New commenting policy

Conversation (Photo credit: Bright Meadow)

Breaking news. I’m going to stop doing something I LIKE, to enable me to do something I LOVE more, and better.

I really LIKE engaging in conversation with readers of this blog. I find it opens my mind, enables me to think better about things that matter to me, confirms some things in my mind, and challenges others. More often than not, even the aggressive attacks on myself and my faith result in me having to properly think through why I think the way that I do, and provide an even greater foundation.

But I’m going to stop. This has been bubbling away for a while now and it feels like the time’s right; let me explain why.

Commenters on this blog fall into only a few categories:

1. friends and family who want to encourage or challenge me
2. people I don’t know who want to encourage me
3. (the majority) people I don’t know who disagree with what I’m saying and have no intention of changing their mind

For each of these categories I’m going to respond differently:

1. speak to them personally – I already know them!
2. send them a personal thank you e-mail because (a) the encouragement means more than you know and I’d like to acknowledge it, and (b) it’s just nice to get to know new people!
3. reply to this comment with a link to this post and nothing else, and follow up with a personal e-mail to enable the conversation to happen anyway

I’ve not been sure about doing this because the response to 3. doesn’t seem to encourage healthy conversation; away from the public eye I might misbehave! But here’s what I’m hoping will happen:

• other commenters will get involved to step in when they agree with me, thereby improving the conversation and enabling others to get the benefits I’ve been enjoying
• commenters who are just angry at me personally and leave anonymous attacks without any interest in an actual conversation will stop wasting their own time (I honestly don’t mind, it keeps the stats up on the blog so makes me feel good about myself!)
• engaging in discussion will take up less of my time because I’m on e-mail a lot more than on the blog

So hopefully that all makes sense. Just to be clear on the way comments work, I approve your first comment, then anything else you add will go through automatically. So if you want to remain anonymous for your comment but still have the conversation, explain that in your comment and leave your e-mail address, and I’ll remove that before approving it.

Ironically(?), leave a comment if you have any questions.

Oh, and I reserve the right to leave a comment anytime I want to.

The God Delusion Debate: atheism undermines science

Here’s a good website to click on. Professor Richard Dawkins debating Dr. John Lennox and (to my mind) having his atheistic worldview shredded before his very eyes. I’ve probably watched about half of it, but here’s a little taster.

Richard Dawkins has explained (of course) that science is the only logical option because it relies solely on evidence and therefore is provable, whereas faith is required to be blind. Here’s where John Lennox steps in. He explains that atheism undermines science. Science assumes the rational intelligibility of the universe, or else you could draw no conclusions. However, there is no evidence for the rational intelligibility of the universe and therefore science requires faith before you’ve even started moving. As with every single argument against Christianity, the assumptions on which you’re building your argument are disproved by the very argument itself.

Here’s another good bit. Dawkins says that you should never really have any level of faith, because it’s always blind. John Lennox’s response: ‘I presume you have faith in your wife. Is there any evidence for that?’ Richard Dawkins: ‘Yes, plenty-’ he then hesitates, receiving a raised eyebrow from Lennox. Dawkins’ ‘evidence’ for his wife’s faithfulness is her tone of voice, a look in her eyes…sounds terribly subjective to me!

You can watch the whole debate for free right here.

What’s the point of debating?

This isn’t the first time I’ve thought this, and I’m sure I’m not the only one to think it, but aren’t online debate forums just a waste of time? In fact, face-to-face debates might be a waste of time too.

Pretty much nobody reads an online debate because they’d like to be convinced of ‘the right answer’, it’s almost always that they agree strongly with one side so want to listen to their guy and think ‘how wise!’ while looking at the other side and think ‘how foolish’.

So in the whole Christian/non-Christian thing, what’s the point? I’d love it if atheists or Jehovah’s Witnesses or whoever who debate online would hear the truth in Christianity and respond to the gospel, but it’s not like we see it all the time – is this all just a waste of time?

I think the answer’s no. For some online debates, the answer is clearly yes – don’t waste your life reading or adding to debates about whether homeschooling is better than state schooling for example. But in an online conversation in which the gospel is being preached and in which Jesus’ name is being glorified, we have a secret weapon. His name is the Holy Spirit, and he works through our imperfect actions to cause change in people’s hearts.

Humanism – more silly logic

A commenter posted a link to the Humanist homepage, assumedly to explain why atheist evangelists aren’t illogical…allow me to quote from their website:

All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely and reach their own conclusions about what they believe.

That’s taken from the banner at the top of their page, and this is taken from the test you can take to find out if you’re a humanist:

1 Does God exist?

A) I am sure there is a God ruling over the universe.
B) It depends what you mean by God, but I think so.
C) I don’t know.
D) There is no evidence that any god exists, so I’ll assume that there isn’t one.

Ok, so we should be free to reach our own conclusions…providing our overriding assumption is that there isn’t a god.

Note the options available:

A) – I am sure – something must have made a person who would answer this way (like me) think that they’re sure, so humanists must say that people answering with (A) are liars.

B) This answer would show that someone just generally thinks something in one direction – a bit of a silly outlook but fair enough.

C) A good answer, but not one the humanists approve of – according to the answer page this answer would make you:

perhaps a bit dependent on authority or other people or pure emotion

Is it just me, or does that seem a little unfair?!

D) Completely illogical in every sense of the word. Stating as a fact that there is no evidence for a god doesn’t make it a fact, you have to say really ‘I haven’tseen any evidence for the existence of a god’, and using that as a reason for reaching an unfounded assumption seems a bit extreme – doesn’t it?

Even before I was a Christian I would have been able to tell you that the only answers that make any sense at all would be A and C, so thanks for the original comment and the opportunity to discover more layers of ridiculousness in the atheist faith.