Dr Lennox, as an impressionable 19 year old, I am pounded day after day with anti-religious statements and propaganda. I came across your article in the Daily Mail and loved it! Your ideas and open mindedness made me appreciate life in a new way and restored my already depressed mind. Richard Dawkins can try all he can to persuade the world that he’s the only (so called scientist) in the entire Universe that is absolutely right about one thing, where as a true scientist would say “I don’t know”.
I’m a Christian, quite liberal and well spirited. Your article really spoke to me! Keep up the good work!

In addressing Mr. Ramsurrun’s point below, I will acknowledge that everything he says could be true.  But I don’t think so.  I cannot prove God exists based on the five senses. However, the five senses are not the only measure of proof. There is subjective experience which in American jurisprudence would consist of personal testimony which is given whatever credible weight a jury would give it.  There is the testimony of historical antecedents which can form a preponderance of evidence.  Finally, there is the residue of design and the signature of a prime reality, namely God, that exists in the very mechanics of physics and the operation of a living cell.  I find it interesting that of the 6 billion people in the world the vast majority are religious whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.  They run the gamut from being very unlearned to very learned.  Pray tell, what do atheist know that we who are religious do not?  Everything in the material universe can be reduced to a quark, but why stop there?  There is nothing in the physical universe that serves as a model that does not have a physical antecedent or cause and effect.  How can I intelligently believe that matter has always existed?  That requires too much faith for this religious person.  A better explanation for me is that the maker of matter has always existed.  Please focus on that question and the life of Christ not the theological idiosyncrasies that might make you fearful. For “good” people (what is your moral basis for defining what good is?) to be “evil” (and what would you say that is?) they simply reject being “good” and choose “evil,” whether using the facade of religion or not. Many blessing to you and anyone else who considers these issues.  If helpful, ponder more.  If not, be a “good” person and pray for me.

M. Ramsurrun: I have the same reaction to Lennox’s talks. I’ve attended a couple of them, one being a debate with Hitchens in Edinburgh. He uses the same cliches all the time. Most laughably, he appeals to the general public by essentially saying “not only am I a religious person, but I’m also a mathematician and scientist and therefore know what I’m talking about and you have to believe me”. Wooaoo! People who are not in universities are thirsty for characters like him, i.e. religious academics. People can then justify their religiosity by arguing that since a learned academic says so, it ought to be so. But if you see/read Lennox’s arguments you cannot help it but smile at how naive they are.

I suppose Lennox appeals more to religious folk on the other side of the Atlantic (like the fellow from Alabama above). Like Blair. They take their preaching to the US and become hits.

Dr. Lennox, I live in Birmingham, Alabama and have seen your two debates here with Mr. Hitchens and Dr. Dawkins.  You represented Christian thought and witnessed for the cause of Christ in a wonderful way.  I thank you for that.  There are 3 items that no atheist as been able to address to my satisfaction.  One is if science can determine that the universe began with a big bang by reversing the rate of the expanding universe as theorized by Hubble, the matter would arrive at a particular place in the universe.  One must ask the question- why there?  Why not two parsecs over? In other words, what is the reason the big bang started at point A in the universe verses point B or C or D? If the Big Bang created the very fabric of space i.e. the “blackness” between the stars, that would be a phenomenon of something coming from nothing which is we do not find evidence of as a scientic law anywhere in the universe.  Secondly, which regards to evolution being the genesis of life, it is commonly known that if man had never been a part of the life dynamic on the earth, all living things would be in perfect ecological harmony.  Evolutionist would say the evolutionary system provided for this harmony to keep the system in balance.  How then could a system (evolution) evolve a species (man) that could destroy the very system that evolved him thus creating imbalance in the system?  Man must therefore be an anomaly or a special creation.  Finally, atheist commonly believe there is intelligent life on other planets.  They base this proposition on the sheer probability of the number of earth type planets that exists and some give weight to eye witness accounts of credible people such as airline pilots concerning seeing UFOs.  However they believe this without proof!  They rely on evidence but have faith that the evidence is true.  Christians also believe without proof using faith based on solid evidence- evidence that is even more substantial that the evidence for life on other planets.  In Alabama we would therefore say “what is good for the goose is good for the gander.” God bless you in your continuing work.

I was at your recent lecture on religion at Swansea University.  I was amazed at the kind of arguments you were using to support your beliefs in a supernatural god.  It seems to me that intellectuals like yourself can hide behind words and play games with bookish knowledge.  But you often fail to answer very simple questions about the non-sense of religious beliefs.  I suggest you read the Bible again and and look at the writing with a child’s innocence (before he/she has been brainwashed by religious doctrines).  You will see how the stories are the results of fantasy.  You have no doubt heard this before: good people will be good with or without religion, evil people will be evil with or without religion, but for good people to be evil, they have to have a religion.

I have no doubt that you do make quite a lot of money publishing books on religion.  So, you ulterior motive for being an intellectual religious apologist is understandable.  You must have blessed god in moments of quiet reflection for the profit you have made using god’s name in vain.

I notice the atheist says there is no God or anything in the air.
I have also noticed if a person looks at someone and is not aware
of the person’s stare, how come they almost always feel the stare
and turn and look straight at the person staring at them.

I’ve just stumbled on this site and am looking forward to learning Prof. Lennox’s views. But there are interesting comments on this page which are worth addressing. I would like to hear Jennifer’s explanation for how she “can honestly say that when I look at the scientific evidence, it points to a Creator - and to a young Earth”. I think she betrays herself with the limited teleological thinking she shows by saying “it all seemed too perfect to be the result of chance”. 

MIA seems to have set himself up as a theological expert and snob, I would suggest. “Religious ignorance in the west is appalling” he wails. I would agree, but not for the reasons he thinks. The problem with MIA’s meandering rebuttal is that an alarming number of people DO take Genesis as truth. Also, assertions such as: “Let’s be honest. When we see nature, we definitely see design” are unsupported, assumptive, and poor arguing from self-evidence (never to be trusted). He also is “pretty sure” about how, as children, leading atheists were told that Genesis was true and that it is an all-or-nothing choice for them. But later he suspects Dawkins was a “nominal believer” and one “can never truly understand what was going on in their minds”. Well, he got that last bit right but he contradicts himself by saying so, as well as making some major assumptions to support his arguments.

All in all, I think I’m going to enjoy perusing the Professor’s website. What so many religious apologists seem to forget is that you shouldn’t confuse the science with the scientist. This is why getting scientists like Lennox onside really achieves very little for the religion. As many believers know, faith doesn’t need scientific backing. This may seem, to people like me, quite deluded. But at least it’s honest. It’s those with less certainty that spend so much energy looking for science in the religion and religion in the science.

I always find it interesting when atheists and agnostics claim that science leads people away from God. For me, it was the exact opposite. My father was a scientist, so I grew up believing in the evolution world view. I never doubted it for a second. The creation view wasn’t even worth debating because it was so ridiculous.

And then I went to school to study meteorology and became an aviation weather forecaster. It was during my first few atmospheric physics classes that I began to question everything I thought I knew. Everything - from the tilt of the earth, to its distance from the sun, weather patterns and ocean currents - it all seemed too perfect to be the result of chance. The more I learned, the more I questioned the atheistic evolutionary view.

It was another few years before I became a Christian, but I credit those initial classes (and my subsequent career) as a major turning point in my life. And now I can honestly say that when I look at the scientific evidence, it points to a Creator - and to a young Earth.

So in my case, science led me TO God - not away from Him.

walter scott talks about the “religious person defending his point of view [being] like watching an animal trapped in a cage writhing in agony trying to escape the impending doom.” He goes on to trust only in “empirical truth”, and ends, “All the best in chasing your imaginary heaven!”

However, our trust in empirical truth and science is itself a cultural thing: a trust that our teachers knew what they were talking about, and that science is effective in explaining the world. Apparently, he is right--but to go beyond that is to get back into the world of faith. The atheist is putting faith in the idea that there is no God, that the God of believers is just wish-fulfillment. Is it not just as possible that the human capacity for faith, and specifically for faith in God, is evidence that such a being exists?

More: In my own experience, there is, beside the objective world that science describes pretty well, also a subjective world that science cannot speak about. Biology religiously avoids questions of feelings and intentions for animals from bees to dogs and even monkeys--but ask a pet owner or a zoo visitor, and they believe that animals, including other humans, feel and decide what they want to do. Faith, especially the Christian faith, describes this interior world and helps us live well--whether or not we get to the promised land of heaven.

About one year ago I found a direct correlation between the logical structure of a very simple mereotopological mathematical object, discovered to exist about 45 years ago my an American mathematician, and the logical structure of nature that reveals when you sort fundamental particles by charge and omit the unphysical scaling factor of 1/3. You will get -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3. This corresponds to the charges of the electron, anti up quark, down quark, a supersymmetric superstring, the down antiquark, the up quark and the positron. Matter is represented by -3 -1 +2 and antimatter by the complementary sequence -2 +1 +3. According to a new quantum geometrical concept of spacetime, having topologically changed to superstrings with a nested toric orbifold substructure these charges correspond to integer multiples of quanta of angular spin in opposite directions.

In a straight way it can be shown that the mereological components of the logical structure correspond to matter quarks or antimatter quarks when mirrored. It reveals that a whole exists that describes the relation of leptons and quarks in their relation to a state of supersymmetry and with respect to each other. It also reveals that the existence of supersymmetry implies an antagonism, in this case of matter and antimatter.

In short: Something is possible that was believed to be inaccessible for ever. A mathematical object with a purely geometrically defined logic was discovered to exists. This means its logical structure is an ultimate reality that has metaphysical existence. It exists a priori. Not being man-made it is definitively free of logical error. By this it fulfills a boundary condition imposed by metaphysical realism in philosophy. The second problem is to find a manifestation of such a logic in case it has one. But, as initially stated, this problem unexpectedly resolved by finding that the manifestation of the logic is the so-called Everything on its fundamental scale.
The metaphysically existing logical structure and the one determining the Universe at its fundamental scale are absolutely identical. It can be shown easily because it is easy. One even gets the strong impression that it is ‘wanted’ that we realize. The only conclusion that can be done is that the Universe is a dual explicit physical manifestation of a metaphysical ultimate reality.This could be named God. Its internal perfectness can be represented by pure geometry, relating some numbers in a special way. We cannot conceive this perfectness. It solely reveals in the eons of evolution that is exclusively limited to its explicit physical manifestation. The initial manifestation as fundamental particles already potentially contains all future possibilities. All is a self-consistent self-realization of a Logical Principle. Nothing is created or is on purpose.

Now this Logical Principle is accessible for everyone because it is simple. The finiteness of the logical structure on three hierarchically structured levels is just n*(n-1)/2 with n=2,3,4. It is really a very disillusioning picture of God. But this simple God is accessible. It cannot be denyed any longer to exist. An atheist could only be considered to be stupid because he would be unable to understand something very simple that is obvious. Ignorance would win over evidence.
The possible geometrical manifestation of this logic represents compact Lie groups. They connect pure number theory with topology. They can be considered to be the plan for the realization of the manifestation of the logical structure.

C. Serv said:

“...Those who look with a critical eye at the nature of the universe through science are almost never led to a personal god, the pursuit of science almost always leads people the other way. Lennox tells us he became religious before knowing anything about science, he reached a conclusion about not by “the evidence” but instead by being raised christian knowing nothing about the world. He then proudly boasts that as he learned his views remained, as if this is profound. If science led people to god this would be unremarkable, but in speaking as he does it betrays the reality. As you honestly learn more about the world, the universe, the mind, and science you are pushed towards accepting that all the evidence points away from god.  Lennox seems to thinks its amazing that he was able to maintain his views, unlike the the new atheists he says did not take on his notions, which is dishonest in itself considering dawkins, myers, hitchens, russel and others were all believers before evidence steered them away from concepts of god.”

This is a very interesting point.  There is so many things that are not being considered here.  A lot of “believers” that were led to atheism due to scientific evidence were probably from a form of a religious fundamentalist (not necessarily extremism) background.  For example, I’m pretty sure Richard Dawkins was told as a child that Genesis 1 and 2 are literal accounts and that if it’s not, then all of Christianity is wrong.  That’s a problem.  Once you go to school and find out of the theory of evolution and how it is well supported, you find yourself at an alarming situation.  What does one do?  Well, someone like Richard Dawkins raised with Fundamentalist doctrines would say “I was taught that if the Genesis account is false, then this cannot be true, then I must let go of Christianity.”

You see the problem here: There is no room for a third option.  How about this: What if Genesis 1 and 2 were not written to give exact details of how the universe and the earth came about?  What if Genesis 1 and 2 were has nothing to do with the natural sciences?  What if Genesis was written to convey a much higher truth about creation and its purpose?  Historical and literary criticism shows that the details of Genesis 1 and 2 were not intended to be taken literally, so it cannot be harmonized with the Theory of Evolution at all and that’s it.  It was meant to convey that God created the universe.  The details of the six days, in light of the literary style it was written in, was menat to show that the Creation is a Good Order, as an apologetic response to the Babylonian cosmogony Enumma Elish, in which the bloodthirsty gods can barely withstand the forces of chance and chaos.  All in all, Genesis 1 and 2 is a mythic poetry that talks about the human condition; the deepest questions. Far deeper than science. It has to relay it in myth. The truth that it conveys is not less true than scientific truth.  Myth does NOT mean false or a lie; this is nuanced understanding of myth.  In this case, a myth is a way of comprehending that which is incomprehensible.

So I’m pretty sure that a guy like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hutchins, or Sam Harris were never exposed to this option.  It was either that Genesis was a literal account or that maybe Genesis could be reconciled to Evolution.  If not, forget about Christianity.  NO SIR!  Genesis wasn’t meant to do that!  We know that by understanding Historical and Literary Criticism!  Ignorance of these kind of details tend to brew atheists like Richard Dawkins.  Religious ignorance in the West is appalling.  So I think that this can be another reason why some might look at the “evidence” and veer toward skepticism. 

This brings me to another last point:  When one looks at the evidence and concludes that there is no God, how does that happen?  Let’s be honest.  When we see nature, we definitely see design, but also random chance.  So once again we have a third option.  Can we not conclude that design and random chance can coexist?  I think so and I believe that it is a very balanced position.  With that being said, I will add that there is an overarching purpose in nature.  Of course, I say that in light of my belief in God. Perhaps when a person studies nature and concludes that here is no God, he/she might be struggling with the problem of evil.  That is quite a problem.  The theist has to deal with this, however, if the problem of evil steers of person toward atheism, he/she now has to deal with the problem of good.  How on earth do we determine good and evil if there is no transcendent God to make that determination.  We end up with might determining right.  In Nazi Germany, it was ok to exterminate Jews.  In post WWII Germany, it’s no longer ok to exterminate Jews.  You might think that children with cancer is bad.  Perhaps there are others who think this is a blessing.  In some places, people love their neighbor, in other places, they eat them.  Does this sound extreme?  You might say it does, but if you understand human nature, you know very well that a ruling power of a nation can commit atrocities like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia under Stalin, or Pol Pot. In an atheistic universe, nobody has the right to say that what Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot did was either wrong or right because ultimately, there is no way to determine that.  This is the problem of good that an honest skeptic have to deal with day in and day out. 

My last point is this:  You say that these guys were believers before.  From my understanding of Richard Dawkins childhood (correct me if I’m wrong), he was a very nominal believer.  We can never truly understand what was going on in their minds.  Sometimes, bad experiences with religion can steer a person toward skepticism.  This is before the intellectual smokescreen is put up.  It’s very easy to clump every one of these particular atheists and say “they used to be believers.” What does that mean?  What kind of a believer?  A nominal one? A committed one?  I don’t know too much of the experiences of these people that caused them to be skeptics. 

To conclude, I have addressed that religious fundamentalism, whether in a mild or severe form, can sometimes easily lead to secular fundamentalism as in the case of Richard Dawkins.  In a biblical fundamentalist understanding of Genesis, there is no room for a third or fourth option.  It’s just my way or the highway.  In nature, there is both design and random chance, but with an overarching purpose and order.  Theists have to deal with the problem of evil and atheists with the problem of good.  Lastly, we must be careful in assuming that those of who are atheists were once religious because that doesn’t truly tell the story of that person’s life.  Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Dear Dr. Lennox, I am an Italian reader of your book “God’s undertaker”, recently re-published in Italy. Your admirable book is full of evidence of the fact that “if few Science can move a man away from God, much Science can re-conduct to Him”. May God bless You for what you are doing for the defence of Faith!

Dear Dr. Lennox, I am an Italian reader of your book “God’s Undertaker - Has science buried God?” recently republished in Italy. I would like to congratulate with you for having explained in the clearest way the fact that “few science can move the man away from God, but much Science can re-conduct the man to Him”. We also have in Italy someone who, like Dawkins, has built his fame on his proclaimed atheism: a mathematician named Piergiorgio Odifreddi, whose favourite statement is that only those ignorant of science could believe in God. I think that your book contains the best possible replies to such a silly opinion, so I am going to buy other copies of your book to make Chrismas gifts to relatives and friends!

I am an admirer of the obvious work and effort you put into your talks Dr. Lennox. However what I think really stands out to me, is your courtesy, your gentleness and the peace of God that you can clearly see within you. You are an inspiration and encouragement to many. May God bless you.

Thank you, Dr. Lennox, for your clarity in expressing a reasonable faith in God. I have just finished reading GOD’S UNDERTAKER, and I wonder how anyone could read it with an honest mind and fail to see the truth it expresses. After hearing and reading material by several atheists, I suspect that many of them are not so much atheistic as they are angry with God.

While it is true that our observations of the world must be filtered through our preconcieved notions of it, Lennox is misleading making the claim that when presented the “same evidence” scientists will sometimes conclude god and others only blind natural forces are at play in shaping the universe.
Those who look with a critical eye at the nature of the universe through science are almost never led to a personal god, the pursuit of science almost always leads people the other way. Lennox tells us he became religious before knowing anything about science, he reached a conclusion about not not by “the evidence” but instead by being raised christian knowing nothing about the world. He then proudly boasts that as he learned his views remained, as if this is profound. If science led people to god this would be unremarkable, but in speaking as he does it betrays the reality. As you honestly learn more about the world, the universe, the mind, and science you are pushed towards accepting that all the evidence points away from god.
Lennox seems to thinks its amazing that he was able to maintain his views, unlike the the new atheists he says did not take on his notions, which is dishonest in itself considering dawkins, myers, hitchens, russel and others were all believers before evidence steered them away from concepts of god

I think it may be safe to speak of a “methodological naturalism” or even an “methodological athiesm” as an approach to science—ONLY so far as the method of natural explaination (not ultimate explanation) is concerned.

In other words—science can ONLY explain what science explains. Anything outside the method of hypothesis, testing, predictability, etc, we can just grant are NOT scientific questions at all.
The mistake is in thinking that ONLY science is the ultimate authority on ALL subject matter.  This seems to come down to a circular argument: “Science (alone) is the ultimate authority for ALL knowledge precisely because the physical universe is ALL there is. And the reason we KNOW the physical universe is ALL there is, is because that’s what science tells us!”

Walter Scott - I congratulate you on the firmness of your convictions. Such passion you have, that you would sacrifice your time doing other important things to proclaim to us what you do not believe and seek to give a defense. In a world where people are dishonest, it’s good to see that you seek to stand up against the lies of those you think are wrong.

In short: morality, truth, seeking to give a defense, proclamation, sacrifice, passion and conviction. I don’t think you should be so hard on yourself; I think Christians could learn a thing or two about your faith!

Watching a religious person defending his point of view is like watching an animal trapped in a cage writhing in agony trying to escape the impending doom. Answering your question posted in the debate vs Richard, I should assert that atheism is not a kind of ‘faith’ as you put it. I don’t believe in a god as you perceive it just as much as I don’t care to believe in the lies posted by the followers of other religious sects. By definition I could be labeled an atheist. But by conviction I couldn’t care on what the exact label should be. As such, by denying religious faith as an empirical truth I do not magically transform into a follower of ‘atheism’ if such a term could even exist. As a result, ‘atheism’ is not something one could believe in.. it’s nothing more but a label to distinguish groups of people who happen to believe in a god (therefore *have* faith) and those who don’t. I challenge you to address me on this point. All the best in chasing your imaginary heaven!

Dr. Lennox, up until yesterday, I had no idea you existed. Fortunately, a few days ago I was informed by my father about your debate with Richard Dawkins and the assertions in his book “The God Delusion”. Having previously read the book, and being a thinking Christian myself, I was automatically drawn to the debate. After watching the debate, I was most impressed by your eloquence and accuracy as you defended a Theistic, and more specifically, Christian worldview. Through the short time of your debate you have been an encouragement to me. I thank you for your hard work, and I thank God for molding you into the honest thinking man you are.

The comment you made about the New Atheist movement not taking the Christian worldview very seriously is the same impression I receive when I talk to Atheists and read their books. It distresses me to find that many Atheists predispose the Christian worldview without giving an honest look at its claims in reference to the universe and the human position. Does not the honest seeking of truth cause a person to seriously consider other truth claims? If seeking truth is not the driving motivation for many New Atheists in this age, what is?