- Can Science Explain Everything? (Oxford Apologetics)

It’s a good book, written in clear and accessible language that invites reflection on its content.

John Lennox is both an excellent orator and writer in the same vein of C.S. Lewis. His quick wit and ability to bring complex topics into the minds of the layperson adds to his talents. This book will provide the reader with real, tangible thoughts and concepts that many people, believers and nonbelievers alike have pondered for many centuries. As an added bonus, listen to his Irish voice in the audiobook as you read along.

The book gives me many new information. The excellent arguments are very concisely organized and written. It was read very clearly. I am reading the kindle copy while listening to the hoopla audio version. It has helped me organize my thoughts. I feel very grateful to Dr Lennox for this book.

This was a cool book. I listened to it in audio before getting the book for my son’s required school reading. I highly recommend the audio version as it’s read well by the author.

The title may seem a bit trite, but this book is actually a fairly well-reasoned analysis of the relationship of science to Christianity. While many apologetics books seem to begin with an assumption of credulity, Lennox writes as if he is addressing a skeptical audience, and an open-minded skeptic will likely find his arguments to be, if not an airtight case, at least a respectable effort. Lennox is a mathematician from Oxford (specializing in group theory) and so it should be no surprise that he writes with a careful and academic style—not as “popular level” as most apologetics treatments, but also not quite as erudite as one might expect of, say, a philosophy professor. His arguments are by no means original, nor does that appear to be his goal. Rather, this thin book represents a brief summary of why, in a scientific age, Christianity continues to be a reasonable belief system. This book has its strengths and weaknesses. Lennox does best when he discusses the philosophical assumptions underlying atheistic naturalism on the one hand, and Christian theism on the other, and the way that both connect to science itself. In the later chapters, however, he goes beyond this to make a case for the resurrection of Jesus. That argument may have some merit, but it is essentially a brief rehash of points made more thoroughly elsewhere, and this author might have done better to leave those matters to historians. Somehow the book just feels less compelling when the author is summarizing other people’s arguments instead of speaking from his own expertise. The first several chapters however, are well worth the read.

The book is very good. It is easy to read and Lennox explains his positions clearly. I think that reading this book provides an excellent understanding of the Christian position of Lennox. It is a thoughtful read that touches on specific and very important issues, such as who do you mean when you say "God"? Another thing that I really enjoyed in this book is that Lennox urges people to think for themselves. He wants people to follow where the evidence leads. Both science and Christianity are evidence-based. Lennox states that natural law is limited, and he is right. He states that Christianity is not blind faith, and he is also right. In the last section of the book, Lennox discusses the uniqueness of Christianity. That in itself would be a reason to buy this book. There are a lot of people who talk about unbias research, but few are brave enough to identify their bias and set them aside when evidence points to the contrary. Lennox helps to answer the important question, "Can Science Explain Everything?" Science cannot explain why we exist. Saying that we are just "lucky" or that we won the evolutionary lottery does not address this question and presumes a tremendous amount. It certainly does not explain humanity's existence. So, buy this short book and read it. I think that Christian or skeptic will find it an enjoyable intellectual experience.

I enjoy Dr Lennox's respectful yet scientifically based approach to explaining the rational approach to understanding the Bible and Jesus.

I disagree utterly with the conclusions of this author, and yet I will give this 5 stars. Why? If we put aside a more base assumption that a scientist and man of faith, bullied by atheists in higher education (p15), has a powerful motivation to not only prove them wrong but show that religion not atheism is the only worldview compatible with science (p49) we are left with a fascinating view into the mind of a religious scientist apologist. I’ll be more specific than the author at this point. He only really means a flavour of Christianity. When ‘religion’ ‘the supernatural’ or ‘God’ is mentioned I think he does the reader a disservice by cloaking his actual position, the later chapters make this apparent. So, Catholicism, Islam and all other theistic beliefs are effectively also ruled out by the tail end of the book. Surprisingly for an Oxford professor, the book is full of logical fallacies. I will attempt to highlight the three grossest offences but the common theme is one of cognitive dissonance. Correlation of worldview to scientific calibre or quality. “If science and God do not mix, there would be no Christian Nobel Prize winners.” p17 References are made to atheist and Christian Nobel laureates, so a reasonable case for showing no relationship between worldview and performance/compatibility with science. Apologies to the Muslim Nobel Laureate recipients, the opportunity to demonstrate that even contradictory faith positions allow meaningful contribution to our understanding of the universe to be made was not taken. Once banked, the author appears to have forgotten some of his opening arguments. “Science and God mix very well. It is science and atheism that do not mix.” p49 He assumes that smart people cannot believe foolish things. The same man that brought us Newtonian physics beloved in Biblical numerology and alchemy. Alchemy! Misunderstanding, or wilful mischaracterising of science, scientific method and protocols. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the entire book, is the focus on anecdotal stories and half arguments. The author manages somehow to touch on scientific method in an example of a controlled trial (p57) after rubbishing the very concept a mere 10 pages earlier. “One of the things that science has made us very familiar with is the controlled trial, especially in medicine.” He then goes on to illustrate a single-blind trial in he book of Daniel. And yet absolutely decides to omit why a controlled experiment, a single-blind trial was a method to produce evidence of a theory. Earlier in the book the author tell a charming tale. “What do you do science with?” “My mind,” say some, and others, who hold the view that the mind is the brain, say, “My brain”. “Tell me about your brain? How does it come to exist?” ‘By means of natural, mindless, unguided processes.” “Why, then, do you trust it?” I ask. “If you thought that your computer was the end product of mindless unguided processes, would you trust it?” “Not in a million years,” comes the reply. “You clearly have a problem then.” Indeed there is a problem, but a problem with increasingly good solutions. Our understanding of cognitive biases is so well established, they are actively used and exploited in many everyday situations: Science: Double-blind test protocols, peer review - Placebo Effect, Belief Bias, Confirmation Bias Marketing: £9.99 vs £10.00, ‘SALE’, Buy One Get One Free - Sunk Cost Fallacy, Anchoring, Framing Entertainment: Gambling, illusion acts, physic readings - Belief Bias, the barnum effect, Sunk Cost Fallacy We saw earlier in my review how I comprehensively deconstructed the author ’s assertions and proved he was fundamentally incorrect and incompetent in his arguments. If you dislike how I have summarised this review then you will take some exception to the goalpost-moving and cavalier approach the author takes to his argument structure. His argument for the supernatural appears to have two elements A design argument, which is as good for aliens (yes I know, who then made the aliens), Allah or any polytheistic belief. Specifically it is a biological complexity argument, but missing was the counter point. That there is observable evidence of complexity increasing over time via natural selection. Indeed this is supported by a remarkably rich set of DNA sequencing evidence showing commonality with many forms of life, although perhaps surprising if you thought that humans had the most genes. It turns out some ‘simple’ fleas and mosses are heavy hitters and outclass us in that regard. I’m possibly giving a bit too much credit, it’s more like. A menu is a complex set of words that wouldn’t occur naturally, so an intelligent human must have created it. DNA is like an unbelievable complicated word (‘the longest “word”ever discovered’ p50), so God must have created it. The second part is even less sound, it’s just a personal preference that he finds it too hard to believe ‘this claim stretches my rationality to breaking point’ compared to quoting the bible that said ‘God made it’. It is here that he makes a link between a human brain/mind that must have a supernatural source, and that thinking itself is therefore also supernatural. And his summary is “We saw earlier the existence of human reason is evidence of the supernatural.” p82 Well, that is not what I saw. And the rest I found the book to be an interesting and frustrating reading experience. There are many more flaws that could be highlighted: The hypocritical ad hominem attack on Professor Dawkins for his lack of professional psychiatry qualifications (so his use of the term delusion is outside of his area of expertise) yet he does not turn that lens on himself. The book being littered with anecdotal personal stories that pad rather than support a logical argument. In conclusion More points could be made but none would give you, dear reader, more clarity on my position. This is a collection of poorly presented Christian apologist arguments, with the motivation of the author clearly resented at the beginning. However to avoid falling for the fallacy fallacy I will just say that I did not feel that the burden of proof for Professor Lennox’s beliefs were met or that he managed to achieve the goal he set himself when this was written. Enjoy.

Enriching. Everybody should read this short book.

It is such a joy to read Prof. John Lennox's well-thought arguments that makes so much sense. It is not a difficult read. I can't help but praise him for his intellect. I also better understand how science (eventhough crucial for the modern world) simply cannot explain everything with objective emperical datas. Having said this, science never disprove the existence of God either. But we are increasingly being fed dishonest and frivolous claims in the name of science. And it is not simply true. I enjoyed the book. I hope you do too.

exceptionally wonderful book written by outstanding scientist

A great book which puts a lot of perspective on the argument that science and religion can not exist together. Well worth reading.

I've read a number of books on Apologetics ranging from the academic to the more general (For example and off the cuff - Alvin Plantinga, John Haldane, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, RC Sproul, Francis Collins, Tim Keller, Nabeel Qureshi, Greg Koukl and John Blanchard spring to mind). I have also watched numerous debates online and attended presentations, lectures and debates. It was at his presentation in the Town Hall in Oxford I 2019 that I purchased several copies of this, his most recent book. What John Lennox brings to the table is clarity and common sense. Written in plain english, this book is entertaining, humorous, but nevertheless persuasive. It's an excellent book for those finding their way through this discipline, whilst serving as a useful aide memoire for the more experienced.