Response to Oxford Mathematician [John Lennox] DESTROYS Atheism (15 Minute Brilliancy!)

In #religion

A friend of mine recently sent me this video to get a response. I haven't done a deep dive into this for a while, so I figured I'd go through this one in detail. There's a lot to unpack, but it is a good summary of the primary arguments for God's existence and for Christianity specifically.

I've written before about John Lennox and the many issues with his claims:

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=60: as we look at at the rise of Science and the 16th and 17th centuries Alfred North Whitehead and many others commented that men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver

These 16th and 17th century scientists also expected that alchemy would be true -- that any material could be changed to any other material. Although one might argue that the pursuit of alchemy lead to modern chemistry, the process ended up demonstrating that alchemy was false. Newton himself spent as much time in the false pursuit of alchemy as he did on physics.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=66: I'm not ashamed of being both a scientist and a Christian because arguably Christianity gave me my subject

Lennox is a mathematician not a scientist. This might sound like physicist posturing, but the way a successful mathematician thinks is different. They are used to thinking of things in the abstract, they are more interested in internal consistency, and there are no checks from nature to maintain the truth of their claims. In science, nature is the final arbiter, determined by spinning out the consequences of every idea and making specific predictions.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=96: when Newton discovered his law of gravity he didn't say I've got a law I don't need God, no he wrote the Principia Mathematica arguably the greatest work in the whole history of science because he saw that God is not the same kind of explanation as a scientific explanation, God doesn't compete with science, agency does not compete with mechanism and law

Actually, this is not correct. Newton was trying to discover the methods God used to govern the universe, not that it was a different kind of explanation. When Newton published his laws of dynamics he demonstrated that the speeds of the planets could be derived from a simple law of gravity^[adapted from https://bblais.github.io/posts/2010/Sep/12/god-and-hawking/].  In this way, Newton connected the Earthly things with the "Heavenly" things.  However, it was unclear to Newton whether the orbits of the planets would remain constant (as his religious philosophy would state), or if they would be unstable, change, and possibly fly apart given enough time.  He posited that one of the roles of God would have would be to nudge the planets, here and there, to keep their orbits stable. Laplace, one hundred years later, worked on many things including the dynamics of the solar system.  

Laplace, performing his calculations more precisely than his predecessors and was able to determine that the orbits would in fact be stable, without any extra tinkering from God.  Napoleon, when presented with the work of Laplace, asked him: "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator."  Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis."

He did not say that there was no God (although that is what he believed), but that the concept of God was not necessary to explain the things that he was explaining using physics.  This included the formation of the solar system from a compressing ball of gas (due to gravity), which then forms the Sun in the center and the planets orbiting around.  This is essentially the model still in use today!

One of the reasons there is a conflict between religious thinking and scientific thinking is seen in this story. When faced with an intractable or difficult problem, Newton resorted to "God did it" and stopped investigating. Rather than the more honest response of "I don't know" he used "I do know, and it's God, not because there is evidence for God but because I can't think of anything else." This is what is called the God-of-the-gaps fallacy and is an example of the very common religiously motivated thinking. Newton was technically able to do the mathematics that Laplace later did, but he gave up once he felt he had an "explanation".

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=127: why is there something rather than nothing? Alan Sandage the brilliant cosmologist who became a Christian in his 50s said God is the answer to that question but people are now so desperate to show that the universe created itself from nothing which seems to me to be an immediate oxymoron if I say X created Y I'm assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of Y, if I say X created X I'm assuming the existence of X to explain the existence of X which simply shows that nonsense remains nonsense even if High powered scientists utter it

No one has demonstrated that the philosophical notion of "nothing" is at all possible - there may not be a way for there to be "nothing".^[from https://bblais.github.io/posts/2014/Oct/28/something-from-nothing/] One also hasn't demonstrated that the universe itself couldn't have always existed, or perhaps the laws have always existed.

But even granting all of that, the creation of the universe from "nothing" by the creator is not even a creation from "nothing" - the creator has to be there first, and the creator has properties, and is presumed to be eternal. Thus the philosophers and apologists who claim that the creator made the universe "ex nihilo" are really claiming nothing of the sort.

As for models that X created X, Lennox doesn't seriously address specific cosmological models, and is only presenting a cartoon version for rhetorical flourish. A better reading is here: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/. Lennox showing not just ignorance of modern cosmology, but snarky distain for things he is demonstrably ignorant on.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=190: we've unraveled a bit of that seeing the fine tuning of the fundamental forces of nature. It's something that's so striking to scientists that it demands explanation and it seems to me that Arno Penzias hit it right. He is the Nobel Prize winner who discovered the microwave background on which a lot of the evidence for the Big Bang is based. He said astronomy leads us to a unique event a universe which was created out of nothing one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life and one which has an underlying one might say Supernatural plan

Sean Carroll, an outspoken cosmologist from CalTech, says that the Fine Tuning Argument is the "theist's best argument"^[from https://bblais.github.io/posts/2019/Feb/11/book-review-unbelievable-by-justin-brierley/]  He then follows that it is still a bad argument. The problem is that, despite the confident claims of many theists, the physicists are not at all clear how much fine tuning there is or if there is any at all. The way fine tuning is demonstrated starts with noticing that there are some seemingly arbitrary constants in our physical laws (e.g. speed of light, expansion rate of the universe, etc...). These constants if varied independently lead to conditions where life as we know it couldn't form. The emphasis here is to point out the problems with making confident claims about these observations.

  1. the constants may be determined by other laws we don't know right now. This has happened already for the expansion rate of the universe, which can be specifically derived from Einstein's equations - and shown to not be fine-tuned.
  2. the constants may not be independent, so changing one may necessitate changing another by a specific amount negating the effect
  3. we don't understand the conditions necessary for life

With these objections, it seems premature to make any strong statements about fine tuning even if you are convinced it is there.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=253: I believe that the universe is rationally intelligible that is something that has struck some of the geniuses of science as demanding an explanation. Einstein said the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible and Wigner talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. How is it that a mathematician thinking in her head "in here" can come up with equations that seem to fit the universe "out there"?

In any universe that has any patterns at all such that life could possibly exist - no matter what form of life - then those living beings would discover those patterns as the "mathematics" of that universe.^[from https://bblais.github.io/posts/2019/Feb/11/book-review-unbelievable-by-justin-brierley/] It doesn't surprise me that there are patterns in the universe. To me it would seem to be a basic requirement.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=285: my atheist friends and I have many of them tell me that the driving force of evolution which eventually produced our human cognitive faculties reason included was not primarily concerned with truth at all but with survival and we all know ladies and gentlemen what has often happened and still happens to truth when individuals or commercial Enterprises or nations feel themselves threatened and struggle for survival. A leading philosopher Alvin Plantinga of Notre Same says if atheists are right that we are the product of mindless unguided natural processes then they have given us strong reason to doubt the reliability of human cognitive

This is referring to the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism). The basic idea is that natural selection of selects for survival not truth, and so one could have behaviors or beliefs that are not true but act toward survival. An example given is:

Plantinga on belief:

Plantinga pointed out that innumerable belief-desire pairs could account for a given behaviour; for example, that of a prehistoric hominid fleeing a tiger: Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief. ... Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it. ... Clearly there are any number of belief-cum-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behaviour.25(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism#cite_note-25)

There are two parts - "behaviour is caused by both belief and desire," and "innumerable belief-desire pairs could account for a given behaviour" with the example of running from tigers because of various false beliefs.^[from https://bblais.github.io/posts/2012/Mar/06/evolution-and-rationality/] The final piece of this, however, is the limited resources of the brain. Our brain takes many computational short-cuts, because of efficiency and limited resources. If you have a number of different belief/desire pairs that lead to behavior, the brain will settle on those belief/desire pairs that generalize to the largest number of things. This will certainly be in cases where the result is closer to reality than not. We run away not only from tigers, but also bears, snakes, and spiders. The desire to pet or the mistaken belief that running away is the best way to get towards an animal would not generalize quite so well to these other creatures.

Plantinga uses this argument from rationality to bolster his theism - if rationality is unlikely given naturalism and evolution, then theism is more likely. However, he fails to notice that rationality isn't truly the norm. Yes, we can make some astounding feats of rationality as a collection, but it takes serious work to overcome the natural biases, and failures of reasoning inherent in the human condition. The cognitive short-cuts leads us to make many errors of observation, deduction, and induction. He also fails to point out the many beliefs that people have that are irrational but have a benefit, or the beliefs that people have which are irrational and have no effect and thus can get carried along without being selected against. In fact, the situation is very much like what you'd expect from evolution - some wrong beliefs with adaptive benefits, some wrong beliefs with no penalty, some correct beliefs by accident, etc… Finally, even if our beliefs were 90% wrong, we'd still be able to trust rationality as a collection - which is exactly what science does. It forces fallible people to not believe things until it can be replicated, it downplays anecdotal evidence, arguments from authority, and recognizes the cognitive failures of humans in order to overcome them.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=349: by contrast with that biblical theism asserts that Ultimate Reality is personal and intelligent and the reason science works and this was the motivating force that drove the great pioneers of science is that the Universe out there and the human mind in here that does the science are ultimately the product of the same intelligent Divine mind human beings are made we are told in God's image and that means that science can be done that makes infinitely more sense to me as a scientist than atheism does

Again, we have the God-of-the-Gaps move by Lennox. Just because something looks designed doesn't mean that it is -- Darwin showed us that clearly. Just because it makes sense that an agent causes the storms, doesn't mean that it is true -- Zeus probably doesn't exist. Just because there are clear patterns in the stars, and that certain stars only show up in the sky in the winter, doesn't mean that the stars cause the winter or influence any other events on Earth -- astrology just isn't true, even if it makes more sense to some people.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=384: now let me come briefly to ethics ethical Behavior like rational behavior of course does not itself require religious belief this is consistent with the fact that humans are created in God's image as rational moral persons but just as I suggest that rationality cannot be explained without the existence of God so I dare to suggest that that the existence of morality cannot be explained either as modern science sprang from judeo-christian sources so did the concept of human equality listen to atheist Jurgen Habas arguably one of Germany's leading intellectuals he said that universalistic egalitarianism from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life and solidarity the individual morality of conscience human rights and democracy is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love

I think it is pretty clear that we don't get our morality from the Bible given all the brutality that is espoused in it. Even Jesus never takes a stand against slavery, for example, which should be one of the easiest ethical questions to answer. It is from the last few hundred years, where people start tying right and wrong to the the well-being and suffering of conscious creatures that we get our modern sense of morality. This approach makes it clear that slavery is wrong, that gay marriage is a net positive, and that equality for all is something to be strived for. Christianity, and the Bible, put forward inconsistent messages on this front -- slavery is never derided (and is in fact endorsed), women's roles are both celebrated and suppressed depending on which parts you read, and homosexuality is at best condemned and at worst given the death penalty. Much of the moral messages that are seen as positive in the Bible are vague enough to be taken however you want to interpret it. In the end, however, goodness under Christianity is what God commands which (because it is divorced from issues of well-being and suffering) can yield objectively unethical behavior. It's true that some people are motivated by the Golden Rule to do good things, but one can get such motivating messages and lessons from Harry Potter.

A good exploration of these ideas is from Sam Harris: Sam Harris' Ted Talk or (longer) Moral Landscape Tour

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=479: I never forget speaking when on one of my many visits to Russia to a colleague in the Academy of Sciences and he said you know John we thought we could abolish God and retain a value for human beings we found we couldn't and we murdered millions of them

Here again, "abolishing religion" can be shown (objectively) to reduce human well-being. Honesty about religion, and holding people accountable for bad ideas, is a much better approach. It is not surprising that in authoritarian regimes, with their own dogmas that they are pushing, where they abolish religion do not lead to good moral outcomes. This has nothing to do with our morality coming from religion and all to do with choices that objectively reduce human well-being.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=510: even a Nobel Prize winner by analyzing a cake cannot tell why it was made but Aunt Matilda who made it can tell you. she can reveal it to you but if she doesn't reveal it to you you'll never know and that brings me to be my next evidence it's the same with the universe. We can analyze it magnificently but ultimately if it has a maker and I believe it has only he can tell us what it's all about and he's done so in the powerful Narrative of the Bible

Actually, without Aunt Matilda herself, one might be able to infer her purpose from observations. Are there candles on the cake? Is there writing there? Is the cake a particular kind? If we know that Aunt Matilda made it, perhaps we could use demonstrated knowledge of her and her family to infer the purpose. The problem here, which makes the analogy fall apart, is that we don't even know that the "Aunt Matilda" of the universe exists and the "cake" (being a universe) we don't know if it needs to be designed (unlike an actual cake).

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=575: although that's very important but in terms of something far deeper altogether the restoration of the fractured relationship with God through the Salvation he has brought through Jesus Christ a radical relationship that empowers us to live ethically from God and here we reach what for me is a chief evidence not only for the existence but the nature of God it is Jesus Christ. He who not only taught the Golden Rule but embodied it fed the hungry healed the sick and suffering and welcomed society's outcasts brought honor and respect to the marginalized and ashamed and he's brought forgiveness and peace to multi-millions around the world. He's able to do this of course because though he was a man he uniquely never was only a man but God become human the central evidence for this startling claim is of course his historical Resurrection from the dead that launched Christianity in the world this is of course

The parts about forgiveness and feeding the hungry and sick are good messages. The parts where the miracles happen have no good evidence. Why can't we take the good messages, and leave the rest behind?

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=639: This is of course ladies and gentlemen a crunch issue if Jesus rose from the dead death is not the end and Atheism is false if Jesus did not rise from the dead Christianity is false. I remember at Cambridge as a student listening to the brilliant Sir Norman Anderson a legal expert going through forensically the evidence from his legal perspective as a brilliant lawyer and he said at the end of it the empty tomb of Jesus forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the Resurrection dash themselves in vain

Haven't read Sir Norman Anderson's work, but a lawyer isn't someone who can expertly respond to ancient texts. The evidence for the Resurrection is remarkably thin, and far less than evidence we have for more modern so-called miraculous events which we don't believe.

I've written a lot about the Resurrection (https://bblais.github.io/search.html?q=resurrection) and about miracles (https://bblais.github.io/search.html?q=miracle) and the bottom line is that all we have for evidence for Jesus' Resurrection are the claims of testimony of the event written decades later by authors we either don't know or have to infer because they are never stated. Testimony itself would not be enough to justify a miracle, as all of science and our entire judicial system reiterate, and we don't even have that -- we have claims of testimony at best.

Some of the best explorations of this come from the YouTube Channel Paulogia. Here are some useful playlists to start with:

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=672: as I read the Bible I do not only find intellectual satisfaction but I find a great deal. I sense The Voice of God speaking to me you see that's intensely personal but ladies and gentlemen we've been asked tonight about belief in God and I want to strongly emphasize that God is not a theory he's a person

I've read the entire Bible twice, the most recent time in 2023.^[from https://bblais.github.io/posts/2023/Dec/02/what-would-i-expect-to-be-in-the-bible/] Both times I was underwhelmed by the content in the book. It had so much barbarism, and was barely inspiring even at its best points. I wrote in my notes

bblais on the Bible:

"There is nothing in the Bible that even suggests that the person writing this knew more than me or anyone else in history, let alone an omniscient being. If someone could point to anything in this book that indicates omniscient input, I'd love to hear it."

So what would I expect? I don't know specifically, but when I read a newsletter by Carolyn Porco an idea struck me. Here was a mere mortal, one of 8 billion, writing something more inspiring and prescient while being entirely accurate, communicating a message of thanks that far surpasses anything in the Bible. If this can be done by mere people, why do we think this couldn't have been accomplished in spades by an all-knowing being who supposedly created the universe?

Carolyn Porco:

Tomorrow will be Thanksgiving Day in the US ... the day that we Americans pause to express thanks for all those things that make our lives and our time on this planet meaningful.

To take reckoning of your own life, and all the wonder-filled moments and events, both personal and not, and the opportunities and knowledge -- yes, knowledge! -- you have gained from them, and to dwell on and be grateful for all of it, is a salve for the heart and soul. One of the most effective practices of gratitude for me starts outdoors, on a clear, dark night, gazing up at a starlit sky and absorbing its message.

I repeat here what I wrote on Facebook on Dec 20, 2022, prior to the Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn two days later:

"Be sure to spend some time reveling in the rarity of the moment, the beauty of the starlit skies of our planet, the antiquity of the Universe, and how fortunate we all are to have the celestial wonders that surround us ... our planetary neighbors, the very distant stars and nebulae in our own galaxy, all the billions upon billions of immensely distant galaxies ... laid out before our eyes in such glorious splendor. The night sky is the only scene we can savor that is 13.8 billion years old. No experience can better convey the profundity and significance of our own limited existence and the improbable blessing of being alive, than gazing, with knowledge and acceptance, upon its starry countenance."

There is enough gratitude to be had in that magnificent view and what it has taught us to last a lifetime.

Remember that tomorrow and be sure to have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Now, back to Lennox.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=672: we've been asked tonight about belief in God and I want to strongly emphasize that God is not a theory he's a person

God is used as an explanation of apparent design, of origins, of events we don't understand. Even if God is a person, as Lennox says, the idea "a person [mind] designed this" is the "theory" (as Lennox is using the term). So it's not an either-or situation. What us lacking is any real evidence that there is a personal creator, just an incredulous "I don't know how this thing could look designed without a designer".

Think of things this way. Are there cases where there was once a religious explanation for which, later, when we understood more there was a scientific explanation of the same thing? Surely! Disease, epilepsy (not curses, or possession), lightning, the formation of planets, the production of language, etc....

Now, reverse the sentence. Are there cases where there was once a scientific explanation for which, later, when we understood more there was a religious explanation of the same thing? There are zero such cases.

Lennox:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=736: it's enabled me to face something else. the hardest problem I face as a Christian is the problem of evil and pain. my niece getting a tumor at 22 that kills her. what do I say to my sister? and this is the hardest problem we face but it seems to me that atheism here has no answer because by definition atheism believes that human death is the end so there is no ultimate hope but you see ladies and gentlemen we could stay here till midnight and beyond arguing as has been done in this University for centuries what a good god should might would could if not possibly might just could he not have done and we'll get nowhere so it seems to me there's another question we can ask and it's this granted that life is presents us with a double picture we see some beautiful things we see some ragged edges we see hurt and pain and we see Joy how can we come to terms with that and it seems to me here is no simplistic answer but a window into an answer and it's this if it is actually true that Jesus is as I believe him to be the Son of God then we can ask the question what is God doing on a cross and the answer comes back at the very least God is Not remain distant from our human suffering but has become part of it and the other side of that is this because Jesus rose from the dead he is going to be the ultimate judge now here's an irony because atheism has no ultimate hope of Justice by definition the vast majority of people in the history of the world have died without Justice and will die without Justice and if death is the end then of course they have no hope of ultimate justice but the promise in the New Testament guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus is that he is to be the judge in the coming day so ladies and gentlemen those are some of the reasons why I believe that God is real and worthy to be trusted

The problem of evil isn't my biggest issue with Christianity (it is the problem of divine hiddenness for me). But the problem of evil is for many people their biggest issue. Lennox states that 'atheism here has no answer' but it really is that is isn't an answer he likes -- there is no 'ultimate' (whatever that means) purpose or plan, so we expect the universe to be filled with both gratuitous good and evil. It's Christianity that has no good answer -- there is no good reason to expect an all-loving, all-powerful-creator God to include gratuitous evil. All this talk of ultimate hope or justice seems empty to me. At least as stated in the Bible, Ghandi will go to hell but Hitler will go to Heaven because he asked for forgiveness. Infinite punishments for finite crimes is another problem for thinking the justice in the Bible is actual justice. The justice of the Bible is the justice of an authoritarian and has nothing to do with actual fairness.

Finally, after the video, the host the youtube channel Daily Dose of Wisdom, Brandon McGuire, had this to say.

Brandon McGuire:

https://youtu.be/VrIvwPConv0?si=5nveCWNxdxPjsFcq&t=890: when Christians talk about God it is personal it's not fantasy it's not the spaghetti monster in the sky there is a reality of God when when you have accepted him on his terms that is completely undeniable it is as undeniable as my relationship with my wife in the other room if if you were to tell me that she's not real I would laugh at you in the same way that if you were to tell me that God is not real but that type of knowing is not accessible to someone who hasn't met God on his terms

You can easily demonstrate to a skeptic that your wife exists. It doesn't need to be on your or her terms to do that -- that's what it means to have a true claim. So his statement that his relationship with God is "as undeniable as my relationship with my wife" is just false, and he must know this. They are not the same.

This was a long-winded answer to a 15-minute video, but there was a lot of claims packed into a small time.