Bóg i Stephen Hawking. Czyj to w końcu projekt?

by John C. Lennox

Wielki projekt, bestseller wybitnego przedstawiciela nauki, kosmologa Stephena Hawkinga, jest jego najnowszym wkładem do debaty o „nowym ateizmie”. Hawking twierdzi, że to prawa fizyki powołały Wszechświat do istnienia, a nie Bóg. Jego stanowisko podważa John Lennox, matematyk z Oksfordu, w swojej książce Bóg i Stephen Hawking. Autor w błyskotliwym i logicznym wywodzie przeprowadza nas przez kluczowe miejsca w argumentacji Hawkinga, przedstawiając przy okazji najnowsze naukowe teorie i metody badawcze. Jest przekonany, że wywody Hawkinga, które negują Boże autorstwo dzieła stworzenia, paradoksalnie sprawiają, że czytelnik uznaje istnienie Boga za tym bardziej prawdopodobne.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Christian, Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Theology

132 pages, ebook

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

John Carson Lennox is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an Adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. In addition, he teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme at the Executive Education Centre, Said Business School, Oxford University.

He studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA, MMath and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds an MA and DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Würzburg and Freiburg in Germany. He has lectured extensively in North America, Eastern and Western Europe and Australasia on mathematics, the philosophy of science and the intellectual defence of Christianity.

He has written a number of books on the interface between science, philosophy and theology. These include God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (2009), God and Stephen Hawking, a response to The Grand Design (2011), Gunning for God, on the new atheism (2011), and Seven Days that Divide the World, on the early chapters of Genesis (2011). Furthermore, in addition to over seventy published mathematical papers, he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series.

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stephen Hawking evidently enjoys the gentle art of trolling; I reluctantly concede that I am a rank amateur in his august company. All the same, John Lennox's irate reply sounds eerily familiar. If I may paraphrase for a moment:

Dear Dr Rayner Professor Hawking,

You think you are so clever, but your Harry Potter review popular book on cosmology shows you are just plain dumb. You say that YA literature is crap philosophy is dead, but your whole review book just reads like the worst kind of YA literature philosophy. If you knew anything about it you would realize that. You say there was nothing about the Horcruxes before book 7 M-Theory created the Universe. That just shows how ignorant you are. You clearly don't even understand what a Horcrux metaphysical principle is. And none of your trivial, obviously fallacious arguments even for one moment shake my conviction that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows the Bible is the greatest book ever written. I could go on for hours giving you examples of how over and over again you misunderstand everything, but I have to finish my homework write a paper on infinite soluble groups.

Yours sincerely,

HPFanBoy John Lennox, PhD, Oxford

[Meg Hykes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr. Lennox does a beautiful job of pointing out Stephen Hawking's many self-contradictions in his book The Grand Design. He starts off with the fact that Stephen Hawking's own statement "philosophy is dead" is in fact proving that philosophy is still very much alive and kicking.
Mr. Lennox also points out the fact that Stephen Hawking seems to believe that a theory might bring the universe into existence. How is this possible when theories and laws on there own, can not even cause anything, let alone create it? Lennox writes, "A move to advance the cause of atheism by means of highly speculative, untestable theory that is not within the zone of evidence-based science, and which, even if it were true, could not dislodge God in any case, is not exactly calculated to impress those of us whose faith in God is not speculative, but testable and well within the zone of evidence based rational thought."
Mr. Lennox also adds later, "The interesting thing about those who espouse various kinds of relativism: they all seem to end up by saying, essentially, that truth, perception, etc. are relative, except of course the truth they are passionately trying to get us to perceive. That is, they fail to apply their own relativism to themselves." Beautifully said!
Okay, one final quote from this fabulous book (and then you just need to get out there and buy a copy for your home). Lennox writes, "Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. This is not a discord that I recognize. For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine Creator. The more I understand science the more I believe in God, because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication, and integrity of his creation."

My Final Thoughts:
BUY IT!! I truly think that every home should have a copy of this book! I am extremely grateful when a scientist or mathematician steps up and publishes there own book to point out the many contradictions being put out there today. I love the way Mr. Lennox writes so that I don't need to be a "science buff" to know exactly what has been said and how it is inaccurate. He does it in such a way that I never felt that I was being talked down to (which I truly appreciate).
This book was so engaging that I actually found myself not only taking notes, but discussing it non-stop with whoever would listen to me. I look forward to reading through it again and highlighting many, many points of interest (which if you know me that's huge - I NEVER mark my books up).

http://meg-homeschoolinmama.blogspot....

[MrClee · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lennox írt egy 120 oldalas könyvet Stephen Hawking nagyjából egyetlen mondatáról. Érvelései, következtetései, alátámasztásai érthetőek, akár még jogosak, sőt, igazak is lehetnek, magát a stílust azonban nem igazán tudtam értékelni. A célját se nagyon értettem sokáig, míg végre ő maga fedte fel: reméli, hogy a Hawking-hívők előbb-utóbb Isten-hívők lesznek. Ízekre szedi Hawking 1-2 mondatát, valamint még néhány, ateista tudós meglátását arról, létrejöhetett-e az univerzum a semmiből. Hawking ugyanis azt állította egyik könyvében, hogy a gravitáció léte az ok arra, hogy a világegyetem létrehozhatta önmagát, és ehhez nem volt szükség Teremtőre. Elég bizonytalan, légből kapott gondolatnak tűnik, melyet egyszerűen semmi nem tud bizonyítani, egy gondolatkísérlet szintjén létezhet, de látható, hogy Hawking ezzel erőteljesen Lennox egyik tyúkszemére lépett.
Arroganciából jeles, süt róla a rosszindulat, és ezzel gyakorlatilag teljesen hiteltelenné teszi saját magát Lennox, hiába keresett megszámlálhatatlan idézetet, amely egyébként a könyv felét kiteszik, és bizonyítja az igazát. Senkinek nincs igaza, csak neki, meg aki vele egyetért, meg persze a Bibliának. De annak mindig.
Gyakorlatilag Lennox maga is rámutat arra, hogy amit Hawking kimond, azt tudományos magyarázatnak elég erős túlzás állítani, és erre nem egy neves tudós recenzióját idézi a témával kapcsolatosan, akik Hawking elmélete ellen szólaltak fel. A gond az, hogy egy kicsinyes versengésbe fut ki az egész, minden oldalon érződik Lennox Hawking iránti ellenszenve, próbálja őt a lehető legjobban lealacsonyítani, megsemmisíteni az olvasó szemében. Merthogy nem győzhet Hawking és a gravitáció, hiszen a valóság az, hogy Isten volt a teremtő és kész és pont. Lennox igazára csupán a hite a garancia, és azt akarja, hogy mások is abban a mesében higgyenek, amiben ő szeretne. De miért nem adja meg a lehetőséget, miért nem szeretné azt, hogy mindenki eldöntse maga, hogy miben hisz?
„A mi világunkban pedig Isten a teremtő.” – olyan érzésem volt egész végig, mintha Lennox tipikusan az az ember lenne, aki arra vár, hogy valaki megpróbáljon megoldani egy kérdést, egy problémát, hogy előléphessen ő, hogy mindezt megcáfolja, és mindenki tudtára adja, hogy ezt te nem találhattad ki, mert csak. Mert Isten már megtette. Megakadályozza a haladást, az egyre jobban megismert univerzum összetettségéből, bonyolultságából, megismerhetetlenségéből arra következtet, hogy emiatt muszáj létezni egy mindent összekötő Istennek, ahelyett, hogy próbálná jobban megérteni magát a világot. Azt mondja, nem ért egyet Hawkinggal, aki szerint a tudomány és a vallás között áthidalhatatlan ellentét van. Ezzel én sem értek egyet, azonban hitünk, vallásunk nem azért van szerintem, hogy magyarázatot találjunk, hogyan és miért keletkezett a világ, Lennox azonban pont ebbe a kicsinyes vitába áll bele. Miközben a vallásunknak meg kéne maradnia a helyes erkölcs meghatározásánál, a lélek és a szív rejtelmeinél, az életünkbeli tettek és cselekedetek helyes útra kormányzásánál.

[Joey · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can feel that John Lennox is deeply devoted to his God. Thus, I cannot blame him if he is such a dye in the wool; he is not far different from the notorious atheists such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins , militantly criticize all the major religions in the world. I may be an avowed atheist as I always put it here bluntly, in accord with their proposition that God does not exist, but I have at last agreed with the famous contemporary British philosopher , Alain de Botton, that in practicality, people need religion , in a sense that without it, is dangerous since such practice has become part of culture around the world. In fact, Alain de Botton is an atheist too.

In this book, originally a response article to Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design (co-authored with Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow ) that appeared in the Daily Mail, September 3, 2010, John Lennox, a Mathematics professor and religious adviser , contradicts Stephen Hawking’s claim that:

“ Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

In Lennox ‘s apologetic opinion, the Universe and everything needs a creator: God. However, the problem with John Lennox’s argument is anthropomorphic and pantheistic. Cognizant he may be of these facts , he points out that the Universe and all natural phenomena cannot come into existence without a creator: God. If so, what does he mean by God? In a sense that God is in human form, a superhuman with such superpower to be able to create everything even the vast Universe? Such an idea is beyond our imagination. Or does not he mean that creator is a force as what pantheists believe? How about the idea of Carl Jung that human is the God itself? Since he argues that everything cannot be put into action without an agent?

John Lennox argues that scientific laws and theories do not actuate human and have cause nd effects; they, according to him, only describe how things happen. They are even untestable; for instance, the idea of M-theory. He must have overlooked or, to put it mildly, brushed the fact aside that scientific laws and theories have been the bases on explaining how things happen and are changing ,or can possibly happen in the future , since the time immemorial. To put it bluntly again, I ‘d rather believe in those laws and theories than in something irrational, inconstant, and illogical.

Miracle is another argument not only John Lennox, let alone the believers turn to to believe that God exists. As far as we are concerned, miracle means something happens without explicit and rational explanation. In other words, when people are not able to explain a phenomena, they invoke God. Once again, God means in superhuman or pantheistic form? How about drawing the conclusion that such case is under the subject to extensive and thorough studies Period.? The problem with believers is that they are instilled in the fear of denying God’s existence. And this is the point of Alain de Botton as I have mentioned above.

For me, not in a bellicose and belligerent way, John Lennox’s argument is a product of religious upbringing. His reasons are incorrigible. But to avoid religious collision, I will take de Botton’s opinion: Respect one another. Sad to say, it turns out not to be a religious anti-dote at all.

I could have liked the book by giving it 2 out of 5 stars only if Lennox were not so “ idealistic”.But 1 star does not necessarily mean this is poor, but in a sense that how the book convinced me. This is the way here on Goodreads it is!

[Bob Mendelsohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having listened to a few lectures by Prof Lennox (Oxford Uni, Mathematics), I can hear him speaking as I read this booklet. Perhaps it was actually a series of lectures he gave which are now compiled into this well-documented and easy-to-follow scholarly work in answer to Stephen Hawking's book The Great Design.

Prof Lennox shows due deference to the man Prof Hawking and yet at the same time, has capacity and Irish aplomb in denigrating Hawking's postulates and conclusions. I like both.

Prof Lennox goes after Hawking specifically viz. philosophy, the laws of nature and the law of gravity, M-theory and the multiverse, and so much more. I really liked his frank and clear exposing of the errors of Hawking's conclusions. No need for a spoiler alert; Lennox is a radical who has no trouble believing in the God of the Bible AND science. They are not oppositional he avers. And he maintains that opinion.

[Daniel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Od czego by tu zacząć.

Autor w każdym rozdziale tej książeczki wykonuje niesamowite fikołki logiczne. Rozbija logiczne twierdzenia Hawkinga, ale jak sam mówi tylko na płaszczyźnie filozoficznej a nie w dziedzinie fizyki, po czym stara się nam udowodnić że Bóg istnieje. Problem w tym że robi to w ten sam sposób który przed chwilą zdyskredytował u Hawkinga, ale gdy robi to sam autor to już wszystko jest git. Jest 4 rozdziały w każdym powtarza się ten sam scenariusz z inną częścią książki Hawkinga.

Nie do przyjęcia uważam również brak jakichś szerszych przypisów oraz źródeł do tak odważnych twierdzeń jak słowa *zmartwychwstanie to fakt historyczny i mamy na to dowody nie tylko w Biblii* no cóż drogi autorze chciałbym je zobaczyć, myślę że mógłby autor dostać za takie niesamowite, łamiące świat i jego prawa na pół odkrycie dostać coś więcej niż nagrodę Nobla.

Ostatecznie większość rozdziałów kończy nam się słowami, to mówi Hawking a teraz mówię ja jak jest, więc bóg istnieje i dlatego bóg istnieje dobranoc.

Śmieszna jest ogólna pycha i samouwielbienie autora, które aż się z tej książki wylewa. Na każdym kroku agituje tutaj swoją wiarę jako jedyną słuszną, za nic mając sobie inne duże religie, wierzenia czy mity w które wierzyli dawni ludzie nazywając je prosto przesądami i wrzucając do zupełnie innych szuflad. Obrusza się gdy wierzenia Greków przyrównywane są do aktualnych wierzeń. Dlaczego? Nie wiem. W obu przypadkach ludzie naprawdę wierzyli i mieli do tego prawo tak jak i my mamy.

W zakończeniu autor wyraża swoją nadzieję równą pewności że kogoś nawróci tą książką. No nie wiem. Może ludzi którzy chcieli usłyszeć to co tu powiedział, przekonał na nowo. Mnie rozśmieszył i zajął mi głowę na blisko godzinę. Nie najgorszy wynik.

Dziękuję Aśku za tą podróż.

Nie zapomnę jej nigdy.

[Eric_W]

Normally, I wouldn’t read this kind of book, but given the substantial number of positive comments, and its abbreviated length, I figured what the hell. Admittedly, I skimmed much of it. I doubt very much that parsing each sentence would have made any difference.

The preponderance of reviewers around the web appear to believe Lennox destroyed Hawking’s arguments. He did no such thing and to do so would have been impossible since each is starting with a different set of assumptions: Lennox with his belief that God exists and that something cannot arise from nothing (totally failing to explain God’s origin); Hawking with the opposite, that something can easily arise from nothing. It doesn't help that each has a different definition of what constitutes “nothing.” One could have reconciled both positions by simply accepting the proposition that God is the laws of physics, but that wouldn’t be any fun.

I suspect that reviewers will line up for or against this book depending on their prior assumptions as well, so I am not ranking this book because I’m sure that my certainty that there is no God (as defined by Christians, Moslems, and Jews, i.e. an entity that actually gives a shit and responds to requests to intervene often violating the laws of physics when necessary) just couldn’t possibly exist would predispose a negative rank.

Lennox’s book is a response to Hawking’s book, The Grand Design, which I have not read. A review in Science News (7.27.12) notes that Hawking’s poses and proposes to answer the following questions. “ Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why are the laws of nature what they are? While acknowledging the fine-tuning of Earth that allows for favorable life conditions, Hawking promotes the multiverse theory, which holds that our universe is only one of countless others, each with their own forces of nature.” So both he and Lennox are engaged in a conjectural debate. I don’t like that since you can’t conjecture your way out of a paper bag. By doing so, Hawking’s speculation opened the door wide to counter-speculation. (Anyone who argues that using the Bible as a source to refute conjecture just doesn’t know his history or Bible. There’s way too much evidence on how those beliefs evolved and were developed. There is as much evidence for the existence of Leprachauns and Santa Claus as there is for God and they all rely on faith.) I’m always amused by those who claim that the Big Bang, evolution, etc. are mere theories, and then go on to unquestionably accept the greatest hypothesis of them all, that “God” exists, for which there is no evidence at all.

So the debate, if one dare call it that, is like two guys sitting in a bar, one claiming Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player; the other asserting it had to be Hank Aaron, each absolutely certain. Fun, I guess, if you are well-lubricated. For the rest of us, it’s just a boring conversation that only makes the righteous on both sides happy. For my part, Hawking should have stuck to astrophysics and Lennox to math neither of which is useful to the debate and left the speculation to pundits.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a book-length critical review of Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design. Because Dr. Lennox’s areas of expertise are math and philosophy, not physics, he doesn’t feel qualified to critique Hawking’s physics. Rather, he critiques the underlying philosophy of the book, reducing it to shreds. Some issues he has with Hawking include:

1. At the outset, Hawking declares philosophy to be dead, having failed to keep up with modern developments in science. He then proceeds to engage in bad philosophy, apparently having failed to keep up with modern developments in philosophy.
2. Hawking associates biblical religion with the ancient religions that deified the universe, failing to recognize that long before the Greek philosophers de-deified the universe by questioning the pagan gods, the ancient Israelites worshipped the Creator God who made the universe, an orderly universe. As Dr. Lennox puts it, Hawking “confuses God with the gods.”
3. In his assertion that the universe can create itself out of nothing on account of the law of gravity, Hawking displays logical incoherence. For one thing, he fails to keep the definition of “nothing” consistent, sometimes using it to refer to quantum vacuum, sometimes to nothing at all. Secondly, something cannot create itself. For it to do this, it would have to be pre-existent. Thirdly, to use the law of gravity to explain the existence of the universe is contradictory because the law of gravity depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the universe whose behavior it describes. In other words, the law of gravity also requires the universe to be pre-existent to work.
4. Hawking appears to be assigning to the laws of nature creative power and agency to take God out of the picture. It is almost as if he is turning the laws of nature into god. Furthermore, laws of nature are descriptive and not prescriptive. They merely describe how the universe works but cannot explain how it comes about. Hawking’s claim that God is not necessary is an assumption on his part at the outset, not a product of his science, but a self-imposed boundary condition on it.
5. Hawking appears to be attempting to assign to multiverse cosmology the same certainty that is associated with observable science, such as Kepler’s laws. Kepler’s laws are verifiable by observation and can be used to accurately predict the behavior of planets and other objects in orbit. M-theory is speculative and untestable.

In this short review, I have barely scratched the surface of Dr. Lennox’s critique of Hawking. Take the time to read both Hawking’s book and Lennox’s critique. The critique is a superb example of critical thinking in action. I don’t expect all to appreciate all that Dr. Lennox has to say. Young earth creationists, of which I am one, may be put off by his old earth creationism, but they can still learn from him.

[Erick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've watched a few debates with John Lennox and seen some interviews. I liked his manner so decided to read his book; definitely worth reading. In truth though, dealing with new atheism is largely an exercise in futility. Atheism, especially new atheism, is an affliction of the will, not the reason. But however you sum it up, in large part, it's simply buffoonery. New atheists have mastered the art of foolishness.

[Rod Horncastle · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Lennox would be the greatest Grandpa EVER!
(He's a professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, and many other things. He's also a Christian Apologist who has debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and lectured all over the world).

In this book he takes on the sacred Cowboy of Atheistic Science: Stephen Hawking.

I just watched the somewhat biographical movie: The Theory of Everything. Good show. It's amazing how religion seems to touch just about everything. Almost every science book I pick up (which ain't that many) has a whack of crap to say about God. And that's the challenge with some Scientists --- instead of boldly doing science: they are desperate to undo God. You would think science would be busy without this added inserted mockery. But Nope! Mr. Hawking has an agenda with his science, as does Richard Dawkins and a gaggle of other self-declared enlightened professors. It appears some scientists are never that busy actually doing REAL science.

Here, the Irish Grandpa of Christian Theological Mathy scholarship has a few concerns with Hawking's Shoddy efforts. It seems Hawking's foot is often fully inserted into his own mouth.
Stephen Hawking is famous in my memory for stating: "Philosophy Is Dead." (This was immortalized in the movie: God's Not Dead).
The problem is: Not only is philosophy not dead - but everyone is using it whether they are smart enough to know it or not. Most assumed Hawking was smart??? Maybe being self aware isn't his highest priority.

Here's a fun comment: (pg. 31)
"To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its own existence sounds like something from Alice In Wonderland, not science."

And that is the problem with this entire argument between Science and Christianity (sorry, I really don't think other religions even belong in this discussion). The Elephant in the room is that the challenge is really between Good science vs. Bad science. Christianity is Christianity regardless.

Lennox shows clearly that Hawking is basically attempting to do magic with his scientific assumptions. Here's how: (pg. 31)
"He says a universe comes from a nothing that turns out to be a something...then he says the universe creates itself...but that is not all. His notion that a law of nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory..."

Yes, a rabbit can't usually pull itself out of a hat, or cause itself to be created by the hat, or accept so easily that the hat simply created the rabbit out of an eternal boredom.
Here's my favorite quote of the book: (pg. 32) John Lennox says

"What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world famous scientists."

Don't forget; John Lennox is an Oxford Professor of Mathematics. He's not some nobody Goodreads Talking Donkey who writes down every bodily noise that blurts out from his orifices. Is he obviously correct? NO, but he's worth investigating. Here's another comment: (pg. 39)

"Yet this is essentially what many scientists do with God. They define the range of questions that science is permitted to ask in such a way that God is excluded from the start; and then they claim that God is unnecessary, or doesn't exist. They fail to see that their science does not answer the question as to why something exists rather than nothing...They also fail to see that by assumption it is their atheist world-view, not science as such, that excludes God."

The chapter on God and the multiverse is rather fun.
"We note in passing that Hawking has once again fallen into the trap of offering false alternatives. This time it is: God or the multiverse...theoretically, God could create as many universes as he pleases... what of the multiverse itself? Is it fine-tuned? If it is, then Hawking is back where he started."

So much fun. Here's one last good quote (pg. 54) John Butterworth (who works at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland says)
"M-theory is highly speculative and certainly not in the zone of science that we have got any evidence for."

Okay, here's another quote just because it is funny. And speaks of Alien life-forms. (I wish I had a dollar for every atheist that has faith in Space Aliens... but finds time to mock God and a world filled with religion?!)

(pg. 94)
"Hawking imagines that the potential existence of other life forms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living in a unique, God-created planet. I find it faintly amusing that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. They are only too eager to denounce the possibility that there exists a vast, intelligent being "Out there", namely God, who has left his fingerprints all over HIS creation."

So how much money is spent looking for Aliens? And I often hear atheists complain about Religious folks wasting cash. Hmmm? Fairy tales indeed. (has everyone seen the blasphemous comedy Space-Alien movie: "Paul". Hilarious - don't let your kids watch it. But basically this is the future hope of atheists.)

I could quote from this book all day. So many great comments that should cause folks to - not so blindly - have endless faith in Hawking's deity of scientism. Yes, once again, an endless Atheistic assertion of Science of the Gaps. This is a short book. A good start to investigating and critiquing secular science and its sacred institution of Peer Review Publishing. Science isn't much different than Hollywood these days. Pretty soon we'll even have Red Carpet Awards shows for celebrity scientists... (actually that movie I mentioned earlier: "The Theory of Everything" basically shows this.) Hawking and Dawkins are like Rockstars. And we all know we shouldn't take those kind of folks seriously - It's all entertainment! Satan is proud.

After Hawking has come and gone - The Bible and its God will still be going strong.

[Bob Hayton · Rating 5 out of 5]

The new atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, are ever in the public spotlight these days, or so it seems. The idea that brilliant physicists and scientists can make sense of this world without a God appeals to many. Certainly the conclusions reached in books such as Hawking’s latest book, The Grand Design — that there is no God and no ultimate point to the universe — are conclusions many atheists and secularists are all too eager to affirm. Since everything does fit so nicely together, however, should we wonder if the case made is really as air tight as claimed? If the conclusions are made to order, we might have warrant to carefully scrutinize the claims of these New Atheist authors.

John Lennox, author of God’s Undertaker, and a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford in his own right, takes on Stephen Hawking’s arguments in a forthcoming book published by Lion Books and distributed in the US by Kregel Publications (available July 15). In God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?, Lennox exposes the circular reasoing and non sequitors that abound in Hawking’s The Grand Design. Lennox begins by framing the scope of what science can really address as it attempts to examine metaphysical questions. He then points out both Hawking’s dismissal of philosophy and his misunderstanding of Christian theism. God is not merely a “god of the gaps”, an explanation for the world as we know it. The Christian understanding of God has Him outside the boundaries of creation as Lord over all of it, not some explanation for unknown phenomena. As for philosophy, after rejecting it as “dead”, Hawking jumps in and tries his own hand at several metaphysical questions that philosophy has long addressed. Hawking’s attempt at doing philosophy is all the poorer for his outright rejection of it.

Lennox then takes Hawking to task for claiming that the theory of gravity, or scientific laws in general, can operate as a “creator” in a sense, and be the ultimate cause for our universe. He clarifies what a law or rule of nature really “is”, and illustrates how Hawking makes more of such laws than can really be claimed. He then goes on to show how Hawking’s “M” theory of the “Multiverse” conveniently sidesteps objections by positing the existence of infinite universes. Still the question remains, why are there any universes instead of no universe? Lennox reveals that other major physicists have their own doubts as to the ability that M theory really has for being an explanation of everything.

Lennox also addresses head on the claim that miracles cannot happen because the laws of science would be invalidated. He pries open the layers from this question and shows the irrationality of claiming that science strictly forbids the existence of exceptions or miracles.

By the end of this short book (it’s only 100 pages long), Lennox has made a convincing case for theism and demonstrated that reasonable scientists continue to affirm the divine. Lennox’s book is accessible and clear, even as it interacts with quite complicated elements from Hawking’s writing. The book doesn’t own the six-day, young earth Creationist view, but it doesn’t rule it out either. Lennox argues that often the new atheists assume that to believe in God is to believe in a young earth view, and he shows this is not true. Lennox marshals arguments from science (the very idea of the big bang supports the Bible’s claim that the world has a beginning – something science has only admitted in the last hundred years), philosophy, history and the realm of human experience. The resulting case is convincing and should serve to bolster the faith of any troubled by the new atheism. At the least, it offers avenues of further exploration available in grappling with these issues.

Before closing my review, I should excerpt a small section from this book which captures some of Lennox’s craft in action. This excerpt will illustrate his style and the way he can cut to the heart of an issue with incisive logic.

"Suppose, to make matters clearer, we replace the universe by a jet engine and then are asked to explain it. Shall we account for it by mentioning the personal agency of its inventor, Sir Frank Whittle? Or shall we follow Hawking: dismiss personal agency, and explain the jet engine by saying that it arose naturally from physical law…. It is not a question of either/or. It is self-evident that we need both levels of explanation in order to give a complete description. It is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts nor competes with the agent explanation: they complement one another. It is the same with explanations of the universe: god does not conflict or compete with the laws of physics as an explanation. God is actually the ground of all explanation, in the sense that he is the cause in the first place of there being a world for the laws of physics to describe."

To this I add my “amen”. I encourage you to pick up this little book as it offers an excellent primer on how to deal with the claims of the new atheism. Even if you differ with Lennox on a point or two, his clear style and succinct arguments will equip you in thinking through these issues on your own.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Publications via Litfuse Publicity Group. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

[Mohammed Fawzi (BookTuber) · Rating 4 out of 5]

"This is a philosophical polemic book" 🤨

A wonderful lecture, but incomplete, and this is the defect in it, despite the ingenuity of the professor at Oxford University Lennox, but it is not as deep as Hawking, for example. He did not talk much about strings, and he is a great mathematician, and he did not discuss the issue of parallel universes.

👉🏼But I liked the logical way of analyzing and finding the hole in Stephen's situation.

[Celia Sánchez · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this book, Dr. Lennox reserves his ire for Stephen Hawking (against his book The Grand Design ) .He refutes M-theory and concept of Multiverse as these theories are yet to be proved.But the problem with John lennox God is his evidence centres around Jesus and his resurrection from death ...proof :It is mentioned in Bible( a work of fiction)- Argument from authority --. Bible. Lennox says the Big Bang was authored by god(read Jesus).

ALL arguments for the existence of a god necessarily involve logical fallacies. The most common one is - Argument from ignorance. One claims that since he does not know how some phenomenon happened naturally, thus some god must have been involved. There is an error in this proposition: ..the argument does not obviate the possibility that the phenomenon was some natural process --including one which may not now be known.

Terrible logic throughout. sickening waste of time.avoid this....

[Domagoj · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, prof. Lennox never fails to suprise me. His philosophy is so clear and easy to follow. I am intrigued how one of most intelligent people alive, Stephen Hawking, did not read much on the subject from philosophy. Perhaps it is so because he thinks philosophy is dead. As prof. Lennox writes:

"The very first thing I notice is that Hawking's statement about philosophy is itself a philosophical statement. It is manifestly not a statement of science: it is a metaphysical statement about science. Therefore, his statement that philosophy is dead contradicts itself. It is a classic example of logical incoherence."

[IDMT · Rating 5 out of 5]

- maybe actually read the book - there is no "ire" in Lennox' arguments and lots of respect in the way he phrases them

- all his arguments are supported by quotes of renowned scientists, atheists and theists alike

- not a single part of this book is about organized religion either btw

[Raisuddin Rakib · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finished reading John Lennox's book 'God and Stephen Hawking: whose design is it anyway?' Lennox is a professor of Mathematics in Oxford and also a philosopher of science.
.
From the subtitle of the book it can be supposed what contained it. Yes the book is written to criticize Hawking's book -'The grand design'.
Undoubtedly Hawking is one of the genius cosmologist alive. He revealed the whole picture of the universe on a coffee table by his book 'A brief history of time'. But in his latest book 'The Grand Design' he writes some unexpected, illogical, absurd and nonsense claims like - "Philosophy is dead", " Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing"....... etc.
But Lennox espouses eloquently -

"Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists"[pp26]

Hawking begins the book with the statement -philosophy is dead! He rejects a discipline! Well, but ridiculous is the statement -philosophy is dead itself a metaphysical statement (branch of philosophy) not scientific. Contradictions are going on.... most of the parts of the book deal with philosophical questions, epistemology metaphysics . Hawking said universe can create itself from nothing by gravity. This statement contains three level of contradiction. 1.Something from nothing, 2. Universe can create itself without God! That means X can create X. Does it make sense? , 3. Universe create itself because there is law of gravity! Can laws create anything? Can law of arithmetic creates mony in my wallet ? No, they can only predict 2 taka+ 2 taka will be 4 taka. Nevertheless, law of nature, by definition, surely depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature. So how could gravity responsible for the existence of universe? .
.
Lennox criticizes these claims in his little book. Lennox also points out Hawkings circular argument against miracle and makes multiverse as a defeater of uniformity of nature. Although as a Christian he sympathizes Christian faith in the whole book.

[Clark Goble · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first book I've read by John Lennox. I picked it up as it offered a response to Hawking's Grand Design. The first thing I did was examine Lennox's credentials and, I must say, I was more than impressed. Lennox is a Professor of Mathematics and a contemporary of Hawking at Oxford University. I was intrigued to examine the arguments of a Christian apologist who also engaged in something as logical as advanced mathematics. Lennox did not disappoint.

Hawking may be the "Grandmaster of Physics" but Lennox immediately establishes that the author of The Grand Design fails in his attempts to engage in the metaphysical. Lennox defines the battle as one between Theism and Atheism with scientists on both sides (rather than one between Science and Faith) and makes the case that Hawking's assertion that philosophy is dead qualifies as a philosophical statement (thus revealing the inconsistencies in Hawking's position). Lennox then proceeds to systematically destroy Hawking's philosophical position.

Of particular interest was Lennox's attack on Hawking primary alternative to God, M-theory (or multiverse). Lennox explores the proposition of the multiverse and makes the case that M-Theory in and of itself does not provide an adequate alternative to a Divine Creator.

I found it quite refreshing that Lennox approaches his subject matter as one who obviously respects knowledge and respects the sciences while also believing in Jesus Christ. Lennox is a scholar of the highest caliber and destroys any notion that Theism is somehow contrary to science,

I recommend his book for anyone who has read Hawking's The Grand Design as well as for any Christian who is approaching a study of the sciences. At the very least, Lennox aptly demonstrates how to recognize when statements of science deviate into the realm of the metaphysical.

I greatly look forward to reading more John Lennox.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Basically Stephen Hawking is a bright guy; but when he talks about things beyond physical laws, not so much. Hawkings basically says that all things are now explained through physics, and that proves there is no God.

John Lennox does an excellent, clear, and compelling job of stating quite the opposite. Let me just rely on some excerpts from the book (since you probably won't read it anyway):

The laws of physics are not only incapable of creating anything; they cannot even cause anything to happen. For instance, Newton’s celebrated laws of motion never caused a pool ball to race across the green baize table. That can only be done by people using a pool cue and the actions of their own muscles. The laws enable us to analyse the motion, and to map the trajectory of the ball’s movement in the future (provided nothing external interferes); but they are powerless to move the ball, let alone bring it into existence.

However, in the world in which most of us live, the simple law of arithmetic by itself, 1+1=2, never brought anything into being. It certainly has never put any money into my bank account. If I put £1,000 into the bank, and later another £1,000, the laws of arithmetic will rationally explain how it is that I now have £2,000 in the bank. But if I never put any money into the bank myself, and simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to bring money into being in my bank account, I shall remain permanently bankrupt.

5 Science and rationality
Much of the rationale behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. This is not a discord that I recognize. For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine Creator. The more I understand science the more I believe in God, because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication, and integrity of his creation. Indeed, the very reason that science flourished so vigorously in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, under men like Galileo, Kepler and Newton, had a great deal to do with their conviction that the laws of nature reflected the influence of a divine law-giver. One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational, intelligent design. Far from belief in God hindering science, it is the motor that drove it. The fact that science is (mainly) a rational activity helps us to identify another flaw in Hawking’s thinking. Like Francis Crick, he wants us to believe that we human beings are nothing but “mere collections of fundamental particles of nature”. Crick writes: “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” What shall we think, then, of human love and fear, joy and sorrow? Are they meaningless neural behaviour patterns? Or, what shall we make of the concepts of beauty and truth? Is a Rembrandt painting nothing but molecules of paint scattered on canvas? Hawking and Crick would seem to think so. One wonders, then, by what means we should recognize it. After all, if the concept of truth itself results from “no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells”, how in the name of logic would we know that our brain was composed of nerve cells?

Rational support for the existence of God is not only to be found in the realm of science, for science is not coextensive with rationality, as many people imagine. For instance, we find ourselves to be moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics, as has been admitted by all but the most die-hard converts to scientism. Physics cannot inspire our concern for others, nor was science responsible for the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time. But that does not mean that ethics is non-rational. Furthermore, just as the fine-tuning of the constants of nature and the rational intelligibility of nature point to a transcendent intelligence that is independent of this world, so the existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of a transcendent moral being.

There are highly intelligent, eminent scientists who would differ with them; for instance: Professor William Phillips, Physics Nobel Prizewinner 1998; Professor John Polkinghorne FRS, Quantum Physicist, Cambridge; Sir John Houghton, former Director of the British Meteorological Office and Head of the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change; and the current Director of the National Institute of Health and former Director of the Human Genome Project, Francis
Collins. These distinguished scientists are well aware of the arguments against miracles. Nevertheless, publicly and without embarrassment or a sense of absurdity, each affirms his belief in the supernatural and, in particular, in the resurrection of Christ – which they regard, as I do, as the supreme evidence for the truth of the Christian world-view. One of the scientists just mentioned, Francis Collins, gives a wise caution regarding the matter of miracles: "It is crucial that a healthy scepticism be applied when interpreting potentially miraculous events, lest the integrity and rationality of the religious perspective be brought into question. The only thing that will kill the possibility of miracles more quickly than a committed materialism is the claiming of miracle status for everyday events for which natural explanations are readily at hand."

A final comment
Science and history are not the only sources of evidence for the existence of God. Since God is a Person and not a theory, it is to be expected that one of the prime evidences for his existence is personal experience. To develop this important matter, it would take us far beyond the intended scope of this little book. Nevertheless I wish to add my voice to the many millions who can and would testify to the profound and central role that faith in Christ as Lord has on our lives, bringing assurance of peace with God, a new power for living, and a certain hope based on the resurrection of Christ. Such a hope defies both the death barrier and Hawking’s bleak reductionist notion that we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules derived from the stars. We shall, in fact, outlast the stars. Hawking imagines that the potential existence of other life forms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living in a unique, God-created planet. I find it faintly amusing that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. They are only too eager to denounce the possibility that there exists a vast, intelligent being “out there”, namely God, who has left his fingerprints all over his creation. Hawking’s fusillade will not shake the foundations of an intelligent faith that is based on the cumulative evidence of science, history, the biblical narrative, and personal experience.

[Nika · Rating 4 out of 5]

przekonanie że ateizm to naturalny punkt widzenia kogos kto posługuje się rozumem jest nie do utrzymania.

Ksiazki tego typu, które mają coś ,,obalać,, udowadniać zawsze budzą we mnie trochę sprzeczności.
Z jednej strony zgadzam się z niektórymi argumentami. Są teorie, które brzmią nielogicznie- nie są dobrze wytłumaczone lub nie mają takiego dobrego potwierdzenia naukowego, jak się ich twórcy zdawało. Np. prawa nauki czy wieloświaty wcale nie wykluczają Boga.
Z drugiej jednak są argumenty, które wynikają z subiektywnego poglądu autora. Hawking zakłada jedno, a autor drugie. spieranie się nie ma większego sensu, jeden nie uwierzy nigdy w to, a drugi nie uwierzy w tamto. Według wierzących Bóg jest wieczny wiec nie został stworzony, prawo grawitacji za to tak. Według Hawkinga coś takiego jak prawo po prostu istniało, a byt osobowy musiałby być stworzony. A więc to sytuacja patowa? Brak pola porozumienia.

[Phil Calderone · Rating 2 out of 5]

Terrible logic throughout. At his best Lennox makes a minor good point but then ignores the much larger flaw that follows. Typical is a statement that science cannot prove miracles to be impossible. True enough in an absolute sense but that does not make them likely by any measure known.

He quotes others like CS Lewis to support his opinions but those are just has flawed. Muddle though “Mere Christianity” for more of this same poor logic.

Really the only legitimate criticism Lennox gives is flagging Hawkins for stating that philosophy is dead. Though perhaps Hawkins was being hyperbolic, it was an overreaching point to be kind, just wrong to be realistic.

Two stars only because these feeble same apologetic arguments will sound convincing to some who want to believe that, whew, Hawking didn’t disprove the need for god. For everyone else who is able to think objectively, one star.

[Barton Jahn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short and concise book…96 pages…that analyses the thinking of Stephen Hawking in the debate between science and Christianity…in terms of design versus materialistic naturalism.

Lennox makes a compelling case for design…having the mathematics credentials as a professor in mathematics at Oxford…and two other PhD’s in philosophy and science…to be able to take apart the theories of Hawking on an equal standing as a scientist.

A very readable book accessible to the general public, while still tackling the most difficult issues in this critically important cultural, social, scientific, and theological question.

[Linn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Don't be misled by the grandiosity of the title. This criticism of Hawking's Grand Design seems to be a very pale one. There isnt much substance or novelty in his criticisms. An extensive quote miner, he tries to use the quotes of scientists wherever it can be used to his advantage. This man also comes out to be a Christian apologetic in places. Why doesnt he use the same standard of evidence and rationality that he applies in opposing the naturalist world view when it comes to his own faith?

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE OXFORD MATHEMATICIAN AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST TAKES ON HAWKING’S LATEST BOOK

John Lennox is professor of Mathematics at Oxford, and has written many other books of Christian apologetics, such as 'God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?,' 'Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target,' etc., and has participated in a number of debates with famous atheists such as 'Has Science Buried God?,' 'The God Delusion Debate,' etc.

He wrote in the Preface to this 2011 response to Stephen Hawking’s book 'The Grand Design,' “I have written this short book in the hope that it will assist my readers to understand some of the most important issues that lie at the heart of the contemporary debate about God and science.”

Later, he explains, “In this book I wish to engage in the main not with Hawking’s science but with what he deduces from it regarding the existence, or rather the non-existence, of God. Although Hawking’s argument, that science shows God is unnecessary, has been hailed as ground-breaking, it is hardly new… Indeed, it is difficult at first glance to see quite how this new book adds much to what Hawking wrote in ‘A Brief History of Time.’” (Pg. 17)

He observes about Hawking’s “philosophy is dead” assertion, “it constitutes rather disturbing evidence that… Hawking himself, has not even kept up with philosophy sufficiently to realize that he himself is engaging in it throughout his book… Hawking’s statement about philosophy is itself a philosophical statement. It is manifestly not a statement of science: it is a metaphysical statement about science… It is a classic example of logical incoherence.” (Pg. 18)

He comments on Hawking’s statement “the universe can and will create itself from nothing”: “It is seldom that one finds in a single statement two distinct levels of contradiction, but Hawking appears to have constructed such a statement. He says the universe comes from a nothing that turns out to be a something (self-contradiction number one), and then he says the universe creates itself (self-contradiction number two)… His notion that a law of nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe is also self-contradictory, since a law of nature, by definition, surely depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the nature it purports to describe.” (Pg. 31)

He suggests, “Science, according to many scientists, concentrates essentially on material causation. It asks the ‘how’ questions: how does the jet engine work? It also asks the ‘why’ question regarding function: why is this pipe here? But it does not ask the ‘why’ question of purpose: why was the jet engine built?” (Pg. 38)

He observes, “belief in God seems to be a much more rational option, if the alternative is to believe that every other universe that can possibly exist does exist: including one in which Richard Dawkins is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Christopher Hitchens the Pope, and Billy Graham has just been voted the atheist of the year!” (Pg. 50-51)

He points out, “even if it is true, M-theory [multiple-universe theory] itself doesn’t create a single one of those universes. What Hawking says is: ‘The laws of M-theory allow for different universes with different apparent laws.’ ‘Allow for’ is one thing, ‘create’ is something completely different. A theory that allows for many universes is not the same as an agent who designed them, or a mechanism that produces them.” (Pg. 51-52) Later, he adds, “Accounting for the fine-tuning of the cosmos by postulating one intelligent Creator seems much more elegant and economical than postulating … [nearly infinite] universes that are unobservable by us, and is surely a much better ‘model.’” (Pg. 56)

Of Hawking’s observation, “the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God,” he says, “by Hawking’s own argument the question has merely been deflected to: who created the law of gravity? And this is a question that he does not answer. Hawking … serves only to reveal the inadequacy of his concept of God. To ask the question who CREATED God logically presupposes that God is a created entity. That is certainly not the Christian… concept of God. God is eternal… To ask who created him is to show that one does not understand the nature of his being.” (Pg. 68) Later, he adds, “is it not rather odd that Hawking believes in the multiverse and rejects miracles? Isn’t the whole point about multiverses to have enough universes around to ensure that ANYTHING can happen?” (Pg. 92)

He concludes, “Science and history are not the only sources of evidence for the existence of God. Since God is a Person and not a theory, it is to be expected that one of the prime evidences for his existence is personal experience… I wish to add my voice to the many millions who can and would testify to the profound and central role that faith in Christ as Lord has on our lives… Such a hope defies both the death barrier and Hawking’s bleak reductionist notion that we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules derived from the stars. We shall, in fact, outlast the stars.” (Pg. 94)

Lennox’s book was cited in the recent movie God's Not Dead. It isn’t likely to convince many of Hawking’s supporters, and the Christian focus of many of his arguments will likewise not move many with a more “deistic” orientation toward God. But his brief book is an excellent and thought-provoking critique of many of the excesses of Hawking’s own book.

[Ryan Manns · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lennox has quickly become one of my favourite voices in the science and theism dialogue. This book was quite the short read but very profound. He does a brilliant job discussing Hawking's book "The Grand Design." I would recommend this book to anyone interested in science and faith.

[Emilija · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book basically felt like a massive attack on Stephen Hawking. I don’t doubt the author’s devotion to God and religion, but some of his arguments seem quite faulty. He also relies quite heavily upon C. S. Lewis, to the point he mentions him almost every other sentence.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would have liked more. An interesting read but at times needed more depth.

[James P · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear and concise. Worth reading.

[Cliff M · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant critique of Hawking’s worst book - The Grand Design. Recommended as a guide on the weaknesses of ‘popular science’ writing and writers.

[Daniel Clemence · Rating 3 out of 5]

Apologetics books on science can be hit or miss. Assuming the Christian apologetics is from a fundamentalist perspective, the apologetics book on science would be bad. This apologetics book is rather focused on one set of perspectives. This perspective is looking at is Stephen Hawking and how Stephen Hawking’s position on science does not reflect a criticism of Christianity.

The first chapter is a rebuke of Stephen Hawking’s position that philosophy is pointless. This chapter reasserts that philosophy is a useful endeavour and that scientists such as Einstein asserted that philosophy is a useful thing. Science is also looked at as lacking the foundations for asking deeper questions of the world. Ancient Greek ideas of God are looked at. I would argue this is the strongest chapter, as this is one that many different people would agree with the assumption that philosophy is no longer useful.

The second chapter is on the Laws of Nature, which challenges the assumption that God opposes the fundamental laws of nature. Lennox uses different philosophers and scientists to suggest that the religious perspective on the laws of nature is, in fact, rational. Various ideas are put forward that suggest the Christian view on creation is sound.

The third chapter is on the multiverse and why that is a problem for Christianity. This chapter attempts to hit back at the assumption that the multiverse theory is a threat to theistic views. Lennox tries to refute the idea that the multiverse theory is not a threat to Christianity. Chapter four is a small chapter on intelligent design. The fifth chapter is the last chapter on how religion can be rationally linked to science.

There are some positive points about the book. For one, the book makes a good argument refuting the idea that philosophy is pointless. The arrogance in arguing the dominance of physics over philosophy is peak scientific materialism. That is the strongest argument in the book.

I think one of the issues with the book is the underlying assumption that the Christian god can be conceptualised as a God of the universe. There is, for example, an assumption outlined on page 26 of a univocal conception of God in the Bible that conflicts with reality. There is no univocal positioning of God found in the Bible. Indeed, the claim of an omnipotent God outlined on page 27 was developed by the Greeks and was not found in the Bible. The conceptualisation of God in the Old Testament shows a universe where the God Adonai existed with other gods. This refutes the idea that God is the rational creator of the universe.

I also dislike the ontological argument used in the last chapter of the book, page 93 of Plantinga. This is when the possibility of God in a multiverse means that God is real, and he only made one universe. This argument is poor. I could say due to the possibility of a giant duck existing, there must be a universe in which a giant duck exists. Therefore, there is a universe with a giant duck in it. This is, of course, absurd. But then the problem with using God to explain science is not going to be very effective because many of these ideas are assumptive on a set of ideas found in theology.

3 stars

[Robert Narojek · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another apologetic view from so called Christian crowd!

I have a serious suspicion, however I can’t prove it”, that Mr. Lennox used purposefully “The Brand” of undoubtedly one of the greatest scientists in recent decades – Stephen Hawking – to attract the reader like me to buy his brochure, so that Hawking and not Lennox name will sell more copies. Anyway whatever is the actual motivation of Lennox this book does not represent anything new that Paternalistic and Christian centric (what about other major religions) and Apologetic crowd didn’t already say during last 150 years.

First of all No one can prove or disprove existence of any kind of god, and even camouflaged by Lennox, bringing of Thomistic philosophy into his theological argumentation will not change it. It is very simple - existence of any god is beyond proof using current scientific, philosophical and theological knowledge it will always remain in the debate sphere and mystery (as Orthodox Christians see it). One of the fundamental problems causing this dispute is the fact that even so called professors of great universities put an equation between Faith and Religion, and this causes all the havoc in the debate. Faith always allows for the hypothesis of god and quite frankly most of the people will agree with this hypothesis quite easily, however religion is a form of practical faith created by homo sapiens, so its members have easy to follow set of rules regulating and controlling all the aspects of these homo sapiens life’s. All the holy books of all the religions were written by people of flesh who had various motivations and claiming that they write messages from god, so taking XXI century view back on last 4500 years we can always ask what was the actual purpose in writing these scriptures and certainly there will be a lot of answers.

On the more formal aspect of this book by Lennox, it is really sad that he uses in his reasoning mostly quotes from other Christian writers and scientists, and very little of his own reasoning (about 50% of this book are direct and long quotes) which really appears only that he is an erudite, but almost nothing of his own scientific and faith proclaiming thinking. This is particularly visible in the last pages where he openly claims nothing about universal concept of god and tries ineptly to prove resurrection of Christ, which can’t be proven and has to be accepted only on Faith, since no one beyond few, whom Jesus chose, seen him after resurrection. Furthermore whatever are the written records - are written only by these few chosen. However no one today is willing to question existence in history of a person named Jesus – Apologetic Theology has proved this.

Conclusion is simple the book brings nothing into the debate between science and theology (faith) and is very poorly written and without major significant scientific references. Therefore I still remain with my suspicion from the beginning of this review – writing of the book with its, carefully chosen title served only the sales objectives of Mr. Lennox.