Genießen Sie diesen Titel jetzt und Millionen mehr, in einer kostenlosen Testversion

Nur $9.99/Monat nach der Testversion. Jederzeit kündbar.

Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben?: Eine kritische Analyse moderner Denkvoraussetzungen

Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben?: Eine kritische Analyse moderner Denkvoraussetzungen

Vorschau lesen

Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben?: Eine kritische Analyse moderner Denkvoraussetzungen

Bewertungen:
4/5 (4 Bewertungen)
Länge:
429 Seiten
5 Stunden
Herausgeber:
Freigegeben:
Dec 8, 2010
ISBN:
9783417219494
Format:
Buch

Beschreibung

Wenn man Richard Dawkins und anderen glauben soll, dann hat die moderne Wissenschaft Gott in die Ecke gestellt, "umgebracht" und schließlich begraben. Der Atheismus sei die einzig legitime Denkposition und die Vorstellungen von einem Schöpfer- und Erhaltergott eine verzichtbare Hypothese, die die Wissenschaft nur behindert.
In diesem anregenden und provozierenden Buch lädt der bekannte Mathematiker John Lennox ein, solche Thesen ernsthaft zu überdenken. Gott passt viel besser in die moderne Wissenschaft, als es sich manche Ideologen träumen lassen.
Eine durchgesehene und umfassend ergänzte Neufassung des seit Jahren bekannten Longsellers!
"Ein Muss für alle, die über die großen Fragen des Lebens nachdenken"
Alister McGrath

Stand: 9. Gesamtauflage 2009
Herausgeber:
Freigegeben:
Dec 8, 2010
ISBN:
9783417219494
Format:
Buch

Über den Autor


Ähnlich wie Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben?

Ähnliche Bücher


Rezensionen

Was die anderen über Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben? denken

3.8
4 Bewertungen / 4 Rezensionen
Wie hat es Ihnen gefallen?
Bewertung: 0 von 5 Sternen

Leser-Rezensionen

  • (5/5)
    Lennox carefully pieces together the case for not just a defence of God, but the necessity of an intelligent designer (such as the revealed Hebrew/Christian God). He considering the limits of science and how scientism is raging, he then considers objections from cosmology, physics, biology, and information theory that each show why there are extremely good grounds for doubting macro-evolution or evolution as the means by which life itself came to be. Instead he shows how it is much more plausible to see the hand of an intelligent designer at work. Throughout he quotes from distinguished international scientists, though sometimes these quotes are rather old and I wonder if they are still relevant. Assuming he is quoting accurately (which in my experience he seems to be for Dawkins), then those by themselves are strong evidence that the scientific community is nowhere near as happy with all aspects of evolution, as we've been led to believe. There are some places where he goes on too long, or introduces unnecessary asides, but hopefully these can be corrected in a future edition. Highly recommended for anyone wanting to know how the New Atheists are over-reaching, or where Intelligent Design has a space to play.
  • (4/5)
    Strong on the physical evidence for the anthropic principle but basically opposed to the theory of what he calls macroevolution. He is very good on the philosophical background to modern thought and says it is inclined to materialism and thus against theism. He shows that natural selection can hardly to be used to account for the developments of anything before reproduction began so proteins and DNA are hard to account for. He does not face the evidence for evolution from more primitive species in the detail of the genome, something that other writers accept as proof of macroevolution. Likes quoting other scientists who are sceptical of evolution but explains their views thoroughly. I hope they are as significant as he says, certainly it was interesting to see that quite a lot of experts don't take evolution as the easy answer for everything that has happened.
  • (2/5)
    A little too turgid and ranty - much like the author if you've seen him present.
  • (4/5)
    Strong on the physical evidence for the anthropic principle but basically opposed to the theory of what he calls macroevolution. He is very good on the philosophical background to modern thought and says it is inclined to materialism and thus against theism. He shows that natural selection can hardly to be used to account for the developments of anything before reproduction began so proteins and DNA are hard to account for. He does not face the evidence for evolution from more primitive species in the detail of the genome, something that other writers accept as proof of macroevolution. Likes quoting other scientists who are sceptical of evolution but explains their views thoroughly. I hope they are as significant as he says, certainly it was interesting to see that quite a lot of experts don't take evolution as the easy answer for everything that has happened.