John Lennox || Science And Faith Are Not Enemies || Creation | RESET

[@MayorAkweNyenke]

I really enjoyed watching this! John Lennox is so calm yet gripping. I didn't want this interview to end. Thanks for sharing

[@sekateksekate]

Yah neh can't wait for these conversation. God has honored us with Prof John Lennox and other folks equipping saints in fulfilling 1 Peter 3:15-16. May the Lord bless him, his family and others. Truly our Lord God speaks for Himself. Big up for streaming

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Thanks for for that. Hope you enjoy it. It's a good one.

[@JohnDrees]

7 Days That Divide The World was a great book and it has a lot of potential to help heal the divide between the fundamentalists and the scientific world. As he said some of it is as simple as poor translation and thats unfortunate but can be remedied by people like this author. Thanks for having Dr. Lennox on your program!

[@FreshOakGrove]

I don't normally quote videos in my Theology Essyas, this this one os going in. Gold!!! Top stuff!

[@dallas998]

Recommend to anyone interested the ten minutes starting at 21:00. Lennox nails it. The whole interview is fascinating, thanks for this.

[@HearGodsWord]

Science helps us to better understand God's creation.

[@edwarddebone402]

Gee why only 46 watching?! Thank God for this lad.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Well, I can tell from you under the hood, that over 200 watched it in the first hour - so you were not as low. John is a very gifted, able, and humble man. Do like and share this video with your friends, as well as subscribe for even more great interviews.

[@charlesmathew6992]

Thanks for sharing this.

[@louise5941]

Thank you, Sir.

[@adeptusjoker7176]

I appreciated the summation near the end, at 45:00

[@christianbensel]

Great! Completely agree on different opinions on days of GEN 1 not THE test for genuine love for Jesus.

[@subcitizen2012]

Pertaining to the free speech tangent and so-called cancel culture, those they want safe spaces and do not want to engage or converse,vthst is also their right under free speech. They do not have to be forced to engage in a forced conversation, and they are free to disagree. The true meaning of free speech pertains to the states authority to enforce upon it, this you have to ask yourself, if no one is being shot or jailed for their speech, is anyone truly being persecuted due to others simply disagreeing? Maybe if the modern conservative contrarians and revisionists considered that then they would find there is no free speech problem, and those safe spacists are simply exercising their free speech right to disengage from a conversation they do not want and do not have to have because they've already considered all the abusive arguments which have failed upon them. A cursory study of law history regarding free speech clarifies all of this, but instead it's been cultivated into a fascistic cultural movement in which we just listen to the conversations we do not want to have, and definitely leave the state out of enforcing such a view, otherwise you kill free speech the moment a state actor fires a shot into a protestor or hauls them to jail for not wanting to converse.

[@damianwhite504]

mister lennnox your hair looks good

[@subcitizen2012]

I'll just start off with that firstly, Dave Rubin is pretty far removed from being a good example of anything good haha. A reactionary through and through whom is due some credit for where things are politically in the US, but these are very grand historical instances of where we are in the fabric of history. I would hope that other than the singular agreeance that there's is or could be something transcendent and useful about faith in our times, Rubin isn't good for much else, and would hope that Christians could recognize that and would find abhorrent whatever he represents for political conservatism. It's not healthy conservatism of it's reactionary. Anyway. In my personal journey, as an atheist, I've also found myself coming full circle in a way, perhaps a Hegelian way, viewing religion with respect. Putting it in historical and anthropological contexts can reveal a richness and reality of Judaism and Christianity that are unspoken and unappreciated by the typical preachers and theologians. Jesus as a freedom fighter and political martyr in the face of Roman tyranny is at least a fascinating and rich reality to the history and the story. In such short terms, atheism is being taught along side religion in religious studies! If it has the right to be a religion, it is in a way the ultimate reformed Christianity, and it doesn't deny religion in its entirety, or at least doesn't have to. And so we have rather worthless and ineffective dogmatists like Dawkins that don't fully represent our "faith" either, and he's problematic in his own right where he wanders off of his professional biological profession into philosophical inquiries that he naturally gets wrong, or at least seems to misunderstand. Religion as an anthropogenic phenomenon, necessary to our evolution and especially cultural evolution, is a thing to be respected as such. It was the means of transmission of language and beliefs, which are what later became laws and modern understandings of things like human rights, whether literally true, or simply useful to survival, and that extends to science in similar ways. If science and religion can be reconciled (and I'd argue that they need not be enemies at all), science is furthering gods revelation if it's able to make the lame walk again, to make the deaf hear, and the blind see! Miracles, "gods" "work" in action! Goodness on the earth, mercy, life affirming. It seems to me, and this is in the avenue of Carl Jung, that the reconciling of religion and science is one of the biggest challenges and endeavors in our eon, to progress and have peace on earth, and it extends into the perceived divisions between so-called liberalism and socalled conservatism. But these are all very heady and wordy things, it's why these things have so far taken centuries to develop, and there are likely still centuries further to go. I'd recommend Daniel Dennett and his book and view about "breaking the spell of religion." Even Dawkins admitted in his book that he is simply a hard agnostic, that he's certain of the uncertainty as pertaining to the demonstrable knowledge of there being a literal god, but that contrasts to his belief that there may not be a literal one, as it might be unnecessary. Hopefully we can be open to sorting these things out and accepting each other. In my view it's the American fundamentalists and their biblical literalism and emnity with science and modernism which are the roots of many of these problems. As soon as you leave the states adm the fundamentalist and hyper conservative denominations there is no formal conflict! And I'd argue there's a counterpart atheist fundamentalism which need not be taken to literally either!

[@subcitizen2012]

Haha well, while Jordan Peterson is interesting for his psychology and psychoanalysis of Christianity, there are better thinking's in the area of philosophy, history, and sociology. Related to that, Carl Jung's approach , where he sees religion as having been able to reconcile materialism via the philosophers stone,vthst there is life on the material. Perhaps the material itself isn't life of course, but is it not also considered part of creation, and we a part of that? I forget who said it, but it's that we are more than the sum of our parts, we can't be reduced to mere atoms, because when we are whole and human, we are able to transcend that material, and I'd argue that all of life does this, not just humanity. But I'd also argue for trans humanism, if things like artificial intelligence can augment the "god given" faculties of the kind, such as reason, why would it be a bad thing to transcend humanity and humanism and take it further and getting closer to the image of god in being able to perceived more and have more consciousness of ourselves, each other, and our environments. But these are things which later generations will have to tangle with as ai augmented theologians with the entire Bible and all of the knowledge thereof is in the back of their eyelids vs the naysayers that still wouldn't want to progress to a higher state of being. There's always more truth and more knowledge to know, who are we to say there isn't just because we might believe in the Bible? Science is right to have a material view of material, but that scientific and historical materialism need not bleed into philosophy or even religion to imply that human life and perception is meaningless or worthless etc. The fact that an Irishman has an Irish accent is a material fact, born about by the material circumstances of his place in time and space, we can't separate ourselves from the material in that regard, it's very much a part of us and a part of creation and truth, but there's certainly more to being Irish than simply having an accent!

[@trenttrip6205]

If you think faith is reconcilable with science you don’t know what either of those words means

[@subcitizen2012]

Hmm, the argument about rationality is tenuous. Atheism and science don't have to deconstruct rationalism to materialism in order to account for rationalism. Rationalism is a limited faculty anyhow, that's an unfortunate fallacy or at least shortcoming of the enlightenment. It is the developed and cultivated mind which is more rational, but it still has an irrational beast within it that also has a substantial if not overwhelming stake as a governing faculty. The scholasticistic, Aristotelian view that god was rationality and therefore we are rational is often where modern Christians contest with Decartes and the entire modern era for example, and that faith is the ultimate emotional appeal. Why can God not also have the feminine aspect anima that would have created us out of pure love? A complimentary raw emotional and irrational reason for creation and existence which is equally as meaningful. Also, the deconstruction of rationality from more primordial sources are not meaningless and random. A worm with primordial optic nerves only sensing light and dark wiggles it's way towards light and dark, at that level, that is a rational process as well, which we supposedly have deep ancestral ties to. If the purpose of have the grey matter between our seats is to help us survive, that's as rational as it gets, even if survival can also be a purely irrational pursuit in itself. These dichotomies can simply and easily be reconciled, we don't have to say either or, we can say both. We are material and out of that matter rises the immaterial, out of nothing something, dust to dust, and we create and choose the meaning in our lives, orthodox christian or otherwise, we are still all human bound by the same earthly and physical laws, and if applicable or where applicable transcendent spiritual or heavenly laws. What I struggle with in this, if all of this were truly known in the Bible and biblical times, then why weren't these truths laid out in a simple manner? Such as the argument that a simple divinely inspired recipe for soap as the 11th commandment could've gone a very long way to preserve life, spread the truth, and furthered human development. Instead we have a lack of that and a bunch metaphorical truths are clearly though the perception in their time, such as not sitting in a chair after a menstruating woman, or not eating shrimp and other seafoods. They saw those things not as physically, biologically aware hygienic issues, but as spiritual contagions and taints, evil spirits in the blood, or in the creatures themselves, etc. It surely would've been nice if religion had been to the standards of modern science, it might have all been a very different story, which is the point, what if our time is revealing it's own truth that I our time we might be able to call divine? Such as science being able to make the blind see and deaf here and the lame walk? Why would having ai augmented faculties to increase our rationalism, such as being able to calculate your taxes in the blink of an eye, or have astronomical calculations all appear to you as true also in a blink, why can these things also be part of God's revelation and ascendence of humanity into a more perfect union with God and divinity? Homo Deus is an apt term for it. Don't forget that Christianity was a singular further revelation of Judaism, is it not possible that there could be further revelation supon Christianity? And that I a hypothetical future they could still all coexist along side one another, ai augmentation or ancient Orthodox adherents alike?

[@JohnCamacho]

47:09. John Lennox: "In our work we have been treating things as if they've been designed". That's teleonomic design. Does not require a mind. I found so many other things odd about what Mr Lennox said...he talks a bit about how faith is equivocated yet goes on right ahead and equivocates. "Science prides itself on an evidence-based faith. Christianity does exactly the same....The Christian claims are testable". This is rubbish :). What does Mr Lennox think about Adam & Eve and the Great flood? Actual events or allegories/metaphors?

[@kamiltrzebiatowski9331]

Christianity nowadays exists within the reason-based culture. I submit this is why Lennox says Christianity is "testable". Much like Jordan Peterson will claim that a-theists exist within the Judeo-Christian tradition, perceiving everything through its prism, I can similarly suggest that Christians use logic and reason as they exist within the Enlightenment-based "reasonable" secular tradition. He cannot imagine using reason to try and explain faith, even despite the fact that the two concepts are diametrically opposed to one another. I'm not religious but if I take some of my numinous experiences of nature on my long distance walks, which fill me so often with indescribable awe, I do not want to measure or "test" these experiences. It seems to me wanting religion to be "testable" makes it look more shallow somehow. Why does faith need to be tested exactly? Isn't mystery better? Regardless of whether we think our experiences come about from nature or supernatural, isn't a bit of mystery more riveting? Perhaps Lennox is closer in his thinking to Dawkins than he'd like to admit.