Can science and faith coexist? (Responses to the debate)

On 18 February 2015, John Lennox participated in an event where he discussed ‘Can science and faith coexist?’ with the agnostic scientist, John Horgan. The discussion, which was organised by the Veritas Forum and held at the Stevens Institute of Technology, then continued beyond the debate. Horgan wrote an article on the Scientific American website elaborating his views further (which can be read here), thereby prompting a response from Lennox (which can read here).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



11 Comments on “Can science and faith coexist? (Responses to the debate)

  1. I am very impressed by the arguments presented by Dr Lennox, shedding light on the darkness that threatens our universities.

  2. So happy that science has not deceived some people…..it is very simple, God has already told us that His ways are far from ours, hope the world would stop confusing itself and embrace its maker…at least even science agrees that life begets life in the theory of biogenesis……more grace Prof Lennox….the truth is, God’s existence cannot be fathomed using logic, hence faith…indeed, He is a frustrater of the wise….may God help us to obey His harmless commandments without questions..tanx

  3. The comments of John Lennox are so powerful! The miracles of God can be experienced in the soil of the earth, the stars above, life, the air we breathe plus the way God touches our souls! God is Almighty.. forever.

  4. SO ELEGANTLY PUT SIR JOHN LENNOX! I HAVE JSUT PREEMPTED THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND!

    YOU HAVE ENRICHED MY SOUL MORE THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOU ARE GOD’S MESSENGER.

  5. Both you and Mr. Horgan cannot express yourselves outside of the vocabulary of religion, whichever side you are respectively arguing. So much on both sides is expressed in assumptions of what can and cannot exist under one philosophy or the other. I haven’t the space to even present an alternate set of ideas, but such exist and without the intentional ambiguities of false uncertainty. I would welcome a broader conversation, but hopefully this much will bring at least some interest.