33 of 49 people found the following review helpful
A little book with a big message,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway? (Paperback)As a Christian with an interest in science I have, in the past, found it difficult to frame my arguments when facing dogmatic atheists who claim that science has overtaken God. I say "in the past" because John C. Lennox has clarified the matter for me.
In his new book "God and Stephen Hawking" Professor Lennox sets out to show that the argument is not between God and science at all. Science makes sense of the world that God created. Once I'd picked the book up I couldn't put it down and I found myself nodding frantically in agreement as I read his well-written and often amusingly-put arguments. In particular he looks at Stephen Hawking's claim in his book "The Grand Design" that the laws of physics created the universe. But how can laws create anything? Answer: They can't. This little book shows us that the laws of physics do not disprove God - if anything, they make His existence seem more probable.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 25 Feb 2011 13:49:50 GMT
Lou Wong says:
Oh dear! The laws of physics didn't create the universe no, and laws cant create anything either, very well observed! The universe formed according to the "laws of physics" or laws of nature if you like. The laws themselves are a man made construct - like the many solar/astrological deities and other Gods mere mortals have invented to help explain our place in the world. Gladly though as humanity has progressed, or parts of it at least, it has been able to better understand and explain the mysteries of our planet and the greater universe through deep intellectual thought and debate, thus proving and disproving theories to ultimately further and better human civilisation through a shared understanding. Religions on the contrary are generally institutions, based on fairytales, that were founded by small groups of powerful people as a means of controlling and suppressing the simple masses through fear of eternal damnation. They have started wars, wiped out other cultures, divided families and even themselves with numerous factions existing in what is essentially the same religion. Where science welcomes challenges to its beliefs religion decries such things as blasphemous, resulting in such enlightened times in our history as the crusades and the Spanish inquisition. Despite attempts in recent years to rewrite its own "God given" text (surely blasphemous!?) through 'new translations' from the Latin, to try to bring Christianity up to date with modern attitudes to women for example, the sad truth is religion is just an out dated institution and the world needs to grow up and move on!
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2011 10:14:43 GMT
Middle Earth says:
The war argument doesn't really work as Hitler, Mao & Stalin were all anti-christian. Humans are prone to division & warfare and atheists do not hold the high ground in this regard. All violence in the name of christianity is contrary to Jesus' teaching.
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2011 17:37:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2011 17:38:41 GMT
Your argument contains factual errors and relies heavily on straw-men.
The oldest existing versions of the new testament were written in Greek, not Latin.
The "rewrites" that the bible has had in recent years come from the discovery of older manuscripts that are more historically reliable.
You state that religion has "started wars, wiped out other cultures, divided families" ignoring fact that countries without religion (such as Albania and Communist Russia) are guilty of the same crimes.
You completely ignore the historical links between science and act as though science formed independently from religion as a competing viewpoint.
Posted on 25 Jul 2011 06:17:10 BDT
A. Merchant says:
He Deb, thanks for your little review. I'm glad John Lennox has re-assured you and made you feel more comfortable in your religious views. I would encourage you to treat his arguments from the opposite perspective and be a devil's advocate. Assume for the moment that John is wrong and muddle-headed and basically making it up. From that zero-point where to go? What if the bible was simply made up without the intervention of God? What actually makes the Bible different from the Quaran? Is your belief merely a geographic by-product?
Apart from the assurances of <insert local church pastor> what evidence can be presented that it was written by God? Apart from what is written there what is the basis for thinking there is an estrangement betwixt God and man? As a Christian I often worried about the "economics" of slavation: where was it written that [Dead Jesus on Cross] = Global Salvation? Salvation from what? What changed after Jesus died? Where was the "Kingdom"?
Apart from that the "final straw" in my theism (not deism) was that I knew the OT contained some turgid moral stuff (eg. walls of Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abram and the threatened sacrifice of his son to the "Old Gods") which had been superseded by the NT. As Dawkins discusses, how do we separate the good from the bad in God's own book? Common sense tells us what is good and bad. The moral choice is something innate in us and we actually don't need God's revelation at all. I'm now a happy agnostic.
In reply to an earlier post on 19 Aug 2011 23:18:58 BDT
Last edited by the author on 8 Apr 2012 09:45:24 BDT
William Robertson says:
Kjarl, nobody said that people are perfect. Surely the point of religion is to improve people? Isn't it a self-improvement club? So we should ask whether it succeeds in that respect.
To argue that we should cling to superstition in order to improve the moral character of society is to give up the idea that the superstition is in any way true.
Posted on 24 Sep 2011 17:56:51 BDT
J. E. Holmes says:
According to Process-Physics' model of the universe as a self-referential neural net (essential to properly model time). The universe must develop consciousness. of course not even traditional physics can explain who put the quantum vacuum there for the universe to leap out of!
And please No "time didn't exist arguments" before BB please.
the PP model obtains that time is continuous
the uNIVERSE LOOKS TO ME LIKE A PUT UP JOB
In reply to an earlier post on 7 Apr 2012 19:12:48 BDT
still searching says:
A. Merchant - could you get more patronizing?
Posted on 25 Apr 2012 23:29:10 BDT
I thought the book was titled "God and Stephen Hawking". Why are all the atheists in this comments section talking about Religion? Can they not differentiate between the two? Isn't religion a man made construct? I smell a fallacious argument. Good review, btw.
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Apr 2012 00:04:59 BDT
William Robertson says:
It was Hawking that brought up God. Does that have nothing to do with religion?
In reply to an earlier post on 26 May 2013 10:15:57 BDT
Mr. Rory O. Southward says:
Well Hitler was Christian actually but that's not the point. There is a difference between starting a war because of religion and starting a war because of lack of religion. You don't do horrible things in the name of atheism. However, people over the centuries have done awful things in the name of God and still do horrible things in the name of God.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›