AVERAGE USER RATING
Recently On Spiritual Life
Featured Sponsors
Extra! Extra! Atheists Whip Christians in Debate! Again! And Again
John Shore
The other day I read the recent Newsweek piece in which Rick Warren (Purpose-Driven Life — like you didn’t know) debated the eminently rational and mind-bogglingly articulate Sam Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation). In that “debate,” I thought Mr. Harris waxed the floor with Mr. Warren (for whom — not that he could possibly know or care — I have nothing but love and respect).
For one, nobody out-rationalizes Sam Harris. The guy has a brain the size of Europe — and all of it is connected to his mouth. He also seems entirely compassionate and utterly Pro-Human, two qualities I know I enjoy in a person. I think Sam Harris stands as pretty much the ultimate example of what a person can be and think when they insist that rational thought, above all, should be respected. And I can respect that. It’s certainly not the worst thing for a person to stake their claim on.
Rational thought is core to what it means to be human. And that means that ultimately every human, sooner or later, must decide whether or not there’s a God. Everything is either created by some sort of Divine Overseer, or the universe is the result of purely mechanistic coincidences. Those are our two choices. It’s not like there’s a third one. (Unless you count the decision not to decide whether or not there’s a God — which, to my mind, is a “choice” entirely too spineless to take seriously.) There either is a God, or there isn’t. And everyone definitely wants to know which of the two it is. Not a one of us wants to exist in a system that’s grounded in pure, unknowable mystery. That’s way too scary.
So people do what they must: They choose either God, or No God. Then they go with that.
We Christians, of course, have chosen God. It’s what our hearts tell us is true. More: It’s what God tells us is true. To be perfectly accurate, we didn’t choose God at all. God chose us.
But we’ve got to understand that once we decide, for whatever reason, to Vote God, we necessarily mark ourselves, in the eyes of someone who’s gone with option No God, as extraordinarily irrational. At that point we can’t help but seem to them as fundamentally (so to speak) bonkers.
Which is not to say that we cannot fully justify our faith: My first book, Penguins, Pain and the Whole Shebang, proved (if I say so myself) that the entirety of the Christian belief system is nothing if not rationally supportable. Once anyone decides there is a God — which, since there either is or isn’t, is necessarily as rational as deciding there’s not — Christianity makes as much sense as opening an umbrella in the rain. It’s actually difficult to posit a God, proceed logically from that assertion, and end up anywhere but at the Christian cross.
Most Recent User Comments
Report this post
P.Yates2
6/3/2007 9:42 PM
John Shore, I am concerned about you.You believe the atheist won. But this was an interview, not a debate, guided by leading questions. Describing this in terms of winning and losing is not appropriate. Rather, Rick Warren stated the Christian position, and this atheist did not accept the truth.To the intellectually honest, reason gives adequate evidence for the existence of God. But you were impressed with this atheist, and he was only espousing old arguments. See popular authors such as Chuck Colson’s “How Now shall we Live,” or Lee Strobel’s “The Case For . . .” books, or Josh McDowell’s “Evidence . . .” These writers have skillfully compiled some classic arguments.You said that logic can not conclude the existence of God. I admonish you. The facts are so clear, if you deny them, as the psalmist says, you are a fool (Psalm 14), and as Jesus says the Rocks will cry out (Luke 19), and as Paul asserted nature will prove you wrong (Rom 1). Accept the evidence, it's only sensible.
Carl Montrosse
6/3/2007 9:37 PM
I recommend taking a listen to Dr. Greg Bahnsen and his debate with Dr. Stein. Dr. Bahnsen shows rather conclusively that the Atheist worldview cannot account for knowledge, morality, etc. Bahnsen was a student of Cornelius VanTil, a noted Christian philosoper. I would also suggest Dr. Gordon Clark who, in my mind, was even more logical than VanTil.
I was pleasantly surprised by Pastor Warrens comments in the debate. I think he hedged a bit and used unfortunate language in a few spots, but altogether I think he handled himself well. However winning and losing debates are irrelevant to our task as Christians.
We are called to give a reason for the hope that is within us and that means we show up to the debate full of love and truth. Logic and truth are inseparable for one can use logic properly yet be false, and one can use truth and poor logic and be false. The Christian must employ sound reasoning and true premises. We will not make many friends but we may win some.
I was pleasantly surprised by Pastor Warrens comments in the debate. I think he hedged a bit and used unfortunate language in a few spots, but altogether I think he handled himself well. However winning and losing debates are irrelevant to our task as Christians.
We are called to give a reason for the hope that is within us and that means we show up to the debate full of love and truth. Logic and truth are inseparable for one can use logic properly yet be false, and one can use truth and poor logic and be false. The Christian must employ sound reasoning and true premises. We will not make many friends but we may win some.
- Read more feedback
- Give us your feedback on this article - (login required to comment)
I find this notion to be far fetched. the fact of the matter is, that despite mounds of evidence, the debate as to whether or not God exists, cannot be won. For athiests this is especially hard because to prove something does not exist would first require them to scour the entire universe at the sub-atomic level, then even if such an exaustive search were to turn up empty handed, the margin of error on such a search is so impossibly high, that you have a better chance at skin diving to the bottem of the oceans deepest trench, and survivng.
now, when an unarmed, or even a well armed pack of athiests finds themselves entering into the debate of creationism Vs evolution, this is a different story. because of the overwhelming amount of eveidence to the contrary, evolution cannot be proven, and creation wins by default.
there are several christians who are offering up to $250,000.00 reward for anyone who can difinative proof that evolution has happened.