Comparing The Arguments Of Richard Dawkins And John Lennox

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

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

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.