Meaning Of Life: Richard Dawkins And John Lennox

Introduction:

Each person develops their own ideologies about the world around us. The debate between Professor Richard Dawkins; a biologist who is a firm believer in the theory of natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin; and Professor John Lennox; a mathematician who is a devout Christian that believes in God the creator; is a prime example of the vast difference that exists between some of these ideologies. The main topic of the debate is whether our understanding of science has made the belief in God irrelevant and questions the existence in a controlling and creating deity. This paper summarizes the main arguments made by Dawkins and Lennox in order to get an overall understanding of their own beliefs and ways of thinking. The development

of science will be explained in terms of the ideologies of Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn and Bruno Latour. The main arguments by the debaters will be evaluated by these ideologies and my personal thoughts will be explained on the subject.
Dawkins’ main arguments:
Richard Dawkins is an atheist, meaning that he does not believe in the existence of God and believes in the Darwinism approach to biology. He states that the entire idea behind religion is unscientific in nature and doesn’t do justice to the grandeur of the universe and shrugs it off to be petty and small-minded. Dawkins questions the fact why God; a powerful and eternal being; would give His own life for the forgiveness of the sins committed by the human race. He points out if God had existed and created the large cosmos, He wouldn’t really care for people so small insignificant in comparison. He argues that if this was the case then God would be considered as petty.
Dawkins points out that Darwinism isn’t a belief based on a freak accident or intelligent design. He arguments that even though biology looks designed due to its intricacy, the working concept behind Darwinism and natural selection is a mechanical “blind” force that works automatically through the survival of species.
Dawkins explains that God cannot be used as an explanation due to the absence of an explaining theory such as the origin of life or the laws of physics and believes that God is often used in this capacity. He further states that another reason for the unacceptability to use God as an explanation is the fact that the idea of God itself is more difficult to explain than the object of study itself. He also rejects the idea behind the miracles of Jesus due to scientific impossibility.
On the topic of the meaning of life, Dawkins argues that the meaning of life can mean various things, depending on the study of analysis.

He gives an example that the meaning of life would mean the propagation of genes to a biologist. He states that each person has a purpose and achievement they want to complete.

Lennox’s main arguments:

John Lennox is a Christian, meaning that he believes in the occurrence of the events described in the bible and the existence of God the creator. The main belief of Lennox is that there is a conscious mind behind the entire cosmos and the laws of science. Lennox describes that God plays part through means of being an agent and not the mechanism itself and that there is no reason one can argue away the existence of an agent by showing a mechanism.

Lennox arguments that the intricacy of the pure existence of sciences such as the origin of life, the existence of the laws of physics and the language of DNA shows intelligent design, further stating that language is a mind driven concept and there is no other conceivable way of generation. On the theory of evolution, Lennox arguments that even though his watch is blind and automatic, its sophistication shows us that there is intelligent design behind

it.
Lennox argues that the idea of a Logos makes complete sense, arguing that the concept is not more complex than a blindly driven mechanism. He states that this is due to God being an eternal being, not a created being. Lennox believes in the miracles accomplished by Jesus and states that it was a means of providing proof for Him being the Logos. He continues by stating that if miracles weren’t in violation of the laws of nature, no recognition would have been given. He further argues that countless ancient historians believe In Jesus’ existence.
On the topic of the meaning of life, Lennox states his belief in the existence of an ultimate justice. Inexistence of hope, meaning and morals without the existence of a God. Lennox states his belief that God created everything in this world from the simple to the incredibly complex, from the explanatory to the “yet to be explained” and uses the existence of consciousness as a prime example.
The development of science:
Karl Popper:
Karl Popper developed the process of falsification in response to David Hume questioning Induction, stating that the only way to verify scientific theories is the constant inability to falsify the theory (Helfenbein & DeSalle, 2005:272). Popper was fascinated by four theories in his early years, one of which being Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (Helfenbein & DeSalle, 2005:272). Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is an example of a theory that is not Inductive by nature as it can be tested and proven false. Kragh (2013:326) states that the concepts behind falsifiability has played an important role in science since Popper’s Book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery was published in 1959 .
Karl Popper’s process of falsification, agrees the most with the arguments proposed by Dawkins. Popper as quoted by Kragh (2013:327) states that “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality”. Lennox’s arguments can in no way be proven falsely as the concept of God’s part in the laws of nature can in no way be proven or proven falsely through testing or evidence. Dawkins’ arguments, while some of the mechanisms can’t be tried and tested in most cases, it lacks the existence of an agent which is not falsifiable and would therefore be more accepted as real.
Thomas Kuhn:
Mößner (2011:416) explaines Thomas Kuhn’s theory as follows: The concepts of scientific assumptions or “Paradigms” and the community are closely linked and without the community the current scientific activity would be non-existent, therefore to analyse the current activities, the changing community structure must first be analyzed. By examining the community and the history of these paradigms, the understanding of science can be bettered. Kuhn as quoted by Mößner (2011:418) states that “Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all”. Kuhn had a firm belief in scientific knowledge shared by society.
Both of the participants in the debate bring up arguments that can coincide with Kuhn’s theories of paradigms. Dawkins brings up the topic of evolution by natural selection which is a paradigm itself, seeing as it is treated as essential when considering certain biological studies. While Lennox’s scientific beliefs aren’t necessarily considered when introducing new scientific studies, he does bring up certain arguments that coincide with Kuhn’s theory. Lennox mentions the common belief in the existence of Jesus shared among countless credited ancient historians and becomes a factor in the field of history , which closely relates to Kuhn’s theory of paradigms.
Bruno Latour:
Bruno Latour bases his views on the approach of social constructionism. “Social Constructionism or the social construction of reality is a theory of knowledge of sociology and communication that examines the development jointly constructed understanding of the world” (Galbin, 2014:82). The basis of Social Constructionism is the examination of the universe by means of accepting the social influences of scientific knowledge. Social constructionism observes how our current knowledge and understanding of the universe only exist due to scientific agreements and interactions between people being the primary cause.
One could bring up a point that religion is an example of a social construct so to speak that tries to explain the universe by the creation of a god or deity. Lennox’s arguments are a prime example of the influences of society on the overall understanding of the laws of nature. While the usual driven approach by society towards science denies God the creator, Lennox argues for God the creator as an agent driving the mechanisms of the cosmos. One could almost argue the normal atheistic approach taken towards science as being a social construct in itself and Lennox agrees to the coexistence of religion and science. Dawkins does argue that society is mostly driven toward religion due to hope, rather than the existence of the subject, which implicates that the social construct of hope to be the only force behind the existence of religion.

Personal evaluation:
The arguments delivered by Dawkins and Lennox all prove to be highly possible and one can state that both gave factual and probable evidence to support their respective points of view. Both Dawkins and Lennox are well respected scientists in the community. While I agree with Richard Dawkins with the argument he makes about evolution by natural selection being an automatic blind mechanism, Lennox provides a good point that God could be an agent that drives the mechanism while comparing it to a watch. However I disagree with Lennox when he argues the concept of the Logos being not as complex due to God being an eternal being. Nobody can conceptualise the concept of something being eternal as all we truly know is created. The origin of things provides us with a better understanding of the subject of study, therefore the Logos will remain a complex idea. I share the same world view as Lennox and believe in the existence of intelligent design. This world view is mostly attributed to the existence of consciousness, the mathematical describability of the universe and the origin of life, exactly as Lennox points out. I agree with Dawkins’ argument that when a mechanism is perfectly explainable, the need of an agent is unnecessary. However my personal opinion is that due to a lack of evidence, the existence of an agent should not be dismissed as quickly. My personal world view does not change my belief that the Logos cannot be used an acceptable reason to explain scientific theories, therefore further elaboration is always a necessity when a new scientific study arises.