Lennox has explained why in much more detail in many other videos. Too bad you didn't take on the stronger arguments he's made but just speculates on a small, insignificant clip. You could have known this. That's just a fact. There's been science, of sorts, in other cultures, but it's a bit like discoveringv that someone made some thing that resembles "the wheel" and comparing it to the Ferrari of Italy. Orders of a magnitude different. It's the difference of technology of putting a bone through your nose, and putting a man on the moon. The core of his real argument is in the realm of ideas. Namely that Christians believed in the Logos and always imagined that God created an intelligible universe, and because humans are made in the image of God they would be able to study and understand the world God made for them. So why didn't it happen faster? Let me turn that around and instead ask: why didn't anyone else on the planet have a scientific revolution of such a lasting magnitude first? One civilization came in first and it lasted, still does, and everyone else who does it now copied it from the West.
1. Feel free to link the video’s where Lennox makes a stronger argument. I’m more than happy to review them. 2. You will need to justify the claims in your second paragraph. My claim, in the video, is this argument hinges on the definition of science being utilized. What’s your definition of science? 3. With respect to your third paragraph, like I explain in the video, I would fundamentally disagree with this claim. My disagreement stems from the fact that I do not see this justified by the historical data. Please show me where this can be supported in the writings of Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, or Kepler. To support this claim, the only source that Lennox provides is Galileo. Even them, however, he gets the source wrong and completely misrepresents Galileo’s position!!! He also cites CS Lewis who, of course, is not a historian of science. I have the same response to you: where are you getting these ideas from? You have simply stated it as if it were a fact. PLEASE cite your sources. Also, if you would like to come on my channel to chat about this I’d love to talk. This is one of my favorite subjects to chat about!
Lennox might sound like this nice grandpa but make no mistake - the people he surrounds himself with do very much represent fundamentalist evangelicalism at its worst. He's just as problematic as the rest of the bunch. Holding to all kinds of horrible fundie ideas that are in no way, shape or form supported by science.
Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, same and "cultural apologetics" is a good descriptor. These sorts of claims usually have some sort of unstated national or ethnic bias that is directly/indirectly implied and thats whats concerning for me.
Lennox has explained why in much more detail in many other videos. Too bad you didn't take on the stronger arguments he's made but just speculates on a small, insignificant clip. You could have known this. That's just a fact.
There's been science, of sorts, in other cultures, but it's a bit like discoveringv that someone made some thing that resembles "the wheel" and comparing it to the Ferrari of Italy. Orders of a magnitude different. It's the difference of technology of putting a bone through your nose, and putting a man on the moon.
The core of his real argument is in the realm of ideas. Namely that Christians believed in the Logos and always imagined that God created an intelligible universe, and because humans are made in the image of God they would be able to study and understand the world God made for them.
So why didn't it happen faster?
Let me turn that around and instead ask: why didn't anyone else on the planet have a scientific revolution of such a lasting magnitude first?
One civilization came in first and it lasted, still does, and everyone else who does it now copied it from the West.
1. Feel free to link the video’s where Lennox makes a stronger argument. I’m more than happy to review them.
2. You will need to justify the claims in your second paragraph. My claim, in the video, is this argument hinges on the definition of science being utilized. What’s your definition of science?
3. With respect to your third paragraph, like I explain in the video, I would fundamentally disagree with this claim. My disagreement stems from the fact that I do not see this justified by the historical data.
Please show me where this can be supported in the writings of Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, or Kepler. To support this claim, the only source that Lennox provides is Galileo. Even them, however, he gets the source wrong and completely misrepresents Galileo’s position!!! He also cites CS Lewis who, of course, is not a historian of science.
I have the same response to you: where are you getting these ideas from? You have simply stated it as if it were a fact. PLEASE cite your sources.
Also, if you would like to come on my channel to chat about this I’d love to talk. This is one of my favorite subjects to chat about!
in this debate lennox fleshes out some of his views ruclips.net/video/OVEuQg_Mglw/видео.html
Lennox might sound like this nice grandpa but make no mistake - the people he surrounds himself with do very much represent fundamentalist evangelicalism at its worst. He's just as problematic as the rest of the bunch. Holding to all kinds of horrible fundie ideas that are in no way, shape or form supported by science.
important work … i really don’t like this sort of cultural apologetics so im glad someone is pushing back
Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, same and "cultural apologetics" is a good descriptor. These sorts of claims usually have some sort of unstated national or ethnic bias that is directly/indirectly implied and thats whats concerning for me.