‘How could it have been allowed to happen?’ Thus the apparently dumbfounded response of many commentators to the floodtide of allegations that Jimmy Savile sexually abused or harassed teenage girls, and possibly, boys, for over forty years while employed by one of our most venerable public institutions. The BBC Panorama investigation into Newsnight’s decision last December to pull their story on Savile, and the ITV Exposure documentary into Savile himself, together hint at the beginnings of an answer. They reveal that a series of media staff and managers who either harboured suspicions about Savile or heard rumours about his activities or even had direct evidence of them, remained silent. Some were heard to say that it ‘had never occurred to them’ to report the claims or investigate them further, while Esther Rantzen tearfully conceded that those around Savile had ‘blocked their ears to the gossip’.

Why? Whatever individual reasons were at work (fear of reprisals was an obvious one) perhaps a deeper factor is that they each found themselves caught up, unwittingly, in a deep moral paradox bequeathed to us by the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and still unresolved. The paradox arises from the simultaneous pursuit of two powerful aspirations which at the time seemed all of a piece but which in fact stand in profound tension: the demand for effective institutional accountability and the desire for radical personal autonomy.

The former set in train a series of far-reaching structural changes that began to redress the deep power imbalances that made many large institutions undemocratic, remote, inflexible and sometimes oppressive. The push for accountability was launched with the student protests in the universities. However inchoate, and indeed indulgent, some of these now appear, universities are today much more responsive to the needs and expectation of both students and wider society then they were prior to the 1960s.

Demands for greater corporate accountability also gathered steam, supported by powerful post-war trades unions. While the simplistic ‘open the books’ chants of the seventies faded long ago, today’s large corporations are constrained by a plethora of laws, codes of conduct and public expectations to be fairer, more transparent, and more socially and environmentally responsible than they ever were in the 1950s. Even governments were called to account, such as for their militarism – the Vietnam war protests in the US led to the War Powers Acts of 1973 – or for their bureaucratic unresponsiveness – as seen in numerous incremental steps towards greater participation in decision-making. It is also now plain that if the BBC had moved faster towards effective accountability forty years ago Savile’s abuse might have been stopped in its tracks early on.

But the legitimate campaign for greater institutional accountability was accompanied by the assertion of an entitlement to radical personal autonomy permitting the maximisation of individual satisfaction, limited only by the supposed ‘consent’ of others – a consent, however, which often turned out to be dutiful rather than truly uncoerced. An expectation of unrestricted self-expression, going far beyond the quite proper extensions of personal freedom that era produced, achieved powerful cultural legitimacy.

Its consequences have been corrosive in many sectors of culture and personal life – not least sexual behaviour. A journalist interviewed in the Exposure programme who followed Savile closely in his early career observed casually that no-one bothered to ask whether the young girls in his entourage were of age ‘because it was the era of free love’. That era may have offered greater transitory sexual pleasure for some but only at the subsequent cost, to many more, of enormous emotional distress and relational instability, a massive increase in sexually transmitted diseases (not least HIV/Aids), the routinisation of abortion, an explosion of divorce, a multi-billion internet porn industry and the premature sexualisation of children. It’s not clear who exactly ‘consented’ to all of that.

It is exactly the same aspiration for unrestrained self-satisfaction that drives the libertarian economics of unfettered individual choice which tolerates limits on market exchanges only to maximise a largely illusory individual choice for all. But combine the drive for maximum personal gain unleashed and legitimated by this manic philosophy, with systemically weak institutional accountability, and you get the banking meltdown of 2008. Equally, combine a powerful sense of entitlement to sexual self-expression with the weak accountability culture of the BBC forty years ago, and you open up a moral and institutional space in which the Jimmy Saviles of this world could be left free to wreak their own quiet dressing-room horrors.

Effective institutional accountability certainly helps restrain damaging actions like those of a Savile. But the ambition for radical personal autonomy pulls in entirely the opposite direction and undermines even the most rigorous of accountability structures. The question the BBC should ask itself is whether the resolve of its staff to expose Savile’s abuse over the last forty years was fatally weakened not only by its weak accountability procedures but also by its tacit indulgence of a culture of sexual autonomy which induced key actors to turn a blind eye to the predatory narcissism of their lovable, quirky, if admittedly slightly ‘pervy’, celebrity.

The larger question for society as a whole is whether it has resolved, or even recognised, this debilitating moral paradox left to us by the intoxicating cultural revolution of half a century ago. Since the early vanguards of this revolution have now either retired or, like Savile, passed on, there is perhaps a unique generational opportunity to take a second look.

Dr Jonathan Chaplin, Director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics

This article first appeared on the Theos website (www.theosthinktank.co.uk) as a Theos Team Blog.
Click here for information about republishing Theos material.

"Jerusalem Tomb Exploration Reveals First Archaeological Evidence of Christianity from the Time of Jesus" Thus runs the headline on thejesusdiscovery.org where you can read more of the claims about what is being called "The Jesus Discovery".

Previously Simcha Jacobovici, Canada's "Naked Archaeologist" and film producer James Cameron announced the discovery of the tomb of Jesus and his family. A book and television documentary followed. In 1981, a second tomb, dubbed the "Patio Tomb", was found, 200 feet away from the first one, and this has now been examined.

The discoverers are claiming that this is the earliest archaeological evidence of Christian belief in the resurrection, dating even from before the Gospels were written. Archaeologists are less than convinced about the interpretation of the inscriptions and symbols found on the tombs.

Craig Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada and author of Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence and Fabricating Jesus: How modern scholars distort the Gospels, has written an illuminating post on the discovery.

Melvyn Bragg wrote a powerful apologetic for the positive influence of Christian belief on society, in his 11 June 2011 article in The Telegraph. Researching his book on the impact of the King James Bible for the 400^th anniversary of its publication, clearly had a profound effect on Bragg. Having lost his faith at university, he acknowledges that “I experienced the common delusion that only reason mattered, and so where did that leave miracles, and especially the Resurrection?” Not that his faith has been re-kindled, but “I find that I have come to respect again the best of that faith. I am still unable to cross the River of Jordan which would lead me to the crucial belief in a godly eternity.”

Bragg is appalled at the modern tendency to belittle the positive effects of Christianity on society and so he seeks to redress some of that imbalance, citing examples of the abolition of the slave trade, the rise of modern democracy, philanthropy, social justice and “much else”. What is strange is to see the reverence with which he holds to the King James Bible, seeing its abandonment as a key factor in the decline of the Anglican Church. To me, this seems overstated – it is surely the Christian beliefs that arose out of the access to the Bible that led to the impact on society and multiple other factors that led to a decline in those same Christian beliefs. To impose the King James Bible on each successive generation is to fail to recognise that the language of that time is as much in need of translation into modern English as, for most of us, are the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. To compare this with modern updates of Shakespeare is a false analogy – the beauty of language of the King James Bible is undisputed. But the Bible was never written solely for its aesthetic effects – it was intended to convey a message and it would be a failure of duty to the original writers, as well as negating the original intentions of the translators of the King James Bible, if that message were never again to be conveyed in contemporary language.

Bragg describes himself, using Einstein’s words, as a “believing unbeliever”. He cannot bring himself to acknowledge the truth of Christianity, but recognises that there is far more to life than science on its own can reveal. “Stephen Hawking speaks of worlds of thought which we shall never know – there is the inexplicable. I think most of us sense that now and then we have pulses from it – in passion, in daydreams, ‘surprised by joy’. I respect those who have no faith or little faith or are indifferent to it, but the current notion that atheistic reason marks the apotheosis of human intelligence, strikes me as being very doubtful. I’m as certain as I can be that there’s more to come.”

Like many today, Bragg rejects the extreme rationalism of those who believe that science can supply answers to every important question that human beings can ask. Bragg concludes: “If people want to turn their back on their faith, that’s one thing. To turn our backs on our history is to embalm ourselves in the superficialities of the present.” A recognition that there must be more to life than “the superficialities of the present” is a start. To recognise, as Bragg does, that there is some form of an answer to that superficiality in the Bible (at least for him in the King James Version) is a good continuation. The challenge for Christians is to be able to go on from there to show people that in Jesus Christ there is an offer of new life that releases from the past into the fullness of life in the present (John 10:10) and on to what Bragg rightly recognises as that “crucial belief in a godly eternity”.

Notes:

‘Melvyn Bragg: My first steps back on the road to faith’ Telegraph 11 June 2011.

‘The Book of Books: Melvyn Bragg interview’ Telegraph 03 April 2011.

Melvyn Bragg The Book of Books: The Radical Impact of the King James Bible 1611-2011: A History of the King James Bible was published by Hodder & Stoughton in April 2011. The paperback version is released in October.

You may also be interested in: Nick Spencer Freedom and Order: History, Politics and the English Bible Hodder & Stoughton, May 2011.

© 2011 Chris Knight

Will Richard Dawkins finally engage in a scholarly one-to-one discussion with William Lane Craig when he visits Oxford? It would appear not, and even some fellow atheists seem to think he's making a big mistake. This is the story, so far, but what will come next?

 View on YouTube.

This video was made by the audience member who asked Richard Dawkins about why he would not debate William Lane Craig (see video). It expresses his personal view.
© 2011 Birdieupon

We’re all still here. 21 May was followed by 22 May after all. New day, new mercies, same old faithfulness of God to His creation. Apocalyptic speculations enter the public domain now and then. Most recently Harold Camping’s prediction caught the media’s attention. Saturday has come and gone. He has redone his calculations and postponed the apocalypse to 21 October when an earthquake will bring destruction for all except Christians who will be swept up beforehand. The end of the world as we know it.

While Camping and his followers were bewildered when Sunday came, their personal dislocation will be part of a wider communal dislocation. And therein lies the real tragedy. For, such end-of-the-world speculation is not merely related to the one event; it permeates a worldview. It separates the population in two camps and holds no hope for the wider creation. And while such apocalypticism informs us of a new date, it gives little guidance on how we should live in the meantime.

The day of Christ’s return remains unknown and unspecified. But, interestingly, ‘the day of the Lord’ sheds quite a specific light on our life (Romans 12-13). As the Christian community already experiences the power and gifts of the new day, we adopt a lifestyle that reflects this. Our attitude and behaviour towards enemies, our possessions, relationships, hardships and joys are placed in the context of the new day.

It’s not about knowing the time; it’s about understanding the time. Reflecting upon the present time, Paul’s use of kairos reflects that it is the opportune time, the “now time” in which God’s righteousness is being revealed, a time pregnant with the fulfilment of the promise. So, ‘the day of the Lord’ does not only reflect a sense of urgency, but also a sense of opportunity: the future we anticipate provides a model for our identity right now.

Our stewardship should be about actions that concern justice, love, mercy, and hope. Our hospitality, creation care, generosity, workplace, community life, campaigns, our arts, economy and our character are meant to reflect some of the rays of the new day.

And while destruction is a dominant theme of the recent prediction, the reality is one of hope. Easter reminded us that hope began with Jesus’ resurrection. Eventually, the whole creation will be liberated from its bondage to decay and frustration. Creation was after all submitted ‘in hope’. God is not only involved in reclaiming people, but also in restoring His entire creation. There is hope for renewal rather than solace in the decay.

So, our conversations about ‘the end of the world as we know it’ can be filled with the hope for our world as we envisage it. The new creation - ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ - is filled with the presence of God. That is a lens through which we read the texts, look upon the world, build community, share the gospel, shape reality and value mystery.

In the expectation of Christ’s coming again, we live as faithful stewards. As Jesus points out in the parable of the sheep and the goats with its powerful portrayal of care for the weak and needy, there will be a judgement. In the light of the need of salvation, we go and make disciples in the full awareness that He is with us always, to the end of the age.

Marijke Hoek, Coordinator Forum for Change

© Copyright: Evangelical Alliance 2011
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.

Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

In a Telegraph online article, Richard Dawkins is accused of cowardice for refusing a number of invitations to debate with William Lane Craig.

Read the story at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

Starting with a question seems like a good idea to most people. It helps to bring a sharper focus. It's conversational. It reveals gaps in knowledge. It's quite natural – kids seem to use questions instinctively to find out about the world. Of course, there are lazy questions and there are thoughtful questions. The difference is hard to explain, but anyone who has ever heard, or asked, a good question – asked at the right time – will immediately know why good, careful, thoughtful questions are always worth asking.

Christians have often pointed to the example of God asking Adam and Eve, "Where are you?" (Genesis 3:9), and Jesus as he interacts with people in the New Testament records of him. Here are some of Jesus' questions:

What are you looking for? Why are you looking for me?
What do you want me to do for you?
Who do people say that I am?
But who do you say that I am?
Why do you ask me about what is good?
Why do you call me good?
Who is my mother? Who is my brothers and sisters?
Who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?
How long will I endure you?
Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me?
What are you thinking in your hearts?
Why do you harbour evil thoughts?
If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you?
If you do good only to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?
Do you want to be well?
Who touched me?
What is your name?
How long has this been happening to him?
Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven" or to say "Rise, pick up your mat and walk"?
Do you see anything?
You see all these things do you not?
Can a blind person guide a blind person?
Do you see this woman?
Why do you make trouble for her?
Where are they, has none condemned you?
What good is it to gain the whole world but forfeit your soul?
What could one give in exchange for his life?
Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life?
Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
Are you not more important than the birds of the sky?
Who is greater, the one seated at the table, or the one who serves?
What is the reign of God like? To what can I compare it?
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth?
Which of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish?
Where is your faith?
Do you believe that I can do this?
Why are you terrified?
Do you not yet have faith?
Why this commotion and weeping?
Why does this generation seek a sign?
To what shall I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?
How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God?
Did I not tell you that if you believe you will see the glory of God?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
Do you believe now?
I am telling you the truth, why do you not believe me?
Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath or not?
Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?
Why do you not understand what I am saying?
Do you not yet understand or comprehend?
Are your hearts hardened?
Do you have eyes and not see, ears and not hear?
Do you still not understand this?
If I tell you about early things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
Do you understand these things?
Why do you not interpret the present time?
Does this shock you?
Why do you call me "Lord, Lord", but do no do what I command?
Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
What were you arguing about on the way?
Why are you testing me?
Is it not written: my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples?
Will you lay down your life for me?
Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?
Do you also want to leave?
Do you realise what I have done for you?
Why ask me?
Why are you trying to kill me?
For which of these good words are you trying to stone me?
Do you think that I cannot call upon my God and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legion of angles?
Would you like some breakfast?
Have you anything here to eat?
Why are you troubled? Why do questions arise in your hearts?
Have you come to believe because you have seen me?
I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die; do you believe this?
What are you discussing as you walk along?
Do you love me?

So, perhaps starting with questions isn't such a bad idea after all, is it?

Even so, some Christians are suspicious of starting with questions. This is probably party due to the legacy of Karl Barth, who restored an important focus on revelation in the Christian mind – he was speaking against liberal, anti-miraculous, naturalist, revisionist critiques of the Bible. Barth was suspicious of the motive, and result, of starting with non-revealed material and data. He thought that led into idolatory and man / self-centredness. His argument doesn't actually ring true, but his legacy has contributed to a nervousness among those influenced by him to 'do questions'. So many Christians are now trapped in an ineffective strategy, but are worried about being unfaithful to God if they use, and engage properly with questions. But, as you can see – Jesus isn't very Barthian. Which for me, is the strongest reason to thank Barth for his focus on revelation, but to reject his views of apologetics, questions and natural theology.

You'll find these resources useful too
Conversational Apologetics - Michael Ramsden
What should I say? Learning to answer our friends questions - Pete Lowman
How to Answer Questions - Amy Orr-Ewing and Michael Ramsden
The Importance of Asking Honest Questions - Ellis Potter

Want to go a bit deeper?
Get and read "Can Philosophy Argue God's Existence?" in The Rationality of Belief & the Plurality of Faith: Essays in Honor of William P. Alston, Tom Senor (ed.), (Cornell University Press, 1995).
Brian Leftow examines Karl Barth's claim that it cannot. Barth essentially has two arguments against natural theology:

(1) the use of equivocal language due to God's great transcendence limits our application of God as the first 'cause;'
(2) natural theologians' motives stem from sin-beliefs.

Leftow argues both of these arguments fail.

©  2010 Tom Price
Used by the kind permission of the author. Tom's blog is at a better hope.

The more we learn, the greater the mystery

For many, the sheer beauty of creation accelerates them into the presence of an ultimate, majestic artist, the Creator. Yet for many the sheer agony caused by creation acts as a blockade; or even convinces them that there is no higher power, no great designer.
The tiniest detail of a flower or the overwhelming monstrosity of a tsunami?
A stunning sunset or a devastating earthquake?
'WHICH IS IT?' we scream, bewildered and helpless.

We live in this tension, torn between tears of joy and tears of agony.


Apparently, the blood of a foetus does not enter the lungs. But at the moment of birth, something amazing happens. "Suddenly all blood must pass through the lungs to receive oxygen because now the baby is breathing air. In a flash, a flap descends like a curtain, deflecting the blood flow ... After performing that one act, the muscle gradually dissolves... Without this split-second adjustment, the baby could never survive outside the womb." (Yancey, 2001)

Do we look at the miracle of new life, or look at a miscarriage?
Do we look at the remarkable workings of our eyes, or look at a crippling disease?
Do we look at our thumb as Newton did, or look at our appendix?

Because the more we experience, the more we open our eyes to the world, the more we learn, the greater the mystery.

I mean, how on earth do I wrap my mind around the breathtakingly enormous universe and then begin to contemplate the jaw-droppingly miniscule atom, or even quark? Even at GCSE I learnt about the electromagnetic spectrum, in itself evidence that there is more to life than meets the eye. But now I read that scientists - 'string theorists' - reckon our reality is formed of at least 11 dimensions!

In the final chapter to a massive 1000 page book confidently entitled, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Roger Penrose writes 'exactly what is really going on remains a mystery'.

Which amuses me. He then ultimately concludes, 'Perhaps what we need is some subtle change in perspective - something that we all have missed.'

-----

In one of the oldest stories ever told a good, wealthy man called Job is stripped of everything. And in the midst of his unbearable suffering Job screams WHY!
Then into the chaos, God speaks. The response is awesome. Read it in full here, it is a remarkably stunning and detailed depiction of creation.
But God offers no answers.
God responds with questions.

In one of the oldest stories ever told Job is left utterly speechless.
The mystery remains, the mystery deepens, but his questions are no more.

©  2010 Pete Atkinson
This article is reproduced here by the kind permission of the author.
Pete Atkinson is a qualified teacher and an aspiring young author. He is currently working on the final manuscript of his first book, whilst also working part-time as Courses Administrator at Christian Heritage in Cambridge. He blogs at Walk On.

Even before it’s official publication on 9^th September 2010, Stephen Hawking’s latest book The Grand Design (co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Press, 9 Sep 2010) has received enormous newspaper, radio, TV and internet coverage for his claim that modern physics shows we do not require a Creator God. In what he describes as a “sequel” to A Brief History of Time in which he attempts “to answer the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything”, he writes:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touchpaper and set the universe going.”

In a letter to The Times on 4^th September 2010 (page 23), Denis Alexander points out that the law of gravity is not “nothing” and so when Hawking seeks to explain why “there is something rather than nothing”, he is now using the word “nothing” with a rather different meaning. In Alexander’s words: “[Hawking] does not really mean ‘nothing’…. It is precisely the theist’s point that God is the ultimate source of all ‘somethings’, which certainly includes the laws of physics.”

The Daily Mail reported on Hawking’s claims on 3^rd September 2010, with a response by John Lennox entitled As a scientist I’m certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can’t explain the universe without God. As Lennox points out, there is nothing new in the claim, but by being linked with Stephen Hawking it has seen the media light, receiving the publicity that few other scientists can stimulate. Lennox rejects as false Hawking’s demand that we can choose only God or the laws of physics to explain the creation of the universe.

“…contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency.”

Lennox remarks that Newton’s Laws of Motion do not move snooker balls on the table: people – agents – are required to do that. As Lennox says: “…the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.”

Hawking’s argument leaves further questions to be answered: where did “a law such as gravity” or any other scientific law come from in the first place? And Hawking’s own analogy of lighting the blue touchpaper leaves unanswered the origin of the touchpaper but also reveals the implicit belief we all have that to start off the universe something needed to be lit. In other words, in a void of nothingness, someone is still needed to set things off. Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, commented that: “Physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing.”

The Grand Design also discusses the idea of a Theory of Everything, an end point in development of scientific theories because it encompasses all of science. The best candidate for such a theory, Hawking argues, is M-Theory, with it’s prediction of the existence of a multiverse, the existence of many different universes, of which ours just happens to allow life. Other scientists have called this a “blind alley”, “highly speculative” and “not testable, not even in any foreseeable future”, relying on “a leap of faith”, according to The Times (4^th September 2010, page 16). Roger Penrose in his review of the book in the Financial Times (which does not mention God once) remarks that "unlike quantum mechanics, M-theory enjoys no observational support whatever." New Scientist was impressed by the mathematical beauty and “awe” that M-theory generates, even if not so much by the scientific observations behind it. It’s editorial (11 September 2010, p.5) concludes: “Until there is empirical evidence for M-theory, Hawking’s suggestion that it has all the answers is just a matter of faith.” Hawking and Mlodinow admit that in The Grand Design they are addressing questions that go beyond traditional science and stray into the field of philosophy. This was necessary, they boldly exclaim in chapter 1, because “philosophy is dead”.

Philosopher of physics, Craig Callender, seemed unconvinced by this claim in his review of The Grand Design in New Scientist (11 September 2010, p.50). As well as providing a (very) brief history of the development of string theory, Callender takes issue with Hawking's view that "science offers many incomplete windows onto a common reality", which he equates with the philosophical theory called "perspectivalism". This "model-dependent realism", as Hawking and Mlodinow call it, "bleeds into an alarming anti-realism: not only does science fail to provide a single description of reality, they say, there is no theory-independent reality at all."

In his Daily Mail article, John Lennox shows that arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity are not tied exclusively to cosmological arguments. Having briefly covered some of the other arguments and evidence, Lennox concludes his article by saying: “Hawking’s new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.”

Read chapter 1 of The Grand Design.

Links to explore further:

John Lennox’s article in the Daily Mail

Daily Mail: As a scientist I'm certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God

William Lane Craig's Audio Blog response

William Lane Craig's 'Questions for Stephen Hawking'

Media coverage of Hawking’s new book

Daily Mail: God did NOT create the Universe, says Stephen Hawking

Daily Telegraph: Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

Daily Telegraph: Has Stephen Hawking ended the God debate?

Daily Telegraph: Stephen Hawking: religious leaders dismiss 'God not needed' comments

Financial Times: Book review by Roger Penrose

Financial Times: Editorial

The Guardian: Paul Davies on "Stephen Hawking's big bang gaps"

BBC Online News: Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

New Scientist editorial: Hawking's faith in M-theory

New Scientist book review: Craig Callender 'There is no theory of everything'

If you have come across helpful articles or reviews of The Grand Design, please let us know and we will update this list.

©2010 Chris Knight

Mr Wilberforce's Halo Slips

The reputation of evangelicalism’s greatest hero – William Wilberforce – took a dent last week.

Steven Tomkins, author of a new book on the Clapham Sect, has dug up Colonial Office papers from Sierra Leone (the colony of freed slaves set up by the Clapham Sect) which revealed that a form of unwaged labour called ‘apprenticeships’ – effectively a form a slavery – persisted in the colony with the support of Wilberforce for years after the abolition of the trade.

After the 1807 Slave Trade Act, the Royal Navy started intercepting slaving ships and rescuing slaves. According to Tomkins, the rescued slaves would be taken to Freetown, where the authorities either kept them for unpaid labour or sold them on to landowners. The only difference between the ‘apprentices’ and slaves was that the apprentices could only be kept for 14 years.

The apprenticeship system is not news – the fact the Wilberforce directly supported it is. An idealistic young governor of Sierra Leone and future parliamentarian, Thomas Perronet Thompson, wrote to Wilberforce protesting the system. Wilberforce responded by saying, "I wish I had time to go into particulars respecting the difficulties which forced us into acquiescing in the system of apprenticing". Thompson apparently continued to object and began to free the slaves. He was sacked by the managers of the colony – the group we call the Clapham Sect.

Tomkins argues that we should not claim that Wilberforce was corrupt, or think that this places a question mark over his sincerity in abolitionism. Rather, Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect took the view that the 1807 Act would not have passed without the apprenticeship clause, and that once passed they felt duty bound to stick to it. They acceded to the retention of slavery in Freetown in exchange for the abolition of the Atlantic wide trade.

Evangelicals have been in the habit of seeing a model for political action in the Clapham Sect, and particularly in Wilberforce: his patient lifelong commitment to a just cause, grounded in Scripture, his refusal to be bowed by vested interests, his sheer commitment in the face of his own physical weakness. But in Tomkins’ research, we see a new side of this great man – one which we may not be wholly comfortable with. If Tomkins is right, Wilberforce’s support of Freetown slavery was a political and utilitarian calculation. Faced with Thompson’s idealism, Wilberforce coolly suppressed it.

We did not need to know this to know that evangelicals have lionised him too much. His views on many other issues were dubious: he opposed trade unions through his support of the Combination Act ("never have you done one single act, in favour of the labourers of this country", wrote William Cobbet), opposed an inquiry into the Peterloo massacre, and thought that women should not engage in the anti–slavery campaign (a view which he also grounded in Scripture). Diehard Wilberforcians will of course argue that this is all understandable given his political and social context. That’s an entirely legitimate argument, if one which would be more persuasive if he were not at the same time feted for a humanitarianism years ahead of his time and very much against the prevailing public consensus.

We did need to know this in order that we might be reminded that we should not displace the task of understanding what a biblical and theological practice of politics looks like onto historical heroes. How are we to become faithful disciples in our own contexts? We can learn from them, but we would be wise to learn as much from their mistakes as from their successes. And though we may learn, we should not follow. Evangelicals have no business being disciples of anyone but Jesus.

Paul Bickley, Senior Researcher, Theos - the public theology think tank
© 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.

Your Faith, Your Life

The Evangelical Alliance, together with Christian Research, is taking a ‘snapshot’ of the beliefs, opinions and habits of thousands of Christians. This is an opportunity for us to listen to, and learn about Christians from throughout the UK. Please help us by filling in a questionnaire by clicking here.

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.

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.

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

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.

This year Cambridge University is busy with its 800^th 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.

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.

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'?

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

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.

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)