http://www.bethinking.org.uk/blog/feedxml/ A chance to comment on some issues in the news … or out of it. You’ll find some reflections on anything that bears on the truth of Christianity or on religious belief in general. Contributors will comment on items that catch their eye: from recent TV programmes challenging Christianity, to the latest books from the New Atheists and from Christian writers, as well as any new historical, archaeological or scientific findings that may be of interest. Add your comments to those of our contributors. Copyright 2010 UCCF: The Christian Unions Christianity en-uk UCCF: The Christian Unions no Copyright 2010 UCCF: The Christian UnionsJesus,God,Gospel,UCCF, Christian,Union,Church,UCCF,Apologetics,Bible,uccf:thechristianunionsReligion & Spirituality/Christianitywebmaster@bethinking.orgUCCF: The Chrstian UnionsJesus,God,Gospel,UCCF, Christian,Union,Church,UCCF,Apologetics,Bible,uccf:thechristianunionsA chance to comment on some issues in the news … or out of it. You’ll find some reflections on anything that bears on the truth of Christianity or on religious belief in general. Contributors will comment on items that catch their eye: from recent TV pA chance to comment on some issues in the news … or out of it. You’ll find some reflections on anything that bears on the truth of Christianity or on religious belief in general. Contributors will comment on items that catch their eye: from recent TV programmes challenging Christianity, to the latest books from the New Atheists and from Christian writers, as well as any new historical, archaeological or scientific findings that may be of interest. Add your comments to those of our contributors.http://www.bethinking.org.uk/blog/feedxml/http://www.bethinking.org.uk/Images/feeds/Blog_News-and-Views.jpg Employers have long considered reliability to be a desired character trait amongst employees. However, in the news this week, we’ve discovered that thinking such as this might be discriminatory! The Telegraph reported that a Jobcentre Plus in Norfolk re http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/the-demise-of-reliability Employers have long considered reliability to be a desired character trait amongst employees. However, in the news this week, we’ve discovered that thinking such as this might be discriminatory! The Telegraph reported that a Jobcentre Plus in Norfolk refused to display a job advert which concluded with the line, "must be very reliable and hard–working". The reason: fear that it would be seen as discriminating against unreliable workers! It’s quite possible that this story is an isolated event, a result of an individual being over cautious. We may never hear about it again. On the other hand, it raises an interesting and significant human development issue that is always bubbling beneath the surface. Are there character traits that are bad? As individuals should we be seeking to improve our character? It is appropriate to encourage others to change? When behaviour is challenged, people are often quick to make excuses. "I can’t help it, this is who I am." "It’s in my genes." "It’s how I was raised." "A leopard can’t change its spots." To some degree and to a certain extent, these responses may be valid. However, the Bible contains a message that cuts right across the idea that our character is fixed and therefore inevitably determines our behaviour. Not only does the Bible make it clear that change is possible, it instructs us to walk a path of transformation. Just take a look at Philippians 4:12–14 and Colossians 3:1–17. The Bible also has much to say about character traits that should be desired. The ‘fruits of the Spirit’, listed in Galatians (5:22,23), describe attributes that most people would be prepared to describe as positive. "…love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self–control." Likewise, most would consider their opposites to be negative. If we ask probing questions, we soon discover that the vast majority of people consider some character traits to be favourable while others are less welcome. This leads naturally to the next set of questions. Should we attempt to change? And, is change possible? If asked, both questions would undoubtedly receive a variety of responses. However, I suspect that underlying the responses to the latter question would be the longing for the possibility of change. Therefore, surely the Bible’s message that transformation is possible is one that people want to hear, one they might find surprisingly freeing? So, is it unfair to discriminate against individuals who have the character trait of ‘unreliability’? Is it OK to suggest that those with the ‘unreliability gene’ should attempt to change and become more reliable? It’s something to discuss with you’re friends this weekend. In the meantime, we should be secure in the knowledge that although reliability briefly came under fire this week, God will continue to be 100% reliable (Psalm 89). Phil Green, Public Theology Research Assistant © Copyright: Evangelical Alliance 2010. Used by kind permission of the Evangelical Alliance. This article first appeared on the Evangelical Alliance's Friday Night Theology website. The Evangelical Alliance’s Friday Night Theology e-mail provides a weekly comment on a topical event to help evangelism. Sign up for free at www.eauk.org/fnt. Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:19:10 +0000 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- Last week, Ruth Gledhill wrote in The Times (19 Nov 2009) that the "Archbishop of Canterbury must show muscular Christianity". After acknowledging the Archbishop's turning of the other cheek to the Pope's invitation to disaffected Anglicans to m http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/muscular-christianity Last week, Ruth Gledhill wrote in The Times (19 Nov 2009) that the "Archbishop of Canterbury must show muscular Christianity". After acknowledging the Archbishop's turning of the other cheek to the Pope's invitation to disaffected Anglicans to move across to the Roman Catholic church, she advocated  that at his meeting with the Pope in Rome, "a bit more muscular Christianity would not go amiss... he might do better to ask himself not 'What would Jesus do?' but 'What would Thomas Cromwell do?'". Without wanting to go into the issue between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, there is one sense of course in which Christianity should be "muscular", but another sense in which it should not. Christians need to be prepared to put forward what they believe and why, to show that there is an intellectual and rational integrity to Christian beliefs. In addition, Christians should be prepared to challenge the world where its values differ from our own, as well as to affirm those values when possible. Paul uses strong language when he writes: "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). That could perhaps be fairly described as muscular Christianity. But if we are to be obedient to Christ as he urges, the question of what Jesus would do is much more relevant than the question of what Thomas Cromwell (or anyone else for that matter) would do. Ruth Gledhill describes Thomas Cromwell as "tough and resourceful", climbing "to the top of Tudor society" and being a "maker and breaker of rivals". If that is what she wants for the Christian church and Christian leaders today, then the church will be moving far away from the teaching and the example of Jesus Christ, who said "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it" (Matthew 16:24-25). Let us each work to tone up our intellectual "muscle", to know why we believe and how to present that effectively and attractively. But at the same time we need to shun that worldly power and "muscle" that would hurt and harm others, that simply seeks to win the argument, that responds to criticism and opposition with the desire to break our "rivals". Perhaps "robust Christianity" is a better term to use than "muscular Christianity" - as long as we see that robustness as reflecting an intellectual and lifestyle integrity that seeks obedience to Christ above all worldly power and ambition. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:00:00 +0000 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- Nick Pollard says: If atheists think Darwin killed God they are not thinking widely enough. "You've killed God, sir," says Huxley to Charles Darwin in the forthcoming film Creation (UK release date 25th Sept). "Darwin has delivered a fatal http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/did-darwin-kill-god Nick Pollard says: If atheists think Darwin killed God they are not thinking widely enough. "You've killed God, sir," says Huxley to Charles Darwin in the forthcoming film Creation (UK release date 25th Sept). "Darwin has delivered a fatal blow to religion," says Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society in a Daily Telegraph article related to the film. They are quite wrong. Those who think that Darwin's theory can be used to establish the non-existence of God are missing the point. Well, at least three points out of four, actually. We are conscious human beings, living in a world full of life, within a universe of matter and energy. If someone wishes to argue that there is no God then they have to answer at least four questions about our existence (only one of which is tackled by Darwin's theory). What is the origin of the universe? What is the origin of life? What is the origin of biological diversity? What is the origin of consciousness? Put in this wider context we see how Darwin's theory only tackles the third of this big series of important questions. Whether or not Darwin's theory is a true explanation of how biological diversity might have evolved from a common ancestor, all this could tell us is something about the process by which the variety of life developed. It cannot, in itself, tell us anything about the existence or non-existence of God. So let me lay down a challenge to such atheists and ask them to stop making unfounded assertions about God's existence just from one particular view of one quarter of the big questions, and to consider the bigger picture, including the other three questions. First, the origin of the universe. When we look at the universe around us we have to ask ourselves, "Why is it here at all?" Why does anything exist rather than nothing? Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which parts of this universe may have formed - such as stars, sandstone and even species - that doesn't tell us why those processes happened. Even if we can establish how the laws of nature could lead to such developments within the universe, that doesn't tell us why those laws exist. Why not another set of physical laws? Why any physical laws at all? Why does anything exist rather than nothing existing? Second, the origin of life. When we look at the various forms of living beings that exist in this world we have to ask ourselves, "How did life begin?" Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which complex life may have evolved from simple life through the natural selection of mutations in reproductions, that doesn't tell us how reproductive processes began in the first place. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can only work on a self-replicating system where variations in the product of the replication might be more or less fitted for survival. But how did the first self-replicating, naturally selectable organism arise? How did we get from non-replicating matter to self-replicating, naturally selectable life? Third, the origin of consciousness. When we look at the people who live around us (and, indeed, at ourselves) we have to ask, "Where does consciousness, and all that flows from it, come from?" Even if we had an established theory of the possible processes by which the complexities of the human body may have developed, that doesn't tell us why we have a conscious awareness, why we have such a strong sense of morality, or why we have the capacity to reason. It is interesting that Darwin himself, in the last decade of his life, began to doubt the reliability of the human brain. If, according to his theory, the brain has evolved because of survival rather than for truth, would it have the capacity to address metaphysical questions with any level of reliability? Why should we trust anything it says about the big questions of morality and meaning? And (here is a real problem for anyone who wants to argue for atheism) what is our basis for trusting the brain's capacity for any high level reasoning at all - such as the level of reasoning required to consider the existence or non-existence of God? Perhaps, for the atheist, this question is logically unanswerable? Nick Pollard, co-founder of The Damaris Trust. For more resources related to the film Creation (UK release date September 25th) see www.damaris.org/creationmovie Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:21:00 +0100 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- One of the more unlikely poll findings you could imagine was revealed this week from the team that brought us Primeval. Three thousand people were asked which dead person they would most like to meet, and top of the list came Jesus Christ. A surprising http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/meeting-jesus One of the more unlikely poll findings you could imagine was revealed this week from the team that brought us Primeval. Three thousand people were asked which dead person they would most like to meet, and top of the list came Jesus Christ. A surprising one in three said they would like to meet him above anyone else. Those who organised the survey had fully expected Princess Diana, who came second, to head the list, but it was Jesus who apparently captivates the British public's hearts and minds the most. A spokesperson was quoted as saying: "These results show that Jesus Christ will always be the British Public's 'Superstar'", which if you think about it, is truly remarkable. It must also be particularly galling to John Lennon fans who infamously claimed that the Beatles were 'more famous than Jesus'. Well not any more: Lennon didn't even make the top ten! So what can we conclude from the fact that Jesus did top the poll, and what does that say to us in the church, whose main purpose is to introduce folk to him? In particular, does the fact that so many people want to meet him suggest we're not doing an especially good job at it? For if we were, the third of Britons that want to know him would presumably have already been introduced. Two points arise from all this. The first is that to those who say the church is dying, that secularism has all we could ever want and that atheism can satisfy, we can easily point out that a large section of the British population would disagree. It's Jesus they want to meet, not Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell. More importantly, the poll also indicates that despite our obsession with celebrity, there remains within the British soul a deep spiritual need which presumably people are looking to Jesus to meet. Of course, not all those who put Jesus top did so out of some kind of spiritual longing, but a significant proportion will have. Yet many of those people will be sceptical that the church is where that spiritual need can be met. To use a business analogy, the demand is high, it is just the package we're supplying that is the problem. They want to meet Jesus, just not if they have to go via Christians, and probably evangelical Christians in particular. Hence, we need to be willing to ask some challenging questions about ourselves. What is it that we're doing that despite such evident spiritual hunger is putting people off? Why is it that they like Jesus but not the body commissioned to represent him? And what do we need to start doing differently in our communities and neighbourhoods to more authentically be the arms, legs, voice and heart of Jesus in the way that we are called to be? For surely that is what it means to be both the body of Christ and his ambassadors here on earth. And anyway, if we think about it, Jesus shouldn't even be on the list – he is after all alive and more than willing to get to know any member of the British public who wants to! © Copyright: Justin Thacker 2009. Used by kind permission of the author. This article first appeared on the Evangelical Alliance's Friday Night Theology website. The Evangelical Alliance’s Friday Night Theology e-mail provides a weekly comment on a topical event to help evangelism. Sign up for free at www.eauk.org/fnt. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:52:01 +0100 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- This year Cambridge University is busy with its 800th year commemoration, as the signs attached to the lampposts on the main roads coming into the city make clear. The opening ceremony for the year was a brilliant light show projected onto the Senate Hous http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/christianitys-cultured-admirers This year Cambridge University is busy with its 800th year commemoration, as the signs attached to the lampposts on the main roads coming into the city make clear. The opening ceremony for the year was a brilliant light show projected onto the Senate House and Old Schools one blustery evening last month. Never have I seen the city centre more crowded but the show accompanied by church bells was worth it. Part art-tech extravaganza, part historical panorama and part entertainment, with Quentin Blake’s delightful cartoons prominent, it was designed as a celebration of the university’s achievements. Science, naturally, was to the fore with references to Newton, Babbage and Darwin while Milton, I saw, represented the arts. But unless you count the church bells that accompanied the show, there seemed precious little mention of religion. That is in Cambridge, cradle of the Reformation and home to the Puritans, let alone with colleges named Jesus, Christ's and Trinity, etc! Was this secular bias? It seemed so unless there are other events, which acknowledge the Christian contribution to the university’s history. This is curious really, poor history apart from anything else, from people who should know better. I was particularly struck by this, as recently there have been two publications which have recognized the positive impact of Christianity on the culture. And the extraordinary thing is both are by atheists. People whom you would expect to be among Christianity’s cultured despisers turn out to be Christianity’s cultured admirers. The first was an article, just after Christmas, by the Times columnist and very open homosexual Matthew Parris. He recounts that since a childhood spent in Malawi he had recognized that the schools and hospitals he saw were the work of the missions. But while he had been prepared to acknowledge this, he felt the faith behind these good works was merely their prop. Now however, after a recent visit, he understood how the faith itself was truly transformational and liberating. The title of the article was: ‘As an atheist I truly believe Africa needs God’, and the subtitle was: ‘Missionaries, not aid money are the solution to Africa’s biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people’s mindset'. He explained how he had seen in the Africans who had become Christians a curiosity and openness to life, a self-confidence and sense of dignity as well as a very practical diligence and honesty, which a traditional African way of life simply did not provide. Amen to that. The second publication was a book by the Italian Senator and academic, Marcello Pera, entitled, ’Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians'. Again an atheist argues that for Europe to be truly liberal, relativism must be resisted as it breaks down the framework that ensures our freedoms. He acknowledges that in the Christian idea of man being made in the image of God, humanity is given a value found in no other culture. He is worried about the new biotechnologies, the poor state of public and private ethics and the growth of Islam and insists that the Christian foundational roots of Europe be clearly recognized. It’s fascinating stuff and it’s no wonder that Pope Benedict XVI has warmly reviewed the book. Let’s hope that in its celebrations the university shows a similar clear-sightedness. Ian Cooper This article first appeared in Christian Heritage's March Newsletter. It is reproduced here by the kind permission of Christian Heritage. Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:29:54 +0000 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- As the situation in Gaza becomes worse by the day, the apologetic challenge this weekend is most likely to centre on the role of religion in fomenting this conflict. The question we have probably all faced on occasions is whether religion is the main ca http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/does-religion-cause-war As the situation in Gaza becomes worse by the day, the apologetic challenge this weekend is most likely to centre on the role of religion in fomenting this conflict. The question we have probably all faced on occasions is whether religion is the main cause of war, with the suggestion being made that the world would be a much more peaceful place if only there was no religion. Richard Dawkins has put it this way: “Religion causes war by generating certainty.” And John Lennon encouraged us to: Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace Well, we all want to ‘live life in peace’; the question is whether removing religion is what will achieve it. In a great article on the bethinking website, Tom Price details a range of responses we can make to this challenge including the following: atheist secularism has caused just as much bloodshed; it’s an abuse of Christianity that has led to violence not its genuine practice; ultimately it’s people that kill, not religion. In his book, The Gods of War: Is Religion the Primary Cause of Violent Conflict?, the historian, Meic Pearse, addresses all of these points and more. In relation to the first, he takes us though what he calls ‘The bloodiest century of all’, namely the twentieth, demonstrating how a range of secular ideologies have left a trail of death and destruction in their wake. As readers of the comment section of FNT will know, though, this fact is resisted by many atheists, including those who regularly post responses to these articles. An interesting case in point here concerns Che Guevara whose violence is sometimes airbrushed away in a desire by secularists to ignore the atrocities of atheist communism. So the actor who plays him in the newly released film has said, "I never knew much about Che as a kid, I only knew one side, that he was a bad guy. But I remember…seeing a picture of Che and he had a really warm smile. I thought there was something wrong, so I got a book and…I started to learn a little bit the love that people felt for this man." Contrast that with Che’s own words written to his mother from prison, “I am no Christ, nor a philanthropist. I am the very opposite of Christ…I will fight with all the arms within reach.” When society is at a stage that someone’s ‘warm smile’ is enough to make us ignore the direct bloodshed they have perpetrated then we are in a dangerous, if not delusional, place. This, I would suggest, applies to all those secularists who refuse to accept the reality of the violence that Hitler, Mao and Stalin were engaged in and which flowed directly from their rejection of the God of Jesus Christ. Pearse rightly concludes his chapter with these words, “Irreligion has proved far more lethal than religion ever was.” The crucial point here is: What is the central message of the ideology in question? Some of our atheists who respond to FNT seem to miss the fact that ultimately we do not follow Christians, we follow Christ. It is what he said and did that matters, as it is on Him that our faith rests. And his message was one of unqualified love, the eschewment of violence, and the centrality of forgiveness. It is Christ who defines Christianity, not those who have committed atrocities in its name. So, does religion cause war? Sadly, it does. But does Jesus Christ, and do those who submit themselves wholeheartedly to Him and His teaching? No. He was the Prince of Peace and he remains the only hope for real peace – even, perhaps especially, in the Middle East. © Copyright: Justin Thacker 2009. Used by kind permission of the author. This article first appeared on the Evangelical Alliance's Friday Night Theology website. The Evangelical Alliance’s Friday Night Theology e-mail provides a weekly comment on a topical event to help evangelism. Sign up for free at www.eauk.org/fnt. Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:46:00 +0000 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- Dawkins makes a concession John Lennox and Richard Dawkins met in debate again at Oxford's Natural History Museum on 21st October 2008. Justin Brierley, from Premier Christian Radio, attended the debate and has written a brief account of it and of his http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/lennox-dawkins-again Dawkins makes a concession John Lennox and Richard Dawkins met in debate again at Oxford's Natural History Museum on 21st October 2008. Justin Brierley, from Premier Christian Radio, attended the debate and has written a brief account of it and of his interview with Richard Dawkins afterwards. His radio programme provides further details about the debate, the following press conference and also contains his subsequent interview with John Lennox. A surprising statement by Richard Dawkins was the following: A serious case could be made for a deistic god. This seems to be a major concession by Dawkins, who appears to be admitting that serious arguments and evidence can be made for a god who created the world (but then left it alone to take care of itself). If it is a 'serious case', then Dawkins must be admitting that it is a case where the evidence and the arguments need to be seriously thought through and cannot (and should not, as a good scientist) be instantly dismissed. Melanie Phillips, writing in the Spectator, asks the question: Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving? and goes on to say that Dawkins acknowledged that he is open to the belief that life on earth arose from extraterestrial intervention. How serious are Dawkins' concessions? Where will it lead him? At the very least, we must applaud his intellectual honesty in such an admission. It would seem that a successor to The God Delusion could be on the way. Perhaps after the children's books he is planning to write, a follow-up to The God Delusion might be on the way, outlining that 'serious case ... for a deistic god'?   Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:20:38 +0000 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- The Value of Public Debates There can be no doubt that public debates about Christianity draw large crowds. In 2007, over 2000 people heard William Craig debate with Lewis Wolpert in London, with many more turned away. 800 attended a debate with Craig http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/debating-the-faith The Value of Public Debates There can be no doubt that public debates about Christianity draw large crowds. In 2007, over 2000 people heard William Craig debate with Lewis Wolpert in London, with many more turned away. 800 attended a debate with Craig in Bristol and 900 heard his debate in Liverpool. A huge radio audience heard Richard Dawkins debate with John Lennox In Alabama. This year, 900 heard Gary Habermas debate Ken Humphries in Edinburgh and in August this year, as part of the Edinburgh Fringe, over 1000 heard John Lennox debate with Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins, who was in the audience in Edinburgh, is scheduled to have a second debate with Lennox in Oxford on October 21st. Tickets sold out very quickly. These events have something of the razzmatazz of Heavyweight Boxing contests. But are these celebrity events good for the gospel? In the New Testament, we are told about an African called Apollos, who was an educated man with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, and had been ‘instructed in the way of the Lord’. He spoke with great fervour and taught about Jesus accurately. Despite this, he still needed further study and instruction, and Priscilla and Aquila provided this tuition in their home. When he went on to Achaia, ‘the brethren’ encouraged him and wrote a letter of commendation so that he had a warm welcome. Once there, he proved a great help to the believers, for he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah (Acts 18:24-28). While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul arrived at Ephesus. Initially he got involved at the synagogue, where for 3 months he “argued persuasively about the kingdom of God.” Subsequently, he engaged in daily, public discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus, and this went on for two years (Acts 19:1, 8-10). The word most commonly used to describe Paul’s method of evangelism in Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth and Ephesus is that he “reasoned” with people, but the Greek word for ‘reason’ actually means ‘dialogue’. Paul and Apollos were doing their evangelism by public dialogue. Better than Tennis! One of the key attractions of the debate format is that the audience can come as spectators, with or without their own strong opinions. They can hear the case set forward and then hear what an informed opponent can say to refute it. As they hear the arguments go back and forth, they think “Well said!”, “Good reply!”, “How will he answer that?” Inevitably they become engaged with the subject matter and move forward in their own thinking. It is much more interesting and personally involving than tennis! A second feature of the debate is that anyone can be invited. This is not shallow propaganda – for if it is, it will be exposed as such. The format presents a level ground, where neither side should be at a disadvantage. For Christian people, sadly, they rarely hear Christian leaders and teachers face penetrating, analytic questioning. To find that Christianity stacks up in the market place of ideas can lead to a life changing experience. Poor old Paul and Apollos laboured away day after day in vigorous, and no doubt exhausting, debates. In this way, whole populations were able to hear the issues and decide for themselves – and clearly very large numbers were converted. In Thessalonica, we are told that ‘some Jews, a large number of Greeks and not a few prominent women’ become Christians after just three Sabbaths of debate. It was enough to make the Jews violently jealous (Acts 17:2-5). At Berea, after studying the scriptures every day, many of the Jews believed along with many Greek men and a number of prominent Greek women (Acts 17:10-12). In Athens, after daily ‘dialogue’ in the market place, the philosophers got involved. They were much harder to win over. Some sneered, others wanted to hear more but a few men and a number of women were converted (Acts 17:17-21, 32-34). In Corinth, Paul stayed for 18 months “and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptised.” He was eventually hauled up before the pro-consul Gallio and charged with “persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law” (Acts 18:4, 8, 11-13). At Ephesus, as a result of his two years’ public debate in the lecture hall, “all the Jews and Greeks, who lived in the province of Asia, heard the word of the Lord”. Quite extraordinary! Those public dialogues in the first century were enormously effective. The great advantage for us today, however, is that our debates are being recorded, often on DVD film. We can not only pass them on to unbelieving friends, but we can also trawl over these presentations, making sure we really understand the points being made. We can examine the logic of the arguments, think through how we might have answered certain objections, and be stimulated to pursue further study so that we in our turn might engage in effective dialogue wherever the opportunities arise. We might note for instance, that neither Lewis Wolpert nor John Humphries were able to understand the significance of Craig’s presentation of the Moral Argument. We might note the way Dawkins contends that evolution will ultimately explain all design in the universe, while Lennox maintains that evolution can never explain why the universe exists. Nor can it explain how life first began. We will note the withering scorn shown by Dawkins, when Lennox mentioned the Resurrection in his concluding remarks in Alabama. It was just the same for Paul at Athens (Acts 17:32). We should not be discouraged if we get the same treatment. We are in good company! If these debates are seen as sophisticated Christian intellectual entertainment, their value will be greatly limited. If we see them as opportunities to study good arguments and learn from bad ones, we might see a whole new generation of persuasive evangelists, who take their task seriously and give sound reasons why sceptical unbelievers might put their trust in Christ. Who knows how great a fire might start from these small flames. We know that Christianity is spreading rapidly in China, Africa and South America. Might Europe once again be ignited by the Gospel? To view a selection of recent debates, click here. © 2008 Peter May Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:52:09 +0100 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- Antony Flew's review of The God Delusion has, as expected, generated a number of responses. The familiar accusations re-surfaced that he didn't really write his book and now also that he didn't really write this article, despite the assurance in the intr http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/responses-toflew-speaks-out Antony Flew's review of The God Delusion has, as expected, generated a number of responses. The familiar accusations re-surfaced that he didn't really write his book and now also that he didn't really write this article, despite the assurance in the introduction concerning this. What do these critics believe is to be gained by Christians in 'ghost writing' a book or article that does not even fully endorse the 'ghost writer's' own beliefs? From the various comments made, I cannot see what evidence these critics would accept as showing that There is a God expressed Flew's own beliefs. If this is so, the critics' statements are not falsifiable, and hence could be said to be meaningless. Another set of critics accuse Flew of being so senile that he was incapable of reading The God Delusion properly (or had only read the index) and so, they say, Flew makes various errors in his article. It would, of course, be interesting to see a discussion between these two sets of critics on whether Flew really did write the article or not, but instead let's look at a few of the comments. I will not try to defend everything Flew wrote, because as a Christian I do not agree with it all, but let's try to examine the issues without the venom. A secularist bigot? Firstly, is Dawkins a "secularist bigot"? There is lots of discussion on whether the term secularist is appropriate but, surprisingly, there is little dissension on the term "bigot" as defined by Flew (although it is not a term I would commonly use of anyone). It is claimed that a "secularist" refers only to someone who maintains that the church and state should be separate, and that Flew should have used the term "atheist" instead (further proof of Flew's senility, of course). However, the term "secularist" has a much wider meaning. For instance, in a paper delivered at the 2006 Annual Conference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Barry Kosmin wrote: The terms “secular,” “secularism,” and “secularization” have a range of meanings. Furthermore, Kosmin distinguishes between "hard" and "soft" secularists: The hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience. It followed from this view that these propositions are morally pernicious and politically dangerous. Now I'm not asserting that Flew is aware of this paper, but it is clear that his use of the term "secularist" has a widely accepted and applicable meaning in the context in which he used it. Einstein  Einstein gets a fair airing in the comments. Clearly, Einstein's views on God were not theistic, but Flew's complaint is that Dawkins selects quotes from Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion to try to show that Einstein used the term God in a particular way and simply ignores those statements that do not fit his case (eg. pages 93 and 264 from the link above), rather than addressing them and explaining, if possible, how they do not affect his case. Neither Dawkins nor Flew are arguing their case for or against God from what Einstein did (or did not) believe. But as Dawkins raised the issue of what Einstein actually believed, it seems to me to be fair comment to point out counter-evidence in a book that Dawkins quoted and has clearly read (or might that have been just the index?). Deism  Flew mentions "a less important point" concerning the lack of definition of Deism in The God Delusion. The point that it seems to me Flew is making here is that the fundamental feature of Deism (at least for Flew) is that it denies any revelation by God in the world. Discounting the whole article on this one point seems like desperation to avoid the key challenges that Flew makes. The key challenges The comments on Flew's article that I have seen appear to ignore his main point, namely that Dawkins fails to present the doctrine which he is attempting to refute in its strongest form. Indeed, Dawkins appears not to have taken the trouble to do his basic research. This is why Flew characterises The God Delusion as "an attempt ... to spread the author's own convictions". Not because that is different to any other book advocating a viewpoint, but because the arguments and discussion used by Dawkins address a strawman version of God, ignoring the counter-arguments and the strongest forms of the arguments that point to the existence of a God. This is the point that the atheist Michael Ruse makes in his e-mail to Daniel Dennett: I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design ... what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues ... neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas. Can we hope for a serious grappling with the issues that Flew and others raise? The very reason that bethinking.org published Flew's article is that it was a fascinating disagreement between a former and a current atheist, raising issues which highlight the serious limitations of The God Delusion. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:30:22 +0100 56E-DA4-A64-4BF- I came across two statements about truth recently in the book Trick or Treatment?: alternative medicine on trial by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst. Statement 1: “Truth exists – only lies are invented” (Georges Braque). Christian apologetics is primar http://www.bethinking.org.uk/news-and-views/all-truth-is-gods-truth I came across two statements about truth recently in the book Trick or Treatment?: alternative medicine on trial by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst. Statement 1: “Truth exists – only lies are invented” (Georges Braque). Christian apologetics is primarily the defence of the truth of the Christian faith against criticism and misunderstanding. Jesus Christ said “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Whatever is true is in some way connected to the one who is the Truth, Jesus Christ. So we can celebrate the expression of the truth, wherever we find it. Statement 2: “Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day, like a football, and it will be round and full at evening” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr). Truths can be hidden amongst misunderstanding, falsehood and even lies, but it remains truth nevertheless. Today’s culture often reflects the truth about human nature, about the quest for meaning and value, about the search for the ‘spiritual’, even though that culture often fails to realise where these truths are properly to be found – in God. “What is truth?”, asked Pilate: Ministries such as Damaris’ Culturewatch aim to identify the truths incorporated in films, books, music, art, and, just as importantly, they also point out where their errors lie. One Keith Green song has Satan saying: “I put some truth in every lie, to tickle itching ears”. Even though we can celebrate truth wherever we find it, we must not ignore the falsehood that exists alongside it. As Jesus sent his disciples into the world to preach, he warned them to be “as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). We need to defend the truth and expose the false with “gentleness and respect”, and we should be able and willing to give an answer to everyone who asks us about the reason for our hope (1 Peter 3:15). Peter’s emphasis on both the medium and the message challenges us today. May his words be true of each one of us as we aim to present to those around us the one who is the Truth: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (1 Peter 3:14-16) Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:00:00 +0100 56E-DA4-A64-4BF-