I think a discussion of the limits of science is very crucial, and I think ‘Aunt Matilda’s Cake’ is a fine contribution to the discussion. I believe CS lewis, in ‘Mere Christianity’, states something like ‘you could know every scientific fact that is knowable, and it would neither prove nor disprove the existence of God’- my example: one could know every scientific fact about the Model T Ford without ever referring to Henry Ford. I tend to use the word ‘science’ to describe a system of knowledge that is wholly dependent on observation and measurement, preferably reproduceable or repeating observations and measurements, such as the movement of the planets among the fixed stars.  Accounts like Moses’ experience with the Burning Bush, Christ’s resurrection, or Mohammed’s encounter with the Archangel Gabriel are asserted as unique historical events, therefore outside the realm of scientific investigation. Does that mean that all such accounts are true? No, it simply means that science cannot provide us with a reliable method to decide which is true or which is false. Science’s limitations are really quite remarkable- in fact there is no way to scientifically demonstrate the existence of an objective reality external to our minds! Now, I’m not trained as a philosopher, so there may be a good philosophic disproof of solipsism, but for myself, I simply believe in the existence of an objective reality because it ‘makes sense to me’; but the important word here is ‘believe’- it is not demonstrated scientifically nor proved philosophically.

Hi everyone. This is my very first visit to this great place. 
Thank you for the neat info. 
<a >higgs boson</a>

SORRY, I RECTIFY: John Lennox Does not believe in Theistic Evolution… He is a great mind and yet does not swallow the descent of man and so on… praise God for people like him in academia today, I would like him to come to my country some day.. COLOMBIA! GREETINGS!

Amazing man of God!! I am thrilled by his encouragement and empowerment in this topics… tough I regret him believing in the evolution Theory as a Theistic Evolutionist would do. Anyway.. an amazing Lecturer and well-speaking man.

In response to Phillip Curtis - You’ve probably seen John Lennox’s video on this, “Same Evidence, Different Conclusions: How?”

I’m surprised that professor Lennox was caught off guard by this question, which really deals with the same point that you raised.

Are we to think that God overlooked that this stand off would happen?  Can we believe that God does not allow the materialist an outright victory but nevertheless, He concedes a stalemate?

What is needed is an indisputable tie-breaker.

That tie-breaker was provided.  It is Jesus’ resurrection.  That’s exactly what it is for.

Does someone dispute the resurrection?  Have a look at it.  The stalemate has not been yet achieved.

Hi everyone. In response to Bayani Mills, I feel his arguments/reasoning is valid, but only based on the assumption that the ‘scientists’ (all relative fields of science considered both jointly and severally) are hypothesising using, at best a limited no. of facts; granted that any hypothesis is limited only to the observable/available facts. What seems to be evident in all arguments surrounding any science vs theology debate (or any debate for that matter) is the respective parties faith in their supported ‘facts’. To some the bible is fact while to others it’s fiction and similarly to some results of , in this case, scientific hypothesis is fact while to the Christian they might as well be fiction because in many cases the proposed hypothesis is based in part on an hypothesis or many hypotheses. Black holes would be an example seeing that no-one has ever actually seen one or tested the hypothesis with definitive success or results. There exists a ‘belief’ in such phenomena based on hypotheses (a kind of scientific preaching if we are honest) but at the end of the day if reality is based on actual, observable, proven fact then by definition black holes do not exist and neither does God.

The bottom line is that all these arguments come down to where/what/who one puts their faith in. To some it’s an all-powerful God & Creator and to others it’s pure chance and supposition. Someone once said that if you can argue someone into the Kingdom of God then someone can argue them out of it. I believe that we cannot change someone’s belief, just their understanding of the ‘facts’ of their belief. If their belief is weak then they will sway like a reed in the wind. If it’s strong then only divine revelation will change their minds/hearts.

Incidentally, that’s how all Christians became Christians. Not through their own understanding, intellect, knowledge or behaviours but through God’s divine influence on their lives

Andy, I hope I haven’t misunderstood you, but I’m a little confused by your criticism of this (admittedly rather casual) analogy. The reason Lennox only mentions physicists, chemists, etc, is because their only evidence consists of the cake itself (the cake, remember, represents the entire Universe). The sociologists and psychologists you mention would be bringing external knowledge to the table - that of birthday party customs, children, and outside language. They would be appealing to knowledge of entities and practices beyond the cake itself (why not just ask Matilda?).

Like all analogies I think it breaks down eventually, but the point is a simple one; science, by it’s legitimate application, can’t even hope to describe realms that are beyond it’s sphere of potential observation and testing (heck, history of our own world is a stretch). If there is a God of the Christian understanding, the hard sciences would be blind and impotent in regard to Him and His purposes.

Returning to the cake analogy, in absence of even knowing there was an Aunt Matilda, I can already picture the fierce debates that would rage between scientists over whether the cake was created, or whether it arose serendipitously by the chance mixing of basic ingredients in conducive conditions.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but towards the end of your comment it sounded like you were confusing the issue of epistemology discussed here, with the question of why humans believe in God sociologically (which is beyond the scope of Lennoxs’ original point, so I won’t address it now). Am I reading you right? God bless.

Since I do not have access to the auditory component of this video due to my current hardware, I am going off of the passage from God’s Undertaker that deals with Aunt Matilda. My concern with this analogy is that the only scientists that appear to be analyzing her cake are physicists, nutrionists, and chemists. What of sociologists (to explain the phenomenon of birthday celebrations), linguists (writing on the cake), psychologists (children and sweet toothes/teeth)? There are many sciences which are attuned to the behavior of intelligent agents, and it should be noted that pretty much all of these have nothing to say concerning the veracity God hypothesis.* Surely, if there was all this prima facie evidence to support the God hypothesis, these sciences would have _something_ to say about it.

(Yes, I am the same Andy that commented over a year ago. This is a new objection to Lennox with no intended connection with the last one.)

*Not entirely true. When the hypothesis is addressed, it is usually in objection.

From what I heard, Prof. Lennox takes a brief look at the implications of a God in science while accepting an unsupported major premises.

He is correct that chemist will reduce the cake to chemical compounds, and he is correct to say that the physicist will reduce it to elementary particles.

However, the question professor Lennox asks of the scientists is WHY his Aunt Mildred made the cake; but this is not a scientific question.

Why is it not for Science?

1) It is a theological question.
2) It is a loaded question.

In respect to my second point, one must first accept that Aunt Mildred made the cake to answer the question.

This is a logical fallacy.

It is akin to asking:
“Do you still beat your wife?”

No matter the answer, the person being asked must accept that he beats his wife in the first place.
-- It implies an unsupported pretence.

Perhaps the person being questioned has never beaten his wife; But the question ends with the implication that it is true to begin with.

In addition, the scientists do not know the actual origins of the cake.

Only Professor Lennox tells them that Aunt Mildred baked it.
We cannot accept his story at face value; because he may indeed be lying.

Science must firstly form an hypothesis, and perform tests and inquire to fond out if that hypothesis is correct.

If their theory is not supported, they must change whatever parts of their theory is not believed to be correct and continue to test till their theory is the best supported explanation of the origin of the cake.

Professor Lennox then tries to draw parallels between a cake and the universe—which goes back to my point his question being one of Theology, not science.

He does however point out HIS belief, that God created the world and Gods reason for doing so are in the book of Revelations.
-- Professor Lennox does not go on to say that his belief is supported by any kind of Scientific Evidence, but rather the Bible.

This furthers my point that his question is one of theology—not one of scientific investigation.

The title of the sound-byte is accurate though.
It does show the limitations of science.

He demonstrates that science does not deal with theology - Which is correct.

Some examples, dear Terry?

Professor Lennox,

I enjoy your written work, your videos, and your debates - thank you! I have, however, one tiny quibble with Aunt Matilda’s cake. The cake illustrates the limits of some of the sciences, to be sure. Physicists will describe the cake in terms of elementary particles; chemists will describe the various elements and their bonding; biochemists will describe the structures of the proteins; and so on. I agree with you that the sciences will not and cannot explain WHY Aunt Matilda made the cake (i.e., her purpose, which is to make her cousin Fred happy) unless Aunt Matilda reveals this (via, say, a written or spoken revelation concerning her intentions). But - and here is my quibble, finally - it seems to me that, although science cannot tell us WHY Aunt Matilda made the cake, science should be able to tell us THAT she made the cake.

It seems to me that along with what the chemists and physicists and mathematicians tell us, science should be able to tell us that an INTELLIGENT CAUSE made the cake. I am thinking here of sciences such as archaeology (which can tell us that an arrow head or cave painting is made by an intelligent cause rather than mere erosion) and forensic science (which can tell us ‘who dunnit’, i.e., that the cause of death was an intelligent cause rather than ‘natural causes’) and SETI (which can in principle tell us whether a message from outer space is probably caused by an intelligent agent such as ET or not). By investigating the cake’s features that are clearly analogous to what we know minds have designed we should also be able to discern THAT the cake was made by an intelligent agent, though we may not know all of the purposes of that agent in his/her making the cake.

So Aunt Matilda’s cake illustrates the limits of science and it illustrates the need for the Intelligent Design hypothesis in science.

That’s my two cents’ worth. I hope it’s helpful.

Again, thanks for your written work, your videos, and your debates - your work is a wonderful breath of fresh air. I pray that God blesses you and yours.

One of the most amazing things to me about God is that He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient and yet despite having all these infinite qualities He is still able to hide Himself.

It took me years to come to a knowledge of salvation. I didn’t just walk into it. I had to seek the truth out. The engine driving me was a basic intuition that the truth would be something that, by its very nature, a person would know it when they encountered it.

Both the fact that God hides Himself and that the truth requires seeking out are attested to in the scriptures.

God is Holy. He cannot lie to Himself. He cannot pretend that everyone wants to know Him. If He were to advertise Himself in such a way that everyone would automatically be convinced of His existence He would have to pretend that everyone indeed wants to know Him. Not everyone wants to know God. Hitchens speaks very dispairingly about the God of the Bible (as one clear example). Thus He would have to lie to Himself, which thing God cannot do. He will grant people such as Hitchens their desire, should they persist in not wanting to know God.

Therefore, the cosmos is set up in such a way that God is able to hide Himself and reveal Himself as He wills, to those with an honest desire to know Him.

Well explained and concise. To Robert Stovold, I agree with your comment, although you failed to understand what he meant. As, he says that his Aunt had made a cake for a ‘reason’. Of course if it said Happy Birthday on the cake it would be fairly obvious what it meant, obviously that also means that the person who baked the cake, intended to reveal what he or she meant. So it’s not a half-baked argument as he clearly says that the cake’s Baker has a reason, which a scientist’s rational break up of the chemical compounds does not explain.
Even with psychology, there is no clear way of analysing a human with out human interaction, or actually Probing for information directly with the patient.
So clearly even psychologists wouldn’t be able to fully predict a persons intentions without any evidence left behind by the by individual.

Regards
Keenan

Most scientists don’t study purpose, but psychologists do.  If the cake had “Happy Birthday” written on it, one wouldn’t have to be much of a psychologist to realise that it was intended as a birthday present.  Similarly, if it had cyanide in it, one could reasonably conclude that the baker was intending to kill the cake’s recipient.  So the cake argument does look rather half-baked!

To truly understand the motivation behind “The God Delusion” please read what St Paul has to say in I Corinthians I verses 18-31 ("Christ the power and the wisdom of God"):

“(23) As for us,we proclaim the Crucified Christ,a message that is offensive to the jews and nonsense to the Gentiles..”

St Paul, the former enemy of Jesus, now empowered by GOD’s Spirit makes it perfectly clear that the message of the cross is “(18)..nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is GOD’S power”. The greatest delusion of all is to misuse the God-given gift of reason to reject the truth.

“And so God sends the power of error to work in them so that they believe what is false” 2 Thessalonians 2 v 11

The author of “The God Delusion” has effectively painted himself into a corner with a Nietzschean disregard for Christianity; Belief in God for me is a combination of an intelligent reading of scripture (objective truth) coupled with (subjective) personal experience. It requires Wisdom and Humility rather than cleverness (the great mistake of the humanists who have made REASON into a god). An obsession with trying to convince people that GOD is a delusion is of course itself a delusion; it is certainly not my understanding of Atheism (as a “failed former Atheist” it seemed to me that Agnosticism was more reasonable, until I read the Bible for myself).

The marvellous debate between Prof. Dawkins and Prof. Lennox in the great ‘GOD delusion debate"(2007) could neatly be summarized by JAMES 3 verse 13-18 ("The Wisdom from above").

If Intellectual Humility is the key to understanding GOD then Intellectual pride is the way to totally misunderstanding HIM. GOD is certainly real; If you could prove GOD exists using science, then of course your GOD-given free-will would be untenable.

To read the media in Australia, it is a fait accompli that Dawkins & Hitchens have WON - no more debate, God doesn’t exist (a bit like the theory of evolution); so it is refreshing, as a Christian, to find such a learned man, in pure mathematics, philosophy & theology going into the lion’s den of Unbelief and giving a fantastic account of himself. When I debate with athiests, the moral high ground is always taken because I - a loony Christian, has no real science or scientists to back up my beliefs. Not anymore, I now have a ‘living treasure’ in John Lennox to back me up in fighting the good fight. Thank God for you, Mr.Lennox!

What John Lennox says here makes total sense to me. Reading the posts further down it becomes clear that it does not make sense to everybody. But would there be ever anything that makes sense to everybody? If it makes sense to me, I can only try to explain why it does so. I can’t explain why it does not to others, because I am not them, I can’t see their reasons for that it does not make sense. We can only try to explain ourselves. What the partner in the conversation makes of it, is entirely up to him.
For instance, I don’t know what C.Serv means when he says that the Bible makes sense but is not true. May be, if he knows what is true, he may want to share it with mankind one day.
I can’t see why for Andy the cake analogy falls down. Lennox shows with it that the scientists cannot deduct Matilda’s intention by analysing the cake. Therefore they cannot deduct God’s intention by analysing God’s creation.
We all may express what we believe, but when it comes to proof we don’t get anywhere. Proof would be the ability to force someone else to believe. You can proof mathematic theorems, but nothing else really.
Terry thinks that the Bible is full of inconsistencies. The question is always: where are the inconsistencies? Are they the Bible’s, or Terry’s? Would scientists attribute inconsistencies to nature? No, they can only belong to a mind. And why are we always tempted to think that our fellow man harbours the inconsistency, not we ourselves? (For those who read the Bible: remove the beam in your own eye, before you offer to help remove the splinter in your brother’s.)
I for one enjoy Lennox’s arguments thoroughly. He is a profound thinker. He makes me think. I enjoy when he tells the truth how he sees it. He inspires me to find the truth by thinking myself. He could not really do anything else, and nobody else could do more.

Why yes, the bible quite often makes sense. It just happens to not be true. My claim that I am both the king of rock is easy enough to grasp by even a child, and has no logical inconsistencies but is false. Much like the claim that jesus is king of the universe, a ten year old can understand it but then laugh in your face about how silly that is. Just because the bible doesn’t say nothing but, x is y and x is not y does not mean its true.
On the same note those scientists were more than able to deduce the cake was designed by an intelligent force, strangely they have not done the same with our universe.

Hi Terry,

Just a thought concerning the bible, please read Matt 19:3-9! This is a good passage to analyze and consider! Why? Well, here we read about a few different characters, first Jesus, then the religious leaders, Pharisees, then Moses and his written record.

After reading this you have a number of options you must try to either prove or dis-prove these statements. Where do you start, can we disprove that Christ walked the earth, many historians state Jesus Christ indeed did, in fact even Albert Einstein said “I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

Then what about the tradition of the Pharisees, well to doubt their tradition would be equal to doubting that the Jewish tradition ever started!

What about Moses! Again, the Muslim, Jewish and Christian traditions all believe in him. It seems that even Jesus Christ by saying “Did you not read...” regarded Moses’ writings as sound.

So where do we go from here? I would suggest that you continue to dis-credit the bible and in so doing you might find a few answers!

There are indeed different sources of information.  A whole host of them were written by middle eastern mystics 1400-2500 years ago with none being any more reasonable than another.  The cake baking analogy does fall down somewhat in that God (and possibly his saintly agents) have been interceding in the affairs of the world ever since he created it, supposedly to answer countless prayers (although not e.g. to eliminate pain and suffering.  His record appears entirely random). 
Analogously, aunt Matilda will be interfering with the cake and scientists would be able to understand something about her by the fingerprints and cuts that she leaves.  We don’t have such evidence in the real world of god’s fingerprints - I strongly suspect because there is no god.  And why does the universe exist?  For no particular reason at all - just like you and me.