The Arguments Of Richard Dawkins And John Lennox

Superior Essays
Richard Dawkins and John Lennox recently had a lively debate over what is arguably the most important questions of recent times. The following points formed the main arguments of each person's stand point.
1. RICHARD DAWKINS' MAIN ARGUMENTS
[1] Dawkins says that he cannot comprehend that God, who can do anything, couldn't find a better way to forgive sin than to have Himself tortured and killed. He stated that believing in the resurrection of Christ was "petty and small-minded", because it goes against every law of science. He also says that a God who is grand enough to create the universe would not be bothered by a mere human's thoughts.
Dawkins believes in Darwin's theory of natural selection to explain evolution, and that the evolution
…show more content…
POPPER, KUHN AND LATOUR'S EVALUATION OF THE ARGUMENTS
Popper's philosophy is based on falsifiability, thus he would side with Lennox. There are a lot of gaps in the science when it comes to evolution and the origin of life. There are also a lot of phenomenons that Dawkins cannot explain by using pure science, because he believes that the specific explanations have not been discovered yet. Lennox uses falsifiability as his main argument in many situations to counter Dawkins' theories. Lennox uses God to explain all of these phenomenons and because God cannot be falsified by using science, Popper would side with Lennox rather than Dawkins.
Kuhn's philosophy is based on the fact that there will always be gaps in the science, but he also believes that these gaps will be filled by someone as the time goes on. As time passes revolutionary stages in science occur and these stages cause a shift in the focus point of science. Once this focus point shifts, it opens the door for new developments in science, because it promotes innovative thinking. With this new found thought process it helps to fill the current blanks in science. This philosophy is thus basically the same as what Dawkins believes and thus Kuhn would rather side with Dawkins than Lennox. Lennox uses the same explanation to explain all of these gaps in science, namely that God was
…show more content…
Dawkin's theory and philosophy is very scientific and also based on scientific experience, whereas Lennox's philosophy is based mainly on believe and falsifiablility. Thus Latour would rather side with Dawkins than Lennox.
7. MY OWN VIEW
I do not believe that science has buried God! I am a Christian and I believe that all life came to be through God. Science does make it more difficult to believe these days, because they try and explain all of the wonders of God by using science. For a lot of people this has a big impact on their faith and it might cause them to stop believing, but I feel that if your faith is strong enough you can overcome all of these things and still believe.
I am also a person that enjoys science but I feel that science can only be used to explain thing up to a point. The things that are still a mystery to us today and that cannot be explained by science are the miracles of God and us as humans should not try and comprehend

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Both the scientific community, and religious faithful forget the truthful fact, that neither side can ever be correct. Science is mostly based around theories that are constantly changing, while religion is based on teachings from the Holy Book. Science today features possibilities of genetic engineering and other ways to alter life that religious followers view as unethical. The lack of long term studies should lead to a healthy skepticism of the future of scientific discovery, as there could exist potential repercussions for altering life. Furthermore, the religious community should learn to embrace the possibilities that science holds, because it, like religion, preaches hope for a better tomorrow.…

    • 1476 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Religion Vs. Science

    • 1922 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Religious leaders started to worry that as science progressed, its discoveries would discredit the Lord. Thus, a misunderstanding of science arose. In reality, science answers the “important” questions of life while religion deals with the “hard” question. Important questions such as “what does it take to sustain life?” are different from hard questions like “what is the purpose of life?” Science can provide information which can be used to help make a decision but frequently cannot tell you what to decide. Humans have spiritual needs that can be dealt by religion but not by science.…

    • 1922 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Science Vs Religion Essay

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages

    (Townes, 1966). Faith is essential to both science and religion. Faith is the foundation for religious opinion; however, scientists do not even realize they are utilizing faith as their foundation as well. For a scientist to begin searching, they must believe, or have faith, in their mind that there is a universal order, assuring their self of obtaining an understanding of this order in an attempt to find answers. Additionally, Townes compares the method of discovery between the two; further explaining both use great revelations.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Aquinas says we must think critically about our faith, as we cannot just simply accept it. Science can sometimes challenge our faith, which turns out to be a good thing because that forces us to analyze why we believe what we do. A person’s faith journey should not be stagnant, but like science, it should be always striving for betterment. Nicolaus Copernicus was another person with both religious and science backgrounds, who was able to successfully live a life believing in both with no qualms. He was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at the center of the universe.…

    • 1609 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Ken Ham states, “That’s called ‘natural selection’ or ‘adaptation.’ It’s not necessarily survival of the fittest; it’s survival of those that have the right characteristics to survive in that environment.” (P. 75) This statement does not really make sense because that is, in fact, exactly what survival of the fittest is. Ham often states the reasons why evolution is wrong but then backs up creation by simply saying that that’s just the way God made it. (P.74) And this is completely understandable from the Christian point of view. However, if one of our main priorities is for all realms of science to take Christian science seriously, we cannot give scientific explanations without some sort of data to back it up. I understand that Christianity is mainly based on the faith we put in God, but secular science will never start giving credit to Christian scientists until we can actually present data that backs up our beliefs.…

    • 660 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Take Louis Pasteur for example, he was a scientist who believed in God, despite the fact that he was a scientist, he supports the theory of creationism so we can argue that a scientist can be a religious person. ‘His most straightforward, anti-evolution remarks came from his studies on whether life can spontaneously arise. His case for special creation is best seen in his experiments disproving spontaneous generation’ (Gillen and Sherwin). So by looking at another aspect of religious knowledge system and combine it with his scientific research, Pasteur has depicted the origin of species that goes against the theory of evolutionism. What Pasteur believed in was the idea of spontaneous generation, which is the production of a living organism out of non-matter.…

    • 980 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The views of evolutionary creationists are sometimes called “theistic evolution” (Lamoureux, 14). This view embraces the notion that God used the process of evolution to create life on Earth. This term contradicts what evolutionary creationists believe because it states that God is inferior to the process of evolution and this is not what they believe. Howard Van Till, a lead evolutionary creationist, states that God implanted the process…

    • 988 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Age Of Reason

    • 1099 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The beliefs of suffering and punishment were also challenged by Deism. The Enlightenment and Deism influenced believers into rejecting the idea of God’s interference. By way of reason and enlightenment, Deists believed God created the universe, and then left His followers alone after creation. Through scientific discoveries and understanding, Christian ideology shifted from a negative tone filled with assumption to a positive tone based on…

    • 1099 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This approach is actually used often throughout science to affirm things we cannot see or touch such as electrons and black holes. God is the best explanation, but not necessarily the only explanation. The second important thing to remember is that yes, these arguments are defeasible, meaning that it is possible they could be wrong. However, atheists and McCloskey have yet to provide a defeater for our arguments. We as Christians could be wrong, but someone has yet to prove us 100 percent wrong.…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However, I felt that Gould was little harsh to the creationist by his writing style and some choice of words but the constant adding of creationist views and explanation on the theory was needed to prove that there is more logic in the evolution theory over the religious belief. Everyone should believe in religion but not blindly that you start calling it science without no facts to support it. Religion and science should be kept away from each other and religion should be there to learn the values and traditions rather than questioning the existence of science because if it gets out of hand then one day it will put stop to all new discoveries made by scientist. Throughout his essay, Gould was trying to portray that, “We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history”, which is spot-on because the world runs on proofs than on your opinions (Gould, 255). Gould’s presentation of evidences and his disagreement towards the creationist is very logical and written in a straightforward manner for the audience to know that there is more creditability of Darwin’s theory than the creationist…

    • 1002 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays