transubstantiation applies to the act of consecration and applies only properly to the Catholic faithful. Dismissing its validity is saying nothing more than one is not Catholic. One may as well say to a married couple that vows, rings, kisses and signatures makes them no less two separate individuals with no "supernatural" connection between them than they were before.
In the same manner, the title of Dawkins' book tells us nothing, it's an assertion. Anything anyone chooses can be called a "delusion". There's nothing informative in it.
But my point is, if you wish to make a case against the supernatural, surely it should be with the example of something more universally applicable than the Catholic host. Prof' Lennox argues here, for example, the insurmountable improbability of material origins of cosmological fine tuning.
@@andrewjohnson8232 Either Jesus body is present in a communion wafer or it isn't. Whether or not you're a Catholic doesn't change that fact. There is no "supernatural" connection between married people. Marriage is a social contract. Not a magic spell.
I think "delusion" is a fair definition of a belief someone might have which has no good evidence supporting it. If one believed in fairies or leprechauns, we'd all agree that was delusional.
Whatever the "insurmountable improbability" the universe actually exists. Nobody knows if the conditions were tuned or if there was never any other way it could have been. The only way we could ever answer that question is if we had another universe to compare ours to.
@@colinmatts
That is like saying: either value is present in a coin, or it is not.
If you as a non-believer eat wafer and drink wine, you'll be eating wafer and drinking wine. A Catholic taking the consecrated host is partaking in in the Communion of the Body of Christ.
A marriage is not a contract, a contract represents the marriage which is a commitment and the place the one spouse holds in the consciouness of the other. If you wish to know what significance that may have to this discussion, ask the next quantum physicist you meet.
Imagine two people arguing as to whether the music they can hear is a composition or not. The one argues that it must be the work of a composer, as they can hear clear orchestration, harmonic rule, strict rythm, melodic narrative. The other argues that it is merely a coincidental collection of sounds, which is the way it is, because it is the way it is, and on to which we simply project organisation because of a psychological need to do so.
Then they are handed the manuscript of the music, to which the second intelocutor declares " Aha - you see, proof thatvitvis no work of any composer, it was all a consequence of this random ink spill".
This is exactly what atheists sound like in the face of DNA, RNA,fine tuning, consciousness, mathematics, logic, language, irreducible complexity, aesthetics, function...
Is it too much to expect a mathematician to have some basic awareness of LOGICAL FALLACIES??? I mean, common, I know that most readers of his books don't care, but at least have some self-respect.
I tead this comment at the start and listened to the whole discussion. Lennox is obvious where his beliefs are but he provided completely rational arguments for each of his positions. There were no logical fallacies. If you think so then that is a reflection on your own beliefs rather than Lennox.
Well, thanks for making me watch the video again, I have now completely lost any remaining respect I had for this headache-inducing gish-galloping starry eyed blabbermouth.
I no longer think that he is even sincere, he is just a Dawkins obsessed grifter, peddling his worthless books. See what watching him the second time has done to me?
Regarding the fallacies: I have yet to see any apologist who doesn't use at least a couple of logical fallacies.
In this video he started with a genetic fallacy, claiming that it was the Christian faith that caused the advancement of Science, which is just an utter nonsense. There is a whole lot of strawmanning of the scientists, arguments from authority (an opinion of a single select scientist on a select topic, which isn't how the science works), ignorance, incredulity, false analogy, to name just a few.
His argumentation is so sloppy that it became obvious that he simply memorized all the popular apologetic talking points, debunked and disputed many times over elsewhere.
Nowhere does he even attempt to make a coherent argument, opting instead to impress the viewers with a fast moving stream of disconnected information.
@@ezbody "...which is just an utter nonsense."
Now that's a crushing rebuttal.
Let's hope Lennox doesn't see it. He'll slit his wrists for sure.
@@ezbody I don’t see evidence you know what a gish gallop is. You run through logical fallacies that are disconnected from this friendly conversation. It looks like you have a quasi religious commitment to materialism and your thinking shows emotional reasoning throughout.
One can make a solid argument that Christianity did catalyze the development of true science. If you don’t believe that interpretation of history fine. But to call that particular argument “nonsense” is unfair at best and possibly willfully ignorant. That word betrays your own emotional reasoning.
@@ezbody I don’t see evidence you know what a gish gallop is. You run through logical fallacies that are disconnected from this friendly conversation. It looks like you have a quasi religious commitment to materialism and your thinking shows emotional reasoning throughout.
One can make a solid argument that Christianity did catalyze the development of true science. If you don’t believe that interpretation of history fine. But to call that particular argument “nonsense” is unfair at best and possibly willfully ignorant. That word betrays your own emotional reasoning.
Best wishes to you. I hope my ideas help you think more clearly n
Perfect example of why being intelligent and being highly educated is not the same thing.
Lennox and his empty assertions and tired tropes are the best reason for not believing in a god.
God and science don't mix. The proposition "God exists" makes no predictions about physical facts and is compatible with any physical outcome without contradiction; it's simply not an empirical hypothesis. Science is the study of the structure and function of causal, natural-reality and has nothing whatsoever to do with the propositional content of theology. Lennox has a lot of interesting anecdotes and a cute Irish accent that makes him seem like an innocent granddad but frankly says a whole lot of nothing when it comes to actual substantive content about the subject and the few things he does say that have any relevant content are terrible hot takes. When it comes to philosophy of religion Lennox is really on the level of someone like Frank Turek and just about gets by addressing the arguments of uninformed dogmatists like Dawkins but has absolutely no response for the thoughts of Sobel, Draper, Oppy, Mackie, et al.
But isn't that exactly what John Lennox asserts? That there is no contradiction between science and faith in God. He repeated says that science and God are different kinds of explanations for the universe; I believe he essentially says you can't measure God with instruments but you can infer He's around by reason. When challenged to produce testable proof of God, John's consistent reply is that the evidence will always be anecdotal, in the form of changed lives.
@@hanminlee6538 I will just add +1 to your comment and this; The scientific discovery of the number of moons that orbit Jupiter (79).... honestly, what bearing does that specific material knowledge have on my everyday life and my ultimate fate? Science is just a hugely sophisticated human method of revealing what the material universe IS, it does not say what is wrong with what IS or what ought to be, which is the real question and desire longing to be answered and put to rest in the heart of every human being.
You mentioned four names at the end of your comment. I've never heard anything about what they have to say about what has been discussed in this interview. Their opinions are not well know. I wonder why. Maybe you can state why their opinions are not even considered worth mentioning during this interview, which has covered all the greatest minds throughout history on the subject. Surely you don't expect everyone's opinions to be discussed only those that matter.
There are two kinds of people: those that brag about the "changed" lives, and those who are acutely aware of the immense pain and suffering that so many people are going through RIGHT NOW, including the many people suffering from the abuse within the religion.
Those grinning, self-satisfied smiles of the first kind make me sick.
@@ezbody it’s not one or the other and no one said it had to be. Two things can be true at the same time.
God has literally transformed millions of lives around the world. Reconciled broken families, marriages. Completely delivered drug addicts and people of abuse. That can be measured bud.
And the claim that millions around the world also suffer is true, I’m not sure what your point is 🤔
Math is the language of natural science, but math is not natural science itself. So math "tells" absolutely nothing about nature. By saying it does, John Lennox shows that he does not know, how science works, or that he actually is not interested about reality or both. Sitting there and saying, a professor in biology does not know how science works, is just laughable.
It’s only laughable if his point goes over your head. In addition to being a mathematician Lennox has a PhD in philosophy from Cambridge. The problem with Dawkins is that he wades deep out into the world of philosophy regularly and his lack of training and study in the subject becomes apparent very quickly.
Old timer. Still believing in fairy tales.
Quite agree. Dawkins and his congregation believing that if you leave chemicals alone for long enough they'll acidentally arrange themselves into animals, is really quite embarassing.
I'm glad we're agreed.
@@andrewjohnson8232 A Virgin having a magic baby that performs magic tricks and dies then comes back to life.
@@3DFLYLOW
Christ is The Word made flesh.The Revelation of God to history. The confirmation of the sanctity of human life. Choose to accept or deny. It's your prerogative.
Parody and caricature will make no difference.
Now, how does any of that help you to sustain what must be the stupidest proposition in all human thought. Complex function = random chance. Or is it: random chance accident = complex function?
Pray tell: What's a functioning accident and what's a purposeless function and what's an undesigned purpose?
Evolution doesn't even qualify as basic language much less science.
@@andrewjohnson8232 Yeah none of that's true.
@@3DFLYLOW
None of what? What are you talking about?
Charles Darwin’s predetermined Mind-set
Charles Darwin’s mind-set had been formulated and already influenced by his father and grandfather because they were both atheists. They did not like what the Bible taught: the Fall, Sin, Noah’s Flood and ultimate redemption through Jesus Christ. Charlies Darwin was the seed of his father and grandfather, so the theory of evolution suited him down to the ground: an alternative to Creation which has now become a world religion. Darwin had read James Hutton’s book, Theory of the Earth published in 1795 and then Charlies Lyell’s book, Principles of Geology published in 1830. Darwin pursued the ideology and came up with a framework of how it could work, some very convincing ideas in his book Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races. Darwin was inspired by the first two books and wrote his own creating a trilogy. Darwin was a chip off the old block! Whilst on board HMS Beagle he said, I was quite orthodox, but I had come by this time [I think as he formulated his theology] 1836-1839, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign [relating to Noah’s Flood] and from its attributing to God, the feelings of a revengeful tyrant. Fancy calling God a revengeful tyrant, [God has every right to judge his Creation for all the violence in the world they had created through sin. Noah had warned the people over the years and he was mocked and laughed at for building the Ark, just like people are mocking and provoking God to his face today. They have no idea what they are dealing with. He is a God of patience, but also a God of judgement and he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. That world before the flood and like today, refused to love God and their neighbour as themselves]. Darwin said the Bible was no more to be trusted than other sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian. [Can you trust Darwin’s imaginary history of the World? Darwin’s tree of life is dead; there are no numberless transitional fossils to support his paradigm]. Thus Darwin said disbelief crept over me [while he was formulating his theory which was pleasing to his palate] at a very slow rate but at last it was complete. The rate was so slow I felt no distress and have never since doubted for a single second, that my conclusion was correct. [Darwin like others with the same mind-set is not drawn to righteousness, holiness, purity and God’s spiritually based truths revealed through Jesus]. He is drawn towards lawlessness where it is Survival of the Fittest! Darwin said, I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe [in righteousness, holiness, purity and God’s truth revealed in Jesus] and this world including my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. Darwin said that the gospel was a damnable doctrine. [Where does that leave the Origin of Species and Preservation of Favoured Races?] Jesus said love God with all of your heart and your neighbour as yourself. Well Charlie, you have the problem along with others who hate the gospel! The teachings of Jesus were wholesome doctrine, good doctrine, sound doctrine and absolutely flawless: as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them! Kind Regards Norman
Dang it he's selling lot of books out of the superstition, good for him tho
Yes, it is super. 😊
John Lennox is boorishly boring, and I do not recognize anthing scientific about him.