Just a quick interlude in my Discovering the Philosopher in You series.
I recently listened to an intriguing podcast of a lecture from a Dr. John Lennox part one here and two here if you care to listen. The first quote mentioned in the lecture from Bertrand Russell, "What science cannot explain, humanity cannot know." Dr. Lennox retorts, "that statement is not of science, so if it is true it is false." I've written of the conflicts between science, philosophy, and religion before in this entry, and this one, and here about the Higgs boson, and it seems like a common theme in my life, so this lecture was right up my alley.
He starts off with a quote from Psalms 91:5 You will not be afraid of the terror by night, Or of the arrow that flies by day. We all have fear. Especially in this context of that there's someone somewhere that's smarter than you. In defense of one's faith this is terrifying, I know I've struggled with this at times. I know I'm not really all that smart, I'm not as well read as I'd like to be and I'll never catch up to others that have focused their lives their studies. The context of 1 Peter 3:15 [(NASB) but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence] is one of fear. Fear of not having all the answers when someone asks. Dr. Lennox says that he's afraid in this area, which seems crazy to me to hear that from this powerful apologist. He gives the story of Peter's denial of Christ, and how even this giant of the Church (at least in this story) is afraid and when accosted about his association with Jesus and he denies it three times (vs 34)!
I recently listened to an intriguing podcast of a lecture from a Dr. John Lennox part one here and two here if you care to listen. The first quote mentioned in the lecture from Bertrand Russell, "What science cannot explain, humanity cannot know." Dr. Lennox retorts, "that statement is not of science, so if it is true it is false." I've written of the conflicts between science, philosophy, and religion before in this entry, and this one, and here about the Higgs boson, and it seems like a common theme in my life, so this lecture was right up my alley.
The good news of Dr. Lennox's message is that we (as Christians) don't need to fear science's attacks because in reality there is no war between science and Christianity, the real conflict is between belief in God and disbelief in God, and the conflict has been going on at least since the beginnings of Greek philosophy. The atomists, and their assertion that the universe is all there is, non-derivative against Plato, Aristotle, and others that believed god or gods were responsible for creating the universe. Now obviously I believe the Greek gods were wrong, and I think history has proven that. If the Greeks were right about their view of creation then their religion wouldn't have died out so many years ago. The New Atheists are waging war against religion/Christianity using the power of science, and for a quite a while now they've been succeeding. Some seem to think that science excludes faith, but that isn't borne out in reality. There are so many prominent scientists that have powerful outspoken testimonies for Christ. I've read Dr. Francis Collins' (Dr. Lennox mentions Dr. Francis and other preeminent scientists that have powerful faith) book and I've written about it on two different occasions, and while we have our differences, his testimony is powerful and he's obviously a consumate scientist. So obviously scientists can, and many do, have faith.
Authorial intention... I love Dr. Lennox's anecdote about authorial intention. He talks about meeting with a man that had written a book about the idea that there is no such thing as authorial intent. To which he replies, so, if I read your book I'll be convinced that there's no such thing as authorial intent? Then I'll pass. (**laughter from the crowd**) In case it's not obvious, if the book has no authorial intent, then there's no point to the book.
Here are the limitations of science, and they're clearly shown in science's inability to answer the questions of a child; why am I here, where do I come from, and what is the purpose of life. Scientist cannot give us morality either. There are ethical foundations of science but not the scientific foundations of ethics, and looking back in history (his not so veiled reference to Nazi eugenics ideals) we can see what ethics are like when based on science.
Dr. Lennox also references what is commonly called an argument from design or a teleological argument. His example goes like this, say you have a Ford Galaxy like this one:
Authorial intention... I love Dr. Lennox's anecdote about authorial intention. He talks about meeting with a man that had written a book about the idea that there is no such thing as authorial intent. To which he replies, so, if I read your book I'll be convinced that there's no such thing as authorial intent? Then I'll pass. (**laughter from the crowd**) In case it's not obvious, if the book has no authorial intent, then there's no point to the book.
Here are the limitations of science, and they're clearly shown in science's inability to answer the questions of a child; why am I here, where do I come from, and what is the purpose of life. Scientist cannot give us morality either. There are ethical foundations of science but not the scientific foundations of ethics, and looking back in history (his not so veiled reference to Nazi eugenics ideals) we can see what ethics are like when based on science.
Dr. Lennox also references what is commonly called an argument from design or a teleological argument. His example goes like this, say you have a Ford Galaxy like this one:
Now, looking at this car and you're forced to choose an explanation for the car. New Atheists say you must choose either the laws of physics, mechanics, engineering, and internal combustion, but on the other side you have Henry Ford. Obviously you can't choose just one, both are required. The idea is that one has to choose either science or faith, which is a false dilemma. One of the reasons for this dangerous disagreement is the idea that God is only a god of the gaps, the idea that God is only good for explaining what we don't understand. This is a flawed view of God, because He's the reason for everything. Science is about studying a given with a given. Because neither science nor the scientist created the universe.
These problems stem from a misunderstanding of laws and mechanism and agency. Newton's Principea Mathematica was written so that the thinking man would believe in God. The more you know about a thing the more impressive one's understanding of what you're studying. The more you know about art the better you can appreciate Rembrandt; the better you understand mechanics the more you appreciate a Rolls-Royce.
New Atheists are confused about the nature of faith. It's not about belief without evidence. It's about belief where there is evidence. There are so many reasons to believe and there is evidence. Belief without evidence really is dangerous. It's where suicide bombers come from. When Jesus blesses doubting Thomas for his belief, He isn't saying that we should believe without evidence, He's saying that many will do so; it's true there are millions of people even today that still believe in Jesus without seeing Him. Not without evidence, but just the simple logistics of not seeing Jesus.
I know you all love when I loquaciously carry on, but I'm going to have to divide this into two parts. I've only covered the first half of the lecture and there's so much more he has to say that I want to pass on to you. So stay tuned for part two.
 |
| Such a beautiful place to live |
