Fascinating material. I agree with William Lane Craig about preparedness to defend your faith. Belief, by itself, while it may be a good beginning, is never sufficient. If something is worth believing in it should be worth some serious research along the way, making yourself educated to your faith and to objections against it, and making yourself into someone able to defend that faith even against well-informed critics, However, is Craig's outlook all for the good? Richard Dawkins does not think so and the Christian Post has published Dawkins' criticism of Craig. This does not make the CP into an on-going Radical Centrist newspaper but at least on this particular matter that is exactly what it is. BR ------------------------------------------------------- Christian Post Many Christians 'Utterly Unprepared' to Defend Their Faith, Says Leading Christian Apologist
By _Nicola Menzie_ (http://www.christianpost.com/author/nicola-menzie/) December 12, 2013|8:16 am Dr. William Lane Craig, philosophy professor and a leading Christian apologist, believes there is an urgent need for the church to equip its members to give good responses to tough questions about their faith, especially in light of a cultural climate that has made it easier for atheists to be more outspoken, sometimes aggressively so, in their attacks on religious beliefs. Expressing skepticism over the accuracy of a 2012 Pew Research Center _survey_ (http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/) that found an increase in the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans, Craig suggested that the New Atheism movement inspired by the works of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and others has removed "the stigma of being an atheist or self-identifying as an atheist." The Pew survey, whose _response rate_ (http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/) is less than 10 percent, reported that nearly 20 percent of Americans are religiously unaffiliated, but many of them remain "religious" or "spiritual" in some sense. The survey also found that among that number were 6 percent who described themselves as atheists and agnostics The Talbot School of Theology professor says Christians should be concerned — and prepared to sway the irreligious. "I think that we need to present a sound case for why we believe that God exists and why as Christians that we believe that He has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus of Nazareth," said Craig. "I believe that if we can do that, we will win over many of these people who are now self-identifying as agnostic or atheist." Craig believes his latest book, A Reasonable Response: Answers to Tough Questions on God, Christianity, and the Bible (Moody Publishers), can help equip Christians to "_earnestly contend for the faith_ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:3&version=NIV) " and give them a hand in being "_prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks_ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3:15&version=NIV) …" "I think that many Christians are intimidated because atheists are often very aggressive," said Craig. "They will attack you personally, and they will do so in the name of reason and intellectual arguments. And many Christians feel utterly unprepared to give a defense of what they believe, and feel unprepared to answer the tough questions that their unbelieving friends will put to them." A Reasonable Response, which includes actual queries from those who have written to Craig on his _website_ (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/) , include discussions on "knowing and believing what is real," "origins and the meaning of life," "the afterlife and evil," and "issues of Christian practice." Questions in the book also come from believers, who inquire about the Trinity and incarnation, aspects of Reformed theology, and what it means to have a relationship with God. Craig, whose 1994 book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics remains popular with readers, has debated over the years several prominent theologians, scholars and atheists, such as Paul Kurtz, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Hitchens and many others. Although they have appeared on stage together in a 2010 group debate, noted evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins continues to refuse to spar one-on-one with Craig (read his op-ed _"Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig"_ (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig) ). Popular author, philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris, cited in a recent profile of Craig by _The Chronicle of Higher Education_ (http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/) , has suggested that the Christian apologist "seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists." ==================================== Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig This Christian 'philosopher' is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him * _Richard Dawkins_ (http://www.theguardian.com/profile/richard-dawkins) * * _theguardian.com_ (http://www.theguardian.com/) , Thursday 20 October 2011 05.00 EDT Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of _William Lane Craig_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) . He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine". Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to _confront him in Oxford this October_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A) . I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury. In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another's name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol. But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in _Deuteronomy 20: 13-15_ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20:13-15&version=NIV) , to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. And verses 16 and 17 are even worse: "But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them" You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He _begins by arguing_ (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767) that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children. "But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives." Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them? "So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing." Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A _later post by Craig_ (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8973) is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says: "I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples. It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair." So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right. Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty. And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
