Has science buried God? Oxford professor, John Lennox, at SMU

Oxford Professor John Lennox discusses the limitations of science and critiques erroneous claims made in the name of science at The Veritas Forum: "Has Science Buried God?" at SMU, 2016.

[JosueTheBigot]

I very much enjoyed this chat. Thanks very much for uploading.

[MrPenriquez]

Anyone who says that he missed the mark in defending Christianity needs to remember that the question wasn't, "Is Christianity valid?" The question was, "Has science bury God?" It doesn't even have to do with Jesus

[trystanrichardson]

John Lennox: “Good evening ladies and gentlemen”
Ladies and gentlemen: “GOOD EVENING”
John Lennox: “I think I better try that again”
Me: bruh

[danielhoven]

A phenomenon I have come to call “Biblical Rationalism” was an 18th century reactionary movement in England to the Continental “new atheism” of the time. It attempted to make the same deterministic arguments that had been so successful in the new secularism of the French and German philosophers while maintaining the “truth” of the Bible. It was exported to the US as Puritanism, which certainly had its place in history, but ultimately resulted in the downfall of the biblical worldview. Today many call this view “biblical fundamentalism”. As a young man I was firmly in this camp. I came to realize that it is simply a knock off empiricism, where a proof text is used for axioms rather than the natural axioms of say “Principia Mathematica”. Every day spent arguing over empirical interpretations of Genesis is a day in the camp of those who believe solely in empirical interpretations! All that the Bible has to offer can be (and is) readily discarded in favor of a better proof text, say the standard model Lagrangian… if one begins with the supposition that the book ought be read in the same manner as works of reason, say Hegel, or Kant. To be refuted when the next better argument comes along to have its day…

[Redheadedlady]

~Always enjoy Dr. John. Thank you sir.

[williammcenaney]

If there were no God, there would be no gaps because there would be nothing at all.

[penglim]

Countries that sent Bible believing missionaries centuries ago to distant places are now in need of Bible believing missionaries.

[theeffectivecoach]

Outstanding, thank you sir and SMU from Australia.

[ericjohnson]

No, the question really is, has science buried superstition and mythology? To which of course the answer is yes.
God is quite separate and apart from superstition and mythology, although those two did contribute mightily to the evolving belief in God.

[robertdurio]

This is so absurd that they may as well be discussing the exitance of Santa Claus.

[krptiug]

Good has created the sciences for us to realize and discover that in through all of our experiments we can then come to know that we cannot create something that God has created. We can only try to exactly copy. Many have imitated, but never duplicated!

[uphxriaa]

Interesting talk, really enjoyed Lennox's astute way of speaking.

However, his idea of atheists being confused about the nature of explanation was a bit off to me. Of course, studying science answers the "how" questions, but why is faith an explanation of human agency? Certainly that "answers" the "why" questions of the universe, but it is not necessarily what he calls the human explanation. Rather, his answer seems to be something of the nature "I cannot answer the 'why' questions, therefore there is no other option but for me to believe in a Creator." Would it not be that the pursuit of knowledge itself is intentional as well? Acquiring answers to the "how" must involve an intrinsic interest i.e. the "why" motor that drives us to seek these answers in the first place. To put it simply, we study our environment to learn about it, and we study it BECAUSE of our inquisitiveness. THAT seems to be the human explanation of studying science, so I see no relevance for faith here.

However, humanity was in a position when it could not answer both. Take the Ancient Greeks for instance. Zeus, now labelled as a "god of the gaps, " is recognised as a mental by-product of the Greeks' confusion in response to the complexity of their environment. So when the "how" is ultimately unattainable, the mind quickly comes into play so as an attempt to rationalise both the "how" AND the "why, " as religion deals with merely spiritual matters. This is important to understand because this, ironically, demonstrates our gaps in rationality when we attempt to reason for something that is not accessible or observable. So as for the God debate today, does it not precisely come down to the same matter? Although we are more privileged than our ancestors in the sense that we now CAN answer the "how, " we are still at a position where we cannot share a physical realm with a Creator (if there is one). As a result, theological reasoning remains a matter of mere speculation because it is, as Lennox describes it, derived from human agency and NOT factual evidence. Judging merely by this argument, I cannot see for there to be a Creator in the skies above that rules out the "why, " for our inclination towards the unknown yields different philosophies (think of the doctrinal differences between the three Abrahamic religions, for starters) that are to no avail.

*Side note: These religions, as with most others, are grounded in objective values, or what C.S. Lewis would call the Tao, that, in a sense, unites them all together. By "to no avail, " what I mean is that they all have divergent readings of the universe's objectivity, meaning that although the vast majority are inclined towards reaching a good, their means of reaching that end (whether that be salvation, enlightment, etc.) vary, thus all religions are mutually exclusive in nature. And since they are of such nature, are they really pointing toward a Creator with the same identity?

I am not denying objective truth; these are simply my thoughts regarding a particular argument Lennox puts forward.

[krptiug]

No! Science has not buried God! He is alive and well in this world and making sure that it all does not get destroyed! Okay? Okay.

[guillermogarcia]

In the beginning was the word, the bible is the word of God, no matter if your young or old, or what your opinion is, God's word isn't going to change because of your beliefs, it was never about us, everything has always been about God, he is the creator of all. Whether you believe or not.

[ericjohnson]

Beauty and bombs... (if god, why is there suffering?) Hardest to answer for natural disasters... Short form: imperfect world, imperfect people. Why is there imperfection? First let's ask, why do we care about perfection? Perfection comes from God. And we have Perfection Hunger. Pretty much all experiences boil down to life lessons. What are the lessons in suffering? That non-perfection sucks?
Man-made suffering is much easier... We have free will, whether Atheists want to believe it or not. With that free will, we make decisions, some good, some bad. They both have consequences... usually the bad decisions are the ones that can have negative results. And most of our suffering comes from bad decisions, mostly by others, but also our own. If bad decisions didn't have undesirable consequences, we'd never learn to make better decisions.
The Master had this to say (in part) on the subject:

[ze_chooch]

An interesting and, at some points, valid critique of science, but the talk missed the mark when attempting to defend the validity Christianity.

[eatonr]

Some people might say this is: R
eview Important BS Evangelism Oxford Style From GrandpaJones

[pegasus]

Scinnse cannot exist without god science is the learning of life and life and science were created by god, no human has free will so all scientific advancments are made at gods will through us by god and the angels