Editorial Reviews. Review. "A brilliant response to Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design. Make sure you hear both sides of the argument!" —Alister McGrath.
Table of contents
- God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? by John C. Lennox
- God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?
- God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?
As Lennox summarizes the problems:. He says the universe comes from a nothing that turns out to be a something self-contradiction number one , and then he says the universe creates itself self-contradiction number two. But that is not all. His notion that a law of nature gravity explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory, since a law of nature, by definition, surely depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature it purports to describe p.
The mistake of appealing to laws to explain the existence of things is further compounded by Hawking ensuing claim that:. M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law p.
Things apparently come into existence because of laws. While laws may describe natural phenomena, they do not bring them into existence. Laws as such are without causal powers p. Understanding natural laws may explain how the universe functions, but they do not explain where it came from. In recent years, physicists have increasingly come to marvel at how the life-sustaining nature of our universe depends on certain physical constants which, if only slightly altered, would make life impossible.
It may be a comfortable read for the theist, but it seems to address nothing but self-serving-biased thinking. I'll keep reading and hope there is some critical substance later on. Honestly, Lennox seems jealous of Hawking; it has stab after stab at the man, each one trying to degrade him. I'd like to catalog some passages I came across below for future construction of my review I hope I eventually find some worthwhile arguments that might let me give the book more stars-but if I must work this hard to wade through the shat I don't know that I can: Introduction Lennox "writes off" the "inevitable conflict between science and religion" with a piss-poor example, "That conflict view of the matter has long since been discredited.
Take, for example, the first author on our list, Francis Collins You can prove problems that have existed for millenniums wrong by stating an irrelevant example?! Is is called differently by different people? Anyway, most of the countries central to philosophical thought Theism is a shrinking minority. Let's just generalize and speak for entire groups of people whom we are not affiliated with or elected by. I'm pretty sure most secularists could care less.
The Big Questions "In his runaway best seller, Hawking brought the recondite world of fundamental physics to the coffee table although many people have confessed to finding the contents rather beyond them. The book was followed by several others in the same vein If no one can understand the physics and science how are they supposed to deny his suppositions? It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics Oh, that's right, Hawking was speaking about the body of philosophers as a whole, perhaps over generalizing but for better cause than falsely framing this as a self-contradiction.
I am a philosopher, and I'll speak to the truth of Hawking's statement. My professors are decades behind in the developments of every science. I, personally, committed myself to reading all of the literature of every discipline as any philosopher should do, and hopefully I can help to change this, along with a number of others and current philosophers , but currently, philosophy is very far behind science.
This is a statement that is so utterly stupid I'm not sure how to respond. What truths has religion given us?
What truths has mysticism given us? And I don't mean the falsifiable Truths that for which we must have faith and trust in abstract entities. What a sickening deluded way of going about a critique! It is disgusting that people delude themselves with this garbage to feel comforted. Throughout the entire book he has been making appeals to authority, literally throughout the entire thing, and now he attempts to sum it up with such the weakest shot at trying to weaken Hawking's own authority using a damn quote he misrepresents completely, only to drone on into more appeal to authority.
Albert Einstein would be sickened by Lennox's use of his quotes in order to jealously disparage Hawking. I am beginning think the other readers and I have read completely different books because they exclaim this book while I gag on it. Now, since you have to misrepresent Hawking's words to come of up with a shat argument you are now going to put words into his mouth?! Are you critiquing a caricature of Hawking? This book oozes of jealousy. To actually address the claim made, naturalism the position held by atheism is and always has been a prerequisite for science.
Lennox suggests that Hawking posits "a 'God of the Gaps', who will increasingly be displaced as the gaps in our knowledge are filled by scientific explanations, sot hat he will eventually disappear completely," but I'm still searching for the part that is not evident when looking at history and the development of science. The "un-scientifically-answerable questions" are answered equally well by philosophy if not better as they are by religion. And Einstein is probably wrong about reducing ethics to scientific formulae, but it would be far more complex than any scientific formulae we currently have.
- ABOUT JOHN LENNOX?
- Wage-Earning Women: Industrial Work and Family Life in the United States, 1900-1930 (Galaxy Books).
- GOD: new evidence!
- .
- Keep in touch:.
- See a Problem?;
Furthermore, this is sheer Appeal to Authority; if any reader knows anything about Einstein, they should know that his religious views were pantheistic. Einstein criticizes the views of theists, especially Christians; The author is banking on the reader's ignorance of Einstein here. Maybe he is banking on his own ignorance. This is like when I was arguing with a Christian and he sited Nietzsche.
One out-of-context quote does not make the man. Also, notice that Einstein said "scientific formulae;" Scientific is unequal with philosophic, and Einstein was sure a hell not supporting a religious formulation of ethics. Einstein would be as sick as I am to see his name misrepresented. This book is an sickening waste of my time.
Feb 03, Bob Mendelsohn rated it it was amazing. Perhaps it was actually a series of lectures he gave which are now compiled into this well-documented and easy-to-follow scholarly work in answer to Stephen Hawking's book The Great Design. Prof Lennox shows due deference to the man Prof Hawking and yet at the same time, has capacity and Irish aplomb in denigrating Hawking's postulates and conclusions.
Prof Lennox goes after Hawking specifically viz. I really liked his frank and clear exposing of the errors of Hawking's conclusions. They are not oppositional he avers. And he maintains that opinion. May 05, Rod rated it really liked it Shelves: He's a professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, and many other things. He's also a Christian Apologist who has debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and lectured all over the world. In this book he takes on the sacred Cowboy of Atheistic Science: I just watched the somewhat biographical movie: The Theory of Everything.
It's amazing how religion seems to touch just about everything. Almost every science book I pick up which ain't that many has a whack of crap to say about God. And that's the challenge with some Scientists instead of boldly doing science: You would think science would be busy without this added inserted mockery. Hawking has an agenda with his science, as does Richard Dawkins and a gaggle of other self-declared enlightened professors.
It appears some scientists are never that busy actually doing REAL science. It seems Hawking's foot is often fully inserted into his own mouth. Stephen Hawking is famous in my memory for stating: Not only is philosophy not dead - but everyone is using it whether they are smart enough to know it or not. Most assumed Hawking was smart??? Maybe being self aware isn't his highest priority.
Here's a fun comment: The Elephant in the room is that the challenge is really between Good science vs.
God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? by John C. Lennox
Christianity is Christianity regardless. Lennox shows clearly that Hawking is basically attempting to do magic with his scientific assumptions. His notion that a law of nature gravity explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory Here's my favorite quote of the book: He's not some nobody Goodreads Talking Donkey who writes down every bodily noise that blurts out from his orifices. Is he obviously correct?
God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?
NO, but he's worth investigating. They define the range of questions that science is permitted to ask in such a way that God is excluded from the start; and then they claim that God is unnecessary, or doesn't exist. They fail to see that their science does not answer the question as to why something exists rather than nothing They also fail to see that by assumption it is their atheist world-view, not science as such, that excludes God.
This time it is: God or the multiverse If it is, then Hawking is back where he started. Here's one last good quote pg. And speaks of Alien life-forms. I wish I had a dollar for every atheist that has faith in Space Aliens I find it faintly amusing that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth.
They are only too eager to denounce the possibility that there exists a vast, intelligent being "Out there", namely God, who has left his fingerprints all over HIS creation. And I often hear atheists complain about Religious folks wasting cash. Hilarious - don't let your kids watch it. But basically this is the future hope of atheists. I could quote from this book all day. So many great comments that should cause folks to - not so blindly - have endless faith in Hawking's deity of scientism. Yes, once again, an endless Atheistic assertion of Science of the Gaps. This is a short book.
A good start to investigating and critiquing secular science and its sacred institution of Peer Review Publishing. Science isn't much different than Hollywood these days. Pretty soon we'll even have Red Carpet Awards shows for celebrity scientists Hawking and Dawkins are like Rockstars.
And we all know we shouldn't take those kind of folks seriously - It's all entertainment! After Hawking has come and gone - The Bible and its God will still be going strong. Jun 10, Bob Hayton rated it it was amazing Shelves: The new atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, are ever in the public spotlight these days, or so it seems.
The idea that brilliant physicists and scientists can make sense of this world without a God appeals to many. Since everything does fit so nicely toge The new atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, are ever in the public spotlight these days, or so it seems. Since everything does fit so nicely together, however, should we wonder if the case made is really as air tight as claimed?
If the conclusions are made to order, we might have warrant to carefully scrutinize the claims of these New Atheist authors. In God and Stephen Hawking: Lennox begins by framing the scope of what science can really address as it attempts to examine metaphysical questions. The Christian understanding of God has Him outside the boundaries of creation as Lord over all of it, not some explanation for unknown phenomena. Still the question remains, why are there any universes instead of no universe? Lennox reveals that other major physicists have their own doubts as to the ability that M theory really has for being an explanation of everything.
Lennox also addresses head on the claim that miracles cannot happen because the laws of science would be invalidated. He pries open the layers from this question and shows the irrationality of claiming that science strictly forbids the existence of exceptions or miracles. Lennox argues that often the new atheists assume that to believe in God is to believe in a young earth view, and he shows this is not true. The resulting case is convincing and should serve to bolster the faith of any troubled by the new atheism.
At the least, it offers avenues of further exploration available in grappling with these issues.
God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?
This excerpt will illustrate his style and the way he can cut to the heart of an issue with incisive logic. Shall we account for it by mentioning the personal agency of its inventor, Sir Frank Whittle? Or shall we follow Hawking: It is self-evident that we need both levels of explanation in order to give a complete description. It is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts nor competes with the agent explanation: It is the same with explanations of the universe: God is actually the ground of all explanation, in the sense that he is the cause in the first place of there being a world for the laws of physics to describe.
I encourage you to pick up this little book as it offers an excellent primer on how to deal with the claims of the new atheism. Even if you differ with Lennox on a point or two, his clear style and succinct arguments will equip you in thinking through these issues on your own. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review. Rather, he critiques the underlying philosophy of the book, reducing it to shreds. Some issues he has with Hawking include: At the outset, Hawking declares philosophy to be dead, having failed to keep up with modern developments in science.
He then proceeds to engage in bad philosophy, apparently having failed to keep up with modern developments in philosophy. Hawking associates biblical religion with the ancient religions that deified the universe, failing to recognize that long before the Greek philosophers de-deified the universe by questioning the pagan gods, the ancient Israelites worshipped the Creator God who made the universe, an orderly universe.
In his assertion that the universe can create itself out of nothing on account of the law of gravity, Hawking displays logical incoherence. Secondly, something cannot create itself. For it to do this, it would have to be pre-existent. Thirdly, to use the law of gravity to explain the existence of the universe is contradictory because the law of gravity depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the universe whose behavior it describes. In other words, the law of gravity also requires the universe to be pre-existent to work. Hawking appears to be assigning to the laws of nature creative power and agency to take God out of the picture.
It is almost as if he is turning the laws of nature into god. Furthermore, laws of nature are descriptive and not prescriptive. They merely describe how the universe works but cannot explain how it comes about. M-theory is speculative and untestable.
In this short review, I have barely scratched the surface of Dr. The critique is a superb example of critical thinking in action. These include examining the relationship between science and religion, the evidence for God, the issue of suffering and the place of Christianity in society today. He has also produced a number of apologetics articles and has been interviewed by a number of organisations.
Has Science Buried God? Whose Design is it Anyway? Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.