Oxford mathematician John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker an excellent review of the design controversy

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 11, 2007

The Design of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s my review of Oxford Mathematician John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker: Has science buried God? – a highly recommended riposte to the materialist view of the universe.

Comments

I'm sorry, but is anyone else having technical difficulties? I can't see the review...Nochange_{December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

I think that Dawkins is not really the athiest champ; more the court jester.Collin_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

you have a good point collin.gore_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Yes, it is a very interesting debate that is worth listening to and analyzing, because it highlights many or all main points of contention between atheists and theists. Lennox argues very well, Dawkins often plays the second fiddle in the debate. Another debate which shows that the atheists' position is unreasonable and untenable. gore, follow denyse's links Here's how to get a copy of the debate. from http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007/10/lennox-dawkins-debate-updates.html or http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Fixed-Point-Foundation-Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennoxrockyr_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Is there any way to hear his debate with Dawkins? How did he do up against the athiest champ of the world?gore_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Denyse, thank you for that review. I was particularly interested in what you and what Lennox wrote about the value of the creationist (as opposed to mere ID) perspective.
Lennox also defends creationism as a useful concept for getting people thinking in a scientific way: " ... the rise of science would have been seriously retarded if one particular doctrine of theology, the doctrine of creation had not been present." (God's Undertaker, p.22) Why is a doctrine of creation important? Lennox points out that it frees science from the idea that we ought to be able to deduce what is happening in the universe from fixed prior principles. If - in contradiction to such an idea - we assume that God is entitled to create what he likes (trilobites, giraffes, and whales, to name some examples), then our duty is to address what exists rather than to set rules for what can exist. Unfortunately, centuries ago, many scientists attempted to proceed by setting rules about what can exist, according to their theories. Many of their ideas were in conflict with reality, and unproductive conflicts were common. Having taught sections of the Design or Chance? adult night school course at St. Michael's in the University of Toronto, I also have a clear sense of another issue: A doctrine of creation encourages people to believe that the universe is worth studying because it puts a limit on the things you would need to know in order to understand. For one thing, even by positing an actual beginning of time, it closes off an infinite past in which virtually anything could have, and has, happened.
I've often heard that a biblical or Judeo-Christian perspective was critical to the advance of science, but I hadn't heard these arguments for why that is so. How does Lennox's book stack up against other works as far as readability?russ_{December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply