ipl-logo

Comparing The Arguments Of Richard Dawkins And John Lennox

1497 Words6 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Argument for science and religion

In this assignment there will be an attempt made to point out the arguments of Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, to finally conclude their point of views. Before making my own conclusion, the theories of Carl Popper, Thomas Kuhn and Bruno Latour will also be taken into consideration as they too have valuable arguments regarding the development of science.
A look at Dawkins’ point of view and opinion will set the pace for this specific assignment, looking more closely at his opinion regarding the question; “Has science buried God?” thereafter the opinion of John Lennox about the same question; “Has science buried God?” will be discussed to further attempt to indeed answer this specific question at hand.
1. a. Richard Dawkins’ opinion of “has …show more content…

He believes that moral purposes were generated by human society, for human society, over generations passed, to ease human life thus there is no rational intelligence behind it.
1.b. John Lennox’s take on “has science buried God?”
John Lennox is a firm believer of the Christian religion. Even though Lennox is a believer of the Christian faith, he is also a scientist who firmly believes that the conviction of a creator not only is under no circumstances arguable, but it is of essential importance when one looks at the creation of the universe and the existence of human kind. In contrast to Dawkins’ opinion of a mindless origin of existence, Lennox believes that there is without any doubt a rational intelligence behind all creation, and that is God.
Lennox argues his opinion by referring to the creator of all things as a person who created humans in his image, hence the fact than we too are persons. Lennox refers to this creator as Logos, meaning; not created but …show more content…

Examples of such paradigm shifts are; Classical Newtonian physics to quantum-physics, Cyclic landscapes to Continental drift by Alfred Wegener, Creation to Darwinian evolution and geosentrism to heliosentism. iii) Bruno Latour
Bruno Latours attribution to the development of science is that of the following meaning; constructionism is the view that understanding science must not be isolated nor should it be limited to a specific view. It should also not be shut off from other processes that produce knowledge. It must rather, in a pragmatic way, take cognicase of the context in which science is practiced. Thus socially plays a role in the development of science.
2. Popper, Kuhn and Latour’s opinions on Dawkins and Lennox’s personal convictions respectively.
Poppers whole point of view is based on the truth behind any scientific findings, thus he would likely argue with Lennox that it is scientifically irrational for a virgin to conceive a child and for a human to turn water into wine. Keeping Poppers objective in mind, the lack of proof would probably discard any assumptions made by Lennox, since Popper was after proof and not necessarily only evidence. In light of Dawkins’ statement that claims that the cosmos is yet to be explained, they do not know how the lawas of physics came into existence, therefor Popper would have argumentatively discarded any significance in Dawkins’ statement.

Show More
Related
253 Words | 2 Pages

In his letter answering sixth-grade student Phyllis Wright’s question of whether scientists pray, Albert Einstein employs purposeful logos and diction to successfully distinguish the religiosity of true scientists from that others. Einstein logically builds his distinction by asserting that “a research scientist will hardly believe ... [in] prayer” and subsequently revealing that experienced scientists nevertheless develop a religious devotion towards “a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” This explicit presentation of the similarities and differences makes it clear how the scientists’ concepts of piety differ from conventional beliefs. Henceforth, Wright would conceptualize Einstein’s beliefs as a variation from the beliefs she is familiar

Read More
546 Words | 3 Pages

During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, many scientists had developed a new perspective on the world around them. Scientists such as Galileo and Copernicus envisioned a world where natural phenomenons could be proved through experimentation. Furthermore, the work of scientists during this time period were affected by the approval of political figures, the support from influential members of the church, and social factors that influenced the development and acceptance of new theories. To powerful political figures, scientific theories were regarded as an opportunity to gain power and money.

Read More
895 Words | 4 Pages

As time went from the 16th century to the 18th century, the Renaissance thinking transformed to the Scientific Revolution. Soon, it would enable a worldview in which people were not invoking the principles of religion as often as the Renaissance. As an example, these natural philosophers, known as scientists today, developed a new thinking in which the world was no longer geocentric. The thought of an Earth-centered universe as the Bible would say, transformed as heliocentric or in other words Sun-centered. Within this period, Scientists were starting to understand the world’s functions, for they created experiment methods incorporating discipline, mathematics, and the essential Scientist communication.

Read More
384 Words | 2 Pages

I have to admit that Zimmerman’s talk was hard at times for me to comprehend. I would love feedback if I understood his divine argument wrong, because I have had a few discussions about it with my peers and many took away different views from his final argument for a divine being, and in this paper I will explain how I understood his final argument. To come upon the divine being of God, he had to eliminate all the other contingent and necessary options believed by other philosophers and scientists through reasoning. He explained how it wasn’t possible for their to be no answer for the cosmos, nor were any of the contingent explanations of science, philosophy, or an infinite past made any sense.

Read More
743 Words | 3 Pages

The issue on whether religion and science can work together has been debatable for centuries. Neil DeGrasse Tyson in his article the Perimeter of Ignorance argues that science and religion cannot coexist. In his article, the author explains that religion is all about the Bible and the Bible primarily focuses on the explanation of the origin of the world. He puts forth the point that this concept is far different from what science is and that they do not complement each other. This essay intends to prove that religion and science can work together with no issues.

Read More
1552 Words | 7 Pages

“The Elizabethan Period was the age of the Renaissance, of new ideas and new thinking” (Alchin). It was a time of many advances in a large variety of fields. Some of the most notorious advances during this time were in the field of science. Overall, the most well-known revolutions in science of the Elizabethan Era are attributed to the Scientific Revolution, which brought about many changes, especially in astronomy, physics, and mathematics, and innovations, which had a strong impact on the way of life during this time.

Read More
933 Words | 4 Pages

The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.

Read More
623 Words | 3 Pages

Lewis proved he was not one for hesitation when it came to voicing his theories about the universe. Carefully manufacturing his first theory with inductive reasoning, Lewis is sure to incorporate logical thinking in his argument for the Law of Human Nature by pointing out different pieces of evidence to larger, more universal statements. He makes general observations after comparisons with different universal laws as well as different civilizations throughout time. Following these remarks, he delves further into his theory that people don’t need to be taught the Law of Nature, but that almost everyone knows it by nature. In the second paragraph, Lewis further establishes logical persuasion by pointing out his “Power Behind” theory with deductive reasoning.

Read More
1531 Words | 7 Pages

In The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, author Francis S. Collins explores the special yet unique relationship between faith and reason in the context of modern scientific discoveries. By discussing topics such as the origins of life, the existence of moral law, and the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the author encourages readers to reflect on their own beliefs and evaluate the scientific evidence alongside their faith. Through personal anecdotes and logical arguments, he encourages readers to reassess their assumptions about spirituality and the scientific worldview. Incorporating a blend of theology, philosophy, and empirical evidence, the overarching themes of Language of God emphasize the compatibility

Read More
1876 Words | 8 Pages

By saying that if you were to drop a stone, and it falls to the ground. Logically and scientifically explained it would be because of gravity. And you would not say that it was being pushed down by a God, just because we do not understand it. In respect to evolution, Dawkins replied. Dawkins replied to Lennox on his accusation that the principles of going from simple to complex is the belief of the atheist.

Read More
898 Words | 4 Pages

There were scientific findings before the 16th century and there were more to follow the 18th century. Shapin’s thesis covers that there was no specific scientific distinction between the 17th century and the rest of time for this period to stand out and be a revolution but he explains that the Scientific Revolution is more of a process. Shapin still believes that the scientific findings of this time can be considered revolutionary. Shapin explains that “Science remains whatever it is-certainly the most reliable body of natural knowledge we have got” (165) to show that he still understands how important science and the findings in science are to the world and civilization.

Read More
159 Words | 1 Pages

Dawkins believes that truth and the beauty to reality is truth. Both Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins , strongly believes that if they can get others to start thinking and understanding how the

Read More
1172 Words | 5 Pages

Falsificationism, though, helped me to understand that induction is good for everyday life, but not for science. I learnt that it is possible to falsify someone’s theory or my theory be falsified, but Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ approaches made me understand that it is better not to abandon a theory even if it is falsified. Research programmes influenced me mostly, since the fundamental hypothesis of the hard core and the supplementary assumptions of the protective belt, can be better applied not only to physics, but also natural sciences. For me science has to be explained in an objective way, so the anarchistic theory of science did not influence me, because it talks about individual’s freedom and subjectivity. Finally, the modern approaches of Bayesianism and New Experimentalism did not satisfy me at all and they did not help me in order to define what science is.

Read More
841 Words | 4 Pages

Dawkins desires the reader to understand that the Bible is just “a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed, historically inaccurate documents”. He claims that believers use a two-edged sword when only taking certain sections of the Bible literally. “It is as much a pick-and-mix philosophy”. According to his text, God is simply an illusion that does not exist.

Read More
1410 Words | 6 Pages

He thought there was something special on the science side of the line. Under the assumption that science has suitable methodology for avoiding false beliefs, one of the problems with pseudo-science is that it gets an unfair development by mimicking the surface appearance of science. The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. Popper believes while a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false, a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims.

Read More

More about Comparing The Arguments Of Richard Dawkins And John Lennox

Related Topics

Open Document