Sunday, June 12, 2016


Does belief in God stimulate or stifle science. Atheist Peter Atkins believes that to invoke God is both lazy and detracts from the work of science. Lennox counters with the example of Isaac Newton, for whom a belief in God did not stifle his scientific curiosity:

·       After uncovering the workings of gravity, Newton didn’t say, “Now that I understand gravity, I no longer need God.”

Instead, Newton understood that the source of science, the elegant, immutable that made discovery and science possible rested upon its Creator.


Atheist Peter Atkins claims that a belief in God(s) is not only wishful thinking but that it also adds unnecessarily to the elegance and simplicity of science by introducing an external and foreign agent.

However, doesn’t the addition of “naturalism” equally introduce an external and foreign agent – a kind of God-substitute?

Instead, it would seem more reasonable to ask:

·       Which of these explanations (theories) of origins and causation better explains the facts?

No comments:

Post a Comment