I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2014, 12:52 PM
I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
I wrote:

"John Lennox will be interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdl4t3fh...L&index;=1

John Lennox: 25mins, science has plentiful to say on singularities, commonly known as black holes, based on observations, empirical evidence, not supernatural fantasy aka religious faith which is the epitome of 'a priori' (John uses this phrase against Krauss) / "valid independently of observation." John Lennox is an assuming and projecting sly debater, to ensure this self deluding faith emotional crutch will stay."

I got a reply couple of weeks later:

"Dear Ruby,

Thank you very much for your email to johnlennox.org. I am John Lennox’s assistant and I help him with his administration as he receives so many messages that he is not able to respond to them all individually. I agree that science relates primarily to the material world, but I would disagree with any suggestion that it can’t inform a discussion on agency or meta-physical concepts. Some secular philosophers and scientists have postulated life being “seeded” from elsewhere, for example, so agency is not out of the remit of science, nor are ultimate questions about why there is something rather than nothing. Of course if you are saying that you can only know what is scientifically verifiable, then that is a different matter – and that would of course render most academic disciplines redundant. The issue of emotional crutches is always an interesting topic – which applies equally to people of no religious faith – but I don’t think it is anything you can make sweeping generalisations about (and arguments about motivation don’t dictate what is true or not).

So those are just a couple of comments from what you have said. John Lennox is certainly aware of the philosophical argument in this area, so he is aware of the “a priori” point you make, which is why he draws on the inference to best explanation from a variety of fields. But of course he appreciates and respects those who disagree with him, which is why he’s committed to civil academic discussions on this topic.

Thanks again,

Simon Wenham


Simon Wenham
RESEARCH CO-ORDINATOR
T: +44 (0)1865 318467
E: simon.wenham@rzim.eu"


I am considering replying, do my fellow rational free thinking humans have any "ammunition" / things l should say in response?

thanks Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
(12-10-2014 12:52 PM)Ruby Wrote:  I wrote:

"John Lennox will be interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdl4t3fh...L&index;=1

John Lennox: 25mins, science has plentiful to say on singularities, commonly known as black holes, based on observations, empirical evidence, not supernatural fantasy aka religious faith which is the epitome of 'a priori' (John uses this phrase against Krauss) / "valid independently of observation." John Lennox is an assuming and projecting sly debater, to ensure this self deluding faith emotional crutch will stay."

I got a reply couple of weeks later:

"Dear Ruby,

Thank you very much for your email to johnlennox.org. I am John Lennox’s assistant and I help him with his administration as he receives so many messages that he is not able to respond to them all individually. I agree that science relates primarily to the material world, but I would disagree with any suggestion that it can’t inform a discussion on agency or meta-physical concepts. Some secular philosophers and scientists have postulated life being “seeded” from elsewhere, for example, so agency is not out of the remit of science, nor are ultimate questions about why there is something rather than nothing. Of course if you are saying that you can only know what is scientifically verifiable, then that is a different matter – and that would of course render most academic disciplines redundant. The issue of emotional crutches is always an interesting topic – which applies equally to people of no religious faith – but I don’t think it is anything you can make sweeping generalisations about (and arguments about motivation don’t dictate what is true or not).

So those are just a couple of comments from what you have said. John Lennox is certainly aware of the philosophical argument in this area, so he is aware of the “a priori” point you make, which is why he draws on the inference to best explanation from a variety of fields. But of course he appreciates and respects those who disagree with him, which is why he’s committed to civil academic discussions on this topic.

Thanks again,

Simon Wenham


Simon Wenham
RESEARCH CO-ORDINATOR
T: +44 (0)1865 318467
E: simon.wenham@rzim.eu"


I am considering replying, do my fellow rational free thinking humans have any "ammunition" / things l should say in response?

thanks Smile

"Some secular philosophers and scientists have postulated life being “seeded” from elsewhere, for example, so agency is not out of the remit of science, nor are ultimate questions about why there is something rather than nothing."

That statement is nonsense; the three clauses have nothing to do with each other.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
(12-10-2014 12:52 PM)Ruby Wrote:  Of course if you are saying that you can only know what is scientifically verifiable, then that is a different matter – and that would of course render most academic disciplines redundant.

And that would be a bad thing? Could he name any academic discipline that would be rendered redundant by requiring scientific verifiability? I can only think of theology.

Edit: I have a problem with the word redundant too, doesn't he mean obsolete? Out-moded?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
12-10-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
eh..I just wonder if you should have the contact information available on the fourm

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes grizzlysnake's post
12-10-2014, 06:01 PM
RE: I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
Not sure how agency is fitting there except for him pulling it out of his own black hole.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 08:32 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2014 08:37 PM by smileXsmileXsmile.)
I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a...
Haha 39min30sec Krauss says something like: thank you Christianity for giving rise to science. We appreciate it greatly. We no longer need you. Now get out of the way.

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like smileXsmileXsmile's post
14-10-2014, 09:16 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2014 09:30 PM by smileXsmileXsmile.)
I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a...
O noooooo 01:04:35 Lennox said: "but you have given my no evidence of atheism"

What doesn't anyone understand what atheism is. It's the LACK of belief and therefore doesn't require evidence. It's just like the fact that I don't have to have evidence that there's NOT a floating t-pot orbiting Saturn (and every other ridiculous statement like that)

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 09:17 PM
RE: I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
Every time this appears on the feed I think that it says, "I wrote to John Lennon..." Blink

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
14-10-2014, 09:25 PM
I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
Good video

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: I wrote to John Lennox, after watching the debate with Lawrence Krauss, got a reply:
I dunno why, but listening to Lennox makes me wanna hug the guy lol.

He has that old kindly grandpa voice that makes me like him for some reason.

I don't remember a lot of his debating styles since I only vaguely remember watching part of a debate with him and Hitchens a while back.

I will have to watch the video later on. Too late for me to see it tonight.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: