John Lennox interview and comments

In this post I want to make a few comments on an interview John Lennox did on Australian radio. The interview might be summarized as a response to the 'new' atheists. [1]
I want to address some things that he said that are pertinent to young earth creation and some related issues. (I recommend the interview. I've only quoted a few things from it.)

Quotes and comments;

Lennox: Let's listen to Richard Dawkins on the foundations of morality for a moment. 'The universe', he says, 'is just like we'd expect it to be if at bottom there's no good, there's no evil, there's no justice. DNA just is a wee dance to its music.' Well if that's true there's an end of all morality. It seems to me that a Christian like myself is presented with major problems, but they're nothing like the problems of the atheist."

John Cleary: Yes but there's no ought entailed in what Dawkins is saying. He is not saying that because this is the way it is, that's the way it ought to be. And he's not making an inference from science to morality, he's simply saying out of that reality, that bleak reality we have to construct a morality."

- Well, how can you construct a morality if there's no morality inherent in the way things are? I don't see how you can. You might be able to delude yourself into thinking you had 'created' a morality, but that's all it would be, an illusion.

- If human beings could create a morality, where none exists in nature, then they'd have transcended nature... and we could point to this as evidence human beings are not a part of nature, (i.e. are not a part of nature as animals are) that they in fact transcend nature.

- Maybe Cleary could tell us how a bit of matter in the universe can transcend that universe. I don't see any way that could be possible; and thus a fatal weakness in Materialism. The fact that morality can exist in a non-material universe is evidence Materialism is an inadequate account of our reality. I see no way morality could exist if matter was all there ever was, ever is, or ever will be as some famous TV personality put it. (ie. matter isn't moral, and has no desire to be moral.)

John Lennox: Oh but just wait a moment. He's saying there is a bottom, no justice. The human heart cries for justice. For Dawkins, like Michael Root and E.O. Wilson, morality is 'an illusion fobbed off on us by our selfish genes to get us to co-operate.' It's much more serious than you're suggesting. He has undermined the whole of humanity..."-

John Cleary: You've explained that in a negative sense; one could equally point that into a positive though, you could say, 'Look, the power of evolution is that it has begun to help us evolve a moral sense."

- Here Cleary is personifying evolution (an old trick, and one that never seems to go away) and giving it god-like powers. The process of micro-evolution has no such power, no such ability. What is non-moral cannot magically become moral.

John Lennox: I'd simply see no evidence of that. I think that's falling into the mistake that David Hume pointed out long ago, that you cannot get an ought from an is, and Dawkins has admitted, and I admire him for this, that you can't find morality, particularly the notion of absolute morality, on the basis of science. Einstein said it long ago."

John Cleary: You can base it on human community though. On the existence of human community in recognising that we have to get on together."

- Pragmatism isn't morality for one thing.
- Cleary is missing the argument. Lennox is asking him to account for morality, and Cleary just ignores this request and takes morality for granted; takes man's moral nature for granted. (Which a materialist has no right to do.)

John Cleary: And at that point, community struck back. It took a lot of effort, but community struck back and ultimately community struck back against Stalin. I mean you were there when the Berlin Wall fell."

- Cleary is personifying (reifying) community. i.e. various people and groups struck back at Hitler, not some phantom called community. (Isn't evolution theory based on the survival of the fittest individuals?)

John Cleary: I must ask you one question that hangs upon this, and in some ways it's a side channel in other ways it's not. This question of faith and evidence bedevils religion in another sense, in that you have those within religion, who are so obsessed with proving their religion or proving the Bible that they take science on. That is, they regard themselves as warriors against the conspiracy of science, the conspiracy of Darwinism. And I'm talking about Creationism. To what extent is this whole debate about Creationism that you get out of the United States, and it's been in the newspapers from time to time, a dangerous diversion for those involved in serious religion?"

- Cleary is playing the old game of equating 'religion' with monotheistic religion. Religion is an outmoded word, and needs to be replaced with worldview. (People like Cleary know this, but continue using the word religion because of the odium it currently has in certain circles.) Atheists are just as much concerned with 'proving their religion' as anyone. (i.e. proving the validity of their worldview.)

John Lennox: I think it certainly is a diversion. The problem as I see it is some people are convinced not simply of Creationism in the old sense, that is, there is a Creator. They feel that the Bible is unequivocal in stating that the age of the earth is very young and so on and so forth, and so the big things get lumped together with the lesser things.
And the age of the earth is for example virtually made a touchstone of doctrine, when there's so much evidence out there in science against it. Now I myself feel it would lead us into a very long discussion, but the Book of Genesis is a bit more sophisticated that some people think. For example, this whole debate runs around the so-called literal meaning of the word 'day' in Genesis I. But if you look at Genesis I, you find the word 'day' has four meanings in that text. And they're all different. And when I see a very short text like that with a word that's used frequently that is different nuanced meanings, I say 'Hold on a bit, this could be a very sophisticated business.' and just an elementary thing.
I might point out just one thing here. It says 'In the beginning God created the heaven and earth'. The text doesn't even say that that was on Day 1. So that you know, that beginning is, to my mind, uncertain in the past. I have no difficulty with the scientific view. I think the real problem is, as you say, that it focuses attention away from the main issue, and gets into an unnecessary collision with science."

- So on and so forth? what does that refer to? (the Flood? the Fall?)
- YE creationists aren't insisting on a 'literal' interpretation of any passage in Genesis (or elsewhere) but on a 'plain' reading of the text. i.e. they insist on taking the text as the author meant it to be taken. (i.e. this is the goal.) The notion of a 'literal' reading has become a red herring. What did the author intend to convey? That's the question.

- contra Lennox, the plain meaning of Genesis 1 is pretty clear, and it means a creation in seven 24 hour days. Right or wrong, this is what the text says.

- Lennox here is conflating the old age view with science; and thus claiming anything else cannot be scientific... i.e. can't be accurate. Can the earth be 6-10,000 years old? Is this possible? It wouldn't appear to be that young, but I would like to maintain that it's possible - even if this can only be seen as a remote possibility. (In a strict philosophical sense, we have no way of determining that x is an impossibility. To do so would require a complete and perfect knowledge of the universe; not only now, but in the past and in the future.)

- The trouble I have with people like Lennox (who I have a respect and affection for) is that they take the claims of secular scientists too complacently. I see little or no criticism in the endless roll of claims coming from the scientific community in our day. Where's the scepticism? They just seem to swallow any idea that comes along. (Despite decades and even generations of these claims being falsified and altered on a continual basis.) The trouble they have is that once they reject the bible as a standard, they are left with no way to judge these claims.

- Lennox gives the impression that the 'details' of creation are unimportant. All that matters is that God created things he seems to be saying. I think the issue is more serious than that. I think it makes a great deal of difference whether man is some advanced ape that got 'zapped' with a soul, or whether he was created a fully mature and perfect man. (This has radical significance to our ideas of psychology for one thing.) The trouble I have with 'liberal' interpretations of Genesis is that they not only junk the young earth idea, but they also go on to junk so much more. (This is one of the great concerns of any ye creationist.) eg. they junk creation of man in the image of god; the idea of a perfect man and a perfect, sinless world; the Fall of man into sin and rebellion; the idea death is the result of sin; the account of Noah's Flood; special revelation, miracles and so much more. (How much of biblical doctrine can you reject and still be a true christian? This seems to be a question people like Lennox want to avoid.)

John Cleary: It's a debate in a sense, about how much you understand about the Bible, rather than how much you understand about science. That is, what is the nature of the text."

- This is an inaccurate description. The YE creationist doesn't think it's science vs the bible; he sees it as the bible plus science vs science.

John Lennox: Oh, that's absolutely right. I sometimes say if Genesis didn't talk about those days, what would you believe? You know? And I think that's completely right.
I tend to start by thinking about the very fact that scripture claims there was a beginning. That is a stunning thing, because it took science up to the 1960s to get that far you see. And that gets obscured in this debate. It's skewing it. I respect people who, like myself, believe in the inspiration of scripture, it's the word of God. But when you find equally godly, equally intelligent, this is now from a Christian perspective, people who disagree on certain things, they don't disagree on the resurrection of Jesus, they don't disagree on the fact that there was a creation. But when you see them disagreeing on things like the interpretation of the days, I think that is a warning that we need to be less dogmatic, and approach it much more humbly, and learn to distinguish what are the things about which we can be more certain, and what are the things about which we can be less certain?"

- Well, we could play that game all day. I could say, 'if the new testament didn't speak of the atonement what would you think?' etc. etc. etc. The uncomfortable fact is that the Bible does speak of these things. The fact is that orthodox theology tells us the Bible is the creation of God; that god is responsible for it and its contents. (i.e. it's not accidental that it speaks about days, or about anything else.)

- It's interesting to bring up the bible's claim the universe had a beginning, because christian liberals used to be embarrassed (pre-1960) about this, and to downplay it. Why? The scientific community claimed the universe was eternal. This was supposed to be proof the bible was inaccurate, and being inaccurate couldn't be the word of God. (No one seems to bring this up.)

- Contra Lennox, many liberals do in fact deny the resurrection. (As they do the atonement, miracles, heaven, hell, etc.)

Summary; I'll close by saying I wish 'liberals' would be more critical of what 'science' (can we not find a better term?) says about things. I wish they'd turn their critical powers toward non-christians once and awhile, instead of beating up on fundamentalists. They have a major problem that they like to ignore; if they accept what 'science' says about the age of the earth, why don't they accept what it says about creation, god, miracles, the incarnation, prayer, special revelation, and all the other biblical doctrines? (I don't get any answer to this question.)

Notes;
1. The religion report; January 14/2009
Summary; 'Irish-born Dr John Lennox visited Australia in 2008 and debated the existence of God. He is on the side oposing Richard Dawkins and speaks with John Cleary about the evidence for belief in God.
Dr Lennox is professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford and fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science and pastoral advisor at Green Templeton College.
- there's an audio of the interview, plus a transcript.