http://www.bethinking.org/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 2008 UCCF: The Christian Unions Christianity en-uk UCCF: The Christian Unions no Copyright 2008 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/blog/feedxml/http://www.bethinking.org/Images/feeds/Blog_News-and-Views.jpg 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/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/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/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-