The latest and imho the best reply to Dawkins' "The God delusion" by John Lennox,Fellow in mathematics and the philosophy of science at Green College Oxford. The full title is "God's undertaker, has science buried God?" Here is a seminal extract to wet your appetite:

" The issue between the atheist and the believer is not whether it makes sense to question ultimate fact, it is rather the question: What fact is ultimate? The atheist's ultimate fact is the universe, the theist's ultimate fact is God. That is the burning question: In which direction does science point -matter before mind or mind before matter ? The answer to that question will surely have to be determined, as always, by following Socrates advice, examining the evidence and seeing where it leads, however threatening this may turn out to be to our preconceived notions......"

Hi Greenbelt. Do you have a link to something on this?

Some questions for you... why do you think this is the best response? What is an "ultimate fact"? What makes you think (if you do) that "mind" is not an emergent property of matter? As far as I can tell, it's not a burning question at all, and all the evidence points to "matter before mind". What makes you think any differently?

"examining the evidence and seeing where it leads, however threatening this may turn out to be to our preconceived notions"

Is always good advice. As a personal aside, have you ever abandoned a preconceived notion in the face of new or overwhelming evidence?

Rgds

Luis

quote:

Hi Greenbelt. Do you have a link to something on this?

Some questions for you... why do you think this is the best response? What is an "ultimate fact"? What makes you think (if you do) that "mind" is not an emergent property of matter? As far as I can tell, it's not a burning question at all, and all the evidence points to "matter before mind". What makes you think any differently?

"examining the evidence and seeing where it leads, however threatening this may turn out to be to our preconceived notions"

Is always good advice. As a personal aside, have you ever abandoned a preconceived notion in the face of new or overwhelming evidence?

Hi Luis - I suggest you buy the book and follow the references. I heard a rumour that John Lennox and Richard Dawkins were going head to head in live debate but I havn't had a chance to follow up on this.
I think it is the best reply because it wastes little time in questioning Dawkins presentational style in terms of popularism and strawmen but goes straight to a discussion of whether science and mathematics is supportive or
antagonistic to theistic belief.
A whole third of the book is devoted to how you might or might not get information (in terms of DNA/RNA/protein strands) from matter and he does question gradualist evolution. I would be interested in your views on it!
As to mind emerging from matter,the question is can this happen spontaneously without an input of information from another mind. Arguments from anthropic fine-tuning may suggest mind behind the physical laws and constants of the universe which feed information into matter.

Have I questioned pre-conceived notions in the face of evidence...lots I hope although there is always room for more ! A few examples:
Opioids are always analgesic(sometimes they make pain worse), beta-blockers are bad for heart failure,the substitutional theory of atonement, traditional evangelical views on homosexuality and authority of scripture...That'l do for now!

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Hi Luis - I suggest you buy the book and follow the references. I heard a rumour that John Lennox and Richard Dawkins were going head to head in live debate but I havn't had a chance to follow up on this.

If you hear anything, let us know?

quote:

I think it is the best reply because it wastes little time in questioning Dawkins presentational style in terms of popularism and strawmen but goes straight to a discussion of whether science and mathematics is supportive or
antagonistic to theistic belief.

That would certainly make a refreshing change from most criticisms of Dawkins!

quote:

A whole third of the book is devoted to how you might or might not get information (in terms of DNA/RNA/protein strands) from matter and he does question gradualist evolution. I would be interested in your views on it!

Ok, I'll go find it. Don't hold your breath though, I'm in for a very busy few weeks as it is.

quote:

Arguments from anthropic fine-tuning may suggest mind behind the physical laws and constants of the universe which feed information into matter.

Arguments from fine tuning of any sort make bunnies die. Why do you hate bunnies so much?

quote:

Have I questioned pre-conceived notions in the face of evidence...lots I hope although there is always room for more ! A few examples:
Opioids are always analgesic(sometimes they make pain worse), beta-blockers are bad for heart failure,the substitutional theory of atonement, traditional evangelical views on homosexuality and authority of scripture...That'l do for now!

In the hope that your views on these have become less traditional and evangelical, good for you.

Rgds

Luis (Who'll see your "God's Undertaker" and raise you a "Freedom Evolves")

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:

Hi Luis - I suggest you buy the book and follow the references. I heard a rumour that John Lennox and Richard Dawkins were going head to head in live debate but I havn't had a chance to follow up on this.
I think it is the best reply because it wastes little time in questioning Dawkins presentational style in terms of popularism and strawmen but goes straight to a discussion of whether science and mathematics is supportive or
antagonistic to theistic belief.
A whole third of the book is devoted to how you might or might not get information (in terms of DNA/RNA/protein strands) from matter and he does question gradualist evolution. I would be interested in your views on it!
As to mind emerging from matter,the question is can this happen spontaneously without an input of information from another mind. Arguments from anthropic fine-tuning may suggest mind behind the physical laws and constants of the universe which feed information into matter.

Finished that book last week; though I think I'm going to have to revisit it to get my head around some of the maths concepts . Very compelling I thought on a first readthrough.

I find the fine tuning arguments very compelling and would recommend Paul Davies' book 'The Goldilocks Enigma', to anyone who would have an aversion to reading Lennox because of his Christian credentials

I thought it was brave of him to mention Behe and Dembski considering the enormous bashing the ID movement has been receiving and the ridicule and derision that anyone remotely associated with that movement has been subjected to.

You can find the Dawkins/Lennox debate on YooooToooob (shh the mods don't like you mentioning it); audio only. To be fair to both the format didn't lend itself to a free flow exchange which both found a bit restricting. I thought Lennox came off best but that could be my bias showing through

quote:

I thought it was brave of him to mention Behe and Dembski considering the enormous bashing the ID movement has been receiving and the ridicule and derision that anyone remotely associated with that movement has been subjected to.

Hi Bally B - yes I wondered if he was going a bridge too far with some of his challenges to evolutionary theory, it will be interesting to see Luis' response (light the blue touch paper, stand well back ). I agree with you on the fine tuning arguments - this is the most comprehensive list of finely tuned cosmological constants I've come across although I havn't read the "Goldilocks Enigma" yet. Paul Davies' "The mind of God " is excellent as well.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
it will be interesting to see Luis' response (light the blue touch paper, stand well back ).

grins.

Charmed to hear you're interested in my opinions!

Rgds

Luis

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:

quote:

I thought it was brave of him to mention Behe and Dembski considering the enormous bashing the ID movement has been receiving and the ridicule and derision that anyone remotely associated with that movement has been subjected to.

Hi Bally B - yes I wondered if he was going a bridge too far with some of his challenges to evolutionary theory, it will be interesting to see Luis' response (light the blue touch paper, stand well back ).

Reminds me of the reaction you get from fundies when someone questions the reliability or legitimacy of the Bible or Qur'an.

Yes, that's right, Ballyboneman, presenting evidence to support your conclusion and being interested in reality is exactly the same as fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. However could I have thought they were different?

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
and he does question gradualist evolution

Then he is a fool whose opinions are not worthy of consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:
I thought it was brave of him to mention Behe and Dembski

Ah, the line between bravery and stupidity is a fine one to be sure. However, this misses it by some huge margin. Anyone who quotes liars in support of their arguments is worthy only of immediate rejection.

quote:

Originally posted by LuisGarcia:
Yes, that's right, Ballyboneman, presenting evidence to support your conclusion and being interested in reality is exactly the same as fundamentalist Islam and Christianity. However could I have thought they were different?

Sorry Luis; just couldn't resist it

I do however think that certain proponents of neodarwinism react very similarly to those irrational religious fundamentalists that we are all concerned about, whenever someone challenges evolutionary theory (their 'sacred texts'?)inasmuch that they rant and rave, belittle and ridicule.

I think there are some reports (I'll post the link if I can find it) of some scientists losing their jobs for apparently even questioning the accepted mechanism of Darwinian evolution. That surely can't be right if true.

It is the scientist's job to expose the errors, weaknesses or failings in a particular theory, which is what goes on all the time, but it is not the job of science to ridicule. If it's doing its job right that is completely unnecessary. I find it worrying that seemingly a significant number of the scientific community feel the need to engage in this kind of irrational behaviour.

I think it also plays into the hands of the fundies, especially in the US, who see scientists and atheists as a threat and are out to convince the ordinary Joe/Josephine that they are not to be trusted. That cannot be good news for science because like it or not without the financial support of the ordinary person (most of whom are religious) scientific enquiry and endeavour (with the possible exception of medicine) would grind to a halt.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:
I thought it was brave of him to mention Behe and Dembski

Ah, the line between bravery and stupidity is a fine one to be sure. However, this misses it by some huge margin. Anyone who quotes liars in support of their arguments is worthy only of immediate rejection.

That's a bit strong...liars. How so? What have they been exposed as lying about?

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

That's a bit strong...liars. How so? What have they been exposed as lying about?

ID contains at least two lies:

1. That it is anything to do with with the scientific method. It is not testable, not falsifiable, and is based entirely upon appeals to ignorance.

2. That it is anything to do with science or the teaching of science. It is not, it is a political tool wielded disingenuously to try and crowbar religion into schools.

Judge Jones who presided on the dover trial " excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

(from the New York Times Dec 2005).

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:
Sorry Luis; just couldn't resist it

Well, that's better, but let's take this apart bit by bit.

quote:

I do however think that certain proponents of neodarwinism react very similarly to those irrational religious fundamentalists that we are all concerned about, whenever someone challenges evolutionary theory (their 'sacred texts'?)inasmuch that they rant and rave, belittle and ridicule.

I disagree. For example, I am in the process of setting up an online educational tool with some genuine biology heavyweights. Their interest is in educating the public, and they devote a lot of time and expertise to doing so.

I've seen them, first hand, be approached by hundreds of people who claim they have a "serious challenge" to ToE. Invariably, they are polite, and consider each claim on it's merits. If and when any mistakes or misunderstandings are made by the challenger, these are pointed out and they attempt to educate the challenger. This is exactly as science should progress. Most don't "rant, rave, belittle or ridicule" until and unless the challenger in question proves themself to be utterly incapable of thinking, learning or any humility in the face of reality.

As an example from these very boards, go and dig out how RedJooles was treated when he first arrived.

quote:

I think there are some reports (I'll post the link if I can find it) of some scientists losing their jobs for apparently even questioning the accepted mechanism of Darwinian evolution. That surely can't be right if true.

It wouldn't be, if it was. I'm aware of propaganda on behalf of the Discovery Institute claiming exactly this, but I am unaware of any actual documented incidences. If you can find any, I'll be happy to investigate.

quote:

It is the scientist's job to expose the errors, weaknesses or failings in a particular theory, which is what goes on all the time, but it is not the job of science to ridicule. If it's doing its job right that is completely unnecessary. I find it worrying that seemingly a significant number of the scientific community feel the need to engage in this kind of irrational behaviour.

Again, in my experience, it doesn't happen straight off the bat. In general, you'll only be treated like an idiot if you act like one.

But for how long, in the face of continued stupidity (see the Fronkeys idiot) should people contain their tempers? Forever?

If you had maintained, throughout your education, that pi=3 because the bibble tells you so, and anyone who disagrees is hell bound, how long would you expect your maths teachers to maintain their attempts to calmly reeducate you?

Especially if they were doing so for free?

quote:

I think it also plays into the hands of the fundies, especially in the US, who see scientists and atheists as a threat and are out to convince the ordinary Joe/Josephine that they are not to be trusted. That cannot be good news for science because like it or not without the financial support of the ordinary person (most of whom are religious) scientific enquiry and endeavour (with the possible exception of medicine) would grind to a halt.

You wouldn't be stepping into the "framing" argument here, would you?

Rgds

Luis

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by greenbelt:
and he does question gradualist evolution



Then he is a fool whose opinions are not worthy of consideration.

Smoke and mirrors:

I stand to be corrected here but I wasn't aware that all the leading evolutionary biologists supported gradualist evolution. What about Stephen J.Gould? Your statement is dangerous and has more to do with scapegoating than scientific inquiry.Apart from anything else the man in question is a mathematician and is operating outside his own field. Would you question his opinions on mathematics because he got something wrong in biology? If we applied the same principle to Richard Dawkins we wouldn't believe a word he said about anything. He may be an excellent biologist but his recent ventures in the fields of history, philosophy and theology have been flaky to say the least! I'm not saying that academics shouldn't venture outside their field - academic cross-fertilization can be very productive. We just need a bit more tolerance and open-mindedness all round

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:

I stand to be corrected here but I wasn't aware that all the leading evolutionary biologists supported gradualist evolution. What about Stephen J.Gould?

What about him? His agenda is to further science, not undermine it so god can be taught in schools.

quote:

Your statement is dangerous and has more to do with scapegoating than scientific inquiry.

"Scapegoating"? Give us a break. Neither ID nor its inbred relation Creationism represent valid scientific enquiry, they are not interested in discovery (despite the Discovery Institute's deliberately misleading name), only in pursuing an agenda whereby their ridiculous beliefs are elevated to equal status with scientific ones. To do this, they lie. They lie with words, they lie with numbers, they lie with fallacious arguments. Lies, lies, lies.

quote:

Apart from anything else the man in question is a mathematician and is operating outside his own field.

So there's an appeal to an authority that's not an authority? Hmmm...

quote:

If we applied the same principle to Richard Dawkins we wouldn't believe a word he said about anything. He may be an excellent biologist but his recent ventures in the fields of history, philosophy and theology have been flaky to say the least!

No they haven't, the absurd Christian (/Islamic) smear campaign has been a collection of Ad Hominems and "how dare someone talk about theology like that!". Plantinga has weighed in with a billion meaningless words, big deal.

I guess if you want to believe lies, or elevate them to the status of science that's your right. It's my right to call your judgement into question for appearing to do so.

Smoke and mirrors;
Lets get one thing straight - I do not support "creationism" or "intelligent design" as they are being used in the context of this debate, and to be fair neither does Lennox or many of the others who have publicly replied to Dawkins. As Lennox points out, the serious debate is between materialism/naturalism and theism not between evolution and theism. As I have already stated numerous times on this forum: I believe that evolution is currently the best theory we have for the diversification and development of life.It does have its limitations - it can't explain how you get from matter to self-replicating molecule -we need another process for that. There is also a debate between gradualist and punctuated evolutionary theories - there are atheists on both sides of this argument! So please don't place me into the polarized argument that you are getting so steamed up about without bothering to check out what I'm really saying! If i am making factual errors then i am very happy for you to point them out ( incidentally it was factual errors that I was referring to in "the God delusion", i am not trying to "smear" Dawkins who i have already stated is an "excellent evolutionary biologist").It was this phrase of yours that I was objecting to:

"Then he is a fool whose opinions are not worthy of consideration"

To say this about someone before you've even read a word they've written..how can this contribute to a proper debate ?, can't you see how prejudiced/arrogant/high handed it sounds!

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Smoke and mirrors;
Lets get one thing straight - I do not support "creationism" or "intelligent design" as they are being used in the context of this debate,

Fair play.

quote:

As Lennox points out, the serious debate is between materialism/naturalism and theism not between evolution and theism.

I don't think there's a serious debate there. There isn't a single original theistic argument left in the box and neither has there been for many many years. All the classical arguments are shash. All the modern variants are just reheated shash. There's still no evidence, there's still no proof, there's just the same old rubbish trotted out again and again and again.

quote:

It does have its limitations - it can't explain how you get from matter to self-replicating molecule

quote:

-we need another process for that. There is also a debate between gradualist and punctuated evolutionary theories - there are atheists on both sides of this argument!

Indeed. But that's an argument for scientists, experts in the field, to batter out. I object when it's hijacked for theistic purposes.

quote:

It was this phrase of yours that I was objecting to:

quote:

"Then he is a fool whose opinions are not worthy of consideration"

To say this about someone before you've even read a word they've written..how can this contribute to a proper debate ?, can't you see how prejudiced/arrogant/high handed it sounds!

Apologies, I misread the sentence in my haste.

quote:

Originally posted by LuisGarcia:

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:
Sorry Luis; just couldn't resist it

Well, that's better, but let's take this apart bit by bit.

quote:

I do however think that certain proponents of neodarwinism react very similarly to those irrational religious fundamentalists that we are all concerned about, whenever someone challenges evolutionary theory (their 'sacred texts'?)inasmuch that they rant and rave, belittle and ridicule.

I disagree. For example, I am in the process of setting up an online educational tool with some genuine biology heavyweights. Their interest is in educating the public, and they devote a lot of time and expertise to doing so.

Congratulations and well done. I wish you every success. I welcome anything which advances a better understanding of science among the general populace (that includes me btw ; like you hadn't guessed )