/ 
Tristyn Bloom
Matthew Cantirino
Anthony Esolen
Gene Fant
Greg Forster
Matthew J. Franck
Collin Garbarino
Robert P. George
William J. Haun
Leroy Huizenga
Katherine Infantine
Joseph Knippenberg
David T. Koyzis
Robert T. Miller
Matthew Milliner
David Mills
Mark Movsesian
William Mumma
Nathaniel Peters
R.R. Reno
James R. Rogers
Russell E. Saltzman
Matthew Schmitz
Kevin Staley-Joyce
David Talcott
Anna Williams
So, the WSJ has a major debate feature on the role of religion in society in its Weekend Journal. For the atheists, we have Richard Dawkins. No big surprise there. For the theists we have . . .
Alister McGrath? No.
Rick Warren? No.
Francis Beckwith? No.
J.P. Moreland? No.
It’s THE EX-NUN KAREN ARMSTRONG!!!!!
I feel well-represented.
September 12th, 2009 | 10:18 am
I actually don’t feel that this a negative. Apparently her new book on theism is not bad, and there is value in have a “liberal” debate the theistic side.
For me, one of the most important elements in my understanding of theism was reading Kung’s Does God Exist? Yeah, he’s wrong on so much else, but his critique of atheism, both old and new, was devastating and effective.
September 12th, 2009 | 10:51 am
“I feel well-represented.”
You should. They could have chosen Bishop Gene Robinson.
The monotheist ex-nun’s prey are not the Faithful.
September 12th, 2009 | 11:02 am
Glad to know that my confidence in the true conservatives at the WSJ was not misplaced. What? Randian neo-cons? Where?
September 12th, 2009 | 11:26 am
Have no fear. If Dawkins was the best they could do, they’re equally well-represented. The kind of folks who take Dawkins seriously aren’t worth worrying about.
September 12th, 2009 | 11:38 am
I share your frustration; but I’ll bet many atheists also feel poorly represented by the “undergraduate atheism” of Dawkins, which actually makes it a decent pairing.
September 12th, 2009 | 12:20 pm
No disrespect intended, but this would seem to fall under the category of whining.
September 12th, 2009 | 12:28 pm
Yes, it is somewhat disappointing for the Wall Street Journal to have chosen Ms. wishy-washy deist Armstrong to oppose this world’s most famous and reptilian atheist. Also it should be noted that, in the body of her essay, she reveals an ignorance of Christian Scripture astounding even for an apostate of the Church like herself.
She writes:
…in “the 17th century Christians began to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history”…before that… “Most cultures believed that there were two recognized ways of arriving at truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were essential and neither was superior to the other; they were not in conflict but complementary, each with its own sphere of competence. Logos (“reason”) was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to function effectively in the world and had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external reality. But it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life’s struggle. For that people turned to mythos, stories that made no pretensions to historical accuracy but should rather be seen as an early form of psychology; if translated into ritual or ethical action, a good myth showed you how to cope with mortality, discover an inner source of strength, and endure pain and sorrow with serenity.”
Ms. Armstrong seems to have forgotten John’s Gospel 1:14, that stands at the center of orthodox Christian faith, which proclaims Jesus Christ to Himself be the Logos of God. “And the Word (Logos) became flesh and lived among us…a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”
And so, armed with a fundamental ignorance of Scripture Ms. Armstrong heads into battle to defend meaningful and viable religion. Need I say it, with friends like this…..
September 12th, 2009 | 2:15 pm
After publishing a controversial article, the WSJ highlights responses in the “Letters to the Editor” section. Responses from faithful, learned Christians are needed, if ever, now.
September 12th, 2009 | 6:21 pm
Ugh… The WSJ’s “role of religion in society” is in and of itself an implicit demand that the two could possibly be separate. That “society” is a neutral place where we drag in religion after the fact.
September 12th, 2009 | 7:36 pm
Marcus, unfortunately Dawkins has a wide following, and has revived Voltaire/Freud style argumentation (i.e. if you can make fun of a strawman, you win. If you can explain away your opponent’s position using a pet unproven theory and claim that it’s the consensus fact that any rational person would arrive at, then you win by default. If you can patronize your opponent as having a mental disease that must be cured, then you win and anything your opponent says must be nonsense).
Unfortunately, Voltaire/Freud-style arguments create great sound bites, and in an era where journalists prefer mindless controversy over hard in depth development of the facts, only one side is being heard by many young people. Like it or not, for many people, the Moralistic Therapeutic Deism that’s promoted by Liberal Christianity is promoted as the only alternative that a “rational modern human” can believe in and real Christianity has caused all atrocities and human rights violations in history and it is just an invention created by uneducated shepherds and fishermen that thought the world was flat and pi equals three.
Please don’t underestimate Dawkins and Liberal Christianity. It is the default position of the law courts, education system, and government in most countries today. Fortunately, in times of pain and suffering, the Atheistic Humanist and Liberal Christians have only hollow words to offer, so as long as Christians and Christianity is there, there’s always a chance for the tables to turn.
September 12th, 2009 | 9:15 pm
I don’t think we should dismiss Dawkins lightly, although it is so tempting to do so. His target audience is not made up of philosophers or theologians. He is aiming directly at the undergraduates I deal with every day. For them, his arguments are devastatingly effective (and recycled ad nauseam in papers and classroom discussions).
He is the middle-brow evangelist of atheism (although evangelist isn’t really the right word–maybe dysangelist?). At his level, he’s effective.
May reason prevail, under God.
September 12th, 2009 | 9:49 pm
I was happy to see that Karen Armstrong was Dawkins’opposition. It saved me lots of reading time.
September 12th, 2009 | 10:19 pm
You’re very kind, Hunter. My guess is that the WSJ, like much of the MSM, is insulated from the sort of Evangelicals and Catholics that have the conviction as well as the game to seriously demolish Dawkins. As some FT readers know, Dawkins is a theological and philosophical lightweight. His presentation and analysis of St. Thomas, for example, is a D paper for an undergrad (He doesn’t get an “F,” since he’s so damn eloquent and efficient in presenting his bad interpretation and analysis.)
I would pay good money for a debate between Dawkins and William Lane Craig.
September 13th, 2009 | 1:22 am
Francis, I wouldn’t hold my breath. I vaguely remember William Lane Craig trying to get a debate with Dawkins. His reply was, Dr Craig was unknown, so Dr Craig might get prestige by debating Dawkins, but Dawkins would lose prestige by debating a nobody. So no debate.
You can, however, get to see Dawkins and Alister McGrath which is more a conversation than a debate:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626#
September 13th, 2009 | 10:14 am
“Marcus, unfortunately Dawkins has a wide following, . .
Please don’t underestimate Dawkins . . “
“I don’t think we should dismiss Dawkins lightly, . . “
I undersrtand. But so did Stephen Jay Gould—have a wide following, that is. However, do not disturb these people. This is evolution-in-process.
For an amusing commentary on such thinking (?), check out “Understanding the Sick and the Healthy: A View of World, Man, and God” by Franz Rosenzweig.
September 13th, 2009 | 4:40 pm
Karen Armstrong makes an excellent case against Dawkins that Mythos as well as empirical Logos both tell important truths. Too bad that she left Catholic Christianity in favor of a rather mushy syncretism. C.S. Lewis had it right with his view that Christianity happens to be a true Mythos, revealed by the resurrected Son of God, something about which the WSJ, well informed in politics and finance, has rather not a clue.
Rupert Murdoch et al at the formerly excellent WSJ in an attempt to reach a broader readership is out of his depth. He should stick too the dismal though profitable sciences.
September 14th, 2009 | 1:24 am
“Francis, I wouldn’t hold my breath. I vaguely remember William Lane Craig trying to get a debate with Dawkins. His reply was, Dr Craig was unknown, so Dr Craig might get prestige by debating Dawkins, but Dawkins would lose prestige by debating a nobody. So no debate.”
That’s amazing. Craig was one of three finalists for Swinburne’s Oxford chair. And I suspect that Bill has published far more peer-reviewed works in philosophy of science than Dawkins has published in science.
But when you think of the “public understanding of science” as the academic equivalent of “Britain’s Got Talent,” I suppose I don’t blame Dawkins for his lack of modesty.
September 14th, 2009 | 9:33 am
[...] A stacked deck. [...]
September 14th, 2009 | 9:34 am
[...] A stacked deck. [...]
September 14th, 2009 | 3:13 pm
Some years ago I was asked to review KA’s “A history of God” for a publisher. I sent in a report describing the book as amateurish, full of errors, and not to be taken seriously. She wanted a lot of money so the publisher passed and the book was picked up by Knopf and sold zillions of copies. The sad truth is that we theologians do not communicatre well with a large audience and may be reluctant to do so out of academic snobbery and, as a consequence, leave the field to mediocre writers like KA.
If the WSJ wanted a worthy respondent my candidate would be the redoubtable Ed Oakes or David Bently Hart although both would have trouble showing their disdain for Sawkins.
In other words: two columns by light weight bloviators.
September 14th, 2009 | 3:16 pm
Oops! I meant “Dawkins” – He, at least should have his name spelled correctly.
September 14th, 2009 | 9:40 pm
Robert Sokolowski would be my pick for Dawkins debate.
September 15th, 2009 | 8:52 am
[...] FAIR & UNBALANCED– Wall Street Journal: Man v. God …. [...]
September 15th, 2009 | 11:29 am
I teach undergrads for a living; I wonder who among them wouldn’t be credulous at any assertion that macroevolution leaves God nothing to do–ergo, disproving his existence. Rubbish! Even assuming arguendo that unguided macroevolution is beyond contestation–by no means a fait accompli–it leave everything in the world for God to do: creating the framework under which evolution could function in the first place, establishing the forces and laws of the universe, creating said universe in the first order, and doing who knows what else outside the bounds of this universe.
God is neither made nor unmade by evolution. He’s not touched by amateur philosophizing by a tiny being on a speck of an orb in an unremarkable solar system.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact