A review of What’s So Great About Christianity. By Dinesh D’Souza.

Regnery, 2007.

Christianity has come under a heavy battering recently from the new misotheists. But it has also developed some significant defenders as well. The newest and one of the best is this volume by Dinesh D’Souza. It courageously takes on all the accusations hurled against Christianity, and finds them all to be more than answerable.

Indeed, I like the attitude and approach taken in this book. D’Souza reminds us that this is not the time to turn the other cheek, to hide or to run away. It is time to engage the atheists head on. Or as he writes, it is time to “drive the money changers out of the temple. The atheists no longer want to be tolerated. They want to monopolize the public square and to expel Christians from it. . . . In short, they want to make religion – and especially the Christian religion – disappear from the face of the earth.”

But the sad fact is many believers are allowing them to get away with all this. “Instead of engaging this secular world, most Christians have taken the easy way out. They have retreated into a Christian subculture where they engage Christian concerns. Then they step back into secular society, where their Christianity is kept out of sight until the next church service.”

Image of What's So Great About Christianity
What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza (Author) Amazon logo

But this is just not good enough. We need to meet the new secular challenge head on. When the very fate of our faith is at stake, we dare not hide our heads in the sand, or let the other side win by default. We must instead engage in the battle, and fight on every level: the intellectual, the philosophical and the spiritual. We must contend for the Christian faith, and we must do so in a loving yet firm manner.

This book is more than just a volume listing the achievements and positives of Christianity, as the title suggests. It is really a major face-to-face confrontation with the neo-atheists. The steady and strident attack on theism in general and Christianity in particular by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and others is here powerfully and capably countered.

As such, this is really a book of Christian apologetics, defending the faith against the charges made against it by the new militant anti-theists. It covers a wide range of issues, such as philosophy of religion, history, culture, ethics and science.

The Indian-born, American-based D’Souza is well placed to take on the atheist onslaught. He is well-versed in all the main areas of this debate, and his own website, tothesource, is devoted to “challenging hardcore secularism”.

This book covers most of the bases of the Christian apologetic. Meaty chapters take on all the major charges levelled against Christianity. These include: what about the problem of suffering and evil? Are Christianity and science at odds? Are miracles possible? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Is there such a thing as objective morality? Is religion inherently violent and irrational? Is there anything special about being human?

Consider just a few of these important topics. D’Souza reminds us that the important principles of separation of church and state, and political tolerance, are the direct outgrowths of the Christian worldview. These ideals did not first arise out of the Enlightenment, as is often claimed, but predated them by centuries.

When Jesus said we should render to Caesar what belongs to him, and to God what belongs to him, he set up the fundamental principle of the division of church and state, something that the Greeks and Romans barely considered. Concepts such as religious toleration and freedom of conscience also arise from the Christian worldview.

And the related ideas of limited government and checks and balances go back to the Judeo-Christian vision of man as both made in God’s image, and fallen. Thus Augustine could speak of the two cities, the earthly and heavenly. Political rule is not absolute, and the extent of the jurisdiction of the state is clearly meant to be limited.

What about the charge that Christianity is a bloody religion? D’Souza argues that the claims made by the enemies of Christianity are greatly exaggerated. Yes some atrocities have occurred in the name of God, but they are far fewer than what has been perpetrated in the name of atheistic regimes.

As just one comparison, D’Souza states that if we take all the major bloodletting done in the name of Christianity – the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings – they would amount to some 200,000 deaths over several hundred years. But they amount to just one per cent of the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin and Mao in mere decades.

Finally, consider the charge that Christianity is anti-science. Quite the opposite, argues D’Souza. Indeed, almost all the leaders on modern science were Christians, including Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Herschel, Lyell and Pasteur. Modern science arose in only one place in human history: in Christian Europe. This is because of the high place assigned to reason by Christianity, and the belief that a rational creator created an orderly and rational world.

Pre-Socratics had also spoken of a rational universe, but this conception had to wait until the Christian view of an ordered cosmos could create a favourable environment in which science could really develop and flourish. Indeed, the medieval (Christian) founding of the university played a pivotal role in the rise of modern science.

D’Souza also takes on the silly notion that science somehow demands materialism and naturalism. But real science does not. These are just philosophical presuppositions which some scientists have taken on in faith, not because of the evidence. Indeed, they cannot be proven by empirical science.

Naturalism and materialism are not scientific conclusions, says D’Souza. Instead, they are “scientific premises. They are not discovered in nature but imposed upon nature. In short, they are articles of faith.” He cites a number of scientists who have admitted as much, including Harvard’s Richard Lewontin who confesses that “we have a prior commitment – a commitment to materialism”. And he cites numerous world-class scientists who happen to reject naturalism, and are in fact theists and/or Christians.

Many other key accusations made by the neo-atheists are rebutted here in this comprehensive and learned work. It is nice to have all of the major accusations made against Christianity dealt with in a single volume.

Of course there exist hundreds of good books on Christian apologetics. Much of what is presented here can be found elsewhere. But this volume is significant for its breadth of scope, its eye to detail, and its up-to-date nature, taking on all the neo-atheist assaults that have recently appeared. It is well worth the read, and deserves a best-selling status which some of the atheist volumes have enjoyed.

[1120 words]

21 Replies to “A review of What’s So Great About Christianity. By Dinesh D’Souza.”

  1. Looks like a book I must read. BTW…Hitler was a catholic. Germany was not an aetheist regime. In actual fact, the belt buckles of their soldiers were inscrbed “Gott mit uns” God with us. So you can add 6,000,000 to that 200.000 figure
    Marius Wytenburg

  2. Thanks Marius

    But we have been down this road before. Simply repeating a falsehood often enough and loud enough does not somehow make it become true. D’Sousa of course deals with this, and reminds us of a few simple truths. Nazism was a secular, anti-religious worldview. And simply because Hitler was born into a religious home does not make him a believer. Mao was raised a Buddhist and Stalin a Russian Orthodox. So what? All three repudiated their religious past, and Hitler was quite happy to use religion for his own ungodly ends.

    In the very important 2004 study by Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, we are informed that “Hitler’s morality was not based on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics nor Kant’s categorical imperative, but was rather a complete repudiation of them. Instead, Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic that made Darwinian fitness and health the only criteria for moral standards.”

    So sorry, atheism is still the world’s biggest mass murderer, bar none. Christianity doesn’t even come close.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  3. Oh of course, Marius Wytenburg and the gutter atheist propaganda sites he parrots are right, but here are all those who must be wrong:

    Prof. Richard Weikart as BM said, and he’s a professor of modern European history who lived for years in Germany.

    Sir Arthur Keith, British atheistic evolutionist, in Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947:

    ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

    Winston Churchill, from his address after Chamberlain’s ill-fated attempt at appeasement at Munich, 1938 (emphasis added):

    ‘… there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force. That power cannot be the trusted friend of the British democracy…’

    Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at the main Nuremberg trial (Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School):

    ‘The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology’ [and] ‘carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.’

    William Donovan, Nuremberg prosecutor who compiled enormous documentation on how the Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity. For example, leading Nazi, Martin Bormann (also cited by Jackson):

    ‘More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs, the pastors.’

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  4. Adolf Hitler grew up as a nominal Catholic but he became fiercely anti-Christian as a young man. He then became a radical socialist, a committed darwinist, and a faithful disciple of the anti-Christian philosopher Friederich Nietzche.

    The Nazi regime, argues William Shirer in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, “intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute [it by] the old paganism of the early Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960, 240).

    Thus Hitler once declared: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity”. (quoted in Tom Dowley (ed.), ‘A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity’ (Oxford: Lion, 1997, 589-90)

    And Heinrich Himmler, the brutal Nazi chief of the SS, put this in the following terms: “We shall not rest until we have rooted out Christianity”. (see Dowley, at 600)

    Augusto Zimmermann

  5. Sure, we have been down that road many times and back again. Atheism in itself does not make a person evil, after all, wasn’t your Old Testament god a mass murdrerer himself, killing first born, destroying cities amongst other evil deeds.
    Most atheists are good people just as I am sure most Christians are good, however I do not decide to be good purely to please a supernatural power and hope for a pleasant afterlife.
    And BTW Johnathon, I fail to see what “gutter atheist propaganda site” I parrotted. I merely put a link to a picture of a belt buckle at a historical military uniform retail website. No need to get overexcited.
    Marius Wytenburg

  6. Thanks Marius

    Of course it was you who raised this point in the first place. And the truth is, if a Christian kills in the name of Christ, he is being totally inconsistent with his belief systems. However when an atheist kills in the name of their atheism – be it Marxist atheism or whatever – they can rightly claim that they are fully justified in doing so, according to the tenets of their own worldview.

    The fact that individual atheists are not all mass murderers goes without saying. But a Christian would argue it is only the grace of God that is restraining anyone from such activities. Our predisposition and orientation is toward sin and self, and if an atheist is kept in check, if you will, it is only by God’s common grace, not any atheistic or evolutionary ethic.

    And the mass murderers of last century did commit their crimes in the name of godless philosophies. Marxism is inherently atheistic, and Stalin and others justified their murder in the name of their atheistic creed.

    As to God, he is God, and has the right to both give life and take life. Just as a modern state has the God-delegated right to take life (as in capital punishment) to punish evil and maintain justice, so too God has the same right, even more so.

    And why you decide to be good is, as I mentioned, due to God’s grace, not your own inherent goodness. Being made in God’s image, we desire to do what is right, but because we are all fallen and sinful, we are unable to do what is right without God’s help.

    But human pride says we do not need God, that we in fact are god, and that we are good, without any transcendent measuring stick of what goodness even looks like.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  7. Marius said ‘Atheism does not make a person evil.’

    I’d like to know how you judge what is evil and what is good.

    Tas Walker

  8. Marius, I grew up with an atheistic older brother and I eventually got tired of arguments that superficially sound rational but in reality just go around in circles. I would really like you to respond to Bill pointing out that a Christian who kills is obviously inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, whereas an atheist who kills can justify it easily (after all, there’s plenty more human beings – it doesn’t impact much on the total population number does it?)

    Why do you miss the fundamental point that your worldview – when taken to its logical conclusion – is empty, hopeless, selfish, and dangerous? It has no basis for morality since ultimately we have little value as individuals. Why do you not recognize that you in fact rely on the morality of God to measure what makes “good people” good? Why do you not admit that your pathetic and weak arguments are just personal walls; smokescreens to justify you living your life as you please and avoiding the possibility that God is real?

    I especially rejected atheism because it would truly mean hell on earth if it was followed to the letter – in stark contrast, the message of Jesus coming to earth to save us from ourselves is literally our only hope. The more we follow it, the better things would be. And that’s just here on earth. You should reconsider supporting such an obviously flawed philosophical system as atheism and ask God to reveal Himself to you as He sees fit (not to your whims or demands, btw – it’s His universe, not yours) Do some research, there are many others who have made the transition from darkness into light (some of them hang around here too) and would be more than willing to answer honest questions, but can also recognize someone just sniping with cheap shots to feel better about what they believe.

    What are you going to do? Waste more time? I truly dare you to find out what is true starting right now.

    Mark Rabich

  9. My apologies for the time gap for this reply but my internet time lately has been minimal.

    Tas asks me
    “I’d like to know how you judge what is evil and what is good.”

    This is a good question and the answer is difficult to put into words. I must say first that I do not place a religious connotation on the word “evil” and I use it because it is a term widely used by all.
    My judgement of what is evil or good is a product of my upbringing and surroundings as it is for most anyone else. Individuals brought up in a crime-ridden society would tend to take what I would term “evil deeds” as the norm. Fortunately, like most of yourselves, I was brought up in a society which espoused goodness (no God required for that), assisting those worse off than yourselves and being a good citizen within your community.
    This judgement is an automatic response to a given situation, you don’t have to think about it, you just know. I sometimes feel that I am being judged as an evil person because of my atheism, but that is water off a duck’s back, because I know my true self. It is those judging me who have to take a closer look at themselves.

    Mark says
    “an atheist who kills can justify it easily ”

    Totally incorrect, Mark. I have a conscience like yourself and I could never justify to myself an act of murder. I would have to live with it for the rest of my life. Besides even Christians have murdered and justified it by saying “God told me to do it”

    To all,
    We could go on forever arguing our different points of view. I sometimes wonder why I even bother to post here but I find it an interesting forum and I always take an interest in my opponent’s point of view. As for the subject of this comment line being the review of the aforementioned book, I would always take an opportunity to read literature espousing an opposite viewpoint, I wonder how many here would do the same. I know some do, but if you one of those who won’t you won’t get any respect from me for your opinions as you follow them blindly.

    Marius Wytenburg

  10. Your book reviews are terrific! I’m a big fan of your writings!
    Marc Axelrod, Potter, Wisconsin, USA

  11. Thanks Marius

    I appreciate your comments. Let me address a few points you raise. You say you were raised in a society which has a framework of right and wrong, and therefore God is not required. But I ask you to consider just how is it that the society you live in has developed a sense of right and wrong in the first place.

    Assuming you live in the West, I would argue it is exactly because God exists, that your society has a moral climate. That is, the West is directly a product of the Judeo-Christian worldview. The West is good (to an extent) because of its Christian heritage. Morality did not just arise out of nowhere.

    And no, you are not an evil person because of your atheism. The truth is, we are all evil because of our sin and selfishness. That is why God became man to set us free from sin and evil, and help us to become like him. We are all sinners, but some admit their sin and seek help from without. Others deny their sinfulness and refuse offers of help.

    And you say you have a conscience. I again ask you Marius, where did this conscience come from? As an atheist you presumably accept the goo-to-you evolutionary paradigm. I fail to see how personal, objective morality can arise out of nothing but a collection of selfish genes, as Dawkins describes it. Indeed, he is at least an honest atheist here, given his naturalistic presuppositions. He admits that there is no such thing as morality. There can’t be, in a merely materialistic world.

    As he says in River out of Eden, “if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies… are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

    As a theist and a Christian, I can fully understand your remarks about conscience – they are fully explicable in terms of my worldview, but not yours. You do have a conscience, a sense of right and wrong. That is because you are an image bearer of a moral God.

    You have a conscience because there exists universal objective morality. And that comes from an objective moral law giver. Being made in God’s image, you have that sense of right and wrong, that moral conscience. The problem is, since sin entered the world, all of our consciences have been dulled and blunted.

    It’s like all of us losing the ability to see colour: we can still see, but seeing only in black and white really distorts reality and limits our perception. In the same way, sin has clouded and distorted our perceptions of everything: of right and wrong, of truth, of reality, of God. Thus we need help from outside of ourselves to make things right. And that is the Biblical story. God has entered the human race in the person of Jesus Christ to show us the way out of our (colour) blindness.

    It is up to us what we do with that offer of a fully restored sight. We can remain in our limited world, or we can become all we were intended to be by our creator.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  12. Mark says
    “an atheist who kills can justify it easily ”

    Marius says
    “Totally incorrect, Mark. I have a conscience like yourself and I could never justify to myself an act of murder. I would have to live with it for the rest of my life. Besides even Christians have murdered and justified it by saying “God told me to do it” ”

    Hi Marius, I will respectfully have to disagree with you about that. I’m not charging you with moral ambivalence to murder, just a lack of consistency. I contend that if you want to be consistent with an atheistic worldview, of course you can justify killing easily, since its logical conclusion is the total meaninglessness of our existence. Murder matters donut.

    It seems to me that you effectively want to have a foot in both camps but you don’t want to admit it. Of course like most members of our society you want to condemn killing as wrong, but you have to borrow from the Judeo-Christian ethic in order to do it. Your atheism doesn’t help you – in truth it says, do whatever you feel like, it doesn’t really matter. And as Bill pointed out, highlighting the existence of your conscience doesn’t make sense either given your worldview. Given random and selfish chemical origins, a conscience is a conundrum, not a logical outcome. For example, selfish chemicals will never say “I would have to live with it for the rest of my life.” They shouldn’t care one way or the other! They are selfish! So why are you saying that?

    And as far as Christians justifying murder, I answered that in my previous post.

    Mark Rabich

  13. And you say you have a conscience. I again ask you Marius, where did this conscience come from? As an atheist you presumably accept the goo-to-you evolutionary paradigm.

    Bill, throwing around terms like ‘goo-to-you’ or asserting that atheists claim we are all ‘just rearranged pond scum’ will not change our minds about evolution. You may not like it, but the fact remains that humans (like all organisms in the animal kingdom) are the descendants of simpler organisms. Your crass descriptions of evolution will not embarrass us into accepting the preposterous idea that humans were beamed down to earth in their current state a few thousand years ago.

    You have a conscience because there exists universal objective morality. And that comes from an objective moral law giver. Being made in God’s image, you have that sense of right and wrong, that moral conscience.

    What is this “universal objective morality”? Can you define it? The truth of the matter is that religious people disagree, sometimes vehemently, over what is moral or immoral, so their holy texts offer us little in deciding right and wrong. If this god of yours made a set of moral laws the first thing you should ask yourself is “Why did this god deign action X to be moral?” Either your god decided X is moral for a reason, in which case why not cut out the middle man and appeal to reason directly, or your god declared X to be moral on an arbitrary whim. In this case you should ask “Why should I adhere to this law if there is no reasoning behind it?”

    Whether you like it or not, people engage in secular moral reasoning every day. We don’t need to check with some guy in the sky about what’s right and what’s wrong, we’re perfectly capable of working this out amongst ourselves. If one can’t determine that murder, rape and theft are wrong unless ‘God says so’ it’s a cause for great concern.

    Sammy Jankis, London

  14. Thanks Sammy

    As I mention in my blogging rules, those with their own websites are free to push their agendas there. Yet since your comment is a good example of the illogic and fuzzy thinking that is so often found among atheists these days, I will allow it to go through.

    Indeed, your basic lapses in elementary logical thinking are quite alarming. The fact that there may be disagreements among people on certain moral questions does not of course logically entail that there are no moral absolutes. One might as well attempt to argue that since throughout history people have differed on a whole range of scientific issues and questions, there must be no objective scientific truths.

    And your picture of morality is a classic case of the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. Plato of course presented this scenario 2,400 years ago. It is called the Euthyphro Dilemma. Euthyphro argued that what is right is either: a) based merely on God’s decree, making morality arbitrary; or b) something which God himself appeals to, making morality something external to him and something he is subservient to. But the Biblical position had always rejected these two options, and posited a third, namely that morality is based on the very nature and character of God. Falsehood is wrong because God is always truthful. Hatred is wrong because God is always loving. God’s very character is the basis of morality.

    And there are plenty of people who evidently can’t determine that rape, murder and theft are wrong. Consider especially atheists such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who committed many these crimes and then some on a mass scale. They felt what they were doing was fully justifiable and right, and they did so in the name of godless secularism.

    And quite oddly, you begin by bewailing the fact that people disagree strongly on morality (you of course do this to push your claim of moral relativism), but then here you try to argue that everyone agrees on some core moral principles. Which is it Sammy? Is morality objective and universal, or is it simply cultural and relative? If the latter, then that is exactly what you would expect to see coming from Hitler, et. al. They were doing what they thought was right. For example Hitler was quite convinced of the rightness of his cause, and most Germans agreed. If morality is all culturally relative, what right do you have to criticise Hitler? Unless there is a transcendent universal morality that is beyond mere cultural or personal whim, we have no basis to judge or compare moralities. We are just stuck with competing ethical claims, and that is the end of it.

    Once again, my worldview has no problem at all with condemning murder, rape and so on, because there exist objective moral laws, which in turn exist because there is an objective moral law giver. Your worldview cannot coherently argue for any moral position. As already noted, Dawkins is at least consistent here when he admits that in a naturalistic worldview, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”.

    Plenty of other atheists are also consistent here. As E. O. Wilson can confess (because of his materialist worldview), ethics “is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate”. Would that you were as logically consistent here as some of your fellow atheists.

    I am afraid the old clichés of atheism are starting to wear a bit thin. They were logically fallacious and intellectual dubious when first uttered, and they still are.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  15. And there are plenty of people who evidently can’t determine that rape, murder and theft are wrong. Consider especially atheists such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who committed many these crimes and then some on a mass scale. They felt what they were doing was fully justifiable and right, and they did so in the name of godless secularism.

    You’re absolutely right Bill, though there seems to be a blind spot in your knowledge of history. I seem to recall the murder, rape and plundering sometime in the dark-middle ages that were not only done in the name of your god, but were sanctioned by the Church.

    On the other hand, one cannot assert that any of the figures you mentioned did any of the things they did because they were Atheists or secularists (which Hitler was arguably neither). Unless of course you want to argue from the a priori assumption that God indeed exists and claim that they had no moral compass due to godlessness. But then that would fly in the face of your other assertion that we are all made in the image of God and hence have innate moral compasses.

    Since you love pontificating about logical fallacies, I am sure you haven’t missed asking Sammy what right she has to criticise Hitler under her moral system, which is a nice fat double-whammy of an appeal to pity and a loaded question.

    M Mayes

  16. Bill, I don’t want to add to the discussion, except to say that I applaud your gift of clear thinking and forceful argumentation, coupled with the grace with which you deliver it.

    It would be great to think these atheists (and theists, for that matter, indeed all of us) would follow your lead and stick to good logic and sound reasoning, but alas, so many seem so unable to see the fallacies and illogicalities of their presuppositions.

    I have been reminded very clearly and forcefully this last week of my own “heart’s” ability to deny the truth of a thing, and the need for courage to confront the truth of our lives without fear. Sometimes this means admitting that some of the most important presuppositions and values are, indeed, not based in sound reasoning and “resonableness” but on fallacy, lies, superstition, and whatever it is we have convinced ourselves makes us feel safe, comfortable and justified in our ongoing “sin”.

    It takes courage, in other words, to confront the “lies” behind our own worldview and value system, but it is a courage we must pursue. I, for one, do not want to be a person who, with “unexamined” heart and mind, lives a life of perpetual internal and relational “torment”, all because I have been unable to find the courage to pursue truth, root out lies and make painful changes.

    Thank you, then, for being there to constantly press home with wonderful clarity and grace, the issues of truth and beauty. And it is my testimony, that as the truth has been revealed to me, I have seen its stunning beauty, because the truth is a person with a name: the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Alister Cameron, Melbourne

  17. Thanks M

    True to atheist style, you break every rule in the book. No full name provided here, as my rules stipulate. And a regular contributor to unbelief.com, making you hardly a casual inquirer, but an atheist on a mission, pushing a loaded agenda. And then more rhetoric and accusation instead of reasoned argument and evidence.

    Throwing out seeping statements about something happening in the Middle Ages means what exactly?

    As with Antony Flew, whom you now undoubtedly despise and consider an apostate, the question of God comes not as a prior commitment, but as a result of examining the evidence. Flew was an honest atheist, willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. But most atheists have their minds already made up, and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.

    And my question about Hitler, was just that, an honest question, which neither of you are evidently able or capable of answering. All so typical of the militant atheists.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: