John C. Lennox in Prague: Has Science Buried God?

Date: 6th of November 2014 at 6pm
Place: The main lecture hall of the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague
Organized by: Univerzity Christian Association (www.ukh.cz) and the Faculty of Arts of Charles University.
At the lecture, prof. John Lennox presents two systems of thinking which seem to go against each other: a materialistic one (Does only this world exist, only substance?) and a theistic one (does something, which transcendents the substance, exist, too?). There is no simple answer to this introductory question. If there was, all scientists would be atheists and not one of them would have been a theist. The conflict is not between science and faith, but between two thinking systems which go against each other, the materialistic one on one side and the theistic one on the other. Science lies between them, To which one of these systems do the proofs of science lean towards? To dedicate one's self to science requires faith in the understability of the universe, an assumption that the universe is based on order which the scientists are able to discover.
Prof. Lennox explains the consequences and implications of both views for science and at the same time comments logical mistakes or incorrect assumptions or options, which the representatives of New atheism offer. At the presentation, you will be challenged to consider whether despite the generally widespread concept of 'religion stopping or limiting scientific work', the theistic view of the world is not a better start for the development of science than the materialistic one.
The lecture will also be published with Czech bubtitles within 3 weeks from publishing this file.
This video will also be available with Czech subtitles within 3 weeks after publishing this file.

[@PapaJoeWalsh]

The logic of Professor Lennox is unavailable. It is a shame that most of the comments here (at least those I have read) do not dispute what Prof Lennox expounds but, as is often the case people resort to throwing childish insults at an obviously honourable man. By all means disagree with the man but do yourself justice and show him some respect by withholding your vitriol which serves neither argument. I cannot help but suspect it comes from a certain insecurity in your position. I can say the same to many commenters who supposedly support Prof Lennox; why do you resort to insult? Again let me suggest it comes from insecurity. Please do us a favour and be more confirmed in your beliefs before speaking or instead hold your tongue.

[@bigowl9408]

What you say Sir is so very true! Or what many should do is make their own intellect intelligible, by selecting the right brain gear shift. But for far too may people to be eloquent without insults, which is not only the hallmark of the new age atheism but to the atheist mind set as baffling as rocket science.

[@ianbelletti6241]

T Green The problem I have seen with the new age atheist (which is why they tend to throw insults) is that rather than try to continue pursuing the failing logic that they are using and realize that they would have to at least turn agnostic, they want so much for there to be no God that they would rather make confusion. This has been their standard for defending atheism. The funny thing about atheism is that if you take it beyond the theory level and state or treat it as fact, atheism falls apart logically at its heart. In denying absolutely that there is no god, they are in fact calling themselves gods creating a contradiction. Ironically, what holds an atheist in his world view is a hateful disdain for God often associated with some sort of pain in their life. Granted, these insights do not prove that there is a god or that we can know him personally, but it helps to understand why they argue the way that they do. However, I strongly urge any Christians not to fall for their baiting when they resort to insults. The bible teaches us to be careful with our words because misused words can destroy and usually it is difficult if not impossible to repair the damage done. Always respond in kind, intelligible conversation. Think before you write. If your emotions are stirred, let them settle and read what you wrote to confirm that it's written in a manner that honors our Lord and Savior prior to clicking the reply button. A warning to all who post: The way you use words can increase or destroy the intelligibility of what you are saying. Please do not use inflaming conversation because it will make you look the fool, not the person you are responding too. They can make themselves look a fool all on their own.

[@bakalovesbakachan]

Joe Walsh I honestly believed I would probably not see such a thought expressed by someone with your position any time soon. My hopes in atheists have risen drasticly. You sir have my respect.

[@Johnnyquid20]

No1 here is clever enough 2 disagree with the man 😃 it's what's funny

[@sweedlepipe]

This very agreeable chap is the only obstacle left preventing me from turning atheist.

[@thomasvanderplas1652]

Hello sir or madam. If the Spirit of God is indeed working through Mr John Lennox, your obstacle is God. And I hope you lose that battle in order to gain everything you never deserved. I do not know you, but I do know what it is to think about becoming atheistic. Also I know that nothing can be compared with the love of God. I wish you that. Job 38:1 Then The Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind and said: "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?"

[@strongfaith888]

Brilliant as usual!!!!

[@johnstrang9448]

J l is a brilliant product of Emmanuel college superb.jgs..ma.

[@cogen651]

There is no doubt in my mind that God will send prophets to show the world of his existence ,I consider John one of them.

[@willzer808]

I think John is a cowardly man. And, what is more, I think he knows he is a cowardly man. Strange how people can have such differing opinions.

[@cogen651]

willzer808 Please!. Cowardly man? How is he cowardly. Oh, you hurt John's feelings.Isn't that a demonic response. Typical. Try and hurt the pride. Which makes sense for you, because pride is what got satan in trouble. You can relate , can't you? You deserve a satan slap on the head. That what satan does to his nitwits.

[@gamerdareswins2825]

willzer808 he'd still reduce you to blubbering fool in any debate.

[@willzer808]

GamerDares Wins keep presuming

[@davidplummer2473]

Willzer -- assertions do not count as evidence, they require evidence.

[@gamerdareswins2825]

Thank you Professor Lennox. You never fail to to amaze!

[@stephend2879]

I love Prague.

[@rep3e4]

Awesome

[@peterlooney5818]

At 18:00... In the Czech Republic, the tradition is that 'Baby Jesus' gives toys to children, not Santa Clause.

[@kingdomwarrior1000]

Thanks for that bit of information. His (and their) reaction makes more sense now.

[@OrdosKoala]

God? I had no need of that hypothesis. (Pierre-Simon Laplace)

[@davidplummer2473]

Irrelevant to whether or not God actually exists, which does not depend on anyone's perceived 'needs' of the moment.

[@ferihanni]

Laplace - For answering what?

[@tommarshall7247]

John L mentions that in other talks. You can explain and do many things without mentioning God. I could teach ornithology or etching or the present perfect without talking about God. Of course, it doesn't mean I can't talk about God in relation to those things. Did Laplace believe in a living, active God? Did Napolean mean God, or was he referring to chance and freak events?

[@ianm8383]

05:25 - start speech. Check. 05:37 - ingratiate yourself with hosts. Check. 05:43 - tell a funny little story. Check. 05:59 - throw in some known facts. Check. [actually some quite interesting historical references from Lennox - as well as a lot of 'stating the bleeding obvious' and claiming it for himself and 'appealing to authority' to try to give authority for his own arguments] 21:27 - start religobabble proper. Check.

[@ianm8383]

Oh, and 59:18 - collect a 'spectrum' of questions to reduce the need to answer specifically(bad) and increase the chance to be able to hide behind further religobabble (good). Check

[@bigowl9408]

So your saying that Lennox is equivalent to the style of Dawkins! Now that is interesting as this is what keeps this form of debate never ending. Not because one is right and one is wrong but because neither can be proven one way or the other. If evolution was FACT! Then none of these debates would ever take place. This is what all atheists should take on board, before spouting off that evolution is a done deal.

[@ianm8383]

T Green Err...just how stupid are you? One is right and one is wrong, fact. Work it out.

[@davidplummer2473]

Ian -- what religiobabble are you referring to? What makes it babble and therefore wrong in your view?

[@davidplummer2473]

Ian, he collects the questions first because very often they overlap and it saves time and allows for more questions to be answered. What did he fail to answer specifically enough for you? Remember, assertions do not count as evidence, they require evidence.

[@preitaly]

john is a funny guy, he became a bit angry while collecting the questions :D usually he doesnt

[@pepsimax6671]

probably jet lag or he was hungry , he is a very nice man , i noticed he seemed upset taking the questions.

[@lexter8379]

Proč bychom nemohli věřit mozku, který vznikl evolucí? Proč je abstrakce bez nadpřirozena tak složitá na pochopení, není to nic jinými než koncept, který jsme my, vytvořili. Jistě, že věda nevyvrátila Boha, to bychom nejprve měli dostat definici a důkazy.Věda ale může vyvrátit náboženství. (Také to udělala.)

[@Johntub3]

Jak věda vyvrátila náboženství? _" the belief in the existence of a god or gods"_ Macmillan dictionary

[@lexter8379]

Vyvrátila tvrzení, která jsou ve všech svatých knihách, které o sobě tvrdí, že jsou "absolutní pravdou".

[@lexter8379]

Víru samozřejmě nenvyvrátila, ale proč by věřil někdo něčemu, co bylo z velké části prokázáno za špatné?

[@Johntub3]

Lex Lexter A na co specificky narážíš?

[@lexter8379]

Jan Škopek narážím na to, že většina náboženství je založena na knihách, které jsou z velké většiny špatné, jak morálně tak vědecky.

[@220volt-u7]

bla bla bla