Atheism Darwinist rhetorical tactics ID Foundations Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

John Lennox responds to the God Delusion thesis, pivoting on the power of agent explanation (vs. scientism)

Spread the love

John Lennox is always a treat, here in a video in reply to the God Delusion thesis:

[youtube Z9jHp9tzCAE]

Food for thought and comment, starting with, what is a delusion and then pivoting on the power of agent explanation. What do we think, why? END

4 Replies to “John Lennox responds to the God Delusion thesis, pivoting on the power of agent explanation (vs. scientism)

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    kairosfocus, thank you for posting this refreshing video ๐Ÿ™‚

    John Lennox is always a treat

    Agree. A real delight. Thank God for giving us a kind of ‘reincarnated’ C.S. Lewis with a fresh mathematical flavor along with the logic produced by mixing true wisdom with scientific thinking.
    I like his clever comparison of the so called ‘god of the gaps’ with the real God of the whole show, Whom he also referred to as ‘The Ultimate Reality’.
    I would have enjoyed being a student of this professor, but that did not happen ๐Ÿ™
    Well, in a way, I could say it’s happening now via online videos ๐Ÿ˜‰

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: The Lennox Q & A session is also well worth viewing. I should add, that he here addresses the issues of evolution, OOL, evolutionism and design.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    Ah, D: That is one of the great — and too often neglected — opportunities of our time. KF

  4. 4
    jstanley01 says:

    I recommend Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart’s critique of all four horsemen — Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins — as well worth the time too.

    Hart not only points out numerous examples of their historical, factual and conceptual errors, but also discusses their appearance in a broader historical context. Comparing their droll tomes to more serious but dated efforts like Nietzsche’s, he says:

    It seems to me that one of the reasons the New Atheism is what it is, is that the path of profound atheism is not plausible anymore. It’s not a compelling moral or intellectual stance. The sort of buoyant, confident, elated godlessness of the first dawn of radical secularism, the secularist side of the Enlightenment, has proved — one could very well argue — one of the most complete, blood-soaked, catastrophic failures of any idea in the history of humanity.

    David Bentley Hart – Christianity and Its Fashionable Enemies

Leave a Reply