uou might be interested in this recent book and this blog, which disemboweles the "New Atheists"...

The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day

http://voxday.blogspot.com/

Do you ever wonder about atheists proclaiming their disbelief, wearing it on their sleeve like a badge. Then in the next breath, mock those who proclaim their belief, condemning those who express their religion in public?

Given your reaction so far you are possibly unlikely to enjoy the rest of the book. You are making a couple of errors about the book though. Vox is trying to fight the atheists on their ground. Therefore many his arguments are within the atheist worldview. A quote like

my only weapons are the purely secular ones of reason, logic, and historically documented, independently verifiable fact.

is not saying that reason does not have its source in God; rather that the atheists claim these things as primary valid and consistent with their secular worldview. Vox is not here trying to show them that philosophically they are incorrect in this conclusion, he is saying you value these things, well I will show you using these things (that you esteem) that you are still incorrect. This is a valid apologetic.

Secondly Vox has a partially Arminian interpretation (he subscribes to Open View theology). To write off his book because he is not a Calvinist is premature. I find many books written by Calvinists useful even though I think this theology is incorrect.

You still may not enjoy the book but you are misinterpreting parts of it.

Test.

Vox is trying to fight the atheists on their ground.

Which is exactly wrong.

Fighting them on their own ground only serves to give them all the advantages, and further convinces them that our ground holds no more valid position than theirs.

Fighting them on their ground allows them to control the debate, which means they win.

Fighting them on our ground (driven by the Holy Spirit) is the only valid approach.

Meaningless arguments over worldly details are just that. Interjected by the other side on purpose to distract us from our issues. This is a common debate tactic and novice Christian appologists fall for it all the time.

The issue is this:

If any single part of the Bible is false, then that denies the inspired nature of the message making the entire message false. But if it is true, then Atheism is false.

But it's not up to us to beat Atheists into submission, which is their point about what we are trying to do.

However. Atheism is all about beating us into submitting to the possibility that there are elements of the Bible are false. If we do this in any measure, they win.

Our commission is to promote Christ's message of salvation and embrace it in our lives (publicly and privately) according to the insipred Word provided to us through God chosen prophets, apostyles, and Son, as give to us in the Bible texts.

In the end, it is the Holy Spirt driving the boat of converstion When we sinful humans try to usurp this singular role of the Holy Spirit we fail.

Next time I will spell check first. Apologies.

s not saying that reason does not have its source in God; rather that the atheists claim these things as primary valid and consistent with their secular worldview. Vox is not here trying to show them that philosophically they are incorrect in this conclusion, he is saying you value these things, well I will show you using these things (that you esteem) that you are still incorrect. This is a valid apologetic.

Look, my blog is insignificant and I'm not attempting to pick one of these idiotic blog fights. Hopefullly, Vox is aware of that, and I won't be posting further on this outside on this discussion here. We could get into a back-and-forth on this, but I don't see what's Biblically valid about snark, lack of charity, and trying to fight them on their own ground, as they are lost. I'm not sure he knows what apologetics even is.

Keep fightin' the good fight, guys!

Then you will probably object to Schaeffer also who spoke about finding common ground then showing how Christianity is consistent and other worldviews are not. And you will possibly object to Paul's speech at Mars Hill starting with the heathen view and leading it towards the resurrection of the dead.

There is nothing wrong with defeating your opponents on their turf. Further, Christians do hold to reason, logic and history, if one can debate using only these features what is wrong with that?

I was not so much defending Vox as explaining where you were misunderstanding his approach. You may choose to argue it is wrong, but you need to understand it first.

Vox claims he was not trying to write a theological apologetic (there are other books that do that with these atheists), he was trying to point out the errors of fact in their arguments, whether that helps other weaker Christians to more easily dismiss these atheist charlatans or give atheists less ammunition against Christians. Do you think that correcting the lies of the likes of Andrew Dickenson White is of no use when the falsehoods so clearly contradict history?

I make no defence of Vox's snark nor lack of charity, though I wonder if at times the atheists are less offended than the Christians are for them.

And at least one person has become a Christian thru reading the blog and comments. That does not make his methodology acceptable but it does counter the claim that his method will inherently not work.

(I also find it somewhat objectionable that your blog hoster posts my IP address so accessibly).

(I also find it somewhat objectionable that your blog hoster posts my IP address so accessibly).

I thought only I was able to see that. I went in and changed one of the options so that unregistered commenters don't display their IP anymore.

Beth,

I'm glad you should mentioned Schaeffer. Not only was he a staunch Calvinist, but he used Van Til's (presuppositional) apologetics. I found this on him, I think it's germane to this discussion:

Schaeffer persuaded nonbelievers to face up to the contradictions in their own worldviews by revealing their inability to account for what is most important in life (love, beauty, meaning). He would, as he described it, "take the roof off," bringing the nonbeliever almost to the point of despair, to acknowledge his lost condition. Then he applied the gospel of Christ. While conversant in the theology of Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, and Van Til, Schaeffer was captive only to the worldview set forth in the Bible—God's good creation, man's fall into sin and its consequences, the redemption through Christ—which he said accords with reality in all of its dimensions. Nonbelievers cannot bring themselves to be completely consistent with their own presuppositions, an inconsistency that is a result of common grace. "Thus, illogically," he wrote in 1948, "men have in their accepted worldviews various amounts of that which is ours. But, illogical though it may be, it is there and we can appeal to it."

I'd obviously depart with Schaeffer on his agreement with Kuyper, but I think Schaeffer would agree with what I'm saying here. Schaeffer's entire video series, "How should we then live?" dealt with the issue of cultural presuppositions and fundamental philosophical questions, especially those relating to the existence of truth and morality independent of the existence of God.

I think that Paul was doing the same thing on Mars Hill:

Acts 17:18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
.
.
.
22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

29"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

32When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." 33At that, Paul left the Council. 34A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Evangelicals and post-modern Emergents take Paul's discourse at Mars Hill to mean that we must adapt our worship and our gospel to attract the culture around us.

I think Schaeffer would argue that Paul is just practicing Van Tillian apologetics here. He is addressing their cultural religious presuppositions (v 22-28) and pointing out their inadequacy (v 29), followed by a call to repentance and faith in Jesus (v 30-31). Paul never divorced his apologetic from the gospel, and he showed how the unbeliever's own beliefs led to logical contradictions (v 24 and 29). The common ground he established is that we are "God's offspring" (v 29), but never assumes a neutral ground between their worldview and his.

Hopefully, we're not talking past one another on this.

Then Vox can say to the atheists: "You believe in reason, logic and history, so do I, and here is where you are logically wrong and here is where you're historically wrong."

An example, he takes Harris' red-state, blue-state metric and says, it is a silly metric, but if Harris believes it, closer examination of the data proves the opposite of what he is claiming.

You seem to think that this is okay with Schaeffer, Paul and others. Vox is doing the same thing.

I don't expect you to agree with his Open Theism (I don't) and you may find some of the final chapters very disconcerting, but this is not the area I was challenging you on.

Other Christians find Vox obnoxious. I don't but can understand how some people find some of what he writes offensive. He is also very astute in some areas (not overly so in theology) and adds much insight to several topics which I find useful.

Let me explain why Vox's book is valuable. Many kids today are raised in the Christian Ghetto... they are sheltered to the point that they are never exposed to the standard atheist attacks.

Then they are sent off to university, and people they think are smart start hitting them with those arguements... and they have no reasonable defense.

Vox's book is like a vaccination.

They will see the Atheist agurments utterly destroyed... and when a professor starts spouting that trash... he will no longer look smart. He'll look like a stupid atheist. He'll look like something to be pitied... which is exactly how we should want him to look.

I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe, and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t both be perfectly cool with that.

So much for the Great Commission!

Matthew 10:13-14 -- And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.

I wonder if you guys ever saw Plantinga's critique of Dawkins' book:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

I may be overstating my point when I said "Excactly Wrong".

I am not saying we should stop pointing out the logical and hypocritical falacies of Atheist thought. I am saying that this should not become the end point.

Someone above mentioned Paul at Mar's hill. Paul's main point was to express the truth about Christ, not to simply argue falacies of politically correct religion.

>>>

As to "B" referencing Matthew 10:13-14.

The key is not to spar pointlessly (and foolishly) with those who have no intention of listening. At this juncture the debate becomes an argument simply for the purpose of arguing, which brings me back to my original point.

My original point is that battling them on their ground gives them an opportunity to challenge us with their excuses for unbelief. This puts the onus of defense on us, rather than on them.

This is the dangerous part because so many Christians are not properly schooled in their own theology and are unable to properly answer the challenges. This more often leads to doubt and then disbelief by the Christian, rather than an acceptance of belief by the Atheist.

It is much safer (and usually wiser) for the Christian to not step into the battleground prepared by the enemy. Yes, we speak up and speak the truth, but then let the Holy Spirit battle the demons misleading the unbelievers.

If we want to talk about good Christian apologetics in a modern intellectual context then we need to read C.S.Lewis. In a reformation context we need to read Martin Luther. In a doctrinal context it would be Apostle Paul. In a theological context Christ's words in the Gospels is hard to beat.

But battling strawman arguments prepared by Atheists just misleads us in the wrong direction.

How would you respond to atheists such as this using presuppositional apologetics?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/vox_day_1

Might be a good experise of comparing your method vs. Vox's. I'm open minded to your position, I guess I haven't seen enough presuppositional apologetics used successfully, while I have seen Vox's method in action.

Read Plantinga's article and read my thread, at least the part before other Christians jumped in and "helped." Those are examples. ColtsFan is sort of a philosophical genius. Perhaps he'll weigh in.
http://www.t-nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1983650&pageNo=20

Here's another good example, though I don't endorse any of Wilson's Federal Vision:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

Bahnsen has written some good books on presuppositional apologetics as well. He uses it in the famous "Bahnsen/Stein" debate.

I read thru the Plantinga piece...and to be fair, Vox does mention the complexity argument in his book. Perhaps Vox is using some presuppositional apologetics without realizing it...