Customer Reviews

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

5 star:		(33)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

John Lennox, who teaches mathematics and philosophy of science at Oxford University, comes out of the closet as a "creationist" (some will say) in this incisive and readable book. That is to say, not only does he place theoretical limits on the "magisteria" of science, he also finds positive empirical limits to what physics and biology can in fact explain about our strange, glorious, troubling cosmos.

I haven't read Lennox' previous books, so I don't know how far he has gone this way before, but it seems a gutsy move. (When he begins the section on biology, aware of the acrimony that has surrounded the evolution debate, he taps out his own tongue in cheek epitath: "Here lies the body of John Lennox . . . ") Oxford was once the home of Wesley and Boyle and Lewis, but Richard Dawkins casts a shadow there now -- one member of the science faculty told me maybe 60% of his colleagues agree more or less with Dawkins, whether they've read him or not. And unlike Alister McGrath (who however has the class and good taste to recommend this book), Lennox is more in the Intelligent Design camp than "theistic evolution" or "biologos." But the term "camp" here is misleading: to Lennox, the search for truth seems less a "darwinian" competition between fortified and hostile foes lobbying shells at one another, but as a genial and informed dialectical journey among pilgrims.

The book covers all the main questions: the nature of science, origin of the universe, anthropic "coincidences," origin of life, mutations, fossils. Lennox dialogues with Dawkins, as one would expect, and with many leading scientific thinkers. The prose is clear as a mountain creek tumbling over stones.

The main weakness of the book, in my view, has to do with Lennox' discussion of Intelligent Design. Here he quotes a number of people -- Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Hugh Ross -- who are in the eyes of many skeptics highly controversial. I don't mind that -- I spent a couple months defending Behe against some rather savage and unfair attacks, so I appreciate his ability to shrug off the jihadist strand of evolutionary apologetics. But I do think Lennox needs to interact with more serious critics at this point a bit more, to establish his arguments. Still, he goes into far more detail than Dawkins on this issue.

In short, this is an excellent contribution to the "God" debates. Readers may also enjoy my new book, The Truth Behind the New Atheism, which responds to Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens on a variety of topics, including some covered in this book.

After reading The God Delusion a year ago I became gripped and eventually spellbound by the God vs. no god debate that seems more and more to be occupying the collective attention of our culture. In my desire to gain a fuller understanding of both perspectives, I've since immersed myself in the most popular literature on the subject (penned by Harris, Dawkins, Hutchings, Davis, Flew, McGrath, Collins, DeSuza etc.). The arguments and lines of reasoning expressed in John Lennox's book entitled "God's Undertaker" are, by far, the most deep and insightful I've read on the subject to date.

Lennox begins God's Undertaker by making a critical distinction between science and materialist/naturalist philosophy that, in and of itself, provides a resounding response in the negative to the question posed in the book's subtitle (Has science buried God?). Lennox explains that science in an uncontaminated form seeks exclusively to explore the universe by examining its physical properties and apparent laws without making claims about what might or might not exist beyond its own domain. Science therefore neither rules out nor affirms the existence of the supernatural. Naturalism, on the other hand, is philosophically bound to a preconceived notion regarding the nature of reality; namely that it is limited exclusively to the substantial and, consequently, that truth can only be found through an examination of material phenomenon. In short, it is naturalism, not science, which is at odds with theism.

Lennox goes on to illustrate the importance of making such a distinction by pointing out the deceptive and duplicitous way in which materialists use the well earned respect of science to cloak arguments against the existence of God that not only lack scientific support but are in fact faith based and not scientific at all! Lennox hammers home the irony of this point, giving no slack to the likes of Dawkins who, while blindly ascribing god-like qualities to neutrons and electrons, mockingly portray theists as deluded dunces who base their lives on a completely imaginary deity.

Lennox is no enemy of science. He is a purist who believes that what science points to is equally as important as what it explicitly reveals. Consequently, he is not only in awe of what science has achieved but he enthusiastically declares the important role science has played in the development of his own belief in God. Anchored by the very science that has been high jacked by Dawkins and company, Lennox demonstrates that belief in a single all powerful God is not only rational but is in fact the best conclusion one can draw from the known physical universe. Lennox does this in the heart of God's Undertaker by engaging the scientific arguments used by materialists head-on in an "ask for no quarter, give no quarter" fashion that pays homage to his Celtic heritage.

Specifically, Lennox confronts the naturalist's take on cosmology, microbiology, evolution, and biogenesis and mounts a particularly robust argument for an intelligently designed universe in later chapters devoted to information science. While it is beyond the scope of this review to elucidate each of Lennox's arguments, I will state that I found them to be well-balanced and, in most cases, compelling. I highly endorse this read for anyone interested in the origins of our universe.

In this very readable and well-researched book John Lennox does a brilliant job of exposing the real issues involved in any discussion of the relationship between science and religion. The fundamental point, which he makes so well, is that the debate is NOT about science VERSUS religion, but has to do with different world views (namely naturalism - the view that there is nothing but nature and the material world - contrasted with theism - the view that there is a God ) and the relationship of each with science. Dr Lennox then asks the all-important question: Which world view sits most comfortably with science?

What is so important about this book is that it does not counter the popular rhetoric and sloganeering (characteristic of many of those who believe that naturalism is the world view that is the logical consequence of science) with more of the same. In his careful and systematic examination of the scientific evidence Dr Lennox shows that science is not only highly consistent with a theistic world view, but even points towards it. To this end he takes us on a journey that considers the history and limits of science, as well as many of its most up-to-date findings including modern evolutionary theory, design theory, irreducible complexity and information theory. Bringing to bear his analytical and logical skills as a research mathematician, he also exposes many fallacious arguments that are often used to "prove" that science has buried God.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who seriously wishes both to understand the real nature of the debate that is currently receiving much exposure in the media, and to come to a conclusion based on evidence and reason rather than prejudice and emotion.

Nigel Cutland
Professor of Pure Mathematics
University of York, UK

I think "God's Undertaker" is a solid introduction to Intelligent Design. It's especially helpful from an evangelical Christian apologetics standpoint in conversation with the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" i.e. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. As I recall, John Lennox is a member of the Plymouth Brethren.

Of course, there are more detailed books available - for e.g., "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer. But, again, "God's Undertaker" is a solid introduction which especially packs quite a punch for its small size (about 200 pages). I don't know if this is necessarily the best way to look at it but the way I look at it is, if we place "Signature in the Cell" in the heavyweight division and "God's Undertaker" in the lightweight division, each is arguably the best book in its respective class.

In any case, others have already done finer reviews of "God's Undertaker" than I can manage. So I just wanted to make a quick note for those who might have the older version of the book (ISBN: 082546188X) and are considering purchasing the newer version (ISBN: 0745953719). Or who are considering one over the other. I own both.

What's the difference between the older (2007) version and the updated (2009) version? Not much, but there is a difference. The main difference is that, while both versions have the same 11 chapters in the 2007 version, the updated version contains an additional 12th chapter titled "Violating nature? The legacy of David Hume". In this chapter, Lennox interacts with Hume's argument against rationally believing in miracles.

My opinion is, if you already own the first version, and you own a book like C.S. Lewis' "Miracles" or even better Victor Reppert's "C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea" (which, as Paul Manata said, is like Lewis' "Miracles" on steroids) or another philosophical book which deals with the alleged problem of miracles, then it's probably not worth purchasing the updated version.

However, if you don't own other books on the topic, or are unfamiliar with the philosophical issues over miracles, and are looking for a brief, non-book length treatment (otherwise you'd just buy Reppert's book), then it'd be worth purchasing the updated version. Although even still I think I'd recommend looking at a free online article on miracles such as one on Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy rather than spending the extra money. But the problem is philosophical resources can tend to be a bit technical so you might have to work your way through the article whereas Lennox's chapter is written with the layperson in mind.

And for those who own neither the older version or the updated version, it'd be best to get the updated version of course.

This excellent book written by John Lennox, M.A., Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc. a professor of mathematics and the philosophy of science at Oxford University, is one of the best short books ever written on ID for laypersons. Published by Lion press, a publisher I know well because they have put out a large number of excellent books on this topic, the 192 page book covers all of the major issues related to ID. Due to its size it does not go into much detail on each topic, but does cover the basics. His discussion of irreducible complexity (page 117-119) was excellent. Professor Lennox is also an excellent writer. On irreducible complexity he writes ""The cell is restlessly productive as its many micro-miniature assembly lines produce their unending quotas of protein machines" (page 117). He accurately notes that the fossil record gives no good example of macroevolution (page 110). The fact that this book is brief is a handicap because Darwinists reading this will surely think "many examples exist." Ideally the book could be much longer to respond to such objections. Claimed examples of macroevolution, such as Ambulocetus, the putative ancestor of whales, fall apart when carefully examined. Ambulocetus, which means "walking whale," was an early three meter long cetacean that could walk as well as swim. Most every conclusion beyond this is often largely speculation. Many other cetaceans and other animals, such as crocodiles and alligators and many amphibians that could walk as well as swim, also exist. Its appearance is of a mammalian kind of crocodile, although it was likely amphibious because its back legs were better adapted for swimming than for walking. It likely swam by undulating its back vertically such as modern day otters and other animals do. The most accurate conclusion is Ambulocetus was just another extinct animal, one of the 100,000 known so far. With so many extinct animals it is not hard to find one that seems to fit somewhere as a transition form. After I studied this claim in detail, I became convienced that Ambulocetus is just another extinct animal and not a transitional form. As an Oxford professor with three doctorates, Lennox is highly qualified to evaluate this modern controversy and his work more than lives up to the promise of the blurbs on the cover of the book. Clearly an excellent book that I highly recommend.

After reading extensively from the likes of Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and others, I decided to give the opposing viewpoint an equal shot at convincing me one way or another. After a careful examination of John Lennox's work in this book, my mind has been firmly changed. Atheism is not nearly attractive as it once was. Thank you John!

The time is long overdue to pull down the primitive, fallacious facade of Darwinian evolution and scientific Naturalism. This small book contains the dynamic to do that and to pull the rug out from under the Neo-Darwinians all in one lucid and factual shot. John Lennox leads the way for anyone who is truly willing to follow the argument wherever it leads. He clearly lays out the most current scientific revelations in an accessible manner, so that the general reader with only a little effort can follow his drift. Other reviewers can break out the overall context of the book, I want only to encourage every science, math, and philosophy teacher, and every reasonable, thinking person to read it without delay. It is eye-opening and paradigm-shifting. With an ever widening circle of readers and influence, it has the power to advance scientific renaissance as it sweeps away the prevailing dark age of Darwinian evolution from the general public consciousness.

John Lennox, professor of mathematics and philosophy of science, asks the question many of us wonder, "Has science buried God?" Lennox, being a theist himself, answers no -- and rightly so. Lennox contends (as many do) that science itself is simply an unbiased subject. The real problem, which Lennox covers quite thoroughly, is the problem between naturalism and theism.

Dr. Lennox, being an expert in the field of mathematics (which is thoroughly ingrained in physics) speaks of the teleological argument. If your are anxiously awaiting to read more arguments on God's existence (natural theology arguments, that is), you be sorely disappointed. That being said, this book is still fantastically interesting, and as other reviewers have mentioned, Lennox writes with a humble attitude that both the atheist and theist can respect.



On a personal note, the true selling point for me was the fact that Lennox is an Oxford professor. To write anything but a scholarly work would be academic suicide for such an esteemed professor. And, of course, Lennox did meet that expectation in writing a scholarly (yet easily accessible) book.

It is always interesting to find what libraries purchase as part of their collection. However what is often more telling is what they chose to ignore.
Dr John Lennox is a premier academic in the U.k. however his book is largely unknown by people outside the God Vs Science debate.
Dr Lennox shows in this book how the framers of the God / Science debate mislabel the argument and make a "category mistake".

It is well argued and thought provoking read on why, rather than disproving the existence of "God", current science actually raises some interesting questions that are not answered by the new atheists and provides some limited comfort to Christian's in particular.

"God of the gaps" debaters will be saddened by Dr Lennox rebuttal of their argument.

However libraries are not apparently stocking the book and as a result miss out on the cutting edge of the "faith" side of the God Vs Science debate. This seems to indicate that supposedly open libraries are not interested in full and frank debate about one of the major discussions of our time.

Many of the arguments raised in Dr Lennox' book have not been addressed by the 'scientists must not believe in God' cheerleaders and their ignoring of John Lennox arguments does them no credit.

John Lennox has hit the bulls-eye with this work! I highly recommend it to anyone concerned about the roar of atheistic mumbo-jumbo that's risen up the past few years. Lennox's logic is impeccable - outreasoning, outwitting and outclassing bubble-gum theologians, the likes of Richard Dawkins. To be sure, Dawkins is a masterful scientist. As this work demonstrates, however, he has overstepped his bounds in attempting to "place a nail in God's coffin".

Reading "God's Undertaker" is like sitting next to a warm fire, at the feet of a wise, old professor, as he carefully imparts knowledge and wisdom to you. I recommend you read it, and you read it slowly and carefully in order to enjoy every last word of it! Then order a copy for a friend, as you read it over a second time. After that, you will go out with confidence, engaging the naysayers who somehow (quizzically) believe that mankind, in our limited and miniscule understanding of this grand and marvelous creation that we are in, have transcendental knowledge that leaves no room for an intelligent and loving God.