http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=988134574542478162 This is just audio

I have so far only listened to part of this debate but it is quite interesting.

John Lennox is an immensly learned and interesting man to listen to (he is pro-God). For a scientist he has an interesting take on proof and he keeps talking about it but for me he is still ultimately unconvincing and the crux of what he is saying relies on faith. His Faith is no more or less valid than Non-Faith.

One of the important tennets of his Faith, in fact probably the hinge to all other evidence he supplies is that the Universe is understandable to us. Personally, considering that I am a child of the Universe, I can't think why that would not be the case.

Anyway, If my wife leaves me alone I will be able to listen to it properly. Surprised he has not been mentioned here previously.

It runs for about 100minutes.

And a radio national interview that runs for 10-15 minutes

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2009/2448470.htm from Jan 2009

and http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s2357758.htm Sept 2008

He has also written a book call
"God's Undertaker - Has Science Buried God?" which sounds interesting.

Quote:

One of the important tennets of his Faith, in fact probably the hinge to all other evidence he supplies is that the Universe is understandable to us.

It is?


Quote:

Personally, considering that I am a child of the Universe, I can't think why that would not be the case.

Aren't we all the children of one small planet in the outer spiral arm of one of the billions of galaxies that make up the universe? Isnt that what we are children of? Our experience of the universe is like having a grain of sand and believing you know all about fun on the beach.

Calanen wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 7:26pm:

Aren't we all the children of one small planet in the outer spiral arm of one of the billions of galaxies that make up the universe? Isnt that what we are children of? Our experience of the universe is like having a grain of sand and believing you know all about fun on the beach.

Well put. I guess there are worse extrapolations - like believing implicitly in the sacred writings of xenophobic sheep herders in the Middle East who hadn't invented toilet paper or dental floss.

Calanen wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 7:26pm:

Quote: One of the important tennets of his Faith, in fact probably the hinge to all other evidence he supplies is that the Universe is understandable to us. It is?

Do you understand him as saying something different? My understanding of the Radio Nat program and the 15-20min of the debate that I heard was that he thinks that the sense or logic of the universe can only be appreciated because a supernarural being has allowed it. AND the fact he thinks that this amounts to evidence.



Calanen wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 7:26pm:

Quote: Personally, considering that I am a child of the Universe, I can't think why that would not be the case. Aren't we all the children of one small planet in the outer spiral arm of one of the billions of galaxies that make up the universe? Isnt that what we are children of? Our experience of the universe is like having a grain of sand and believing you know all about fun on the beach.

That is my point. The very fact that I am part of the universe, intrinsically and inseperately part of the universe, why shouldn't it make sense to me. There is no need from my point of view to attribute to the supernatural what can simply be attributed to logical laws of physics and mathematics. There are patterns and structures to a super nova, a flower and a brain that are repeated and recognisable to us. God need not be involved as far as I can see.

I admire him as a speaker and intellect and understand what he is driving at, I just disagree with him that it is the proof he says it is.

Calanen wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 7:26pm:

Quote: One of the important tennets of his Faith, in fact probably the hinge to all other evidence he supplies is that the Universe is understandable to us. It is? [quote]Personally, considering that I am a child of the Universe, I can't think why that would not be the case.

Aren't we all the children of one small planet in the outer spiral arm of one of the billions of galaxies that make up the universe? Isnt that what we are children of? Our experience of the universe is like having a grain of sand and believing you know all about fun on the beach.

[/quote]

Ah, there you have it, you have proven Lennox right - you do have an understanding of life, the universe, and everything.  

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2009 at 9:57pm:

Calanen wrote on Jan 16th, 2009 at 7:26pm: Quote: One of the important tennets of his Faith, in fact probably the hinge to all other evidence he supplies is that the Universe is understandable to us. It is? [quote]Personally, considering that I am a child of the Universe, I can't think why that would not be the case. Aren't we all the children of one small planet in the outer spiral arm of one of the billions of galaxies that make up the universe? Isnt that what we are children of? Our experience of the universe is like having a grain of sand and believing you know all about fun on the beach.

Ah, there you have it, you have proven Lennox right - you do have an understanding of life, the universe, and everything.  


[/quote]

No I am saying, I dont know and couldnt know.

Maybe if we live long enough without either getting struck by meteorites or killing each other we will take to the stars and find out a bit more about the universe.

At the moment however, perhaps better to say, that we understand the Earth and extrapolate from that our place in the universe. Not that we understand the universe.

He has also written a book call
"God's Undertaker - Has Science Buried God?" which sounds interesting

My copy finally arrived from Mary Ryan's Bookshop today so have started the slow slog of reading it. (combination of me being an extremely slow reader and pre-one y.o. son)

Interesting because he talks about the confusion out there between Intelligent Design and Intelligent Causation. And how scientists have deliberately or accidentally blurred the two.

I thought he was incorrect in this, I think the confusion has come about from the religious camp. I think the scientific community and even the general public have a pretty good handle on the distinctions.

My wife is very much a Catholic of the Intelligent Causation kind, and while she continues to pray, she says it is a meditative trigger that helps her focus and deal with current pains and future desires. She thinks that I.D. is really for the try hards and encompasses too much bad science.  

She is still up in the air about revelation such as the Fatima stories etc but it has been very deeply ingrained in her upbringing.

So far the only thing I can agree with John Lennox on is that science should have nothing to say about the existence of God. Individual scientists are of course entitled to make personal comments about the existence or not of God, as well as entitles to make comments about religious organisations and social impacts.

I am curious about Lennox's evidence but am confident it will collapse in the same heap that all evidence for and against does. I just hope he is interesting and clever.

I've never heard of intelligent causation as a theory before. I would have just lumped it all under ID. But it is an interesting distinction to make.

freediver wrote on Feb 6^th, 2009 at 3:57pm:

I've never heard of intelligent causation as a theory before. I would have just lumped it all under ID. But it is an interesting distinction to make.

Yes, it is the position I think I would personally have if I were ever to believe in God again. It requires no belief in a interventionalist god or master designer. I think the universe would be God's ultimate soap opera.

What is the distinction between causation and design? For example, a researcher can set up a genetic algorithm that produces something novel. He doesn't interfere with the process once it starts. But that doesn't mean he didn't design anything. Doesn't causation imply design?

Calanen wrote on Jan 17^th, 2009 at 7:20am:

Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2009 at 9:57pm: Calanen wrote on Jan 16th, 2009 at 7:26pm: Quote: One of the important tennets of his Faith, in fact probably the hinge to all other evidence he supplies is that the Universe is understandable to us. It is? [quote]Personally, considering that I am a child of the Universe, I can't think why that would not be the case. Aren't we all the children of one small planet in the outer spiral arm of one of the billions of galaxies that make up the universe? Isnt that what we are children of? Our experience of the universe is like having a grain of sand and believing you know all about fun on the beach. Ah, there you have it, you have proven Lennox right - you do have an understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

No I am saying, I dont know and couldnt know.

Maybe if we live long enough without either getting struck by meteorites or killing each other we will take to the stars and find out a bit more about the universe.

At the moment however, perhaps better to say, that we understand the Earth and extrapolate from that our place in the universe. Not that we understand the universe.
[/quote]


We cannot help but have an understanding, not in the sense we understand mathematics but in the sense of having an imaginative grasp of ourselves and what is around us and the relationship between the two. We have an understanding of our own selves and from that comes a concept of our 'situatedness'.  We cannot but have an idea about what is outside ourselves.
Thinking the universe cold and empty is an understanding of it. The only way we could have no understanding of it is if we did not form a concept of its existence.
This is why you can find people with whom to debate the existence of ginns and angels and ghosts , say, but not whether 2+2 is 4 or not.
The only thing that does go to the very edge of the universe is the imagination.