I just finished a book by Dinesh D’souza titled “What’s so great about Christianity”.  I do not exaggerate when I say that D’souza is in the “Buckley” mold–his grasp of philosophy, history, and the sciences firmly establish him as a “renaissance man” (my kind of guy).  Throughout the pages of his book, he challenges and (in many cases ‘destroys’) the arguments and accusations Athiests such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have made against the belief in Christ.  

The book’s basic outline is well constructed.  First, D’souza systematically questions many of the “new Athiesm’s” presuppositions about Christianity.  He points out that Christianity, far from causing the moral tragedies of the modern world… has, in fact, been the changing force that helped overcome these very moral travesties.  For example, Christianity lifted women out of the second-class status Roman society had imposed upon them; it was the impetus for the great artists of our time: Michalengelo, Da Vinchi, Mozart, Bach, Handel… etc… ; it helped create the concept of western government — a concept based around the Christian principle that society must fight against the inherent sinful nature of man and must keep leader’s actions in check.  These are but a few of Christianity’s contributions to world history…  

D’souza then calls Athiesm out — asking it to provide the same answers it chides Christianity for failing to answer.  When tragedy happens, Where is Atheism?  Atheism cannot console the victims of tradgey… nor can it condemn the aggressor.  When Athiest rulers murder millions of their subjects… where is Athiesm’s defense (or apology?).  When Athiesm claims rationality as their trump card… on what basis can they claim that rationality alone provides all answers?  For all it’s proponents, Athiesm still has much to account for.

What’s So Great About Christianity may be the best piece of Christian apologetics in the past decade;  don’t pass it up! 

I found this article on Americanthinker.com and wanted to share a few potions of it.

So, assuming you are a theist, what do you say to the atheist who asks, “You don’t (chuckle) actually believe in God, do you (snicker)?”…

No matter what evidence you give, the supercilious atheist finds a way to dismiss it. To him, it is not the case that your evidence for God is valid but nevertheless is cancelled out by his superior evidence against God. No, in the atheist’s mind your evidence does not even count as evidence…  

the atheist refuses to expand his mental universe by also believing in the transcendent things that the theist believes in: God, souls, angels and demons, for example. The atheist restricts himself to a sort of tunnel vision.

And this is where atheism becomes vulnerable. The atheist does not disbelieve in God because he has neutrally examined all the evidence, and drawn the proper conclusion that there is no God. On the contrary, the atheist radically misconstrues the plentiful evidence for God, and he does this because of his false worldview, which tells him that only the physical really exists. Before he has examined the evidence, the atheist thinks he knows that nothing non-physical actually exists, and this assumption governs how he responds to the evidence.

There is only one effective way to respond to the supercilious atheist’s question: Speak his language, the language of evidence and reasoning, of logic and proof… Say something like the following:

“I believe in God because that’s what the evidence shows. But before you try to debunk my evidence, we have to ask, what are your criteria for deciding whether a God exists, and how do you know that these criteria are correct? 

So when the atheist asserts that there is no evidence that any miracle has occurred, ask him: “What sort of evidence for a miracle would you regard as being valid? And how do you know ahead of time that any miracle not validated by this type of evidence must not have occurred?”
 

This is only a short portion of the entire article; the author goes on to take you through almost an entire debate … focusing on the weaknesses of the typical atheist position.  It is really a useful article for BOTH sides… atheist and theist alike.

[flv]http://www.mmisi.org/flv/lectures/v000187_cicero_102207.flv[/flv]

Unfortunately, I seem to have stumbled across this debate after-the-fact… but that in no way makes it any less pleasurable for the first-time viewer.  As they say… if you haven’t seen it… you get the drift.  Anyway, here’s a quick teaser:

Christopher Hitchens (a favorite personality of mine) debates Dinseh D’souzda on the topics of Christianity and Faith.  Hitchens gave his usual “rationality alone provides all the answers we need” montra… which was not entirely un-persuasive… and Dinseh countered with scientific metaphysical arguments for a creator and the moral foundation Christianity has given Western culture — a foundation Hitchens almost entirely hijacks for his own purposes.  Dinesh pretty much destroys Hitchen’s premise that Christianity has been behind the horrible evils of the past mellenia… but at the expense of allowing Hitchens to counter with effective attacks on the “vindictive” and therefore undesirable nature of God– criticisms I wish D’souza would have more fully addressed.  

Denish deserves kudos for even attempting this battle and I think he performed very well all things considered.  He is definitely on my radar now as someone to follow closely.

I highly recommend spending 90 minutes and watching this debate in its entirety; it is quite an education to say the least.