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
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