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 36 of 36)
526. Responding to Pboy (517)
Uhmmmm. Pboy, you may want to forgo spending early AM time on these blogs. You seem to grossly misinterpret my statements or intent.
Let’s see if I can clear up the fog…
Your #517 post pulls comments from two of my posts (#501 & #516), each written with a separate “agenda”. I will respond to each “agenda” separately to avoid further confusion.
(A) I am not sure what topics you discussed with bigTuna or with anyone else, but, my comments about the universe in #516 (my post) is a response to #503 (your post) where YOU wrote:
“... I don't know how much time you imagine that you would be willing to give science (since you brought it up) to try to come up with a natural solution to your problem of 'where the universe came from'... “
Pboy, I do not recall mentioning the question of the universe on this blog (before #516). I can only repeat my initial comment on the topic (from 516): “I have no desire to give much time to the question of 'where the universe came from', nor its nature, yada yada.”
But, I had interpreted your comment in 503 that you wanted me to engage in the topic, and in a spirit of cooperation, I offered some thoughts and perspectives. (If that is not what you wanted, then you can ignore much of #516l!)
In the course of sharing those thoughts, I did migrate into evolution. Not to discuss evolution itself, but to point out what appeared to be a contradiction in perspectives coming for those who are arguing against creationism, mainly atheists and evolutionists. Note that I use both terms here because I know that being an atheist is not the same as being an evolutionist.
I will admit one error in #516. I used the phrase “you” rather loosely. I was referring to “atheists & evolutionists” not just you. (Let’s face it – when we write these posts, we know that others will read and hence, we often write to the rest of the audience simultaneously.) But, you read my post as directed only at you and that is my fault. My bad.
(B) Pboy, in #501, when I wrote of the five cases, they were hypothetical cases that were either legal, technical, philosophical, or theological. THREE of those five cases were YOURS originally (See your post #485)
I added case #4 (as well as #5) because it was a technical example of the debate issue and it concerned a topic that has been flying around on these blogs recently. Perhaps YOU have not participated in these discussions (you did refer to the topic in #180). But, it does not matter. Again, these were hypothetical cases, THREE of them YOU offered. How could you assume that ONE of the TWO cases I added were any less hypothetical?
ray at 5:51PM on Oct 17th 2007
527. Responding to Pboy in #518
“What makes you different than any of the people on death row that also claim that they too, are each, 'not a murderer???”
The same thing that makes YOU different from them. You and I have not been prosecuted by the government and have not had a jury decide that we are indeed guilty of a PARTICULAR murder. We do not convict people just because they are “murderers”. We convict them for a specific murder(s).
Note, just because a jury decides that a person is guilty of murder that does not mean they are actually guilty. Are you paying attention to the news? Just the other night, there was a story of a man who was convicted TWICE (in this case, the charge was rape) based on forensic evidence. (Note – “science”). He served 10 years before OTHER scientific evidence (DNA) cleared him. My point – science is only as good as the practitioner, and even when the practitioner is flawless, science is still limited!
BTW – no Christian I know disparages science. We do disparage evolution. Most scientific claims have been demonstrated and proven. Flight, space travel, helicopters, medical advances (MRI, etc), chemical processes, nuclear power (bombs and power), fuel cells, TV, computers, on and on have been DEMONSTRATED AND OBSERVED AS THEY HAPPENED. YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT ABOUT EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION DOES NOT ENJOY THE SAME LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE AS THE OTHER SCIENCES.
ray at 5:53PM on Oct 17th 2007
528. @ ray524
Okay, I see now ... still, it's a good idea to cut and paste what point of mine that you are refering to.. then I'd know...
... I was getting a little worried that I was 'losing my marbles', perhaps rambling about the state of the universe to bigTuna and not remembering at all... no big thing there. Misunderstandings are fairly common and fairly easy to clear up....no?
pboyfloyd at 7:53PM on Oct 17th 2007
529. Pboy
Your suggestion of "cut and paste" is more than valid. I usually do that, but, I was in a hurry and took a short cut.
Ciao
P.S. - I did come across a few more of your posts mentioning the universe (103 & 113), but, you were taking a philosophical position, not, technical. Most of my questions are technical...
ray at 9:11PM on Oct 17th 2007
530. Thank you Jesus for the opportunity to post this message. I am truly saddened by all the comments posted on this subject. Christianity is not a religion,it is a way of life. A life that only Jesus can give. It is not about a religion, it is about knowing that Jesus died for your sins and mine and knowing that heaven is our home and only Jesus can take us there. I know that there are many that don't believe there is a heaven, but whether you believe it or not , it doesn't make it any less the truth. John 14:6 "Jesus answered, I AM the way, the truth,and the LIFE, and no one comes to the father except through me." There are many beliefs, many religions, but still only one way home to heaven, and that is Jesus Christ. I pray all who read this, that the Lord would open your heart to the truth, that Jesus loves all of us, if we would only let him.
lori at 2:22PM on Oct 18th 2007
531. @ Lori... 528
I think that you are just being silly here... because you seem to forget a most important point...
No matter how much you believe that something is true doesn't make it any truer EITHER!!!
But the Bible has some specific verifiable claims... The Prayer of Faith (as layed out by James, as I recall) ...
... you guys and dolls don't even bother to give that a go these days!!!! Why is that?
Refusing to test GOD is a bogus answer ... because you are, in fact, refusing to test your own faith!!!
pboyfloyd at 2:42PM on Oct 18th 2007
532. Well, obviously my fellow bloggers have mixed feelings about this book. I personally find it refreshing. I am a Christian, but going to college is a mind opening experience that is making me question things I had previously believed without questioning. I look forward to reading what seems to be an enlightened book that combines both my weak but deep faith and the teachings of my college professors. Bravo to you, D'Souza, for not being afraid to face this unique and tough challenge head on! Not many people are willing to face such harsh criticism in order to speak the truth!
Bridgett at 6:29PM on Oct 18th 2007
533. Someone once said that " If religion didn't exist, someone would invent it" I think thats what happened here. The bible is a ferry tale. Many people are so stupid that they will believe any thing a TV preacher tells them. Just keep sending them money and they will stay in business.
Pete at 4:35PM on Oct 18th 2007
534. @ Bridgett 531
You say, "...my weak but deep faith..."
Well, that made me think... would it be possible to have a 'strong but shallow faith'?
pboyfloyd at 2:51PM on Oct 19th 2007
535. A while back the Flagellum was mentioned. I have seen models of this tiny creature that has the rotating tail and it is a marvel to behold.
I must add that this life form also the only life form to have a differential. A design of high skill
and engineering. This flagellum or tail spins at thousands of times per second.
In the Cambrian layer we do see thousands of creature fossils in their complete forms with no fossils before to indicate any steps leading to
this. Sudden appearance of all these creatures
tells us that SOMEONE designed and built them
whole and complete.
My comments are not based on Ray, although he is
quite inteligent and skilled. I have an extensive library on both evolution and I.D.
There is an elitist attitude in this thread which would eliminate those who study this topic of evolution and creation but don't have a degree in
microbiology or physics.
I respect anyone who reads available meterials on a subject and gains knowledge necessary to discuss it
with anyone.
I read on the knowledge gained by many scientists
whose crendentials are as good and even far better than most. I glean facts that are pulled from
observation and experimentation.
Michel Behe, Sir Fred Hoyle, Sir Francis Crick, M.
Denton, H. Hill, Gary Parker etc;
Every one of these men will be put down and critisized by those in this thread. That's all they can do to creditid scientists is demean them.
We are not products of random chance steps.
We are fearfully and wonderfully made. We follow a design that need many parts working together
to sustain the life within us. Remove a part and
either life or function leaves.
I think instead of denial of this supreme being,
one would best try to find out if He really exists.
Ask Him if He exists. You will be very surprised
to find He will answer you and provide the evidence.
Anita Brown at 5:32AM on Oct 20th 2007
536. Teach YOUR children to walk in the way of the Lord and I will teach mine truth.
It's easier to "teach" religion (i.e. instill false hope) to children and those who are desperate, lonely and devastated because they are more vulnerable and submissive.
It's the same concept the Army uses to bring on new recruits. They specifically target young men, often school drop-outs, in low income areas with promises of wealth, fame and education – the American dream!
It's not rocket science.
Yes, our society is slowly pushing God out of their lives because we are evolving. We’re not all a bunch of Neanderthals ready to jump on the bandwagon. And sorry to burst your bubble of self-righteous rantings but the world is no more "wicked" than it was 30,40,50 years ago! That statement in its entirety is ignorant. Especially given the fact than many of the worlds most horrific crimes, throughout the history of man, were committed in the name of God. You obviously do not know much about real world history.
Oh, and btw, the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey is a farce. And it’s a religion of atheists who don’t actually believe in Satan or God. I don’t subscribe to their teachings but at least I don't make false accusations based on assumptions.
machineballerina at 12:58PM on Oct 25th 2007
537. Its strange in this blog with these atheists.
We (the believers) give them evidence and they dismiss it and call it no evidence.
In turn, they give us NO evidence, only claims
critisizms, and call it evidence.
Please give the believers here some solid steps to adaptation or how bad mutations change one creature into another. We will believe in evolution if you do that.
Anita Brown at 1:34PM on Oct 26th 2007