The video features a conversation between an atheist and a reductionist, likely a scientist, during a dinner at Oxford. The speaker, identifying as an atheist and reductionist, proposes an experiment to challenge the other person's worldview. The experiment involves a menu, specifically the words "roast chicken." The speaker argues that the marks on the paper (the words) are meaningless in themselves and only gain meaning through learned association (English language). The reductionist initially struggles to explain how these marks convey the concept of roast chicken using only the physical properties of the paper and ink. After a period of silence, the reductionist admits it cannot be done, expressing surprise and disappointment, stating he had believed it was possible for 40 years in his laboratory. The speaker then contrasts this with the relatively short history of physics and chemistry (500-600 years), implying that other forms of understanding or meaning-making exist beyond purely scientific reductionism. The reductionist acknowledges the need for a 'mind' to bridge this gap.

Defend The Word

I'm an atheist. I'm a reductionist, and we have nothing to talk about, and we're going to have a miserable dinner. Why don't we do an experiment?

"What?"

"You heard me. Why don't we do an experiment?"

But he says, "This is dinner."

"Yes, but it's Oxford."

And he said, "What's the experiment?"

I picked up the menu. And he said, "What's the problem with the menu? Roast chicken."

"That's the problem."

"For you, not for me."

"Why?"

"R O A S T. Those are marks on paper."

"Yes, they are, but they say roast chicken."

"How do you know?"

"Well," he said, "I've learned English."

"You've learned English, and you give those marks a meaning, and you're a reductionist. Everything fits in chemistry."

"Okay, you explain to me how those marks convey the idea of roast chicken, and just use the material of the paper and ink."

Dead silence. After a minute or so, he said, "It cannot be done."

He was sharp enough to see that. But it was devastating for a man of his eminence.

"John." Now he's getting friendly. "I have been going to my laboratory for 40 years thinking that could be done." 40 years.

So he saw. He saw through it. He saw through it like that, like a flash.

And I said, "But physics and chemistry, properly spoken, have only been going 5 or 600 years."

He said, "It doesn't matter. You must have a mind."

An Atheist Scientist Couldn't Answer This — John Lennox

I'm an atheist.
I'm a reductionist, and we have nothing
to talk about, and we're going to have a
miserable dinner.
Why don't we do an experiment?
He said, "What?"
I said, "You heard me. Why don't we do
an experiment?"
But he says, "This is dinner." I said,
"Yes, but it's Oxford."
And
he said, "What's the experiment?" I
picked up the menu.
And he said, "What's the problem with
the menu? Roast chicken."
I said, "That's the problem." For you,
not for me. He said, "Why?" I said, "R O
A S T. Those are marks on paper."
"Yes, they are, but they say roast
chicken." I said, "How do you know?"
Well, he said, "I've learned English."
"You've learned English, and you give
those marks a meaning, and you're a
reductionist. Everything fits in
chemistry." I said, "Okay, you explain
to me how those marks convey the idea of
roast chicken,
and just use
the material of the paper and ink."
Dead silence. After a minute or so, he
said, "It cannot be done."
He was sharp enough to see that. But it
was devastating for a man of his
eminence. He said, "John." Now he's
getting friendly. "I have been going to
my laboratory for 40 years thinking that
could be done."
40 years.
>> So he saw He saw through it.
>> He saw through it like that, like a
flash. And I said, "But physics and
chemistry, properly spoken, have only
been going 5 or 600 years." He said, "It
doesn't matter. You must have a mind."

Get Our Mobile App

An Atheist Scientist Couldn't Answer This — John Lennox

Transcription