Evening Conversation with John Lennox (September 29, 2015)

good evening and thank you for being here this is our sixth event at NBA and we are so thankful to work with the Trinity forum and work with st. Paul with Ken and Sheree and and have these wonderful speakers tonight's should be another treat I was talking with a few of you because you know speaker that we had about six seven years ago at MBA guy Consolmagno who's been the astronomer at the Vatican it's just gotten a huge promotion and it's fascinating for me to learn the Vatican has an astronomer it happened a long time ago when the Vatican got in trouble very savvy like our current Pope in my opinion speaking about that the news last week I was I've been traveling in China I got back today and like a lot of people to travel like that you stay up all night watching news and I watched all the news with the Pope I think at 3:00 in the morning and then I was watching NASA talk about Mars and water so the the ideas of science and religion were very much on my mind as another as a famous Tennessee in John Templeton who created a prize force on science and religion so I think this is a great topic this evening and as I said we are grateful for your presence and I'm gonna turn this over to Sheree now who's in charge of the ternary form please welcome Sheree [Music] many things spread on behalf of all of us with eternity form it's such a pleasure to continue this partnership that's been so enjoyable and I think so fruitful with Brad joy in the Montgomery Bell Academy and Kim Cheeseman and st. Paul's Christian Academy we're all so grateful to the hosts and the sponsors who have made tonight's evening possible I just want to recognize each of you feel free to wave your hand if you'd like the Cheras foundation with Joe and Judy cook the creating culture fund the Family Foundation of Byron and Beth Smith Gary and Susan Dean Joel and Stephanie Galante Nathan and Laura Green Chuck Bryce bill and Elizabeth Minkoff John and Carol Peterson and John and Carol Rochford given an authority and Irene wills and Morgan and Heather wills thank you so much as Brad mentioned we were excited and once again have a completely sold-out crowd tonight this is our sixth event the end of our third year here and it seems like every time the response has been even better than the time before we actually sold out within one week of sending the invitation out so thank you for the enthusiasm and if you had friends who were caught in that net want to be here tonight but could not be we'll be recording tonight's event as well as live-streaming it I will be showing it on our website at WWE TV org and you're welcome to add your comments to either our Facebook page or our Twitter feed at hashtag trinity forum for those of you who aren't familiar with the trinity forum we work to provide a space and resources for the discussion of life's greatest questions in the context of faith and we do that by providing readings and publications which draw upon classic works of literature and connect the timeless wisdom of the humanities with timely issues of the day as well as sponsoring programs like this one tonight to connect leading thinkers with a thinking leaders of your community and engaging those big questions of life and hopefully ultimately coming to better know the author of the answers and certainly one of the great quest is the proper relationship between the claims of science and those of faith we live in an era where science and faith are widely considered even assumed to be in conflict religious claims to truth are often regarded as a dubious suspect sometimes even threatening meanwhile there are some people of faith who fear that scientific discovery is somehow undermining of spiritual truth and needs to be resisted or even rebutted rather than pursued still others claim that the realms of science and faith belong to completely non intersecting spheres each with interesting things to say but with no connection to each other at all this view popularized by the late Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard University held that science and theology are in his words non-overlapping magisteria that operate by different rules address different issues and speak different languages but as our speaker tonight will address there are intimations of powerful links between physics and metaphysics the elegance of mathematics and the mind behind the math you'll make the case that God and science mind and matter do indeed mix and the more we know of our cosmos the more insight we have into both creation and the Creator it is a provocative and fascinating claim and there are a few who can do with the expertise insight scholarship or winsomeness than our speaker tonight dr. John Lennox dr. Lennox is a professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford an emeritus fellow in mathematics at the philosophy of science at Green Templeton College also at Oxford he's an Associate Fellow of the Syed Business School also at Oxford University and teaches for the Oxford strategic leadership program in addition he's an adjunct lecturer at Wickliffe Hall at the Oxford Centre for Christian apologetics and I am quite proud to say a senior fellow of the Trinity forum his various and sundry degrees include both a masters and a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Cambridge in England a master's in bioethics from the University of Surrey a doctorate and philosophy from Oxford and a Doctor of Science from the University of Cardiff for his research in mathematics in addition to his many scholarly publications which we won't get into tonight since they're in the higher field of mathematics his many books on the interface between science philosophy and theology Midea which will be for sale afterwards include God's Undertaker has science buried God God in Stephen Hawking as well as his latest book against the flow not only is dr. Linux intellectually formidable but he's also one of the most winsome entertaining and downright fun speakers one can imagine I imagine a cross between Santa Claus and Einstein [Music] so it makes sense to end with a few fun facts about dr. Lennox who speaks in addition to mathematics Russian French German and Spanish is the only person to have bested the late and ever permit Abul christopher hitchens in debate and by hitchens own admission attended to CS Lewis's last lecture and is father to three grandfather to five or six as well as the proud uncle of nashville resident and performing artist kristin Getty and her husband Keith who are here tonight dr. Lennox welcome [Applause] [Music] thank you very much ladies and gentlemen for your welcome I'm told that some of you might be interested to know what it was like listening to CS Lewis and I heard him give his last lectures he was a big burly man that bigger than me and I used to sneak out from the mathematics Institute across the road to listen to his final lectures on John Donne he had a rather idiosyncratic way of dealing with lectures it was winter it was very cold and he burst through the double doors with his coat and scarf and hat on and started lecturing the moment he came through the door and as he walked down through the array of students who were all over the floor and all over the windowsills he would gradually take off his coat and a scarf or this hat and by the time he reached the podium you'd had five minutes of a brilliant lecture when he finished he reversed the process so he put on his hat and warmed up his scarf and wear on his coat and the last words of the lecture were delivered as he hurtled through the doors leaving absolutely no time for Q&A CS Lewis has had a profound influence on my own thinking I owe him a completely unrepairable debt here I share in a sense the same heritage we're both from Northern Ireland and when I arrived in Cambridge in 1962 I knew he was still alive I had no idea he was so ill and in one sense he has been a mentor from a distance for me all of my life because he was a humanities man who understood the nature of science that the philosophy of science much better than most scientists I'm a bit of a mixture I was passionate first of all about languages at school I wanted to be a classicist I love Latin later learned some Greek then I wanted to be a modern linguist and then I discovered I could learn languages as a radio amateur I could speak all around the world so I changed my mind when my headmaster came to me and he said you might get into Cambridge but only if you did mathematics so I did my patek and ended up in Cambridge but if you think about it language is fascinating it's on a large spectrum from natural languages through mathematics to computer languages and there is a sense in which mathematics is the highest compressed language there is so I find myself in a real way between the humanities and the sciences and a later life I've grown immensely to enjoy the way in which literature reflects the culture and gives us insight into many of the ideas that science cannot cope with I'm passionate about science but one of the things that is a kind of guide principle was stated by the late Richard Feynman one of the most brilliant Nobel Prize winners in this country and in the world of the last century he says outside his realm the scientist is just as dumb as the next guy so we're going to have a look at this question of cosmic chemistry do science and God mix and I got to be provocative because I hope I can stimulate this audience into asking some questions I'm going to suggest that God and science mix but science and atheism do not mix and atheism actually carried to its logical conclusion threatens not only God that's by definition but actually human rationality and science with it so what I want to do is to take a few arguments that I think are central to the contemporary debate the first is to get rid of the idea that the conflict lies between science and God that's obviously false Peter Higgs won the Nobel Prize for Physics a couple of years ago he's an atheist a few years before that the same prize was won by Bill Phillips who is a Christian in the United States now if you think about those two men what divides them is not their physics they're both geniuses what divides them is their worldview and what I want to suggest to you is this this whole topic is illuminated in a completely different light if we realize that the real tension is at the worldview level crudely put it's between the worldview of atheism and the worldview of theism now I know there are several other worldviews but in the Academy those are the two that conflict and the crucial point is they're scientists on both sides there are brilliant scientists on both sides so I reformulate the question and it becomes this granted that we have if you like atheism here theism here and we imagine science in the middle which way does it point is it neutral does it as Richard Dawkins of others claim point toward atheism or does it as I plain point toward God so let's assemble a bit of evidence firstly history enormous Lee important because the rise of modern science took place in the fifteen sixteen seventeen cent raised in Western Europe and it had a Christian culture from which it developed historians of science have thought about this for many years and they've come up with a thesis that's called mertens thesis North Whitehead thesis and so on which can be best summed up by CS Lewis commenting on North Whitehead men became scientific why because they expected law in nature and they expected law nature because they believed in the lawgiver now this is crucial to our understanding but it raises huge questions you see far from hindering the rise of science it was belief in God that was the motor that drove him and to put that slightly more sharply I am not remotely ashamed of being a Christian and the scientist because arguably it was Christianity that gave me my subject so we have a very interesting situation because if you go back to the time of Galileo Kepler and Newton you find men researching the universe and coming up with fundamentally new understandings of it motivated by their faith in a rational the intelligent God who lay behind it Newton held a chair at Cambridge and the years went by until that same chair became the chair of Stephen Hawking they arguably the most famous living scientist now the interesting thing is if we pinpoint one feature of Newton's genius he discovered the law of gravity Hawking talks about gravity but the difference is stunning because for Newton it was evidence for the existence of God for Hawking it's evidence of the non-existence of God to such an extent that Stephen Hawking having been equivocal about his worldview position is now clearly defining himself as an atheist and tells people in our culture that they've got to choose between science and God and I simply tonight want to raise the question how have we got from Newton to Hawking what has been going on and I want to suggest the main problem is intellectual fog so I'm going to talk to you about fog tonight ladies and gentlemen now when it comes to science and god mixing often people are stopped in their initial inquiry by psychology they're stopped by the Freudian argument and the user to me of course as an Irishman after all my parents were Christian their parents were Christian and back three generations so of course I believe in God it's in my genetics Irish genetics and DNA that was the challenge that came to me early on in Cambridge where a student asked me if I believed in God and then suddenly realized that I came from Ireland he said I'm so sorry I shouldn't have asked you that question oh all you Irish believe in God no fight about it I'm very aware of that as well and it's an interesting question that my parents were very unusual people they were Christian without being sectarian and so in my father's store he employed equally from the divide between Catholics and Protestants and we were bombed for it so that stand on the basis of his belief that all men and women no matter what their persuasion persuasion was were equal in the eyes of God has become a huge background for my own attitude to other people and I'm a debtor to them for that but you see the Freudian argument is very strong and leads to writing books like The God Delusion now it's interesting that it's written by someone who's a scientist and ethnologists Richard Dawkins delusions of psychiatric term and one of the problems in this whole debate ladies and gentlemen is that when academics go out of their field which I'm doing tonight and very aware of it the danger is that they'll think that their authority in their own faith gives them an authority and another fate remember Fineman the scientists going outside his own failed is just as dumb as any other guy and when I read the gob deletion I realized that dawkins was not a psychiatrist and nor was I so I decided to consult the psychiatrist on this do they agree that belief in God was a delusion and the answer was very startling I discovered a whole realm of literature that I didn't know existed and clearly Dawkins doesn't because the past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists of the United Kingdom said in a book he said the positive contribution to well-being and human flourishing based on belief in God is psychiatry's best-kept secret if he adds the results of a large series of meta studies that his studies of studies and epidemiology had gone in the opposite direction and if he showed there was a negative correlation between belief in God and human behavior it would have been on every front page of every newspaper in the world but because it didn't it has been concealed I just want to say one more thing Cherie referred to be being like Santa Claus and this is something of course I have to take seriously because when I was at the University of Wales we were interviewing students as to why they'd come to the University and one girl she said well I looked at the brochure there was this picture of a seminar and there was someone just looking like Santa Claus so I decided to come it was me and very often the argument stops with this lenox your faith in God is like your faith in Santa Claus and I was having a public discussion and the Technical University and Delft in the Netherlands last year and when the next night in throwing a huge audience of several thousand and in the first one I was opposed by physicists and in the second or sociologists and they both referred to senticles and they said to me look this whole god talk is absurd at a scientific age it's just like believing in Santa Claus so I looked at the audience and I said we can test this very easily I said ladies and gentlemen tell me which if you came to believe in Santa Claus as an adult and there was a deafening silence and then I said did any of you come to believe in God as an adult and many hands went up so I turned to this man as gently as I could I suggested that he shouldn't insult our intelligence some of the best minds in history have engaged themselves with the question of God virtually every major university ancient university in the world is a Christian foundation Oxford dominus Illuminati Co maiya the Lord is my illumination the people they were intellectual Giants and they didn't see any tension between the natural sciences and belief in God a little sidelight if you will forgive a personal anecdote Stephen Hawking was asked what he thought of religion in the times and he gave a quip that religion was a fairy story for people afraid of the dark and they very generously asked me to comment so I did and I suggested that atheism was a fairy story for people afraid of the light well you shouldn't laugh really because it proves nothing because the point underlying it as well put by manfred Lutz one of J Germany's leading psychiatrists and he says if there is no God Freud gives you a brilliant argument that religion is wish-fulfillment if there is no God of course if there is a God Freud gives you an equally brilliant argument that atheism is a delusion the desire not to have to meet God to be accountable to him and then he adds and this is very important on the substantive issue as to whether there's a God or not Freud can't help you at all so that's the first thing the gob delusion but the second thing is related to it how we conceive God I thought for a very long time why is it Stephen Hawking keeps pushing for a choice between science and God and then I suddenly realized that is partially to do with science and we talked about that in the moment but it has initially to do with his concept of God you see these days many of my colleagues who are atheists they put the God of the Bible into the same category as the Greek gods the Babylonian gods and the Assyrian gods and if you analyze those gods they're one thing in common as the world expert in ancient religion Verner Jaeger at Oxford pointed out he says the gods of the Ancients are descended from the heavens in the earth that is they are produced by the primeval chaos they have there Theogony z-- the genesis of the gods and then he points out the vast difference the God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth so pretty good in the same category as a fundamental mistake but it's worse than that because if you think say of the god of lightning the god of lightning will disappear very rapidly in a first-year course on atmospheric physics in any university and you discover that you don't need the god of lightning there is a scientific way of viewing this and so the idea has grown up that the dog that Christian and others believe in is a God of the gaps crudely put I can't explain it therefore God did it and a little bit more scientific explanation comes along and God gets squeezed and squeezed and squeezed until he disappears you all understood that kind of argument now the important thing is this from what I can gather Stephen Hawking thinks that people like me believe in such a god now the logic then takes over and tells me this if you define God to be a God of the gaps then you have to choose between God and science because that's the way you've defined God you define God to be a placeholder of our ignorance some X that gets removed when science advances so your actual definition of God is what forces you logically to get people to choose between science and God so we need to be very clear that the God I'm talking about is not a God of the gaps he's the God of the whole show I noticed long ago that Genesis did not begin with the statement in the beginning God created the bits of the universe we don't understand but that's exactly their view of God God created the heavens of the earth which is a mere ism it spans everything God is the cause of the existence of everything the bits we do understand in the bits we don't so that when you can God his law of gravity he didn't say I've got a law of gravity I don't need God he said what a marvelous God to do it that way and think about it that's the way you think if you have studied engineering you've got a much greater admiration for rolls and rice if you study painting you've got a much greater admiration for Rembrandt not a lesser one so it's very important to realise that God and science are not in competition at that level God is the author of the whole thing in that sense he is the explanation of why there are explanations physicists however brilliant didn't put the universe there ladies and gentlemen physicists study a given and they study it with a given you notice their minds are a given they didn't put their minds there either so it's very important that we realize this and it relates now to a very important thing explanation is a word that has fascinated me for many years what do we mean by an explanation what do you mean to say that God explains now Richard Dawkins is very enthusiastic if you watch the film the unbelievers you see I'm talking to the astrophysicist Lorentz Christ and he said God is the same kind of explanation as a scientific explanation and here again you get this dichotomy but that is very foolish thinking if I might say so because what am me Illustrated why is the water boiling well because the heat energy from the gases being conducted through the base of the kettle and that's agitating the water molecules that they're beginning to give over faster and faster and faster and beginning to steam that's why it's boiling no it isn't it's boiling because I would like a cup of tea you would never dream that what I would say was correct that the scientific explanation is false and the personal agency explanation is true you instantly see that both explanations are true but they're not in competition now let me say this very carefully God is no more in competition with science as an explanation of the universe then Henry Ford is in competition with the law of internal combustion as an explanation for the motorcar they are different kinds of explanation but the trouble is many scientists today have got carried away with the success of science in technology for example that they think that science answers every question now that view that science is the only way to truth is what many people call scientism I have christened its scientific fundamentalism because that makes it a little bit more clear what is going on it is of course initially and obviously logically incoherent because this statement science is the only way to truth is not a statement of science so it's true it's false perhaps it's too late at night for logic but there we are this is quite important actually because most of the fog the intellectual fog that arises around this is misunderstanding of the different levels of explanation and once you begin to see that the fog begins to disperse and you can be passionate about your science and do it as Newton and Kepler and Galileo did to the glory of God without hindering your faith in any way your faith in God in any way now that the business of extra nation is focused on by Richard Dawkins here in the middle of the God Delusion says well look there's something illogical here because God cannot be an explanation of anything because God by definition is complex and he is more complex than the thing you're explaining so it can't be an explanation well that sounds very impressive until you apply it to Richard Dawkins I pick up a book called The God Delusion 400 pages or so it's quite complex so I asked about its origin and somebody comes along and says well actually this book was conceived and the infinitely more complex mind of Richard Dawkins so of course I dismissed that because the explanation is more complex than the thing being strained now we need to take this seriously because many of us have been fed at school and university with the idea that all explanation worthy of the name proceeds from the simple to the complex a lot does and that's what we call reductionist explanation reducing things to simpler parts but it signally fails when any linguistic structure is involved that carries meaning like language and I may come back to that just in a moment the other thing that causes great fog is a confusion about the nature of faith I'm frequently asked to give talks on science and faith and I say to people do you want me to talk about God or they say of course we do well I said where is it in the title they said the word faith oh you mean faith in God do you you don't mean faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe that every scientist must have and what the atheists have done have very cleverly smuggled an atheistic formulation of the problem into many Christians Minds you see faith is not as the new atheists have redefined it believing we're you know there's no evidence and is a religious word the problem with the word is we use it for two things we talked about the Christian faith so we shorten that to faith or the Muslim faith of the Jewish faith and we reduce that to faith but the problem is we're using a word that comes from the Latin fides which means trust and loyalty and so on and out in the culture we all know that any faith worth talking about has to be evidence-based if you don't believe me think back to the financial crisis we thought we could trust certain financial institutions the markets froze why do they freeze they froze because people lost confidence there wasn't the faith there there wasn't the base for it and they only reopened again when confidence grew that is what the ordinary person understands and we fudge the whole issue if we force that the atheist clap their hands and I've got so many colleagues that they just cannot see well let me tell you a story I debated Peter Singer you've probably heard of him the Princeton professor who is very controversial and seriously dangerous the use of bioethics in Sydney on the existence of God and I told him what I've told you about my parents being Christian and he stood up and he said well of course that there goes my main objection to any religion people stay in the religion in which they grow up and I thought well let's see what happens so I got a chance to speak and I said Peter I'd been honest about where I come from what about you we're your parents 80 or so yes he said oh I say yes sir you've stayed in the faith in which you were brought up nobody said it isn't a faith oh I said Peter I'm very sorry I was under the impression you believed it now this was stunning to the audience and cyberspace went wild one of the world's leading philosophers not admitting that his atheism of the fifth side of witches is naturalism is a belief system that's where we've got to and why does he not admit that because faith this word by definition means believing where there's no evidence and the late Christopher Hitchens he got into ridiculous mode when he wrote our beliefs are not a belief of our faith is not a faith what they've done you see is replace the common cultural concepts look at the dictionaries of faith as trust reliability that all makes sense when it's based on evidence to blind faith and they cut off the word blind so that all faith is blind so they meet someone like me and I am defined as a man of faith which is an insult because it means I believe for there's no evidence now one of the very important things to clear up of course there's an I speak as a Christian if I may for a moment that the Christian faith is solidly evidence based one of the claims in the New Testament at the end of the fourth biography of Jesus the Gospel of John is many other signs Jesus did in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and that believing you might have life in his name in other words here's the evidence upon which faith is based I wouldn't come and give this lecture at all if I believe that faith is our kind of blind leap in the dark but now comes the even more dangerous sight of this by redefining faith as blind faith at a religious concept that immediately obscures that science is intimately connected faith not faith in God necessarily but as Einstein put it I cannot imagine a scientist without that faith what faith faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe and you've got to believe that before you do science I was taught quantum physics long ago in Cambridge by professor now Sir John Polkinghorne and in one of his books he points out in fact he never tires of pointing out that physics is powerless to explain its faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe for the simple reason that you can do no physics without starting at that point so you see even the natural sciences after very foundation involved that commitment the faith commitment that science can be done Christianity and other religions involve faith commitments there are faith commitments everywhere and yet we've come to a culture where it's faith versus science that needs to be changed it needs to be seriously challenged if people are to understand exactly what is going I know this leads to a very interesting thing as a scientist I'm committed to the fact that my mind gives me some access into the universe out there and the very greatest of minds have wondered about that or again Victor Nobel prize-winner wrote a paper in 1961 called the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics why does somebody working out mathematical equations in her head come up with something that's related to the universe out there how does it work he was clever enough to see there was a problem Einstein put it more pithily the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible now let's think about it because it raises a very big question and I sometimes when conversation and the common room at Oxford is boring I asked my scientific friends than one or two questions you see I love playing soccer are you really don't here's my intellectual hero and so I say to them tell me and what do you do science with Oh they've got this new machine cost a billion dollars don't mean that I mean oh you mean and they're about to say my mind when they remember there's no such thing as the mind I believe there is but they don't my brain I said okay that'll do you do it with your brain tell me about the brain with what you do science what's the story of the brain they said do you want the long story no just what are the basic points about the brain well in the end of course the brain is the end product of a mindless unguided process so I look at the bits my own say and you trust it and you trust it they don't realize I'm quoting Darwin which comes as a massive surprise to them Darwin's died do you remember it let me read it to you because I see some of you are very unbelieving with me the horrid dirt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals or of any value or at all trustworthy after all he adds what could you say about the convictions of a monkey's mind if there are any convictions and such a mind now that idea was latent in Lewis and people didn't quite get it in the 1940s see Lewis is brilliant because he was able to look through things and at them simultaneously and that was a brilliant perception looking at the light and looking with the light through it and he made the point essentially this that we've done brilliant science by using our minds to look at the natural world but we forgotten the mind that's doing the science and then he adds he said any theory scientific theory that invalidates human thinking cannot be true now the interesting thing is that has been has had a little bit of a history philosophers like the world-class philosopher Alvin Plantinga from not Ruth Dame picked it up when he wrote the book where the problem really lies but perhaps more interestingly in the contemporary world Thomas Nagel of New York one of the leading philosophers in the world now Nagel is an atheist he's a very strong atheist he describes his faith as there is no God I don't want there to be a God so we can't accuse him of bias but he sees the problem he sees the problem if you reduce the mental to the physical then you collapse rationality let me read to you what he says if the mental is not itself merely physical it cannot be fully explained by physical science evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn't take any of our conviction seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends what's he claiming he's looking for another way out but what he's really saying is that naturalism which is atheistic and content undermines not only science but the rationality we need to conduct an argument or even set up the discussion on the meaning of anything now I find that such an interesting state to have come to in our intellectual history and it brings me back to the point that of what I said about language you see the whole pressure is and it's inevitable of course think about it if there is no God then explanation is confined to be bottom-up by definition the ancient Greeks sort democrates and leucippus saw it but more principally the latin port Lucretius and is brilliant and fascinating poem de rerum Natura took the epicurean philosophy and simply pointed out that there are two basic constituents of reality atoms and empty space and therefore all explanation is based on atoms in empty space that's the Dawkins position exactly that we call it materialism it hasn't changed a whit since the ancient world now people like Socrates and Plato and Aristotle believed there was more there was transcendence there were the gods there was God and so there could be both bottom-up causation and explanation and top-down explanation but in the contemporary Academy where naturalism dominates you can't have a top-down causation because there's no top and so you are confined to the basic materials of the ancient world except that the modern physicists have reduced everything to nothing a universe from nothing now if you want to ask me about that I comment on it I want to finish in good time but the polarization now is spectacular too big explanation of the universe one is God the other is nothing and we could go into that if we should be true I do give lots of lectures about nothing and I'm finding them remarkably effective but that's another matter but let's get back to this and let me illustrate it if you've heard this before the internet forgive me but it gets a lot of cross and very few words sitting at table at dinner one night in college I was beside a world famous biochemist and he was very upset to learn I was a pure mathematician he said we're gonna have a very boring evening so that was a challenge of course and I tried to backtrack and say well I know my field is very abstract and abstruse and difficult so I try to make up for it by being interested in the big questions he said what big questions I said well like the status of the universe is it created or not always said stop it's far worse than I thought listen he said I'm an atheist I'm a reductionist with nothing to talk about we're kind of a miserable evening so I said no we're not I'm fascinated by reductionism I know at least three kinds what kind to you so he started to talk I said look I'm a reductionist I made problems in mathematics I split a complex one into simpler ones try and solve the simpler ones get insight the big ones yes he said I do that all the time I said we have something uncommon then they said I didn't mean that I said I know you didn't you're an ontological reductionist from the Greek word on tossed meaning being everything reduces the physics and chemistry he said exactly so I said why don't we do an experiment he said what at the dinner table I said yes this is Oxford so I picked up the menu and honored that said roast chicken so he said where the problem I said I have no problem but just look at this ro ast these are marks on paper he said yes it means roast I said how do you know what he said I've learned the language that it carries meaning oh I said does it know I said here's my question you're a reductionist everything in terms of physics and chemistry yes he said absolutely so please explain to me the semiotic subbu's marks the way they carry meaning in terms of the physics and chemistry of the paper in ink and there was rather plone silence and his wife who's beside him rather not Lee said get out of that if you can he didn't try he said something so honest and stunning I could hear it happened just now he said John for 40 years I've gone into my lab thinking that could be done and it's so obviously gone and he looked at me with great wonderment as if to say you're not bright enough to think of arguments like that he said where did you get the argument I said I got it from a Nobel Prize but I always said what a relief I said you think it can't be done no he said the explanatory power of physics and chemistry cannot grasp language and meaning and so even those five letters indicate intelligence but he studied DNA so I pushed a little bit I said I believe you study a word that hasn't five letters it's got three and a half billion letters and it codes for life what about the Hat where did that originate oh he said chance and necessity what I said you mean chance and the laws of nature he said exactly but half a moment I said five letters not of course that menu was produced by many automatic and blind processes but you inferred instantly somewhere there's a mind behind it why don't you do that with DNA of course I know they answer they can't because they're naturalism doesn't allow it now this of course begins to be a fascinating area ladies and gentlemen you see let me put it this way as we come to a conclusion world views two major worldviews one starts with nothing we'll leave the other side just for mold with mass and energy and mind is derivative and the idea of God is derivative because of course there isn't a God but there's another worldview and it starts this way in the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God all things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be that came to be to see the difference in the materialistic worldview mass-energy is primary mind is derivative in the biblical worldview the word is primary mind Lagos personal intelligence and mass energy are derivative and here's the fascinating thing we've lived to information age we are seeing the concept of information at its various levels syntactic tion and information semantic information moving into center stage and the mining of databases for instance has become a huge industry in this country and in others information takes center stage what many people have not noticed is information is not material it's carried on material but it isn't itself material and the irony of the 21st centuries I find so fascinating to be living now that it's science is now focusing on the immaterial as concepts within science as distinct from the descriptors that are used like mathematics which are of course obviously a material it makes life very interesting and my conviction grows I know I'm getting old and maybe a bit you know dozy in the head but my conviction grows ladies and gentlemen that far from God and science not mixing the most exciting kind of cosmic chemistry realizes that science is fascinating because the dog that invented the atom that invented space-time that invented your mind that stamped his image on your personality of their fur makes you of infinite value in this universe science and God do makes the tragedy is it may be we live to see how atheism being now from atheists themselves raising the questions that it destroys human rationality it's quite painful to shoot yourself in the foot it is fatal to shoot yourself in the brain thank you very much ladies [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] want to add my word of welcome to each of you were here tonight I'm Ken cheese in the head of school at st. Paul Christian Academy and I want to thank Brad for hosting again and Sheree in the trittye forum for sponsoring this wonderful evening dr. Lennox thank you for your provocative talk dr. Lennox is going to handle the QA a little bit differently for those of you who have been with us over these last six times he actually would like for all the questions to be asked and then you will begin answering them so I am going to ask those of you who have a question to come forward there are mics on my left and my right come forward you can get in line and ask your question when all the questions have been asked then dr. Lennox will begin to answer those questions so dr. Lennox thank you for being with us let's give him one more round of applause [Applause] [Music] the idea is very simple it is that fun this is now a Q&A now what does that mean it means you're about to plumb the depths of my ignorance and secondly it's going to be desperately inadequate because of course I can only respond superficially to the questions you ask but don't worry about that because if you come with a real question it's the research you do on finding the answer that question that's much more important than anything I can say and thirdly in an audience like this I know everybody's interested in other people's questions so what I'm going to do is give you a chance to hear other people's questions and then we'll see how they relate to one another and we'll see the spectrum of questions in the room so off we go and we'll have the first person now as far as I can see there's nobody at this microphone and there's nobody of this microphone so let's change that keep your questions short they are questions I will write them down and then we proceed sir yes sir with the recent discovery of water on Mars humanity continues to push the very barriers of the heavens do you think that our further space exploration can harm our relationship with God as a whole for example the tower Babel and how it brought upon the separation of humanity thank you number two from from your perspective I know it's kind of a philosophical question but from a Christian perspective I'm curious to know why did God create the universe and why is that explanation important comparing it to other theistic explanations thank you okay next one first of all thank you very much for a stimulating lecture I'm interested in your discussion of the word explanation yes and in particular do you see a difference between the word explanation and the word description and if you do what is that difference especially as it's used scientifically or how we think about the description of scientific phenomenon thank you very much number four I have a question about the definition of the god you said the the God created the universe maybe there are two layers of meanings why is creator another is by which principle or the order that the Creator use to create the universe and human race and our culture okay thank you Steven Steven Weinberg in his book the first three minutes about creation of the universe said at the end if you want to know what happened in moments before the first three minutes you'll have to ask your version of God I'd like to know what you think happened in those second before Thanks okay is there any more I like to keep collecting these until the time's up and then I run home you say yes sir thank you for speaking this evening do you see the science of complex adaptive systems as reinstalling an appreciation for the immaterial back into the Academy of getting what back into the Academy oh right okay I want to be able to read these okay sir yeah thank you for the presentation and really look forward to the online version and absorbing it over multiple sessions can you please comment on the contrast between the new earth and the old Earth theory and also fold into your answer comments about carbon dating the discrepancies or arguments for and against that sorry do you mean the young earth theory sure not the new verses 6,000 years versus billions formulated by an archbishop of my hometown but I shouldn't tell you that okay these will have to be the last with this lady here so I'll alternate you so you've offered an argument for God in the abstract to an atheist but what do you say when you talk to them about who your God is specifically because figures like Spinoza lots of Enlightenment figures have this God who is your God sure yes um so my question is why personify God meaning is I was thinking about the undermining of the top-down yes and then it also made me connect that to you were talking about the fatalism of shooting oneself in the brain and it is is what we're talking about even extinguish herbal okay I'll never go with that final question ten questions you say all right thanks again for being here I guess my question is how how do you know with all of the minds that you come across at Oxford on a daily basis how do you know at what point you are arguing against someone who does not have the ears to listen or you're trying to come across with your viewpoint and get with someone who just you know you know is not going to except everything that you're giving them 10 cents thank you yes well thank you very much each one of these is going to take at least an hour so let's let's go as rapidly as possible and forgive me it's gonna be unsatisfactory and you're gonna moan and complain afterwards but let's have a little go anyway Mars water that we saw this morning the argument that it exists isn't going to affect our relationship of God I doubt it very much this universe is mysterious it's wonderful it's fascinating and even if you think of planet Earth and it's stability in its orbit many of the planets are necessary for that and if you see what is concerned made since childhood is whether the Christian faith is true or not does it give a coherent account and does it correspond with reality in that sense and therefore I feel that God has revealed himself and I believe that and we could go into why I believe that but to us on this planet he hasn't told us everything about the universe and that's quite deliberate indeed the mandate for doing science appears on page 2 of the Bible your end of the story God told human beings to name animals but the significance of that is lost or many people because taxonomy is the fundamental intellectual discipline every one of our fields that we've been trained in taxonomy our central giving names to things and the interesting thing is that God who gave names through five or so things according to the Genesis account since the humans you go and do it in other words go and do science and the first science is going to be the taxonomy of living creatures is biology and that gives us a wonderful mandate so we are doing the same thing and exploring both the micro world and the macro world and we're discovering fascinating things but people jump far too rapidly to conclusions just because we may have found some water in Mars doesn't mean there's lie for Mars there isn't the faintest bit of evidence anywhere that water would produce life on its on its own there are much deeper questions to be answered so I'll wait with interest to see what they find out I would quite like to go to Mars myself but there we are some of you may wish I would the reference you made to Babel is fascinating and that's a huge subject because that's the biblical introduction to the concept of the intellectual the Smart City and I take that very seriously because the whole Babylonian civilization has fascinated me for many years this is an extent I've just written a book about it against the flow as a book about Daniel living in King's College Babylon and wrestling with the huge ideology of Babylon that produced the first skyscrapers and all this kind of thing and you were saying it in a slightly negative way which I understand that Babylon was that great project that God came down to see and destroyed and some people have thought well that's absurd God is God against the city well apparently not because he's building one too but that's another story but the ideology of Babylon was the point let us make a name for ourselves and then whether the city reached to the heavens this reaching for the sky both literally and metaphorically or something that needs to be analyzed very seriously it's not that the construction is wrong if the motivation is lies behind it raises very big questions and you can build exactly the same thing to the glory of God or to the glory of yourself it's much more subtle than that but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop there and move on to the next one No why did God create the universe in one sense there's no answer to that we just don't know because we're asking about intention we discover ourselves here but perhaps we have a little another in our own expense why did you have children it's an interesting question isn't it I remember holding my first child in my arms and saying little girl you're beautiful but you could grow up to say no to me and reject me why have children well you know why because we think the risk is worth having God didn't have to create a universe but the interesting thing is he not only created a universe but he put beings in it that are part material part spirits human beings that alone of all his creation are said to be made in His image that's spectacularly important because it gives each man and women an infinite dignity now the reason some people give frivolously that God was lovely only made a few human beings to talk to his absurd God is big enough to have relationship within himself that's what the Christian doctrine of the Trinity means and it's profound of course it's profound we don't even know what energy is and gravity is and so on so it's not surprising we run up against difficulty here we don't know what consciousness is but there at least indicators I believe in scripture that God is exceedingly complex and reveals himself to us in three persons there's a relationship there he wasn't hard up for relationship but the Magnificent thing is that he creates creatures that are made in his rational image but also in his moral image that are capable of speaking to him and that old creation story is worth thinking hard about and God said and God said and God said that sequence in the beginning of Genesis ends with a remarkable statement most people have never noticed it and God said to them creation brought into being by God speaking so we have an open system not a closed system of cause and effect this is raising huge questions and speaking right into the contemporary world but and God said to them what an amazing thing that is biggest thing in my life of course is that capacity to a relationship for God who invented the universe couldn't get to do a better scientist than that well no explanation do I see a difference for an explanation of the description yes I do indeed and it's difficult to define the contours of this but it's actually very important what I am mitad to say is that let's take the law of gravity so when I went to school I got excited by the law of gravity even more excited when I could teach students how to derive the elliptical motions of the planets from the equation for for gravity which is eight symbols in it but what I was not told at school is that the one thing the law of gravity does not explain is gravity nobody has an idea what gravity is now that comes as such a shock to many people Newton realized that non Fingal he put a Z I don't make hypotheses what he did was produce a description a law mathematically formulated that enables you to make precise calculations of the way in which massive bodies relate to one another and it's so accurate that you would land a person in the moon without using any of Einstein's correction so that difference is important and I am very grateful to you for flagging it up and we need to ask is this just describing is it just giving us not only a description but a capacity to predict or does it explain and what happens within science forget any other metaphysical level within science explanation is often very very limited indeed and that might make us a little bit more humble when it comes to saying science explains at what level are you doing the description or are you doing the explanation and in what terms and so on and so forth it's a huge topic and we're only scraping the top of it now the question of Gordon's creator two levels of meaning and if God is the creator what principle did he use and creating I just don't know I just don't know all I can say is that what is revealed to us and what we can discover is that the standard model gets us back even if we believe in multiverses and that's another question to an absolute singularity there's a beginning and before that or there there was nothing so it's actual astrophysics that creates the contemporary attempts to solve like nuts question why is there something rather than nothing now the Christian answer is clear the reason there's something a universe rather than nothing is that God caused it to be nothing physical caused it to be God caused it to be and God is spirit how that happened we haven't a notion I'm hoping one day that God will show it to us but that the first few thousand years in heaven will be required to do that but it seems to me to be very important simply to try and understand what is being said but now if you go to the other side the Atheist side they have no cause because there's no material there is no space-time there's nothing so they're faced with a huge dilemma and what do they do with it well they cleverly redefine nothing it's utterly fascinating have you seen the book a universe from nothing by Lawrence Krauss if you look at about page three you get this not just listen to this for logic and see what you would do with this because something is physical nothing must be physical especially if you define it as the absence of something because something is physical nothing must be physical especially if you defined it as the absence of something do you know what that is nonsense listen to Hawking now I was just behind Hawking of Cambridge and he's light years ahead of me as a physicist but I must confess to being staggered when I read his explanation for removing God on the basis of gravity listen to it the heart of the book the grand design because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing pardon because there is something a law of gravity the universe will create itself from nothing that's a flat contradiction secondly because there is a law of gravity he doesn't say because gravity exists and now that opens a can of intellectual worms that are big and greedy and juicy this idea that laws will create a universe where did that come from I once had a little discussion with Peter Atkins is a world-famous professor of physical chemistry and Milton atheist syndrome Peter what do you think created the universe he said mathematics and I was so caught off-guard that I rather rudely laughed and he was quite annoyed he said what are you laughing at well I said Peter I'm sorry I am a mathematician that must be the silliest thing I've ever heard in my life he said why is it silly well they said let me put it to you simply one plus one equals two did that ever put two dollars in your pocket perhaps we ought until laughs do you know what caused the financial crisis partly some people believe that mathematics could create money it's called creative accounting isn't it it is fascinating how this idea has grown up that loss but lures pointed that I don't again than one plus one equals two but if you want to get two pounds or two dollars you first of all have to get one dollar plus one dollar to get two dollars it's so elementary yet some of the cleverest minds of the world can't see it they think that laws Newton's laws of motion never moved a baseball in the history of the universe it's people with bats through that and hands have you noticed and the irony is that Hawking's example of a law the first one that his book is the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west that doesn't create the Sun or the east or the west doesn't it it's a description it's a good law so there's that's a second level of problem in this statement but there's a third one's far worse here it goes the universe can create itself well now if I say to you if X creates why what does that be well roughly if you've got actually get Y so if I say X creates X what does that be well roughly if you got X you get X what does that be it means that nonsense remains nonsense even if high-powered scientists are writing it it is absurd now I stand back from this I'm not a theoretical physicist but I'm interested in logic and when I say some of these people who in their own field are very bright talking sheer nonsense in order to get rid of God well you can forgive me for thinking that something is going desperately wrong in the way in which they are formulating this now vine Burke Steven Weinberg said ask God if you believe in him Weinberg didn't in fact Weinberg Nobel Prize winner wants to rid the world of religion as he said in the hoya a few years ago and I mean there is a sense in which there's truth in that he's admitting that science has its limits and that's the point I'd like to use this question to make that science cannot answer every question now the great scientists have all seen that Einstein said that you can talk about the ethical foundations of science but you can't talk about the scientific foundations of ethics and Sir Peter Medawar also a Nobel Prize winner said that science that's limits are obvious it can't answer the simple questions of a child what's the meaning of life where am i from where am I going to in this contemporary world for scientism is the race science is dominant we need to reflect that if science is the only way to truth in this College half the faculties would have to close tomorrow you'd have no literature no history no art no and so on it's just absurd but it's a pressure that people come rather foolishly to believe now our complex adaptive systems a way of getting appreciation of their material back into the Academy they may well be because people like me will use them and more importantly Antony flew who was a very famous atheist at his day the Richard Dawkins of his day came to believe in a God of some sort he became a deist towards the end of his life because of the linguistic structure of DNA and it's interesting I do increasingly meet people who face with what they can see are moving in that direction so I answered yes then there's a question about the age of the earth that is a question that I'm going to be utterly shameless about I've written a book on it it is a question that affects North America more than England it goes back in a way to Archbishop Ussher in my hometown and from a Christian perspective it saddens me actually because if you look around you'll find Christians and people are not interested in Christianity can go to sleep for a moment because this is slightly embarrassing the Christians who agree on the big doctrines that there was a creation that Christ was pre-incarnate that he did miracles that he died rose from the dead and ascended they agree and all of that it seems that Genesis 1 for many of them is a hotbed of controversy and of course my view is very simple if you see equally bright and equally convinced people who disagree on one point it just may be that some of them are maybe all of them are wrong so I decided to investigate this and it would be totally unfair to the questioner I take the question as serious I took a risk in writing a book about it but I'm very gratified to see the immensely positive response particularly from this country on trying to see a way which for which there are precedents of which you can both understand Scripture and understand science and hold on to both passionately without having to emit intellectual suicide in either direction 7 days of debate of the world now the final thing I have to stop dying and I'll have to deal with just one more question because we're running out of time I do apologize to the - I'm gonna miss out the question is perceptive because of effects of what I've been saying and said well what your argument has to do with is God - the abstract but you seem to believe in the Christian God how do you make that step and it is a step the question is totally valid that most of the arguments I've used tonight would be common to monotheists and they write letters to me from all branches of things but I do happen to be a Christian it's a question of evidence ladies and gentlemen again at the level of science pointing to the existence of God and intelligence behind the universe it's a question of evidence it's not a question of mathematical proof that's important for a mathematician to state because we're confused about proof because we use it in two ways we use it in mathematics starting with axioms this logic produces those results that kind of rigorous proof you only get in pure mathematics you get nowhere else no natural science and not an ordinary life the legal profession talks about beyond reasonable doubt they use proof in the informal sense that the evidence is sufficiently strong and in personal things too I have a wife I've been married to the same one for 47 years but I couldn't prove to you mathematically that she loves me but I'd stake my life on it that's the point the fact that it's just pointers and evidence doesn't mean it can't be strong so to face the question which is in the way a personal question and if you like me I'll give a personal answer the first I learned about Christianity was through my parents I saw it lived I saw it was real to them and then I discovered that they were stimulating me intellectually they weren't confining me narrowly it was only much later that they discovered that there were narrow-minded religious people that wouldn't have entered my head as a young person because Christianity is so open and so encouraging of human flourishing and all the rest of it and of course I read a lot of this stuff when I was 12 or 13 and and had begun to integrate these things that in my own mind long before university but what happened at university were not student as I said to you said oh you Irish all believed in God and they fight about it that changed my life and it changed my life in this way I decided look you've now got a unique opportunity to make people that are not from your world I mean in Ireland you know you meet the atheist but they're usually either Protestant atheist sarcastic atheist but you met the real thing there so um week one I deliberately sought out someone who didn't share my worldview I've been doing it ever since they didn't I learned German I went to Germany that opened up the Iron Curtain and for nearly 20 years I spent quite a few weeks each year in countries where German was the main language particularly or where I could use it particularly the German Democratic Republic because I wanted to see what eight years of did to a culture and then when the Wall fell and I helped to knock it down but that's another story and I started going to Russia Siberia the Academy of Sciences debating this age why because I wanted to be sure now of course you can ask questions at two levels level one is this what is their history tell us well here's the claim I have friends and most religions my Muslim friends do not believe that Jesus died my Jewish friends believe he died but didn't rise I believe he both died and rose those three views are mutually exclusive historically so how do you get at them by looking at history and we're all open to study them from our own perspective and answer the question but then there's another thing very often people say to me that the trouble with their Christian faith holds happens this it's not testable you see if you're doing abductive science you do experiments and you you get tests results not testable well who told us that of course it's testable think about it now you can only give you one example but you get the idea Christ stood on this earth and he claimed that it was going to die for people to deal with the deep problem of human guilt that beset all of us and the problem of death which we don't like to talk about and he said this he said if you're prepared to trust me as Lord you will receive forgiveness eternal life and peace with God I watch that happen thousands of times and when you see ladies and gentlemen for instance people on the verge of divorce and then suddenly they're totally changed and you talk to them say what happened to you well actually I become a Christian and Oh or when you see alcohol dependence turned into food on the table for the kids when you see people with meaning coming into their lives and you see it I'm over 79 I've watched it all my life the proof of the pudding is in the end in the eating it actually works and when so many people associate their change in life their sense of peace their sense of purpose or sense of well-being with the relationship with God through Christ you begin to think with two and two make four now that's not an absolute proof but if that wasn't there I wouldn't be here for a split second now there are other reasons and I try to explain those in another little book which if I may mentioned gunning for God which deals not with the scientific attack against Christianity but with the moral attack against Christianity it arose out of conversations with Christopher Hitchens but the clock has baked me ladies and gentlemen thanks for your patience and good night [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] well thank you John that is a lot to think about if you'd like to talk further with dr. Lennox he will be available right outside just after tonight's event some of his books will be for sale and he will be signing them so would come in back to you I'd also like to simply invite you to turn your mind from the contemplation of the vast mysteries of the cosmos and metaphysical meeting to the small brochure on your armrest which is the invitation to join the Trinity Forum Society we hope that you will avail yourself of this invitation as you can tell all of us are partners we're trying to do something fairly unique here which is in a divisive polarized distracted time with deeply divisive politics a trivialized entertainment culture we're trying to provide a forum for engagement with the biggest questions of life in a way that is both intellectually rigorous as well as warmly hospitable we're thrilled that you joined us tonight and we hope that you'll join the society as well of course there are benefits to doing so some of the benefits include receiving our quarterly readings where we try to take a piece of classic or contemporary literature or letters explain why it's relevant add discussion questions in the back so it's essentially a book club in a bag as well as invitations to other events like this our daily curated reading feed and the like so we would invite you to join us in that and we'd also love to invite you to join us here in future conversations a Brad mentioned that we first launched this initiative around three years ago with hearing from Lincoln historian Ron white and since then we've heard from sociologists oz Guinness poet and former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Dana Joya j.r.r tolkien scholar the very energetic Jill la Conte and this year we have focused on two big areas - the biggest areas for questions church and state with ethicist and a Gustin scholar Eric Gregory and tonight science and faith we've been delighted to have a full house every time so mark your calendars now for our next event which will be March 31st here in this very place featuring visual artist maka Fujimura if you haven't heard of maka Fujimura you are in for a treat he is an internationally renowned artist in a different discipline called knee hunga which is a ancient traditional Japanese form of artistry he's a former member of the National Council on the arts a close friend of data joyous I actually first became acquainted with ma KO and his works when as a neh Sakurai wandered into Dana's office saw this ginormous utterly beautiful painting they're hanging right over his desk pride of place and said tell me about him so on March 31st maka will be here to talk about some of his work called culture care and what it means to live in and to foster a cultural ecosystem that contributes to human flourishing so we hope you'll join us for that and if you would like to be involved as a host or sponsor we would certainly invite you to do so simply talk to me Brad Ken Byron Smith we'd love to help make that possible finally I think it's only appropriate to end with thanks and certainly there are many people to think just running through our sponsors again real quickly Joe and Judy cook Gary and Susan Dean Joel and Stephanie Galante Nathan and Laura green chuck rice bill was with me cough John and Carol Peterson John and Carol Rochford given an authority organ Heather Ridley and Irene wills and last and greatest thanks to Byron Smith our visionary who not only helped conceptualize but at every step of the way has made this possible through his own ingenuity creativity and amazing capacity for hard work so thank you Byron also want to just think again our partners been so privileged and honored to work with Brad and MBA and can and st. Paul's and finally the people who have helped make tonight happen from st. Paul Parker page Christian Jones Lauren's ook Nancy Crowell thank you for your volunteer efforts and from MBA Lennon Coleman and Jennifer how finally I'd like to thank my own colleagues Margaret Everly our director of events who put a huge amount of work into making tonight's event happen as well as Killeen o Malley our a brand new director of development and advancement who is here tonight finally thank you very much dr. John Lennox thank you and good night [Applause]

Channel: The Trinity Forum

Views: 4,169

Rating: 4.878788 out of 5

Keywords: John Lennox, Oxford, University of Oxford, Professor, Math, Science, Faith, Reason, Genius, The Trinity Forum, Nashville, Speech, Debate, Keynote, Christianity, Religion, Atheism, Conflict, Discussion, Evening Conversation, Philosophy, Apologetics, Cosmic Chemistry: Do Science and God Mix?

Id: _A761oGMrXw

Length: 88min 20sec (5300 seconds)

Published: Thu May 26 2016