"All scientists should be militant atheists"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By now I think it's making a quite attractive Cubist-type image - the alternation of the pale blue and the light grey are very relaxing to the eyes.

Vlad's still wrong, though.

No I'm not.

Of course you are - you make a habit of it. Science and religion are incompatible, requiring a huge dose of doublethink to be held in the same brain at the same time.

That's mere assertion...and wrong. What is the scientific discovery that clinches it against God?
Sagan couldn't find it. Dawkins thinks he found it but was thoroughly demolished in the journal The philosopher
The sensible person knows they are separate domains or magisterial.
And that your implicit declaration of yourself as some kind of empiricist is obvious nonsense given the amount you write on here that science doesn't actually back up.

[Shaker]

That's mere assertion...and wrong.

Then instead of merely asserting it to be wrong, demonstrate it to be so.

What is the scientific discovery that clinches it against God?

Science doesn't do God, as I believe you said yourself very recently.

Sagan couldn't find it. Dawkins thinks he found it but was thoroughly demolished in the journal The philosopher

Evidence required.

The sensible person knows they are separate domains or magisterial.

No they don't, that's just the load of old shit that Gould made up.

And that your implicit declaration of yourself as some kind of empiricist is obvious nonsense given the amount you write on here that science doesn't actually back up.

Examples will be needed.

[jeremyp]

If you have the time to spare I wish you would, JP 

It's pretty simple.  Let's pick out a few of the more stupid things in it, but before I do, I need to note a problem of the use of terminology by Lennox.  Lennox constantly refers to "the laws of physics".  In most of the contexts in which he uses the term, he clearly means "the laws and theories of science". 

According to Hawking, the laws of [science], not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being.

Why "according to Hawking"?  The point is hardly controversial.  Life on Earth is explained by scientific law.

The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'

Unfortunately, while Hawking's argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

As if that were a criticism.  If ideas are wrong, just because they are not new, where does that leave the idea of God? 

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.
 
It is a simplistic approach

There is a difference between "simple" and "simplistic".  Certainly the idea that the awesome complexity of the World can be explained by reference to simple scientific laws is simple, but it is also extremely successful.  Why try to think of something more complex than is necessary to explain everything?  And if you want "simplistic", how about "goddidit"?

But, as both a scientist and a Christian

This is a bare faced lie.  Lennox is not a scientist, he is a mathematician.  Mathematics is fundamentally different to science in that even the methods of reasoning are different: mathematics uses only deductive logic, science used inductive as well as deductive logic. 

He asks us to choose between God and the laws of [science], as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

Well they are.  Science tells us that the probability of a three day old corpse reviving is vanishingly small.  The laws of one particular version of God tell us that Jesus rose from the dead.  In science we have the working assumption that the laws of physics don't change.  Most religions tell us that the laws of physics can be suspended on the whim of a capricious creator.  Conflict. 

The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  -  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent

Here Lennox forgets that the existence of Frank Whittle is explained by the laws of science.

I could go on, but I don't have all day. 

[Shaker]

Top banana 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's mere assertion...and wrong.

Then instead of merely asserting it to be wrong, demonstrate it to be so.

What is the scientific discovery that clinches it against God?

Science doesn't do God, as I believe you said yourself very recently.

Sagan couldn't find it. Dawkins thinks he found it but was thoroughly demolished in the journal The philosopher

Evidence required.

The sensible person knows they are separate domains or magisterial.

No they don't, that's just the load of old shit that Gould made up.

And that your implicit declaration of yourself as some kind of empiricist is obvious nonsense given the amount you write on here that science doesn't actually back up.

Examples will be needed.

Yeh. How does Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism stop anyone who believes in them from using the scientific method, using the same equipment, unwrapping the same petri dishes etc, etc.

When you decided to commit to talking Bollocks Shaker,You really committed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here Lennox forgets that the existence of Frank Whittle is explained by the laws of science.

 

Which laws?...and are you talking specifically about Frank Whittle or human males in general?

[OH MY WORLD!]

No surprise, Jeremy fails to realize that like physicists and chemists, a mathematician also uses the scientific method. And Mr. Lennox also has a masters in bioethics.

http://www.johnlennox.org/about/

[Shaker]

No surprise, Jeremy fails to realize that like physicists and chemists, a mathematician also uses the scientific method.

That doesn't make him a scientist in the professional sense. The scientific method is open to anyone and everyone, but that doesn't make anyone a scientist, which indicates the pursuit of science as a profession (though for many vocation would be the better term).

[Maeght]

Bioethics isn't a science either - which is why he has an MA and not an MSc.

[OH MY WORLD!]

You and Jeremy are so cute, neither of you being anything near a scientist. Both rejecting a mathematician being a scientist. Now in Germany the Alexander von Humboldt foundation INCLUDES mathematics as a natural science. That you and jermey say NO, is laughable to the max and part way back. And Lennox was a senior fellow of the foundation. Here is credentials, sacked up impressively against the no credential stacks of you, the godless Marxist and your fellow godless atheist Jeremy. Nice.


http://www.rzim.eu/biography-john-lennox

[Shaker]

We're not in Germany.

[jeremyp]

No surprise, Jeremy fails to realize that like physicists and chemists, a mathematician also uses the scientific method.

Actually, you are completely wrong.  Mathematicians start with basic axioms and proceed by deductive logic alone.  By itself, maths tells us nothing new.

Scientists deal with the real World.  The use maths as a tool but they have to observe and test their ideas, but even if their ideas pass all the tests and the maths is watertight there is still a danger of something coming up that proves them wrong.

And Mr. Lennox also has a masters in bioethics.

That's more philosophy than science.

[Shaker]

Actually, you are completely wrong. Mathematicians start with basic axioms and proceed by deductive logic alone. By itself, maths tells us nothing new.

By an almost eerie coincidence this is precisely the import of a passage in Jerry Coyne's new book which I'm currently reading - that particular passage is one I've just read this afternoon.

[jeremyp]

Actually, you are completely wrong. Mathematicians start with basic axioms and proceed by deductive logic alone. By itself, maths tells us nothing new.

By an almost eerie coincidence this is precisely the import of a passage in Jerry Coyne's new book which I'm currently reading - that particular passage is one I've just read this afternoon.

I must buy that book. I'm a regular reader of his web site so I am morally obliged. Besides, I expect it'll be quite good.

[OH MY WORLD!]

We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists and are in no position to say who is one. You think too highly of yourself Shaker. No, I can't give your judgement on this any consideration at all and the Alexander von Humboldt fellowship is highly respected around the world.

http://theocca.org/bios/john-lennox

[Shaker]

We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists

I've never claimed to be. Pretty sure JP hasn't either. So that's at least one other thing Jeremy and I have in common with Lennox, then. I love science, love reading it, love trying to stay informed and according to the ancient certificate on my office wall have an exceedingly minor bargain-basement qualification of sorts in cosmology as well as an even older GSCE in biology, but I'm not and have never claimed to be a scientist. Wouldn't dream of it. I recognise what it means to say that someone is one, though, and I'm sure that Jeremy does too.

and are in no position to say who is one.

Actually yes we are. The description of scientist entails certain things which do not apply to Lennox. Whether he's a good mathematician or not I have no idea - that's outside of my area. I suspect not, since he's best known as the author of various books on the science-religion relationship (I take the Jerry Coyne view: there isn't one) rather than as somebody who has actually made real contibutions to mathematics - somebody like Andrew Wiles, for example. Regardless, he's a mathematician.

You think too highly of yourself Shaker.

Not even possible. What is this crazy talk?

No, I can't give your judgement on this any consideration at all and the Alexander von Humboldt fellowship is highly respected around the world.

I'm sure it is, but it doesn't mean that their roping-in of a mathematician as a scientist has any credibility.

[Nearly Sane]

To be fair both Lennox and Hawking appear to be trying to do philosophy, and imo both rather badly.

[Shaker]

To be fair both Lennox and Hawking appear to be trying to do philosophy, and imo both rather badly.

I can't speak for Lennox; I'd have thought in recent years (certainly around the time of the publication of The Grand Design with Leonard Mlodinow a few years back) Hawking has made headlines chiefly for saying that philosophy is dead - at least from his mathematical physicist point of view, taking the quite intentionally dismissive Feynman line that scientists are explorers whereas philosophers are tourists.

Now, we could (and still might) have the mother of all threads on this (and what a fascinating thread that would be, peanut gallery aside), but that would be separate from the statement that Hawking appears to be trying to do philosophy when his recent public utterances indicate the exact opposite.

[jeremyp]

We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists and are in no position to say who is one.

I dp have a degree in maths.  I know what maths is and isn't.  It isn't science in the way that Lennox is talking about science in the article.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem is in referring to non scientific terms as God, Hawking is not doing science.

[Shaker]

I dp have a degree in maths.  I know what maths is and isn't. 

I am in awe. Somehow I managed to get the Noddy version of some sort of qualification in cosmology, and still have to take off my shoes and socks if any sums involve numbers bigger than ten.

[Shaker]

I must buy that book. I'm a regular reader of his web site so I am morally obliged. Besides, I expect it'll be quite good.

Yes JP, I thought you were - over the weeks then the months and then the years I've noticed that you post links from the blog website on the same day that I've seen them too, since it's one of the first ports of call whenever I log on to the superannuated machine every day.

Two more things:

(1) Yes, you must;

(2) Yes, it is 

[jeremyp]

I dp have a degree in maths.  I know what maths is and isn't. 

I am in awe. Somehow I managed to get the Noddy version of some sort of qualification in cosmology, and still have to take off my shoes and socks if any sums involve numbers bigger than ten.

Degree level maths rarely involves sums of numbers bigger than 10.  In fact many of my favourite bits didn't involve numbers at all.

[Shaker]

Oh, pish 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We do not have to be in Germany to know that you and Jeremy are no scientists and are in no position to say who is one.

I dp have a degree in maths.

Then how come you have not noticed that antitheists are deficient in the penis department by one?