How Do We Explain The Human Brain?

Human_brain

Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.
― C. S. Lewis 

If everything is reducible to physics and chemistry, then so is your mind. And then, why would you trust your mind? In other words, atheism taken to its logical conclusion, undermines the very rationality you need to trust to do science. And I’m not in for accepting a worldview that undermines the foundations of any kind of argument or discussion whatsoever. So I think that, in the 21 century, we can push back on that very naive notion that God’s out, we do science now. Science actually brings God back in.
– John Lennox

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.
– G. K. Chesterton

Science, Wonder, and Faith

5115158531_b3ae96bd54

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.

—John Lennox,
Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford

God is not an alternative to science

tilting-at-windmillsGod is not an alternative to science as an explanation, he is not to be understood merely as a God of the gaps, he is the ground of all explanation: it is his existence which gives rise to the very possibility of explanation, scientific or otherwise. It is important to stress this because influential authors such as Richard Dawkins will insist on conceiving of God as an explanatory alternative to science – an idea that is nowhere to be found in theological reflection of any depth. Dawkins is therefore tilting at a windmill [attacking imaginary enemies] – dismissing a concept of God that no serious thinker believes in anyway. Such activity is not necessarily to be regarded as a mark of intellectual sophistication.

―John Lennox,
God’s Undertaker

Relativists pretend to have the truth

static1.squarespace copyThe 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.


–John Lennox,
God and Stephen Hawking

The dangers of religion and physics

john-lennoxRichard Dawkins expresses the opinion that all religion needs to be eliminated, even moderate religion, because moderate religion leads to fanatical religion. Well if he believes that, then he should stop teaching even mild atheist because that could lead to fanatical atheism. In fact, I might suggest he might want to stop teaching Darwinism because it was used by social Darwinists to lead to the eugenics program in the 20th century. He might not even want to teach physics because it leads to the atomic bomb.  –John Lennox

The emergence of science

john-lennoxThe goal of science is not to impose on the matter and workings of the universe or human sense of order, but to discover the universe’s own intrinsic order and intelligibility. And that means that scientists have always had to believe, before they start, that the universe has an inherent order. If it didn’t, scientific research would be pointless. “Men became scientific” says C. S. Lewis, “because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in the Law Giver.”

–John Lennox