There's a facinating article in Newsweek. It's a debate/conversation between Sam Harris (atheist) and Rick Warren (megachurch pastor). Required [retro] reading.Click there immediately.
Very interesting, but I felt like Warren was giving a counselor's answers to a scientist's questions. It's like they had LaDainian Tomlinson on one side and Bill Belichick on the other: they might be on different sides of the same subject, but since the two play such different roles, I didn't feel like they were able to address each other's points head on. Should have had Sam Harris talking to Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga or Alister McGrath. Or Rick Warren vs. Evil Rick Warren.
There's weak follow-up commentary by a regular Newsweek columnist at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17971270/site/newsweek/
Seriously. That msnbc article was weak. "We will never know if there's a God or not?" Did a self-proclaimed Jewish adherent just say that?Only if atheism is true. If atheism is true, we will never KNOW. If theism is true . . . very different. Everyone will know for sure.And it WILL move from "mystery" to "PROBLEM" for those who are on the wrong side of that equation.
The highlight of the conversation (I would hardly call it a debate) to me was Warren's response about "common grace"--a concept I forget about all too often. I sort of agree with Josh... their arguments missed each other. It was a good read, though, and a pretty good example of how honest, good-natured dialogue is in many instances superior to debate. Not if you're trying to find a "solution" to a problem or an "answer" to a question. But the tone of a conversation can be equally as persuasive as the content. As McLuhan said, "the medium is the message". I say, "the medium is often the most important message."
Post a Comment