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 35 of 36)
511. Responding to Brian in #500:
I expected such an answer.
As I read through this nblog and others, I see one particular criticism over and over from the atheists. You criticize believers for their "circular logic". And for the record, depending on the specific circumstances and claims made, sometimes I agree with the atheist's criticism.
However, you just committed the same offense.
You just argued that you can not believe in God because He does not measure up to YOUR expectations. You have created your own image in your mind as to what an acceptable God should be and because the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob does not fit your image, you deny his existence.
That is illogical. I might share your idea of what God should be like. All of us might agree with you. However, our beliefs in what God SHOULD be like have no bearing on His existence.
Now, suppose you say, "I accept His existence, I just refuse to worship Him and obey Him." Well, then there is some level of logical reasoning. Although, I would call it "rebellion".
ray at 10:46PM on Oct 16th 2007
512. Ray two-truths.. you say, "
Option a = God exists (the theist’s position)...
Option c = I do not know. (the agnostic’s position)
Using just ONLY the “evidence” what is my decision?
Option c!
If I wish to interject my own faith into the decision, then, I will decide Option a.
(SEE... there's that two-truths thingy!!! Can you see it now???)
Are we clear now? Crystal clear?"
ray two-truths constrains us to be precise in our language... logical in our thoughts and such...
... to ensure this he takes an authoritative stance/position... "Whoooo's a smart pboy... unless you disagree... Whoooo's a smart pboy... nuh-uh... not with that illogical thinking."
(Imaginary pboy), "Don't want the 'master' to be disappointed in me now...!!!"
(The 'master') "Do you see how complimentary I could be... if only, if only.. you would accept the only view possible... the I don't know view!!"
(Imaginary pboy) "OH 'master'... you're SOOO right... we all don't know.. do we???"
(The 'master') "Speak for yerself shithead... I KNOW!!"
pboyfloyd at 11:04PM on Oct 16th 2007
513. Brian,
you are in a unique position of having a dynamic reality. One thing Christians and atheists (the ‘proof’ based atheists that post on this forum) do seem to agree on is that reality is somewhat static. At least thats my perspective and I’ve repeatedly heard atheists claim that if there were proof of god or that Jesus was who we say he was, they’d accept it.
But you, believing that this world is made up of our thoughts, are actually able to decide that the “real god in my universe” wouldn’t do whatever it is you feel a god shouldn’t do. Additionally you allow for the possibility that Jesus did miracles and people who believe themselves to be christians, or not, could end up in heaven or hell.
Given this I don’t see why you have a problem with Christians, it is what it is. Their (our) god is real because we think he is, so we really should follow him, or else, even if it sucks (which it doesn’t as much as you seem to think).
bigTuna at 11:09PM on Oct 16th 2007
514. @ My metallic 'friend ... 506/507
Observation noted(*shrug*)...
... but then you say, "You are correct in your assertion that "something can't come from nothing".
So, I guess we can expect you to be telling us where GOD came from, then???
..or where HE is NOW?
.. or what defines 'life' in the Realm of B'lief(outside of time and space)?
... or why ray two-truths wants atheists to 'take his hand' and 'admit' that 'we don't know' ... so badly... then opt for a positive view...( OOOO ... that was a surprise there ray...LOL...)?
I'm not holding my breath!!!
pboyfloyd at 11:25PM on Oct 16th 2007
515. Believe as you will and let me!
Linda at 12:11AM on Oct 17th 2007
516. A Challenge to Believers--and Unbelievers + Believe as you will and let me! = Waste of a comment.
Got that, Linda?? ( In case you were planning of effing up the comment numbers by 'updating' your pointless comment two or three times in the hopes that your 'brilliance' would be noted.)
NOTE TO THEISTS... Linda doesn't claim God as real or otherwise.. right?
pboyfloyd at 12:17AM on Oct 17th 2007
517. pboy,
you are correct, I mean I can't speak for ray but yes, I want you to take my hand, admit you can't be 100% sure that god doesn't exist, and then I guess thats it. You can let go of my hand anytime now. The positive view may or may not come, but it least dialog is possible. Not that you don't respond but I just have to be more concerned with breaking some debating rule than getting my facts straight. (btw, number 1 result on google search for debate tactics, http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html, shows that you are very guilty of breaking the rules).
I do think I've figured out why there is so much contention concerning who has the burden of proof. We see things totally differently. You look at this world and don't see a creator, you see natural selection, cause and effect, chemical reactions, or whatever, but no god. I’m not going to argue about how you see things.
I look at it and see a complicated machine, a collection of rules that we base the laws of physics on that are so complete and perfect I honestly can't conceive of there not being intelligence behind them. I look at my car, a technical achievement for today, and it looks like rudimentary machine compared to what makes up living creatures. It’s how I see it, and I have a science degree and sufficient education to know how things work so its not like I think everything is just ‘magic’ or something.
So when you say you can’t believe in god without proof, it makes sense. It makes equal sense when I say you’d have to prove to me there isn’t one.
bigTuna at 12:30AM on Oct 17th 2007
518. Responding to Pboy (#503)
Was not trying to “build you up”. But, you did let me down. Oh, don’t sweat it. I’ll get over it.
“count how many times you have called me a liar.. a hypocrite, infantile, pea-brained etc...”
Oh, I remember and I have no regrets. Based on your posts, you deserved every single insult. I showed some of your posts to some atheist friends and they asked me why I was even bothering with you. They echoed the opinions of Tem and Wes and Heathen and others who have behaved respectfully. They asked me not to think less of them because on the behavior of you and Capeetan and Knight two-truths. You have indeed been an embarrassment to the other atheists.
Why did I post those “butter-up” comments? Because I did expect better from you. You behavior on these blogs has not been as bad as Capeetan and Knight. But, if you object and wish to be cast into the same bucket with them, I am willing to oblige.
” France … they don't seem to have as much prisoners per capita as the USA which purports to use the opposite system.... “
Now THAT’S a red herring! But, never mind!
I have no desire to give much time to the question of 'where the universe came from', nor its nature, yada yada.
Am I curious? Yes. But, I am also curious about a tiny portion of that universe we call Earth and there is so much here on Earth we do not understand. The thing is, we are in a far better position to increase our understanding of the Earth than we are to increase our understanding of the universe and where it came from. And most important, the understandings of the Earth are more likely to help us deal with the problems we face than anything we learn from the rest of the universe. Look at the problems immediately before us. Do you have any hope of solving those problems by pondering into the heavens? Is it a waste of time? No. If it gives you some personal satisfaction or fulfillment, knock yourself out.
As I read the posts with comments about the universe, God, metaphysics, existence, ontology, cosmology, laws of science (snicker), etc., I began to develop some opinions about the discussion and the participants.
First, as far as I could tell, none of you, on either side of the discussion, really understood the topics. Some of you have probably read a few books &/or magazines, perhaps took a course or two. Yet, it appears that you had simply memorized some words and were regurgitating what the experts claimed without ever really understanding. Perhaps I am wrong.
Secondly, as bigTuna pointed out, you need to pursue the answer and most of you, especially the atheists, seemed more concerned about winning the debate. Why do I believe that? For starters, you seldom bothered to define your terms. That is one of the basic principles of true academic discourse. And you relied more on assertions than explanations.
Third, I was fascinated by an apparent contradiction in your perspectives. Many atheists and evolutionists appear to have the perspective that evolution is a fundamental foundation for all of science. Their perspective suggests that if evolution was removed from the academic curriculum, all of science will crumble. The problem is, evolution is the new kid on the block. Most sciences have been around for centuries, even millennia. Astronomy for one. You have spent much time debating a field of science that was established by the ancients. To be blunt, the ancients knew more about the universe than “modern” scientists, at least until the Renaissance. So, how can evolution be so critical to the rest of the science field?
But, you seem to want to engage me on this topic. Just to play along, I’ll throw out a few questions.
Now I understand that once you leave our tiny portion of the universe, our “science laws” lose some credibility, but, if that is the case, then, how can we make any conclusion or generate any theory about the universe? OK, here goes:
(A) Per the law of Inertia (Newton’s first law), F = ma
If the universe is expanding, at an accelerating rate, that means that there must be a force CONTINUALLY (though not necessarily at a constant level) acting on the elements of the universe as they expand. What is the source of that force?
(B) Our basic understanding of thermodynamics generates at least two fundamental “truths”. Left alone, without outside agents:
1. a system becomes less ordered (entropy increases)
2. any imbalances within the system (heat, potential energy, mass, concentration) will seek equilibrium.
If the universe is infinitely old, then, the universe should have already reached that equilibrium a long time ago. Correct?
(C) Some experts claim that the universe is not actually “expanding”, but is “stretching”. I struggle to make the distinction, but, I am trying. Well, if that is true, does that mean our solar system is also expanding? Or, is our system itself moving through the cosmos in a “fixed” state? I’ve heard that the moon is actually moving away from the Earth VERY SLOWLY. Something like 2” / year. Is this a result of the expanding universe or is it due to some other causal agent?
Pboy wrote: “I claim that you are a murderer... if you claim different... prove that you are not!”
I can not disprove your claim. Believe it if you wish.
And if I was to make the same claim about you, you could not disprove my claim. So, why do you bother? Why don’t you spend time on things that will really make a difference?
ray at 2:41AM on Oct 17th 2007
519. Ray...
I'm not sure if you think that i discussed the expansion of the universe with bigTuna or not... I'm going to go with 'not'... but if you could 'copy and paste' me discussing it ... please go ahead and do that.
You say, "Case 4: You claim that while the universe’s rate of expansion is accelerating, the rate of acceleration is decreasing.
(Did I claim that anywhere... copy and paste ray..)
Some terms:
D = distance across the universe
V = velocity of universe’s expansion = dD/dt
A = acceleration of universe’s expansion = dV/dt
You claim that dA/dt < 0.
(I don't think that that is true ray...
a) that I made such a claim to bigTuna
or b) that if the increasing acceleration was slowing... that the instantaneous increasing acceleration or derivative of the increasing acceleration would be necessarilly less than zero.
I think that you're bluffing here ray.)
bigTuna denies that.(copy and paste ray... where you say that I say that and where he denies it... please.)
In comment 516 you say, " Most sciences have been around for centuries, even millennia.
(You don't say if you imagine that astronomy has 'been around' for millennia... or if you imagine the 'being around' means that you imagine astronomy being studied. Are you being deliberately vague here?)
Astronomy for one. You have spent much time debating a field of science that was established by the ancients.
(Honestly, ray.. I don't recall spending any time at all debating astronomy with bigTuna or anyone at all on this blog... copy and paste ray)
To be blunt, the ancients knew more about the universe than “modern” scientists, at least until the Renaissance.
(Ray, that is such a vague claim that it is practically meaningless... the ancients knew more about the universe until somewhere between the 14th and 17th Centuries.. large deal, the ancients wouldn't have to know much... once again, do you imagine that they were studying astronomy all this time?)
So, how can evolution be so critical to the rest of the science field?
(Well, ray... evolution is not 'critical' to the rest of science... science is 'critical' to evolution... that is why I don't understand how it could be so easily disparaged by creationists.
Evolution is to the sciences as the quadratic equation is to algebra. If all the pieces of algebra were not there... where would the quadratic equation be? Similarly chemistry, biology etc. ... well, it would be so easy to blow evolution 'out of the water'... if it weren't true and all the sciences DIDN'T back it up.
Don't forget ray, there are plenty of Christians that have 'reconciled' any differences they might have concerning evolution and religion... if evolution were on as shakey ground as some would imagine then nobody, not Christians, not Christian scientists, nobody would be believing it.)
But, you seem to want to engage me on this topic.
(copy and paste ray... I'm confused.. Did I try to engage you or bigTuna in a discussion of astronomy or evolution... I can't remember for the life of me doing that!!!)
pboyfloyd at 4:24AM on Oct 17th 2007
520. @ ray again...
You say, "Pboy wrote: “I claim that you are a murderer... if you claim different... prove that you are not!”
I can not disprove your claim. Believe it if you wish."
So ray... you claim to be 'not a murderer'. What makes you different than any of the people on death row that also claim that they too, are each, 'not a murderer???
You know, it probably wouldn't surprise me, or you to think that Stalin, Hitler and Mao et al also claimed to be 'not a murderer' just the same as you, ray!!!
Any social darwinist would also claim to be 'not a murderer'.
Now that I've painted you like Stalin, Hitler and Mao... and as a social darwinist... don't you feel like confessing.... ray?
pboyfloyd at 4:54AM on Oct 17th 2007
521.
@ bigTuna...
I said, "512. @ My metallic 'friend ... 506/507
... or why ray two-truths wants atheists to 'take his hand' and 'admit' that 'we don't know' ... so badly... "
To which you replied...
"515. pboy,
you are correct, I mean I can't speak for ray but yes, I want you to take my hand, admit you can't be 100% sure that god doesn't exist, and then I guess thats it."
... are you bigTuna admitting to being ManofMettl then... is that it?
Forgetting that... you say anyway...
"...but it least dialog is possible.."
Well, bigTuna, ManOfMettl... the truth, the one single plain truth is that there is an uncrossable chasm between you and me.
You can close your eyes and say something like, "God, help me understand this confusing nightmare that you have seen fit to place me within... show me my purpose..."
Whereas I think, "God, what god? No matter how rich and beautiful/handsome... no matter how poor and ugly... death is gonna be the great equalizer... 'cos dead is dead... out of the blue and into the black... once you're gone, you... don't ... come... back!"
... I'm cool with that man, you should be too.
pboyfloyd at 5:42AM on Oct 17th 2007
522. me being Manofmttl? no sir, was just agreeing with the sentiment. I'd say you were paranoid, what with the comment manipulation theories but I'd have to admit, when I first came across this forum I had this theory that Dinesh was Knight (or you) and would come on and mess with people to boost the comments. After reading more comments I decided thats not likely.
I think we've closed out this particular blog.
bigTuna at 11:47AM on Oct 17th 2007
523. Your god is as imperfect as his people now are.
You didn't understand my "simplest explanation" at all by the way. What you didn't get, or maybe you just didn't mind, is that if true, you're all worshipping an illusion that is only sustained by you thinking that it's real. It has no existence, other than in your heads. Which seems fine to you. But he's not a good imaginary god, or even a nice imaginary god, he's apparently psychotic! And his "Worship me or else!" attitude isn't that of a real god, unless you're talking a DARK god... You guys have all started to worship satan but calling him god, without knowing it, is the problem here. You're not intelligent enough to even know that you've switched, either. Look at what you've wrought in this world! You've caused very evil people to come to power now, because you thought they'd be good christian leaders, and as soon as they got elected they thumbed their noses at you and sought to consolidate ultimate power for themselves and their cronies! See! You're so dumb! We all saw what the neocons were doing, except you, the blind ones. You're about as smart as mice, churchmice apparently, but you've got balls. Between your ears, you've got your balls. You're all walking jokes, brainless believers that can't do anything BUT believe and fulminate at those smart enough not to, since you're all so delusional.
Getting tired of this, so I guess you're winning the argument. I'm not used to arguing with the brain-dead, and it's tiring. Is that how you win? By saying what you think no matter what others say, and just outlasting them with your idiocy? It would seem so.
Brian at 12:25PM on Oct 17th 2007
524. Ken S...kudos to you!
I strongly agree with this statement: ""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 am an atheist and many people I know and love are atheists. I believe we all share these views.
I once had a very conservative Christian say to me, "You are more Christian than any Christian I know!"
Amazing.
You know why? Because I'm not a judgmental hypocrite. I believe we are all personally accountable for our own actions. I believe in peace and equal rights, including the right to religion; however, those beliefs have no place in government and certainly should not be force-fed to our children. Let's raise our children to be individuals and let them make educated choices for themselves based on facts rather than blind faith.
When I was 6 months pregnant with my son a family friend told me my child would go to hell because I am not a Christian therefore I have no morals. NEWS FLASH: Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not equal morals! Many Christians that I have known in my life have had very little moral standing. This is not a generalization; this is my personal experience. My best friend in fact, a Christian, said to me the other day, “I don’t break the law… I would never break the law. I break God’s law sometimes, which is the most important, but I pray and I repent.”
So…that makes it ok? Hmm.
machineballerina at 4:19PM on Oct 17th 2007
525. "If God were alive today, He'd be an Athiest."
~Kurt Vonnegut
machineballerina at 4:24PM on Oct 17th 2007