Recently Sam Harris wrote a book called The End of Faith^*, which explains why he thinks faith needs to disappear. Here he describes what it means to him to be an atheist:

An atheist is not someone who can prove that there is no Thor. An atheist is simply someone who says, “show me the evidence,” and who is unconvinced by evidence like: “Here’s a book that was dictated by the creator of the universe, and in it, it describes all kinds of miracles that people claim they witnessed, but these people have been dead for 2,000 years, and in fact none of the authors of the book are the people who claim to have witnessed these events, and they wrote the book a hundred years after the events in question.” This is not a story that anyone would find plausible except for the fact that it was drummed into them by previous generations of people who were taught not to think critically about it. (Sam Harris)

If that is the best evidence that is available, then I wouldn't be Christian either! This is what's known as a straw man argument: a misrepresentation (caricature) of an opponent's beliefs, created for the purpose of being easily defeated. Fortunately, arguments like the above are not what informed Christians believe. Even when some have faith because of arguments like this, that says nothing about the truthfulness of Christianity.

Secondly, Harris claims that there is no rational basis for faith. Perhaps he should speak to Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (see also here for Plantinga's papers), William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Greg Koukl and Michael Horner among many others. Or there are many websites available on this topic, such as Rational Christianity, Skeptical Christian and Christian Thinktank. Although I'm sure Harris' book contains many valid critiques of organized religion, the difference between a faith and its followers must always be kept in mind.

Harris does not just claim that religious are wrong, it is his claim that they are inherently harmful. Although he rightly discerns that different religions are necessarily incompatible (he uses the example of Christianity and Islam) he is one of many who misunderstands the concept of tolerance. Disagreement does not equal intolerance! People can disagree and still be tolerant of eachother. Most of Harris' critiques seem to amount to argument from outrage, in the form of "look what terrible thing this religious group did, so therefore all religion must be false and evil", or dismissive handwaving. Harris apparently advocates "laughing" at the people who believe what he misunderstands as being irrational … that doesn't sound very tolerant.

And this brings us to the final point of this post. Sam Harris is entirely free to believe, write about, and try to convince others that his beliefs are correct. And I am entirely free to respectfully, tolerantly, disagree. The role of religious evangelism must be discussion, not coercion. After all, why do Christians have to bother people? Can't they just keep their faith to themselves? Well, Christians do not share their faith because they hate non-Christians! We share it because we LOVE all people and want them to share in what we've discovered. Christians can't keep the truth to themselves because faith, real faith, is in fact too wonderful to keep hidden.

Don't worry, the quiz won't be difficult, so please play along until the end, I think you'll be glad you did! First, as you read the following paragraph, consider Question #1: Who is this paragraph talking about? (You may not even have to read the whole thing to figure it out!)

Many were amazed when they saw him – beaten and bloodied, so disfigured one would scarcely know he was a person. And he will again startle many nations. Kings will stand speechless in his presence. For they will see what they had not previously been told about; they will understand what they had not heard about … There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. He was despised and rejected – a man of sorrows, acquainted with bitterest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way when he went by. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God for his own sins! But he was wounded and crushed for our sins. He was beaten that we might have peace. He was whipped, and we were healed! All of us have strayed away like sheep. We have left God's paths to follow our own. Yet the LORD laid on him the guilt and sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. From prison and trial they led him away to his death. But who among the people realized that he was dying for their sins – that he was suffering their punishment? He had done no wrong, and he never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man's grave. But it was the LORD's good plan to crush him and fill him with grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have a multitude of children, many heirs. He will enjoy a long life, and the LORD's plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of what he has experienced, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of one who is mighty and great, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among those who were sinners. He bore the sins of many and interceded for sinners.

So, who is this paragraph talking about? If you said Jesus, you'd be correct.

Question #2: When was this paragraph written?

It would be natural to say that it was written after Jesus died; after all, it describes Jesus' life & death (the "passion" narrative) so perfectly. But actually, this passage is from the book of Isaiah which is part of the Old Testament (Isaiah 52:14-53:12) which was written in approximately 700BC … over 700 years before Jesus was born.

Louis S. Lapides came from a strong Jewish family. He attended a conservative Jewish synagogue for seven years. Nevertheless, he (after many misadventures into many different faiths) came to accept Jesus as His messiah when he actually read the Old Testament. He "was stopped cold by Isaiah 53 … So breathtaking was this discovery that Lapides could only come to one conclusion: It was a fraud! He believed that Christians had rewritten the Old Testament and twisted Isaiah's words" (Strobel, Case for Christ, 177-179). But there was no fraud; the passage is the same in the Jewish (Hebrew) Bible.

The majority of the prophecy (writings by the prophets) is not predictive prophecy, meaning that it does not try to predict what will happen in the future. Yet for those portions that do, what should we make of passages like this that predict Jesus' life and work hundreds of years before He lived?

I was "stumbling" using StumbleUpon earlier today (give it a shot if you've never tried it … it can be addictive … or maybe I just have too much free time) and was presented with this flash movie about Islam:

http://www.risallah.com/multimedia/flash/thisisislam.swf

At first, I thought "Oh no, more Islam-bashing." But it turned out that it is actually a pro-Islam piece that emphasizes the real Islam as being a religion of peace, love and charity. Great! It is probably helpful for people to see the other side of Islam, that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists or pro-terrorism.

I do object to how they quote the Qu'ran when they quote part of surah 5 as (seemingly) totally supportive of nonviolent peace. Here is the full quote with the "…" filled in (from the Qu'ran 5:32): "We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people" The underlined part was the part edited out in the Flash. It really bugs be when people (Christian or not) do this with Bible verses or any text since it is clearly deceptive.

That said, I'm glad that this wasn't an attack on Islam. To paint the entire religion a certain way just because of the actions of a small radical portion of it would be wrong.

However, the Qu'ran does teach the concept of "holy war". The word "jihad" is certainly used in the Qu'ran to mean "personal spiritual struggle", but it is also used to indicate "holy war". Muhammad himself was engaged in and led military campaigns. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't mean to imply that all Muslims are terrorists! The vast majority are not, and are decent people! But the facts need to be considered regarding what the Qu'ran teaches and how Muhammad acted in war, since although Muhammad is not worshipped he is still held up as the role model of sorts for Muslims to follow.

Now, you may be saying, "Even if that's true, Mr. Why-Faith-Christian-guy, what about the Inquisitions? What about the witch hunts? What about …" Yes, it's true, many hundreds of years after Jesus, so-called Christians were also involved in their own sort of "holy wars"; but this is contrary to Jesus' life and teaching. Greg Koukl explains it this way:

It's my understanding that much of Islam has been spread by the edge of the sword. That isn't because Muslim advocates were particularly violent. It's because their religion actually advocates this kind of thing. The difference between that and Christianity is that when Christianity was spread by the edge of the sword it was done so in contradistinction to the actual teachings of Christianity. This is when individual people who claim to be Christians actually did things that were inconsistent with their faith. (Greg Koukl)

Again, I'm not trying to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists, nor that all Christians are great people. We know (not just from the Bible but also unfortunately from daily experience) that all people stumble, meaning that we all sin. Even though "if we say we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and refusing to accept the truth", Christians nonetheless put our hope in Jesus so that "if we confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us from every wrong." (1 John 1:8.9) Is that foolish? Only if Christianity is untrue.

A miracle, as defined at Wikipedia, is "a striking interposition of divine intervention by God in the universe by which the operations of the ordinary course of Nature are overruled, suspended, or modified". It is sometimes objected that miracles contradict science (or the "ordinary course of Nature") and are therefore impossible. But this merely begs the question; the definition of a miracle is that the normal "laws of Nature" are violated. Thus the objection basically becomes "miracles are impossible because they cannot naturally happen" … which is hardly persuasive. In sum, miracles are only irrational if we exclude the possibility that God exists.

I have never studied Aristotle, but apparently he "rejected the idea that God could or would intervene in the order of the natural world" (also from Wikipedia). I don't see why God (who created the universe and everything in it) couldn't intervene if He chose to do so. Why would the creator not be able to intervene in His creation? Whether God would intervene is another issue. Certainly God could, but would He? God would not be required to intervene, but if God chose to create the universe, certainly He could choose to intervene in the universe at certain times as His will dictates.

I don't see any reason why miracles would be impossible if God exists. The question is: Has a legitimate miracle ever actually occurred?

Even after becoming Christian, I was surprised at the powerful argument put forward in William Lane Craig's book The Son Rises, which details the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Craig relies on four facts that both theist and secular historians can agree upon, and builds his case by searching for the best explanation for those facts. Craig has an article online called "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" which gives the gist of his argument, but the book is better. Even though it is relatively short (156 pages) it is packed with detail and provides a logical assessment for whether the resurrection happened. This is the most important issue for Christians, since, as Paul said, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14).

» Further inquery:
Video: Dr. Habermas Debates Skeptic Tim Callahan Comparing the Resurrection to Ancient Mythology
PART I (3MB)  |  PART II (4MB)   (WMV format; Right click and "Save As…")