Strategic Dialogue
While surfing the web one day, I stumbled
across a web page intriguingly entitled
"Strategies
for Dialoguing with Atheists,"
written by one Dr. Ron Rhodes, who is
apparently chief guru of something called Reasoning
from the Scriptures Ministries. As
I perused the article, I had to smile, for it
was evident that the author had never
actually tested his strategy in a real
dialogue with a real atheist. You see,
the majority of atheists (at least in the
United States) did not start out as such;
most were reared in one religious tradition
or another, and later rejected belief for one
reason or another. They therefore have
the benefit of having seen religion from both
the inside and the outside. They know
first-hand how believers feel and think about
their faith, as well as how such beliefs look
from an external perspective. In
contrast, most believers have experienced
religion only from the inside, for few have
dared question the tenets of religion
critically and persistently enough to have
acquired a grasp of what really goes on in
the mind of an atheist. This handicap
is clearly reflected in Dr. Rhodes's essay.
Just for fun, let's critique the essay
point-by-point, to see what might be the
outcome if a faithful believer actually tried
to use this strategy in a dialogue with a
genuine atheist. In the following
"conversation," Dr. Rhodes's essay
is quoted on a lavender background, while my
responses appear on aqua. I apologize
in advance for the unevenness and
discontinuity of the "dialogue,"
but I felt it would be fairer to Dr. Rhodes
to quote his essay in full and without
alteration, even if that would result in a
somewhat awkward flow after the insertion of
my own responses and comments. With
that said, let's get to it!
|
<
| INTRO
| NO
GOD | GOD & EVIL
| OOPS!
| GOAL
| RESULTS
| CHOICE
| >
RR: No one is born an
atheist. People choose to become atheists as much
as they choose to become Christians. And no
matter how strenuously some may try to deny it,
atheism is a belief system. It requires faith
that God does not exist.
|
| SJ:
This is true, provided we accept the standard
dictionary definition of atheism, which is disbelief,
the rejection of belief in gods as false.
However, this definition excludes unbelief,
which is a lack of belief, as distinguished from
a rejection of it. Yet in fact there are both
unbelievers (those who simply lack belief in
gods) and disbelievers (those who actively
believe that gods do not exist) who categorize
themselves as atheist. We must therefore bear in
mind that Dr. Rhodes's opinions are based on a
definition which is not entirely in accord with
fact. He either categorizes unbelief as something
other than atheism (though he doesn't say what),
or is prepared to disregard it altogether. Babies
are born unbelieving—knowing
nothing of gods, devils, fairies, trolls, or
anything supernatural. All infants know is what
they can detect with their still developing
physical senses, and deities are not part of that
experience. (According to Dr. Rhodes, an infant's
unbelief is not atheism, despite that there are
many unbelieving adults who categorize themselves
as atheist.) Children gradually learn about
religion from their parents and older siblings,
and from others outside the home as their
horizons broaden. At some early stage during the
course of learning language, most children lose
their natal unbelief as they are indoctrinated
into the family religion, whatever it might be.
To young children, whose ability to
distinguish between reality and fantasy is not
yet developed, the fairy-tale images and myths of
religion are distinctly appealing. And if
youngsters are assured by those whom they love
and trust that these things are true, it is no
surprise that they accept these ideas eagerly.
The more critically thinking adult, however,
may discover that the gulf to be bridged by faith
is disconcertingly broad in the direction of
theism. Alluring though its promises might be,
religion requires a certain amount of
make-believe in things beyond human
experience—an entire supernatural realm
populated by unseen beings and magical
forces—indeed, a separate realm governed by
laws quite different from the ordinary "laws
of nature" with which we are familiar in our
own universe. In contrast, spanning the gap to
disbelief requires no such effort at
make-believe, but only the logical selection of
the simplest option in accord with all known
facts as the most likely to be true. To be sure,
in either case, there is a gap which must be
bridged by faith. Yet from unbelief to disbelief
it is a mere step, compared with the fantastic
leap to theism.
|
<
| INTRO
| NO
GOD | GOD & EVIL
| OOPS!
| GOAL
| RESULTS
| CHOICE
| >
RR: When dialoguing with
atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical
problems inherent in their belief system. If you
succeed in showing an atheist the natural outcome
of some of his (or her) main claims and
arguments, you are in a much better position to
share the gospel with him. Let us consider two
prime examples here.
(1) "There is no God." Some atheists
categorically state that there is no God, and all
atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet this
assertion is logically indefensible. A person
would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be
able to say from his own pool of knowledge that
there is no God. Only someone who is capable of
being in all places at the same time—with a
perfect knowledge of all that is in the
universe—can make such a statement based on
the facts. To put it another way, a person would
have to be God in order to say there is no God.
|
| SJ:
Dr. Rhodes is technically correct (assuming,
again, that we accept a flawed definition of
atheism, which includes only disbelief, and not
unbelief.) But by the same reasoning, we would
have to be omniscient and omnipresent to state
with absolute certainty that there is no Santa
Claus, no Easter Bunny, and no Tooth Fairy. Even
so, careful evaluation of all available
information might well lead some to conclude that
the existence of gods, like the existence of
elves and fairies, is extremely unlikely. At
this stage, the rational choice would be to
eliminate from consideration ideas which are
absurdly fantastic, along with any which clearly
contradict factual evidence. Once the mind has
been cleared of the obviously impossible and the
extremely improbable, a systematic examination of
the remaining pool of possibilities can be
undertaken. If an unambiguous conclusion is still
not evident, then a couple of options present
themselves:
(a) postpone any decision until more
reliable and complete information becomes
available; or
(b) tentatively select the solution
which best accounts for all known facts and
evidence.
If we choose the latter option, we must
determine what we mean by "best," and
this judgment may vary from one individual to the
next. Some will choose the most appealing
solution, while others will opt for the simplest
and most plausible. This is the discipline which
thinking people apply to everything else in their
lives. Why not to religion?
|
| RR:
This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking
the atheist if he has ever visited the Library of
Congress in Washington, D.C. Mention that the
library presently contains over 70 million items
(books, magazines, journals, etc.). Also point
out that hundreds of thousands of these were
written by scholars and specialists in the
various academic fields. Then ask the following
question: "What percentage of the collective
knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library
would you say are within your own pool of
knowledge and experience?" The atheist will
likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a
fraction of one percent." Then you can ask,
"Do you think it is logically possible that
God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside
your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even
if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility,
you have made your point and he knows it. |
| SJ: A
non-believer, if he is at all willing to concede
the possibility of supernatural entities, will
grant that the probability that gods exist is
greater than zero—perhaps significantly
greater, maybe even a percent or two. However,
this concession by no means grants that all
gods, including the questioner's god, are equally
possible. For it can be compellingly argued that
the probability of a logically consistent
universe being created by a logically
inconsistent entity, such as the capricious and
tantrum-prone God described in the Christian
Bible, is indeed zero. (Being Christian,
Dr. Rhodes automatically assumes that if a god
exists, it must be his own Jehovah and none
other. But this is by no means a given, and is by
at least one line of reasoning impossible.)
Considering this, our open-minded non-believer
becomes a potential deist or pantheist, but not
likely a Christian. |
<
| INTRO
| NO
GOD | GOD & EVIL
| OOPS!
| GOAL
| RESULTS
| CHOICE
| >
RR: (2) "I don't believe
in God because there is so much evil in the
world." Many atheists consider the problem
of evil an airtight proof that God does not
exist. They often say something like, "I
know there is no God because if He existed, he
never would have let Hitler murder six million
Jews."
A good approach to an argument like this is to
say something to this effect: "Since you
brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to
prove that evil actually exists in the world. So
let me ask you by what criteria do you judge some
things to be evil and other things not to be
evil? By what process do you distinguish evil
from good?" The atheist may hedge and say,
"I just know some things are evil. It's
obvious." Don't accept such an evasive
answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that
some things are evil. He must be forced to face
the illogical foundation of his belief system.
|
| SJ: I
have difficulty imagining a true atheist
resorting to such a dodge, since most skeptics of
my acquaintance have their thoughts in better
order than this. Yet I've also come across a
shaky nominal atheist or two, so I'll concede
it's possible. If that atheist is so disorganized
in this thoughts, then he fully deserves to
endure whatever Dr. Rhodes and his proselytizing
protégés care to dish out. I would even venture
to say that he'd be better off as a theist, with
lots of friendly fellow believers to look after
him, keep him out of trouble, and tell him what
to think. Contrary to Rhodes's assumption,
though, most people who have been atheists long
enough to have pondered the matter seriously do
not believe in absolute standards of good and
evil. Chances are, any atheist couching a
statement in such terms is doing so for the
benefit of theists by using their
terminology (good vs. evil)
rather than his own (helpful vs. harmful).
For most atheists have learned from experience
that many religious folk are unable to grasp the
concept of secular values—values which work
for practical reasons, not because
someone's deity is alleged to have endowed them
with mysterious virtue.
As to their own thoughts, most atheists and
agnostics tend to evaluate things in terms of
whether they are helpful or harmful. If someone
does something which advances the well-being of
humankind, that is "good" from a
human perspective. If something is
detrimental to our species, that is
"bad," again, from a human
perspective. (Inasmuch as the collective
benefits and detriments to humanity ultimately
accrue also to the individual, personal adherence
to beneficial behavior can be seen as a form of
"enlightened self-interest.")
|
| RR:
After he struggles with this a few moments, point
out to him that it's impossible to distinguish
evil from good unless one has an infinite
reference point which is absolutely good.
Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy
night without a compass (i.e., there would be no
way to distinguish north from south without the
absolute reference point of the compass needle). The
infinite reference point for distinguishing good
from evil can only be found in the person of God,
for God alone can exhaust the definition of
"absolutely good." If God does not
exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which
one has the right to judge something (or someone)
as being evil. More specifically, if God does not
exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the
crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality
of evil actually requires the existence of God,
rather than disproving it.
|
| SJ:
Frankly, we didn't have to struggle much with
this one (except maybe to contain our mirth). If evil
is defined in terms of what someone's god doesn't
like, then yes, perhaps Dr. Rhodes has a
"point" of sorts. But it is a very
ill-defined one, for his "infinite reference
point" tends to wander about considerably,
depending upon which god, out of a
rather large pool of postulated divinities, one
chooses to consult. After checking around a bit,
we discover that Rhodes's reference point is as
nebulous and unfixed as the realm of religion
itself. To the Yahweh of the Old Testament, for
example, charging about the countryside and
slaughtering one's enemies would appear to be
"doing God's work." The New Testament,
however, claims that Jesus said we should love
our enemies. In that same body of scripture, the
apostle Paul suggests that sex is not something
to be enjoyed by godly men, but is merely to be
endured for the sake of procreation. Yet if one
asks a devout Hindu how his gods feel about sex,
he is likely to answer, "the more the
better, for obviously that is why sex was made so
enjoyable," or words to that effect. And so
on and so forth. The non-believer does not have
the luxury of ready-made standards of right and
wrong delivered to him by the anointed messengers
of this deity or that. He must gauge for himself
the foreseeable consequences of his own deeds,
and evaluate whether they tend to enhance or
detract from the well-being of humankind (and
hence of himself). For this he has the ready
reference point of human history (as well as his
own experience), indicating which actions and
attitudes have been helpful or harmful to
humanity (and consequently to him personally)
over the long term. In addition, he has the
powerful tool of reason, which enables him to
determine which course of action is likely to
yield the greatest benefit and the least harm in
a given situation.
While it is true that history is, to some
degree, the subjective opinion of its authors,
much of it is supported by evidence, both
physical and documented. On the other hand, the
existence of gods (let alone the existence of any
particular god, of the thousands which
the imagination of man has conjured up since the
dawn of religion) is not supported by any
evidence which could not as easily be construed
as evidence of elves and fairies. So while the
atheist bases his practical values upon the
real-world principles of "what works"
and "what helps" with regard to
humanity, the believer is stuck with an archaic
and inflexible jumble of "thou shalts"
and "thou shalt nots," cobbled together
millennia ago to govern tribes of wandering
goatherds who knew next to nothing about the
universe, and written by the scribes of kings and
priests barely less ignorant than the people they
ruled.
As to the Hitler issue, the real basis for
judging the crimes of the Nazi regime lies, not
in whether they annoyed Abraham's God or Adolf's
God or Ron's God, but in their demonstrably
deleterious effects upon humankind. That
is why people of almost every religious faith, as
well as those with no such faith, join together
in their condemnation of acts against our single
common bond: humanity.
|
<
| INTRO
| NO
GOD | GOD & EVIL
| OOPS!
| GOAL
| RESULTS
| CHOICE
| >
RR: At this point, the
atheist may raise the objection that if God does
in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the
problem of evil in the world. You can disarm this
objection by pointing out that God is dealing
with the problem of evil, but in a progressive
way. The false assumption on the part of the
atheist is that God's only choice is to deal with
evil all at once in a single act. God, however,
is dealing with the problem of evil throughout
all human history. One day in the future, Christ
will return, strip power away from the wicked,
and hold all men and women accountable for the
things they did during their time on earth.
Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter
eternity without having trusted in Christ for
salvation will understand just how effectively
God has dealt with the problem of evil.
|
| SJ:
And at this point, our dear Dr. Rhodes has
evidently drifted away from his
"strategy," forgetting that he is
"dialoguing" with critical thinkers who
do not even believe in divine justice, much less
fear it. Accustomed to addressing a Christian
audience, he has committed the fatal error of
wandering off to his mysterious realm of
unfathomable beings and magical powers, unmindful
that such fantastic excursions are far more
likely to provoke mirth than alarm in an audience
of skeptics. For clearly atheists do not believe
in devils and Hell any more than they believe in
gods and Heaven / Paradise / Moksha / Nirvana / Valhalla.
Threatening non-believers with divine justice,
then, can be expected to have about the same
effect as threatening that Santa Claus will not
visit them this year. If Dr. Rhodes is very
lucky, the skeptics he is trying to woo may be
merely momentarily amused by his sermonizing.
More likely, though, they will be more inclined
than ever to distance themselves from religion,
perceiving that it appears to cause deterioration
in one's mental grasp of reality.
|
| RR:
If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take
all of human history for an omnipotent God to
solve the problem of evil, you might respond by
saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say that at this
very moment, God declared that all evil in the
world will now simply cease to exist. Every human
being on the planet—present company
included—would simply vanish into oblivion.
Would this solution be preferable to you?" |
| SJ:
That presumes that all human beings are evil. As
one who does not subscribe to the ghastly
universal guilt creed of Christianity, I do not
accept that. However, we'll consider it for the
sake of discussion. As to the matter of my own
preference, the question seems rather silly; if I
were to vanish, I would not be around to express
an opinion. Even if I were asked a day in advance
of the event, I doubt I should be inclined to
respond, since in my experience the operation of
the universe does not seem much influenced by the
results of opinion polls. I have the feeling that
Dr. Rhodes was struggling to make a point here,
but I am still struggling to figure out just what
it might have been. |
| RR:
The atheist may argue that a better solution must
surely be available. He may even suggest that God
could have created man in such a way that man
would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether.
This idea can be countered by pointing out that
such a scenario would mean that man is no longer
man. He would no longer have the capacity to make
choices. This scenario would require that God
create robots who act only in programmed ways. |
| SJ:
"Man is no longer man"? (Maybe a
"straw man," Ron?) Man, we suppose,
would be whatever God made him to be. Isn't that
what religion insists? (Evidently, Dr. Rhodes is
bent upon leading us into discussion of things
which have no conceivable relevance to reality.
But it's an interesting ploy, so let's go with
it.) Actually, the creation of a "sinless
man," different though he might be from us,
would indeed be much more in keeping with the
concept of a perfect creator. To illustrate,
let's compare natural law and divine law, and
man's relationship to each. Even someone who is
completely ignorant of the laws of nature is
absolutely incapable of violating them, yet
possesses a vast array of options within nature's
constraints. Thus, despite natural law's absolute
limits, the ability to make choices is not an
issue. Nor should it be if divine law had similar
inviolable barriers, for presumably man would
enjoy as much latitude within its limits as
within the parameters of nature. So if divine law
is as important as natural law, what purpose is
served by enabling man to violate the one but not
the other?
If it is acceptable for Dr. Rhodes to resort to
the absurdity of a false
dichotomy, surely we should be permitted
to pose an example of our own. Let us consider a
scenario, in which man is as firmly bound by
divine law as he currently is by natural law. He
could exercise a considerable degree of freedom
in most areas, but behave in a controlled fashion
where value judgments are concerned. He could do
as he wished in most matters, yet be absolutely
incapable of engaging in sinful conduct. Living
in a sinless world, our sinless man would be
perfectly happy with the situation, and his
perfect God would in turn be perfectly happy with
him. And everyone would be perfectly bored to
death and go to Heaven to live happily ever
after, which is what all good religious folks are
supposed to want anyway.
Yet this is clearly not the case. Not only is
man empowered to violate biblical law, but many
of his natural (god-given?) instincts and
tendencies are in conflict with it. Even an utter
dolt could predict the inevitable consequences of
such a discrepancy! We are compelled to wonder,
then, to what purpose a perfect, loving, just,
and merciful God would arrange things the way the
Bible says they are—unless he actually intends
that people violate His law. But why? Does He,
perchance, delight in imposing guilt for the
"sin" of obeying a natural urge? Does
He derive some perverse glee from meting out
sadistic punishments to transgressors? If we
accept that nature and man were created by God,
and that the Bible is God's law, then we are
forced to accept that He isn't nearly as perfect,
loving, just, and merciful as advertised. For it
would appear that God Himself sowed the seeds of
evil by His own deliberate act. (This leads to
the intriguing question of whether evil, being
part of God's plan, is good; but since Dr. Rhodes
is unable to respond, we'll set that aside.)
|
| RR:
If the atheist persists and says there must be a
better solution for the problem of evil, suggest
a simple test. Give him about five minutes to
formulate a solution to the problem of evil that
(1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause
God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes
of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some
way. After five minutes, ask him what he has come
up with. Don't expect much of an answer. |
| SJ:
Even with the Persians' Zoroastrian tradition to
use as a model, it took the Hebrews centuries to
concoct their own dualistic system of "good
versus evil." So being required to devise a
competitive philosophy on five minutes' notice
might reasonably be considered an unfair
challenge. But, as is our habit, we've been doing
a little thinking on our own already. As the
reader may recall, I alluded to such a solution
early in the "God and Evil" segment of
this dialogue. Moreover, it is not just
conjecture, but a system which actually works in
real life. Simply stated (to comply with the
five-minute limit), it is a reliance upon
practical and relevant values, whose merits
relative to the human condition can be
demonstrated over time. Such practical values are
rooted in fact, historical record, and reason,
rather than in mysticism, myth, and gut feeling.
Although this is a secular solution rather than
the fumbling, half-mystical response which Dr.
Rhodes was probably expecting, it complies with
the first condition of not destroying human
freedom, for man is free to make his own choices
and thrive or suffer, live or die, by the
consequences. Admittedly, this solution does not
address Rhodes's second condition; but to be
frank, the supposed attributes of gods are not a
matter of concern to those who do not believe in
such things. If Dr. Rhodes and his followers
enjoy chasing their tails about such matters,
that's their concern, not ours.
In his own mind, though, it would appear that
Dr. Rhodes's God drastically restricts his
freedom by threatening him with hellfire, if he
does not strictly comply with certain antiquated
laws, and if he does not tremble in holy terror
before the terrible might of a fabrication of
human imagination. Furthermore, according to the
Bible, Rhodes's God violates his own purported
attributes of justice and mercy time and again
throughout the bloody pages of that book, whether
sending flood, plague, or famine Himself, or
ordering "His people" to slaughter
mercilessly every man, woman, child, and even
beast, of an enemy.
|
<
| INTRO
| NO
GOD | GOD & EVIL
| OOPS!
| GOAL
| RESULTS
| CHOICE
| >
RR: Your goal, of course, is
not simply to tear down the atheist's belief
system. After demonstrating some of the logical
impossibilities of his claims, share with him
some of the logical evidence for redemption in
Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it
brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers
his faith in atheism will be overturned by a
newfound faith in Christ.
|
| SJ:
Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter: the
first objective of the true believer is not to
build upon his own faith, but to "tear
down" the belief systems of others. (It's
funny, because I've always suspected this, but
never expected anyone to admit it openly!)
Moreover, Dr. Rhodes disappoints us by
neglecting, both to share his "logical
evidence" with us, and to cite any of the
"infinite benefits" of spending one's
life in constant dread of the violent mood swings
of an imaginary tyrant. Even so, I am inclined to
look on the bright side. At least he has shed
some light upon his own motives, and that is
enriching in its own small way. And if he should
chance to read this, perhaps he too will derive
some useful knowledge from the experience. |
<
| INTRO
| NO
GOD | GOD & EVIL
| OOPS!
| GOAL
| RESULTS
| CHOICE
| >
Now that we have reached the finish line, so
to speak, let us see how well the Rhodes strategy
has worked. His efforts to expose the supposed
logical impossibilities of atheism have been
entirely unsuccessful. The non-existence of gods
is still, if not the most enchanting possibility,
at least the simplest and hence the most likely.
And as we have seen, justice can be based on
practical human values at least as easily as on
religious dogma.
As to the power of prayer, let us offer Dr.
Rhodes one more opportunity to demonstrate the
truth and power of his faith. I propose a modest
experiment, which I hope he will find both
uplifting and informative: If he is truly
unselfishly motivated to seek the benefit of
non-believers, then let him, and all believers
who read this, pray to their omnipotent God,
beseeching Him to reach out to me and to open my
mind and heart to religious faith. If prayer
really works, then I shall have no option but to
change my belief; I'll publicly retract
all my skeptical statements forthwith, and see
you in church next Sunday. And if prayer does not
work, then Ron Rhodes and his fellows will know
that it is time to change their belief.
(Not that they ought to become atheists. But if
the little prayer experiment doesn't turn out as
hoped, perhaps they at least ought to consider
shopping for a different deity—one that
doesn't behave exactly as if it weren't there
at all.)
|
<
| INTRO
| NO
GOD | GOD & EVIL
| OOPS!
| GOAL
| RESULTS
| CHOICE
| >
One issue, which Dr. Rhodes raised at the
outset, but to which I did not respond at that
point, I have saved until last. The idea of
believing in something because one chooses
to do so is a notion deserving special attention.
Consider:
If we could all choose our beliefs,
wouldn't everyone choose to believe in a kindly
father figure watching over us in life, and in a
blissful existence afterward?
Who would not choose to believe such wonderful
things, if belief were truly a matter of choice?
The hitch is, for some people, it isn't.
Anyone can believe what is unambiguously clear
to the five physical senses; and most people can
believe in things which are not directly evident
to the physical senses (such as radio waves), so
long as they are supported by other evidence and
reason. But beyond that, people seem divided into
two camps: those who have the knack of believing
in something simply because they want (or feel
they "ought") to; and those who can
believe something only if evidence and reason
tell them that it is the most credible of all
possibilities. Most atheists, I suspect, are
atheists, not because of some obstinately
perverse rebelliousness against popular beliefs,
but simply because they fall into that second
category of people with a less developed talent
for make-believe. They are those who, try as they
might, cannot force themselves to believe
something that their senses and reason tell them
is most likely not so.
<
| INTRO
| NO
GOD | GOD & EVIL
| OOPS!
| GOAL
| RESULTS
| CHOICE
| >
|
Now that we have examined the probable
effects of Dr. Rhodes's "Strategies for
Dialoguing with Atheists" in some
detail, it would appear that an eager
proselytizer who attempts to use this
strategy is liable to be sorely disappointed,
perhaps even embarrassed, by the results. Had
the author given it an actual trial run under
realistic conditions, its shortcomings would
have been quickly revealed, and he might have
had second thoughts about publishing it. But
then we wouldn't have had so much fun
"dialoguing" with him. Thanks, RR!
=SAJ=
|
Those intrigued by Dr.
Rhodes's viewpoint may wish to browse his Downloadable Articles on a variety of topics, including
pitching to blacks, feminists, Jews, and
liberals. Though his remarks are often
comically off-target when he attempts to
discuss beliefs and philosophies other than
his own, his aim improves markedly when his
focus shifts to the more familiar topic of
Christian conservatism. Despite more than a
hint of irrational humanist-phobia, his
relatively sober essay, "Millennial
Madness," is a fine example.
|
|
