Is Science God's undertaker part 2

John Lennox told us that he challenged Dawkins last week with regard to God being an object open to scientific probing rather than a subject. He pointed out that the universe is complex but its designer must also be outside the universe and more complex. In the same way that the author of the God Delusion must be more complex than the book itself. We couldn't get to know Richard Dawkins by studying the book because Richard Dawkins exists outside of his creation, he is a real person with a personality separate to his writings. We could study any Ford car by taking it apart and understand its complexity but it would tell us nothing about the man Henry Ford except it might point to his genius. What we need then is not a minute study of the universe alone to tell us about God but God's own self-revelation, we find this in the scriptures and ultimately in Christ Jesus who is the image of the invisible God.

Lennox questioned Dawkins scholarship, he pointed out that in the God Delusion Dawkins says that in historical scholarship the belief in Jesus' historical existence is very much disputed. Dawkins then adds weight to this by quoting a German scholar, however Dawkins fails to tell us that it is a literary scholar and not a historical scholar that he quotes. Lennox says that Dawkins has a cavalier attitude to history and by not taking his opponents best arguments he shows a real lack of desire to prove his case. I myself this week have begun reading The beginnings of Christianity by Dr Michael Bird and James G. Crossley. Crossley is a historian and a passionate non-believer, he presents his best case for an alternative origin to Christianity to the one presented in the Gospels, yet Crossley presumes that Jesus was a real historical figure. Lennox points out that history according to Dawkins is not to be taken seriously.

part 3 coming soon.

Shalom

Stephen