Time For Christians To Wake Up And Think

Sometime in the 1980s, Christians in the West began to label evangelistic techniques and reconfigure church services to reduce the message to the lowest level of cognition in the audience. As nobly intentioned as that was, the end result was the lowest level of writing and gospel preaching one could imagine. Mass media was brought to aid this purpose, and before long evangelicals were seen to be masters in entertainment and minimalists in thought. As this was happening, the intellectual arenas were being plundered and young minds gradually driven away from their “faith” in the gospel message. Christians are paying our dues today and likely will pay for an entire generation.
- Ravi Zacharias - An Apologetic for Apologetics

My friend Jamie sent me a link to a debate of atheist Richard Dawkins against Christian theologist Alister McGrath. I've seen and heard some stuff from Dawkins in the past. He certainly has become seen as a threat by orthodox Christians, but in some ways I think it's a good thing he's here to shake things up. The quote above is all to true, and maybe Dawkins will help to reignite Christian thought from its slumber. The debate is below in two parts. I think it's about an hour total.

Richard Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath part 1
Richard Dawkins vs. Alister McGrath part 2

A decent bit of this talk, on both sides, doesn't do much. They find themselves at a sort of standstill as far as the debate goes. I think it is largely due to the fact that they are coming from completely different frames of reference. McGrath draws attention to this in slightly different, but similar words. It's not so much that religion proves God, but religion gives a frame of reference in which to test everything you see. He illustrates this with a quote from C.S. Lewis...

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

The real criticism that I see against Dawkins, at which point his side is not proven wrong, but begins to loosen is this: at any point I can accept and understand his facts and evidences as a human being of reason, but he cannot do the same towards my faith because he is not a believer.

Dawkins assumes that he can test Christianity or even faith in God by knowing their doctrine, their beliefs, and their history. I don't believe this is true. You can test physical things without being a part of them, but you can't test things of the mind or things of the soul (if you even believe you have a soul) without being actively involved on the inside. I cannot know exactly what an aardvark is able to think or deduct or what the exact level of their awareness is since I am not one of them. In the same way, and C.S. Lewis speaks on this in Mere Christianity, I can understand human awareness or what our comprehension and thought processes look like because I am human. Now reason is something all men are capable of, and I would say a spiritual connection with God is also. I cannot relate to someone of reason if I have no experience with it. Fortunately, our whole social structure is largely, even fundamentally, formed on reason, thus I am well acquainted with it and can relate to others who reason. But if Dawkins denies a God and is unacquainted with the practice of spirituality, especially that of Christianity for this instance, how can he assume to question a Christian?

In truth he may have more knowledge, but we Christians have an entirely different dimension or vantage point to look at the situation by (according to us at least). Sure he has every right to be skeptical of our "spirituality." I am living a life of reason. Dawkins is not living a life of Christianity. If he were really desiring to scientifically test Christianity, it would require for him to partake of it to test it, not stand outside observing it without experiencing it. The truth is, Dawkins can take this in somewhat of a scientific sense if he desires, but the rules are slightly skewed from tradiational science, where he must now observe from the inside and not the outside. This becomes a bit of a mix, like psychology is, where we understand psychology from others and also incorporating that with the inside perspective of ourselves.

Once inside he would have the opportunity to give an unbiased look at what is happening, seeing as how he can look through both a frame of reason and a frame of Christian spirituality. Christians obviously don't nearly agree on what that framework shows, but it's somewhere between "spirituality is the more important and dominant frame of reference," and "Christian spirituality and reason are equal frames, but rely on each other for the most truth." I tend to side with the latter. I suppose there could be reason to suggest that there is a third option that reason is the dominant frame of reference, which would be supported by those who abandon their faith for science. Either way Dawkins has not done sufficient testing if he has not sunk himself into the Christian life to judge for himself. I'm not saying then that it will come out proving anything for sure, but I don't think it could bring means to deny the Christian points and could have unexpected results.


The other marvelous point made by a woman questioner, is that McGrath and Dawkins interchanged God and religion like it was nothing. I noticed this from the beginning and was bothered by it. As McGrath agreed with after the question, these are very different things being said. One assumes a particular doctrine or sect of people, and the other assumes any who claim God. It's important to realize the difference, that God is not religion and religion is not God! I would certainly agree that religion makes people do bad things. Religion should be an expression of our search for knowing God if it is anything; however, God does not make is do wrong, rather it is our misconception of Him within religion that makes us do wrong. At least that's my take... but I think it looks pretty good personally (pride flaring).


Hopefully this will raise some discussion. Although I won't get so hopeful as to think anyone will post comments. I know my readers don't do that!