Dr Paul Allen

Imagine all the holy books of all the religions disappeared tomorrow so that all knowledge of religion was gone. Imagine, too, that all science vanished. People would rediscover math eventually. They rediscover science eventually. As for religion? Sure, they’d invent gods again, but new ones. The ones we have now would never come back again. The idea, naturally, is that science and math are built on timeless and unchanging reality. Religions depend on whatever people might invent, and they’re nothing more than inventions. As an argument against religion, this one’s a non-starter. It’s irrational — which is all too grievously typical of popular-level atheism lately. Typical Atheist Irrationality I’m speaking here primarily of popular-level atheism, such as you commonly find in blogs and on social media. The so-called (and fading) “New Atheists,” such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Lawrence Krauss, and Sam Harris also belong in this group. There are exceptions to this rule o

Karl Barth (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It’s not just what we say, but how we say it, that matters. Peter reminds us to be “always prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” ( 1 Pet 3:15-16 ). We have to be ready with arguments and reasons, but we have to give thought also to how we present them. Good Arguments First and foremost we need to avoid the ubiquitous ad hominem (“to/concerning the person”) variety—otherwise known as “personal attacks.” Poor papers often focus on the person: both the critic and the one being criticized. This is easier, of course, because one only has to express one’s own opinions and reflections. A good paper will tell us more about the issues in the debate than about the debaters. (This of course does not rule out relevant biographical informat