King Solomon, considered by the Bible to be the wisest man in his time, had deep insight into the hearts of men. He saw our longing for eternity, for something other than ourselves, for a higher experience than our present condition affords us.

Mankind started in the Garden of Eden, not in a fallen world. In the Hebrew language, Eden means pleasure, delight or paradise. We still long for this now. We were created for eternity, and we still look towards heavenly realities. It is impossible to take God out of the heart of man.

This innate longing in mankind has led to many attempts to create a utopian world. Some have attempted to do this without God. All of these attempts have ended in dismal failure. They have been counterfeits of the real thing, failing to reflect the heart of God towards his creation.

The attempt by communists in the last century to create a society where wealth was equally distributed failed dramatically, and at great cost. As a result, our own generation thought that communism was finished. Unfortunately, the spirit behind communism lives on, and ideologies inspired by this spirit are guiding public discourse in the UK and across the West.

Moral relativism, multi-culturalism, socialism, secularism, humanism, the sexual revolution, the drive for equality and diversity and the iron grip of political correctness are all manifestations of this same utopian spirit.

Read here

Monday, 17 October 2011 from 7.30pm to 10pm
Westminster Central Hall, Storeys Gate
London, SW1H 9NH

"Does God Exist?"
The Great Debate between William Lane Craig and Stephen Law

William Lane Craig is a renowned Christian Philosopher from America and one of the most significant defenders of Christianity in the world, having debated the world's leading atheists, inclusing Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Sam Harris recently described William as "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists."

At Premier's invitation, Crais is visiting the UK from 17-to-26 October for an exciting line-up of lecutres on the truth of Christianity and debates with atheists on the existance of God.

The Tour begins at Westminster Central Hall, London on Monday, 17 October at 7:30pm and will be hosted by Premier Christian Radio's "Unbelievable?" presenter, Justin Brierley. William Lane Craig will be debating the atheist philosopher, Stephen Law, on the topic: "Does God Exist?".

The tour has already been making waves in the media as some of the best known UK atheists, including Richard Dawkins, have refused invitations to step up and debate with Craig. Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist and President of the British Humanist Association, initially agreed to debate against Craig, but recently withdrew herself from the debate stating that she "had not realized the debating style of Mr. Craig."

What is making the UK's atheists so nervous? Find out by attending the first debate of the Tour as William Lane Craig presents compelling arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.

This is also a perfect event for inviting sceptics and questioning friends and family to. You can forward this email on to your friends and family so that they too can book tickets.

Tickets are only £12.50 each. There is a special student price of £5 per ticket, however, you will need to own a valid student ID in order to qualify for the discounted price.

Don't miss this opportunity to see the world's leading defender of the intellectual case for Christianity in action this October by booking your tickets now!

For bookings and details of other venues see here

In the West we are doing our best to destroy our Christian heritage but in China, Chinese intellectuals are coming around to the view that it is precisely this heritage that has made the West so successful.

Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Dominic Lawson, in a review in the Sunday Times of Niall Ferguson's new book, ‘Civilisation: The West and the Rest’, carries a quote from a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in which he tries to account for the success of the West, to date.

He said: “One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.

“We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.

“Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.

“But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.

“The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

Read here

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”.

But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.
 
A war of words has broken out between the best selling author of The God Delusion, and his critics, who see his refusal to take on the American academic, William Lane Craig, as a “glaring” failure and a sign that he may be losing his nerve.
 
Prof Dawkins maintains that Prof Craig is not a figure worthy of his attention and has reportedly said that such a contest would “look good” on his opponent’s CV but not on his own.
 
An emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, Prof Dawkins last year supported a plan to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests.
 
Prof Craig is a research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, in California, and the author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles on Christianity.

He has debated with leading thinkers including Daniel Dennett, A.C.Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, Lewis Wolpert and Sam Harris.

Prof Craig is due to visit Britain in October this year. Four invitations to take part in public debates were sent to Prof Dawkins from The British Humanist Association, The Cambridge Debating Union, the Oxford Christian Union and Premier Radio.

Read here

Read Cranmer here

What would happen if Christians turned the tables on atheists and challenged them on their belief that God doesn't exist?

This is the premise of the book "The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism," written by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley (Our Sunday Visitor), in which the internal contradictions of a non-belief in God, as well as the various incoherencies in the atheistic worldview, are exposed.

According to Madrid, "atheists are not accustomed to Christians subjecting atheism to a rigorous critique on its own merits. This is why our primary goal was to take a different approach by providing a philosophical critique of atheism itself."

Madrid is the author or editor of 16 books, the director of the Envoy Institute of Belmont Abbey College, the publisher of Envoy Magazine, and host of the Thursday edition of EWTN Radio’s "Open Line" broadcast (3-5 p.m. ET).

In this interview with ZENIT, Madrid discusses the primary goals of writing "The Godless Delusion," as well as the precarious foundations of the naturalistic morality of atheism.

ZENIT: As you state in your book, atheists have been around for years, but there have also been various Catholic and Protestant responses to atheism. What is unique about your approach to atheism and your understanding of atheists?

Madrid: Given that other Catholic books have already decisively refuted atheism’s major arguments against God, when Kenneth Hensley and I began outlining chapters for "The Godless Delusion," we knew it wasn’t necessary for us to write the same sort of book (three superb examples of which are: "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism," by Edward Feser, "Handbook of Catholic Apologetics," by Jesuit Father Ronald Tacelli and Peter Kreeft, and "Theology and Sanity," by Frank Sheed).

Atheists are accustomed to being the aggressor when engaging Christians. They attack and Christians defend. But atheists are not accustomed to having the tables turned, and to defend atheist principles. They are not accustomed to Christians subjecting atheism to a rigorous critique on its own merits.

This is why our primary goal was to take a different approach by providing a philosophical critique of atheism itself — one that would highlight its internal contradictions and incoherencies and demonstrate what we believe to be the atheist worldview’s abject inability to account for various immaterial realities we all know and experience, e.g., love, knowledge, goodness, evil, self-awareness, memory, human rights, etc.

Second, we wanted to subject atheism to a strictly rational, philosophical critique that would not rely on evidence for the existence of God found in divine revelation: Christ, Scripture, the Church, miracles, etc. Those things are, of course, rejected out of hand by atheists as wholly irrelevant and inadmissible, so we felt it would be useful for our readers to understand how to critique and refute atheism without ever having to engage in directly proving the existence of God.

At the outset of the book, we specify a premise with which all atheists would agree: Either God exists or he does not exist. There is no possibility of a third option. Thus, if it can be conclusively proven that God does not exist, then atheism is true and we should all become atheists. The corollary is equally true: If atheism itself is false, then by default, God must exist. In "The Godless Delusion," our fundamental goal is to demonstrate that God must exist, but only indirectly, by showing that atheism is false.

ZENIT: In the chapter titled "The Death of Right and Wrong," you discuss the naturalistic worldview of atheism and note its most radical implications vis-à-vis morality. Essentially, if one is to accept that only what can be seen exists, then one must deny the existence of the basic ideas of right and wrong. But isn’t the natural law written on the hearts of all? Why couldn’t a naturalistic worldview also encompass a naturalistic morality?

Madrid: Yes, that’s correct. Atheism's denial of the existence of God is predicated on what is known as the Naturalist world view. Naturalism posits that the only things that exist are material. Or, to say it a different way, nothing immaterial (i.e., spiritual or supernatural) can exist. In other words, only things in the natural order exist. There is no supernatural order above or beyond the natural. This helps to explain why, on the one hand, atheists disdain any talk of God, angels and souls. They reject the existence of these things since there are immaterial and therefore not part of the natural order.

And on the other hand, the naturalist foundation of atheism helps to explain why so many modern atheists tout science as the supreme means by which the question, "Does God exist?" can be answered. Most atheists confidently assume that science has either disproven the existence of God or it soon will. But, of course, science is completely incapable of answering this question because science deals strictly with pre-given material realties in the cosmos, which can be apprehended with man’s corporeal sense organs. These things are subject to observation, measurement, etc., because they are material. But God is immaterial. So are angels, demons, and human souls. These are pure spirit and, therefore, lie utterly beyond the realm of science. Philosophy, not the physical sciences, is the proper and only adequate means of proving or disproving the existence of God.

Science, for all its stupendous importance, is simply incapable of speaking to the question of God’s existence. And this brings us the crux of the answer to your question: Morality is part of the "real world" we all live in, and even atheists follow moral norms out of a desire to be "good." But what possible meaning can the word "good" have in a truly atheist universe in which God does not exist?

In "The Godless Delusion," we say that terms such as "good" and "evil" would be essentially meaningless in any absolute sense because, if God does not exist and there is no transcendent moral law revealed by God which prescribes how we should act, one cannot say that a given action is good or evil. It just is what it is. One may not like or approve of a particular action, such as murder or theft, but it would be impossible to deem it "evil" in any sense beyond one’s own subjective, personal preferences. This is an example of an incoherence at work within atheism.

The atheist conviction is that human beings should be "good" for the sake of being good, as well as for the general personal and social benefits that accrue from being "good," "moral," etc. — not because God wills that we be good.

This is where a curious lacuna inherent in the atheist moral theory comes into view. Atheist scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, concur with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which entails the "survival of the fittest" principle of natural selection. The strong dominate and kill off the weak. The superior naturally eliminate the inferior, etc. This principle can be readily observed in the animal kingdom, where stronger, faster, more aggressive alpha males get to mate with the females and produce offspring. Weaker, less dominant males do not.

A significant incoherence in atheist thought becomes clear when atheists insist, on the one hand, that the natural order is governed by the blind, random forces of nature, resulting in the "survival of the fittest" evolution of species and yet, on the other hand, they complain about the problem of evil, or decry violent acts of Muslim jihadism, or excoriate those who engage in "immoral" behavior, especially among those who believe in God (and most especially among Christians).

But if, as atheists claim, God does not exist and all of us are simply the byproducts of natural selection’s "survival of the fittest," why shouldn’t the strong among us dominate and kill off the weak? Why shouldn’t we adopt an "every man for himself" attitude and get what we want from whomever we want it by whatever means we can get it? Atheism can offer no meaningful, much less plausible, answer to that question.

One of the many ironies of atheism is that atheists dismiss the Christian claim that God has revealed a transcendent moral law to all human beings (see St. Paul’s discussion of this in Romans 1:19-23, 2:14-16). Of course, there is a great deal more one can say about the problem this dichotomy presents for atheists, and we examine this issue in much greater detail in "The Godless Delusion."

ZENIT: You state that most atheists are moral people, who do believe in right and wrong. How do they justify not living out the naturalistic worldview to its logical conclusion?
Madrid: Yes, it’s true that many atheists not only regard themselves to be good people, but they really do try to be good people. Many of them strive to be kind, tolerant, generous, and respectful toward others. This is because they recognize that "right" and "wrong" behavior is real and not merely theoretical.

But this recognition, as important as it is for peaceful and harmonious human interaction, is still utterly inconsistent with the atheist worldview’s foundational claim that only natural, material things exist. To be consistent with this claim, they are forced to admit that "being good" is really just a matter of personal conviction or group consensus, not an ideal that God desires for all of us to strive for.

Atheists cannot justify, according to atheist principles, why they believe it is "wrong" to pollute oceans, cut down rain forests, or hack into someone’s bank account and steal their life savings. If the stronger members of the human species engage in such behaviors in their pursuit of dominating the weaker members, and if there is no God and therefore no transcendent, prescriptive moral law given by God to guide us into knowing what is right and what is wrong, then on what grounds can atheists legitimately oppose such behaviors?

Doing so would be intolerant and would have the net result of the atheist forcing his morality on others — the very thing atheists object to in the first place.

Don't Impose Your Morality on Me!  

He was taking an ethics class with a professor who promoted moral relativism – the notion that there is no objective moral truth, no right or wrong. According to a relativist, all truth claims are subjective, merely reflecting one's own feelings, opinions, or desires. A relativist might say, "You can have 'your truth' and I can have 'my truth,' but there is no 'the truth' to which we are all accountable." 

In a relativistic culture like our own, it is quite difficult to talk about morality, especially if one believes in a moral standard that applies to all people. For example, if you try to defend Catholic teaching on moral issues such as abortion, premarital sex, or homosexuality with your coworker Joe during a lunch break, you are likely to be dismissed as rigid, fundamentalist, judgmental, and intolerant: "That might be your opinion, but don't impose your morality on me!"   Read here

January 24, 2011 (Breakpoint.org) – You have probably never heard of Lothar Kreyssig—I hadn’t until recently. Yet, after hearing his story, I realized Kreyssig was a hero for our times: a man whom, at almost unbelievable risk, stood up for the sanctity of human life.

In October, 1939, the Third Reich created what came to be known as the “Action T4” program. In furtherance of what the Nazis called “racial hygiene,” Reich bureaucrats, working with doctors, were authorized to identify and kill those deemed to be “unworthy of life,” that is, institutionalized patients with “severe disabilities.”

Of course, expressions like “unworthy” and even “severe” are subjective. In reality, they were a license for mass murder. Hitler called for at least 70,000 people to be killed under this program, so doctors and officials set about meeting the Fuhrer’s quotas.  Read Charles Colson here

In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?

Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?

“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith,” Kristof argues, “because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth … as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith.” Here’s a little hint: Anytime you hear a claim about what “most Biblical scholars” believe, check on just who these illustrious scholars really are. In Kristof’s case, he is only concerned about liberal scholars like Hans Kung, whose credentials as a Catholic theologian were revoked by the Vatican.

Read here

Over the last ­fortnight, many of us will have been enjoying the ­familiar ­delights of the school ­Nativity play, sharing the excitement that a new generation of children ­always brings to it.

Their costumes may be fashioned from blankets, tea-­towels and old dressing-gown cords but you can see from their rapt expressions that the Christmas Story has lost none of its power and magic.

With Mother and the Christ Child holding centre stage, the final tableau, helped perhaps by a bit of prompting from ­parents and teachers, slowly assembles. On come the shepherds, ­earnestly clutching their crooks and toy lambs, closely followed by the three Wise Men, a riot of colour and gold gift-wrap.

It’s such a familiar and enduring image that most of us can conjure it from memory in a moment. But it’s an image that I believe runs the real risk of overlooking the most important character of all, an ­individual whose vital role in shaping the Christian message is downplayed and yet whose story couldn’t be more important, or more significant, in today’s society.

Read here

THE Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised attempts to ban nativity plays and other Christmas activities. People of other faiths and cultures “love the story”, he says.

In the Christmas issue of the Radio Times, Dr Williams writes: “The weary annual attempts by right-thinking people in Britain to ban or discourage nativity plays or public carol-singing out of sensitivity to the supposed tender consciences of other religions fail to notice that most people of other religions and cultures both love the story and respect the message.”

He describes Christmas as one of the “great European exports”, and says that the story of the nativity “is loved even in non-Christian contexts”. One of the “best and most sensitive recent film retellings of the story was made by an Iranian Muslim company”.

Dr Williams also writes about the theological implications of the Christmas story, which “should make us think twice about giving up on the human heart’s capacity for goodness and faith”.

Read here

The Christian worldview is structured, first of all, by the revealed knowledge of God. There is no other starting point for an authentic Christian worldview—and there is no substitute.

One of the most important principles of Christian thinking is the recognition that there is no stance of intellectual neutrality. No human being is capable of achieving a process of thought that requires no presuppositions, assumptions, or inherited intellectual components. All human thinking requires some presupposed framework that defines reality and explains, in the first place, how it is possible that we can know anything at all.

The process of human cogitation and intellectual activity has been, in itself, the focus of intense intellectual concern. In philosophy, the field of study that is directed toward the possibility of human knowledge is epistemology. The ancient philosophers were concerned with the problem of knowledge, but this problem becomes all the more complex and acute in a world of intellectual diversity. In the aftermath of the Enlightenment, the problem of epistemology moved to the very center of philosophical thought.

Are we capable of knowing truth? Is truth, in any objective sense, accessible to us? How is it that different people, different cultures, and different faiths hold to such different understandings and affirm such irreconcilable claims to truth? Does truth even exist at all? If so, can we really know it?

Read here

Sunday Programme 28th November 2010 – William Crawley Presenter [“Q”]

Not Ashamed Day

Q: ‘Wear your faith with pride this Christmas’, that’s the call being made by Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, in a nationwide campaign challenging Britain’s Christians to stand together to oppose any attempt to airbrush the Christian Faith out of public life. The campaign was launched by the organization ‘Christian Concern for our Nation’ and they have renamed December the 1st: ‘Not Ashamed Day’. Lord Carey told me why he thinks Christianity is being marginalized in the UK.

Carey: We are seeing it in terms of well, the general thing, local councils marginalizing the significance of festivals such as Christmas. There is also what is happening with individuals – Nadia Eweida – people like Gary Macfarlane – whose rights I believe have been taken away from them, and what worries me and so many people, that this marginalizing is a way, either deliberate or otherwise, of pushing Christianity into the private area of life so people can’t actually demonstrate their Christian faith in the work situation. You think of the lady in Exeter who was moved from her position as a nurse because she wore a cross. And so the campaign is saying: we as Christians should be proud of our faith which has done so much for our country.

Q: Critics will say that when you look at individual cases, such as those you have just mentioned, what you find, and what courts and tribunals have found when they have explored those cases, is often that those involved have not fallen foul of religious discrimination, but simply workplace uniform rules and the like.

Carey: No it’s not quite like that at all. I think there are too many cases for us to say it is isolated, William, and I think we must stand up and be counted.

Q: What does standing up and being counted mean?

Carey: Well I think we have got to admire the bravery of people who are prepared to stick their neck out, and support them. It is important to preach that Christianity has made a major contribution to our society and will continue to do so.

Q: Again critics will say it’s a phoney war, its hard to look at Britain today and say Christianity is marginalized: you have all those Bishops sitting in the House of Lords; you have special protections in many ways for the place of Christians within British society.

Carey: Yes, of course you can say that and I hear that argument. Also I’m not personally persecuted, but there is a hardening of position against the Christian faith. Both our Archbishops have spoken out from time to time on this. Don’t forget we’ve had the Pope over here looking at Western society and making very strong claims about the marginalizing that is going on.

Q: What impact do you think a campaigning day like this could have in Britain?

Carey: I think we need to take a long-term view on this and see this is something which is beginning, quietly perhaps. There is going to be a letter taken to No. 10 Downing Street. I’d want to reserve that question and revisit it in a year’s time, William, and to ask exactly that: How can we maintain the momentum and get the message out?

Q: And do you think you are pushing on an open door in 10 Downing Street? Do you thing the Prime Minister David Cameron gets your message?

Carey: I think so, David is someone who is an Anglican Christian, and I understand, I haven’t spoken about this, but I believe he is most sympathetic judging by the remarks he made to the Pope recently.

Read more, with additional remarks on the Anglican Covenant, here

One of the most important principles of Christian thinking is the recognition that there is no stance of intellectual neutrality. No human being is capable of achieving a process of thought that requires no presuppositions, assumptions, or inherited intellectual components. All human thinking requires some presupposed framework that defines reality and explains, in the first place, how it is possible that we can know anything at all.

The process of human cogitation and intellectual activity has been, in itself, the focus of intense intellectual concern. In philosophy, the field of study that is directed toward the possibility of human knowledge is epistemology. The ancient philosophers were concerned with the problem of knowledge, but this problem becomes all the more complex and acute in a world of intellectual diversity. In the aftermath of the Enlightenment, the problem of epistemology moved to the very center of philosophical thought.

Are we capable of knowing truth? Is truth, in any objective sense, accessible to us? How is it that different people, different cultures, and different faiths hold to such different understandings and affirm such irreconcilable claims to truth? Does truth even exist at all? If so, can we really know it?

Read here

At the sentencing of Roshonara Choudhry, the trainee teacher who attempted to murder Stephen Timms MP, the public gallery erupted with cries of 'Allahu akbar' ('God is great'), 'British go to hell' and 'Curse the judge'.

Quite why they were not immediately arrested for contempt of court is unknown.

[...] As Miss Choudhry was sent down ‘for life’, with a minimum term of 15 years, the Prophet’s loyal rent-a-crowd faithfully protested outside the Old Bailey with their usual offensive placards, hurling their usual inflammatory insults, which included 'Death to Timms’, presumably with the hope or expectation that he might join Margaret Thatcher in hell.

Why were they not immediately arrested for incitement to murder or, at the very least, the public order offence of causing alarm and distress?

If the police do not treat everyone equally under the law, irrespective of race or religion, they give the impression that ‘devout’ Muslims may indeed incite their co-religionists to murder Members of Parliament, and that they may do so with impunity.

But in passing sentence, Mr Justice Cooke observed something very interesting about Stephen Timms. He said:

Read here

It is both rare and welcome to hear an educating and educated speech by the Secretary of State for Education at his party conference. Michael Gove's at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham, particularly the section on the curriculum in our schools, repays careful study. He is generally right in his emphasis on the rigorous study of traditional subjects rather than wasting time on what he calls "pseudo-subjects". We would expect him, as a student of English, to focus on the teaching of language and literature — as he does. His choice, though, of the "greats" — Dryden, Pope, Swift, Byron, Keats, Shelley, Austen, Dickens and Hardy — could have been expanded to include Herbert, Donne, Newman, Hopkins, Eliot, Chesterton, Greene and Belloc.

It is, however, his comments about the teaching of history that are the most telling. He reminds us of that sundering of our society from its past which I have called "national amnesia", and asserts that until we understand the struggles of the past we will not be able to value our hard-won freedoms. All of this, and more, is music to my ears, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

We must ensure that the teaching of history is not just about a number of significant events and personalities and that there should be a connected narrative. But how is this to be achieved and what is the "golden chain of harmony" that can provide the connection? Surely, this has to do with a world-view that underlies the emergence of characteristically British institutions and values: the Constitution itself ("the Queen in Parliament under God"); a concern for the poor; a social security net, based on the parish church, which goes back to the 16th century; and personal liberties as enshrined in the Magna Carta.

Read here