The Bible tells Christians not to be of the world, sharing its distorted priorities, but it does call upon believers to be in the world, fully engaged. Many Christians have abdicated this mission. They have instead sought a workable, comfortable modus vivendi in which they agree to leave the secular world alone if the secular world agrees to leave them alone. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould proposed the terms for the treaty in his book Rocks of Ages when he said that secular society relies on reason and decides matters of fact, while religious people rely on faith and decide questions about values. Many Christians seized upon this distinction with relief. This way they could stay in their subculture and be nice to everyone.
But a group of prominent atheists-many of them evolutionary biologists-has launched a powerful public attack on religion in general and Christianity in particular; they have no interest in being nice. A new set of antireligious books-The End of Faith, The God Delusion, God Is Not Great, and so on-now shapes public debate. These atheists reject the Gould solution. They say that a religious outlook makes specific claims about reality: there is a God, there is life after death, miracles do happen, and so on. If you are agnostic or atheist, you have a very different understanding of reality, one that is formed perhaps by a scientific or rationalist outlook. The argument of the atheists is that both views of reality cannot be simultaneously correct. If one is true, then the other is false.
The atheists have a point: there are not two truths or multiple truths; there is one truth. Either the universe is a completely closed system and miracles are impossible, or the universe is not a closed system and there is the possibility of divine intervention in it. Either the Big Bang was the product of supernatural creation or it had a purely natural cause. In a larger sense, either the secular view of reality is correct or the religious view is correct. (Or both are wrong.) So far the atheists have been hammering the Christians and the Christians have been running for cover. It's like one hand clapping.
This is not a time for Christians to turn the other cheek. Rather, it is a time to drive the money-changers out of the temple. The atheists no longer want to be tolerated. They want to monopolize the public square and to expel Christians from it. They want political questions like abortion to be divorced from religious and moral claims. They want to control the school curricula, so that they can promote a secular ideology and undermine Christianity. They want to discredit the factual claims of religion, and they want to convince the rest of society that Christianity is not only mistaken but also evil. They blame religion for the crimes of history and for the ongoing conflicts in the world today. In short, they want to make religion-and especially the Christian religion-disappear from the face of the earth.
The Bible in Matthew 5:13-14 calls Christians to be the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world." Christians are called to make the world a better place. Today that means confronting the challenge of modern atheism and secularism. My new book What's So Great About Christianity, which is just hitting the stores, provides a kind of tool kit for Christians to meet this challenge. The Christianity that is defended here is not "fundamentalism" but rather traditional Christianity, what C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity," the common ground of beliefs between Protestants and Catholics. This Christianity is the real target of the secular assault.
I have written this book not only for believers but also for unbelievers. Many people are genuine seekers. They sense there is something out there that provides a grounding and an ultimate explanation for their deepest questions, yet that something eludes them. They feel the need for a higher sense of purpose in their lives, but they are unsure where to find it. Even though they have heard about God and Christianity, they cannot reconcile religious belief with reason and science: faith seems unreasonable and therefore untenable. Moreover, they worry that religion has been and can be an unhealthy source of intolerance and fanaticism, as evidenced by the motives of the September 11 terrorists. These are all reasonable concerns, and I address them head-on in this book.
This is also a book for atheists, or at least for those atheists who welcome a challenge. Precisely because the Christians usually duck and run, the atheists have had it too easy. Their arguments have gone largely unanswered. They have been flogging the carcass of "fundamentalism" without having to encounter the horse-kick of a vigorous traditional Christianity. I think that if atheists are genuine rationalists they should welcome this book. It is an effort to meet the atheist argument on its own terms.
Nowhere in this book do I take Christianity for granted. My modus operandi is one of skepticism, to view the claims of religion in the same open-minded way that we view claims of any other sort. The difference between me and my atheist opponents is that I am skeptical not only of the irrational claims made in the name of religion but also of the irrational claims made in the name of science and of skepticism itself.
Taking as my foil the anti-religious arguments of prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the others, What's So Great About Christianity shows the following: 1) Christianity is the main foundation of Western civilization, the root of our most cherished values. 2) The latest discoveries of modern science support the Christian claim that there is a divine being who created the universe. 3)
If you want to read more about the book, check out my website dineshdsouza.com
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 36)
1. fgI found real hot Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
fnoaicpyaq at 10:52AM on Jan 24th 2009
2. Holy Crap!!! What a great ideas there man... let burn the unbelievers... no really, I'm an atheist and I kinda wonder how you can call yourself educated. See just as you don't represent most Christians, Hitchens and those guys don't represent most atheists. Gould is absolutely right that we can live in peace, but as this country is based on freedom the ideas and values of Christianity shouldn't be forced down the throats of people like me. So although I assume this message board will soon have some ridiculous stuff, and I know you never actually read any of this stuff.... can't we all just get along?
Matt at 8:59AM on Oct 12th 2007
3. Matt - could not have said it better. I would like more evidence of the assertions made.
alan at 9:05AM on Oct 12th 2007
4. What a douche.
No offense to douches intended with the above comment.
Hey D'Moron. Let's all live by the old testament. Eye for an Eye. No more three strikes your out. How about steal and lose your food eating right hand? Maybe your corporatist-based fundies would say lose a pound of flesh for stealing from old ladies, inflating earnings or padding expense accounts. Maybe we should throw all money lenders to the ground. Maybe we should give up all of our earthly possessions and follow asses like yourself around the country while you promote your singular form of assination. May I suggest you be the first to live like Jebus and start pointing fingers?
RMWiersema at 9:07AM on Oct 12th 2007
5. The truth of the matter is that there has been, in the U.S., an ongoing assault on freedom of religion by the religious right, and D'Souza is part of that assault. He attempts to portray what is happening as the opposite: an assault on religion by the "secularists" that must be defended by true believers. But the real difference is this: "secularists", for the most part, whatever their individual religious beliefs, believe (as I do) in everyone's right to choose their own religion, or lack of religion, and that the state should remain neutral in this matter - and that, ultimately, my beliefs are nobody's business but my own. I can share them if I want but I don't have to if I don't. The goal of the religious right is ultimately to turn the country into a theocracy, of one form or another, whether stated outright or not. The books referred to by D'Souza, while attacking religious belief, (and count the number of such books vs. the number of books promoting religion - no contest!),which they have the right to do, do not espouse eliminating freedom of religion. That's the difference. Freedom of religion is fundamentally the right of everyone to practice religion in their own way, or not practice any at all. The best way to attain this is by creating an environment where the state is neutral in matters of religion. The religious right depicts a religion-neutral state not as being neutral, but one that is bias against religion and favoring "secularism" which they portray as if it was a kind of religion. They are wrong in this. They are arguing that the state, by being neutral, is actually anti-religious. This is an insidious but faulty argument - and one that reveals the rightists true desires: they want a state that is NOT neutral, but one that actively promotes religion - usually, their own religion, whether defined specifically (various forms of Christian fundamentalism)or more generally (any form of Christianity, as long as it's right-wing). It's as if I were to say, "I am a member of the XYZ church. XYZists want everyone to believe as we do. The government is anti-XYZ because they are permitting other religions to exist".
Ken S at 9:31AM on Oct 12th 2007
6. It's really hard to believe that a multi cellular creature was able to figure out that if it incorporated a liquid filled orb, and put some sensors behind it that it could detech photons in a clear, focused manner. and then create an organ that could decipher the input to determine the difference between food and rocks.
However, it's just as hard to believe that theres a Charlton Heston looking guy that talks through bushes, and created all the different languages because somebody built a tower.....
I don't know much about intelligent design, but I'm beginning to think that the answer lies somewhere near it.
Ken at 9:39AM on Oct 12th 2007
7. Dinesh just makes himself look like more of a fool every single time he writes an article. He's so terrified that people will stop believing in the tooth fairy that he has to scream about it and say "if you don't believe in the tooth fairy, you just want to do whatever you want without consequences!"
What an idiot.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:38AM on Oct 12th 2007
8. The above post is a classic example of how critics of the Judeo-Christian ethic mock the bible without really understanding what it's saying. "An eye for and eye" is easy to make fun of because it seems, to skeptics, to be endorsing barbarism. We've all seen the cute little bumper sticker about how this practice would leave us all "blind and toothless".
However, the real idea is that when we punish criminals we do so in direct proportion to the crime committed. If the criminal takes a human life, then their life is forfeited. Unlike Muslim countries, we don't chop the hands off petty thieves and pick-pockets because such a response would be disproportionate to the crime committed.
We have a system of laws in this country - which came about largely through Judeo-Christian influence - that are designed to punish crimes in a manner which is consistent with this principal.
One of the greatest advocates of prison reform in this country is Chuck Colson, an evangelical who spent some time in prison himself after the Watergate break-in. Colson endorses the idea of allowing petty offenders like pot smokers and other non-violent criminals to pay for their crimes through restitution and not incarceration. This would, of course, free up jail space for the really dangerous violent offenders.
Dave at 9:42AM on Oct 12th 2007
9. "This is not a time for Christians to turn the other cheek. Rather, it is a time to drive the money-changers out of the temple. The atheists no longer want to be tolerated."
I like this appropriation of Christian terminology, completely misused. Christians, Christ says, should always turn the other cheek -- so D'Souza is already not fulfilling a truly Christian requirement. Then, the idea of driving "money-lenders from the temple": taken literally: Christ drove out commercial transactions from the place of faith. Do you see the super-rich Christian community with its endless pledge drives doing that? As to using it as a metaphor (the atheists are "money-lenders"? the media is "the temple"???) it simply doesn't work. Since when is the media a holy place? Atheists aren't interested in "the temple" where people congregate to worship, the only temple the Christian needs to protect. Then there's the other meaning: "money-lenders" as "usurers" as Jews (those who charged interest on loans); which leads a charge (as with Coulter) against Jews for not backing the "right" God. I think Christians like D'Souza should just stick to their "temple" and not show the "cheek" of trying to reason about the real world and the conflict of faiths.
DB at 9:44AM on Oct 12th 2007
10. 6) Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history.
Forget about the Crusades, the Dark Age, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch hunts, and Nazi Germany -
Athiests are the problem.....
More people have died in the name of God than for any other reason - Remember, that the God of Islam is also the God of Chrisianity, The God of Abraham, and that people don't seem to care about the commonalities, but the differences.
It would be funny if it weren't so horrific. "Coke." "No, Pepsi." "Coke, you blue can loving freak!" "Pepsi, you red can loving nutjob!" "Thats it, it's on now...."
Bang.
Ken at 9:49AM on Oct 12th 2007
11. Of course there's nothing in science that makes miracles impossible. The question is, is there sufficient evidence to support that they've actually happened?
It's interesting that I run into people who accept that, say, Christ multiplied loaves and fishes, but suddenly recover their skepticism when asked about miracles that, say, Mohammed is alleged to have performed (including food and water multiplication, with similiar amounts of evidence).
There are plenty of reports of 'miraculous' healings - from basically all religions - but somehow none of them include documented cases of limbs regrowing, and many other diseases and injuries can be healed entirely with intra-universal causes.
There are plenty of anecdotal reports of the effectiveness of astrology, but somehow the effects vanish when it's studied with care and solid statistical techniques. The same thing happens with psychic powers and dowsing and so forth. And, oddly enough, the same thing happens with prayer - even the rare cases which appear to detect an effect are at the limits of statistical confidence, and never seem to be replicated in subsequent studies.
So, sure, miracles *could* happen - but why should anyone believe that they *do*, or *did*?
Ray Ingles at 9:56AM on Oct 12th 2007
12. Responding to Matt who wrote: “Hitchens and those guys don't represent most atheists. Gould is absolutely right that we can live in peace”
That is encouraging, but not good enough. When children are punished for saying a SILENT prayer over their own lunch, that is not “peace”. When children are not allowed to read a Bible on the school bus, that is not “peace”. When people say that “religion” should be kept private, and out of the schools and out of the public eye, that is not “peace”. When you say that our values and opinions are not welcome unless we leave our religious values out of the discussion, then, that is not “peace”. Even the ACLU disagrees with those sentiments.
You argue that as long as you treat all religions the same, then, it is OK. WRONG! Former Justice Sandra O’Connor (a “moderate”) said it best. (paraphrasing) “When you treat the religious differently from the secular, you are in violation of the First Amendment.”
Let me offer an example on a different topic: interracial dating. Years ago, when a “fundamentalist” university instituted a policy banning interracial dating, the government stepped in and stripped them of their tax-exempt status because the policy violated the 14th Amendment. How so? After all, the policy treated all races the same. The university did not restrict just blacks, or just Asians. The policy was “race neutral”. So, how did their policy violate the 14th Amendment? The courts ruled that simply because the policy made race an issue, the policy was in violation of the equal protection clause. The same applies to religion. You can try to justify the discrimination by claiming that it treats all religions the same. However, when you treat religion differently from nonreligion, you are in clear violation of the US Constitution.
(For the record, I do disagree with the university’s policy.)
ray at 10:01AM on Oct 12th 2007
13.
My last thoughts on the "popular" version of Chrisianity....
It's rather amazing that Chrisians call Jesus great, and that our society is based on Chrisianity - Yet our culture defines what it is to be a "man" is pretty much the polar opposite of what Christ taught. If you actually do what Jesus taught, you're a "coward", or "weak".
Ken at 10:05AM on Oct 12th 2007
14. Responding to RMWiersema (#4)
Your ranting is EXACTLY what DD is referring to.
You espouse "toleration" and then you lie and distort. I have not heard any one in America advocate as you claim. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnsotics, and Atheists all want a justice system that works. No credible person is calling for "cutting off the hand" for theft or "an eye for eye". Even Muslims in other countries do not advocate that policy.
Lies cal not lead to "peace".
ray at 10:12AM on Oct 12th 2007
15. Just wanted to say that as Christians, we are to continue to fight for the Lord and to be strong in the face of challenges. May Christians are being persecuted around the world by both religionists and non-religionists. These Christians truly believe that what they have faith in--the very person of Jesus and his loving work on the cross for US--is worth suffering for. Dinesh, keep you head held high as you seek to share the LOVE of Jesus with many who have not yet understood that YES, there is a God--and He truly loves them. To Matt, Alan, Ken and the others who wrote, God loves you and I pray that you will someday soon understand this reality.
Laurie at 10:20AM on Oct 12th 2007