In November of 2005, British magazine Prospect, which is according to their website "the most intelligent magazine of current affairs and cultural debate in Britain" (link) posted their selections for The world's top intellectuals as selected by their readers; Richard Dawkins made the list. He is called "a formidable critic of organised religion" and "perhaps the world’s most vocal atheist", and the article says that he "makes the case for science to the general public in a way few can match". Clearly, this magazine is not biased against Dr. Dawkins.

Nor could any bias be claimed against the author (Andrew Brown) of Prospect magazine's recent review of The God Delusion, who begins his review (titled "Dawkins the dogmatist") by strongly affirming that he too believes that "In his broad thesis, Dawkins is right. Religions are potentially dangerous". (Of course, all/most religious people would agree that all religions are potentially dangerous, but it seems as though Dawkins' theory goes a little further than that!)

However, this reviewer was not impressed with Dawkins' latest book, calling it "Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory", and concluding that it represents "one long argument from professorial incredulity"; sounds a lot like argument from outrage (aka "argumentum ad cerebrosus") to me. Now, when a Christian claims that Dawkins often resorts to argument from outrage, we may initially suspect their complaint is due to bias. But I can find no reason to suspect bias in Brown's assessment. (That's Andrew Brown's, not Dan Brown's! Yeesh, every time I think I'm done with The Da Vinci Code …)

To be clear, I have not yet read Dawkins' book, though I plan to this summer. Unlike certain other recent writers I do have a certain amount of respect for Dawkins as a historical scholar, even if my understanding of certain topics is profoundly different from his own. However, the above review seems to confirm my initial impressions of the book: that it wouldn't present much new information that I haven't already considered.

Further reading on The God Delusion:

• Dr Alister McGrath's Lectures on The God Delusion – Freely downloadable in PDF or MP3 format.
• The Skeptical Christian's Review
• Peter Kreeft's 20 Arguments for God's Existence – Not exhaustive, and some are naturally stronger than others, but a good list nonetheless.

It's the most controversial and shocking new interpretation of Leonardo's work since The Da Vinci Code: It's The Da Vinci Toad!

Expert art historian Teabing Saunière^* commented that "This novel new vision of Leonardo's art easily equals Dan Brown's novel in terms of historical accuracy. When you look closely at the Mona Lisa, you can clearly see a mostly dry looking, airy landscape, perfectly suited for toads. And what of Mona Lisa's enigmatic smirk? Leonardo even mentions toads in his own notebooks! Based on this evidence, I think we can conclude that the Mona Lisa was really based on a toad."

Further reading on The Da Vinci Code:

• TheLife.com's Da Vinci Code site – Many useful articles
• CBN.com's Da Vinci Code Response – Features an easy to read comparison of the novel versus reality
• Discuss Da Vinci – Blog covering many issues arising from The Da Vinci Code book & film

Untitled?, by Tim Buckley

Paul comments in 1 Corinthians 1:18 that "I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God." So it was then, so it is today, as we can see above in Tim Buckley's painting. I suspect, with much sadness, that more people today acquired their ideas about Jesus from Dan Brown or South Park than from the Bible.

This painting does raise a question though: "If Jesus is God, why did He allow the crucifixion to happen?" Certainly He would have the power to come down from the cross if He is God, wouldn't He? The religious leaders at the time apparently asked the same question: "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him." (Matthew 27:42) What can we say then? Was Jesus powerless to prevent His crucifixion?

Before His crucifixion Jesus said "No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again." (John 10:8) Paul explains in another one of his letters that "Though [Jesus] was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal's death on a cross." (Philippians 2:6-8)

Jesus gave up His life voluntarily. He could have come down from the cross at any moment He wanted. But instead, he took the punishment that we all deserve. That's grace: "When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. Now, no one is likely to die for a good person, though someone might be willing to die for a person who is especially good. But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." (Romans 5:6-8) The supposed religious leaders of the time said "Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him." but instead we believe in Him because He didn't come down.

In Whitney Houston's hit 1985 song "The Greatest Love of All", she sings "Learning to love yourself. It is the greatest love of all." I must disagree. Selfish love is not the greatest love of all. Instead, Jesus demonstrates the greatest love to perfection by His sacrifice when he pays the price for us all. Jesus paid a debt He didn't owe to satisfy a debt we couldn't pay. There is nothing we must do to earn His love; we only must accept His offer of love, forgiveness and grace that He has already made to us. And once we give our lives to Him, we are assured that "neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)

Go deeper:

• Want the real Jesus story in 5mins or less? Click here. (with plenty of links for more info)
• Jesus: True or False? Doubters Welcome
• For skeptics: Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

Someone posted a comment on the Discuss Da Vinci Blog recently in the "Ultimate Da Vinci Code Question: Who is Jesus?" thread, where they commented "Lighten up, it’s just a stupid (fictional!) book. Faith is a personal thing. If your faith is strong, it shouldn’t be threatened by some hack’s novel." Of course this comment didn't really have much to do with the content of the original post. I replied, noting that Dan Brown doesn't think that The Da Vinci Code is "just a stupid (fictional!) book" (see the "Ultimate Question" article above). I then linked some articles about some of the things Brown got wrong in the book. The person's next comment was succinct: "Like I said emmzee, lighten up. Don’t be hatin’!"

This kind of attitude annoys me. Where did the idea that disagreeing with someone is "hatin" come from? I don't hate Dan Brown, he's free to believe whatever incorrect theories he wants, but he's still wrong. And while some may view the issues discussed in The Da Vinci Code as unimportant, I certainly don't. So why shouldn't I try to correct the gross errors present in the work? As stated before, tolerance is only possible when people disagree; it is, to use the dictionary definition, "capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others". Tolerance presupposes disagreement, and stating facts, if done in a respectful manner, is not "hatin".