The God Delusion is sure to garner significant attention in the media and in popular culture. Dawkins, along with the other fashionable skeptics and atheists of the day, makes for good television and creates an instant media sensation. In one sense, we should be thankful for the forthrightness with which he presents his arguments. This is not a man who minces words, and he never hides behind his own argument. Furthermore, at several points in the book he correctly identifies weaknesses in many of the arguments put forth by theists. As is so often the case, we learn from our intellectual enemies as well as from our allies.

The tone of the book is strident, the content of the book is bracing, and the attitude of the book is condescending. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that his strident attack upon the faith is limited to words. “I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement,” he insists. He even allows that “we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions” of organized religion, “and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals,” he asserts. Nevertheless, all this must be done without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions.” Further: “We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.” All this raises more questions than Dawkins answers. If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to “a treasured heritage?” It must be because, in the end, even Richard Dawkins is not as much of an atheist as he believes himself to be. If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing.

What is this which gleams through me?

And smites my heart without wounding it?

I am both a-shudder and aglow.

A-shudder, in so far as I am unlike it,

Aglow in so far as I am like it.

- St Augustine (354 –430 AD)

Richard Dawkins considers the existence of God to be nothing more than a scientific hypothesis, just like any other. He presents his case that “the factual premise of religion, the God Hypothesis, is untenable.” In other words, “God almost certainly does not exist.”

So why do so many persons trust in Him? Unwavering with his evolutionary worldview, Dawkins is obliged to offer an exclusively naturalistic account for the origin and purpose of religion. He argues that religion must be, like all other human happenings, a product of Darwinian evolution. Yet, he recognizes that the existence of religious belief poses some fascinating Darwinian questions. “Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste,” Dawkins explains. Therefore, there must be some captivating Darwinian rationalization for how religious belief materialized and endures. Citing his associate Daniel Dennett, Dawkins suggests that religious belief is “time-consuming, energy-consuming” and “often as extravagantly ornate as the plumage of a bird of paradise.” He sees no good in it at all. “Thousands of people have been tormented for their devotion to a religion, victimized by zealots for what is in many cases a barely discernible alternative faith. Religion devours resources, sometimes on a massive scale. A medieval cathedral could consume a hundred man centuries in its construction, yet it was never used as a dwelling, or for any recognizable useful purpose.”

In his own twist, Dawkins argues that belief in God is simply a by-product of some other evolutionary mechanism. He suggests that one possible center of belief in God (implicit in purely physicalist and natural terms) is the need for the brains of children to accept on faith the teachings of their elders. Thus, he argues that evolution may have “psychologically primed” the human brain for some shape of belief in God. However, whatever purpose this may have served the process of evolution in the past, Dawkins now believes that it has become a perilous burden.

“I surmise that religions, like languages, evolved with sufficient randomness, from beginnings that are sufficiently arbitrary, to generate the bewildering–and sometimes dangerous–richness of diversity that we observe. At the same time, it is possible that a form of natural selection, coupled with the fundamental uniformity of human psychology, sees to it that the diverse religions share significant teachers in common.” In the last part, Dawkins sees all these forms as hazardous.

Along the way, Dawkins insists that morality is not based in absolute truth but in a consequentialist form of reasoning that is itself a monument of evolutionary development. He plays with categories and concepts, no doubt intentionally, in order to confuse the question. Christians do not argue that those who believe in God always act in a way that is morally superior to those who do not. Atheists may behave better than Christians. This is to our shame, but it does not pose an intellectual challenge to the validity of the Christian faith. The more urgent question has to do with how any form of moral absolute, including even a prohibition on murder or incest, can survive if all morality is merely a natural phenomenon of human evolution. Dawkins simply embraces the relativity of morality, arguing that this explains why Christians are so dangerous. Believing in moral absolutes, Christians are led to defend the sanctity of human life at every level and to believe that, of all things, the Creator actually has set forth moral commandments and expectations concerning our sexuality. Dawkins rejects these ideas altogether.

At the same time, he suggests that the morality revealed in the Bible is actually immoral when judged against the enlightened standards of our current moral Zeitgeist. Furthermore, Dawkins argues that modern persons do not actually derive their morality from the Bible, no matter how much they may claim to do so.

In a sweeping rejection of Biblical Christianity, Dawkins expresses outrage at the morality of both the Old and New Testaments. “I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellant. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity,” he asserts. Dawkins would dispense with the Ten Commandments and replace these with a new set of commandments more attuned to modern times. Among his proposed commandments are these: “Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business;” “Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.” Another of Dawkins’ commandments hits close to home: “Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”

Amazingly, Dawkins denies that he is himself an absolutist. Accordingly, he expresses incredulity at the fact that he is seen as a particularly ardent opponent of Christianity.

“Despite my dislike of gladiatorial contests, I seem somehow to have acquired a reputation for pugnacity towards religion. Colleagues who agree that there is no God, who agree that we do not need religion to be moral, and agree that we can explain the roots of religion and of morality in non-religious terms, nevertheless come back to me in gentle puzzlement. Why are you so hostile?”

Dawkins denies that he is a “fundamentalist atheist .” “Maybe scientists are fundamentalists when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by ‘truth.’ But so is everybody else,” he insists. “I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere.”

In the end, Richard Dawkins will surely fail in his quest to turn theists in to atheists. His book represents nothing fundamentally new–just the same old arguments repeated over and over again. Dawkins is quick to label his intellectual adversaries as fundamentalists, but he conveniently redefines the term so that it does not apply to his own position. He claims to live life solely on the basis of scientific evidence, but is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution that we cannot take his protestations to the contrary seriously.

The concluding part of the series “The Delusion of Dawkins” will be posted shortly.

Some two hundred years ago the saintly Madam Guyon, (1648 – 1717) after ten years spent in a dungeon lying far below the surface of the ground, lit only by a candle at meal-times, wrote these words:

A little bird I am,
Shut from the fields of air;
Yet in my cage I sit and sing
To Him who placed me there;
Well pleased a prisoner to be,
Because, my God, it pleases Thee.
Nought have I else to do
I sing the whole day long;
And He whom most I love to please,
Doth listen to my song;
He caught and bound my wandering wing
But still He bends to hear me sing.
My cage confines me round;
Abroad I cannot fly;
But though my wing is closely bound,
My heart’s at liberty,
My prison walls cannot control
The flight, the freedom of the soul.
Ah! it is good to soar
These bolts and bar above,
To Him whose purpose I adore,
Whose Providence I love;
And in Thy mighty will to find
The joy, the freedom of the mind.

Beyond One Person Leadership – Shifting to Teams

While authors, Easum and Travis, affirm that the senior pastor is a key element in the equation that leads to a strong church and kingdom impact, they attempt to undo ‘the myth of the heroic leader’; everything rises and falls on the senior pastor. Rather they suggest; everything rises and falls on the quality of the team, with a senior pastor who is the “level 5” leader, to apply the term Collins uses, in his book “Good to Great.”

In “Good to Great” a level 5 leader is someone who “channels his ego needs away from himself into the larger goal of building a great company… While he is an incredibly ambitious leader, his ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not himself.” Level 5 leaders intentionally build other leaders round them so that leadership does not all fall solely on them.

The authors see a problem with church boards that function like boards of directors for businesses and professional sports teams who too easily “fire the coach.” this is because they buy into the myth of the heroic leader, who doesn’t measure up; rather they should see themselves as part of an effective team with the senior pastor using a coherent team strategy.

In their call for a shift from one heroic leader to team, they call the church to three area of leadership empowerment:

1. Enlarge and empower both paid and unpaid staff by:

· Recruiting most staff from within. (The senior pastor must be extremely careful when asking an outside person into the team.)

· Letting the ministry leader closest to the new staffer choose him for his team. Often this would be the role of the senior pastor, but this changes as the church gets larger.

· Expand the concept of “staff” to include paid and unpaid staff. (Not to distinguish the two.)

· Expand the staff team through interns – high school, college, recent graduates, or any age.

2. Build board members into an accountable leadership team.

· Most senior pastors/church leaders don’t spend enough time selecting, training, nurturing and developing board members.

· Board members serve because of their prior leadership experience apart from their demonstrated commitment to the vision and values of the congregation.

· Senior pastors should treat board members more like unpaid staff than ‘permission withholders.’ They invited to be a part of staff planning processes; invited to come with their spouses to retreats meetings alongside staff.

3. Lay pastors should be given the power they need for ministering effectively.

· The focus here on deploying an army of equipped servants within the congregation.

· Every congregation member should be seen as a potential lay pastor.

Beyond One Team – Moving to a Culture of Equipping

· The call is to stress the value of equipping everyone in the congregation to serve, whether on staff or not.

· Words create worlds, so watch your language! Two words that hinder the development of a culture of equipping are staff and volunteer; do away with such class distinction. Move to words like team member, teammate, worker, and leader.

· The key measure of a good leader is his effectiveness at reproducing himself. More than what appears to be the current success of the ministry. (Numbers and so forth.)

· Service can precede salvation. People bring their unbelieving friends and say, “Come help me, as I serve at my church.” We need to find place for brand new people to serve.

· Think training more than academics. Think apprentice when you do training. This is not to eliminate academics, but knowledge without practical training is just not useful.

Beyond My Church – Thinking Kingdom Community

· Recognize that communities/ cities are not likely to be changed by any single congregation or leader. Instead they will more likely change as God’s people band together to be “the body of Christ” to every corner of our community/city. That is we are to think ‘City Church’.

· Even though a particular congregation may be one’s calling, it is never the whole of one’s ministry – it must include a view of community or city.

· The call is to work cooperatively with other churches for the sake of the growth of the kingdom in the city.

Beyond a Single Location – One Church in Many Locations

· Rather than a single congregation being tethered to one location, begin thinking about a church that meets in many locations but has the same core values, mission, administration, budget, treasury, and staff as a single-site church. Think one congregation growing in multiple locations.

· Mission rather than space, determines the agenda.

· Multiple sites allow a large church to feel smaller, while maintaining many of the advantages of a large church. It also creates better stewardship of funds and resources.

· Each location feels like it is a part of something bigger.

· From a statistical perspective, multi-sites are responsible for more converts than relocation.

Beyond Church Planting – Planting Churches that Plant Churches

This is by far the most visionary and challenging of the chapters/ issues covered.

· The theme here is that we must focus on planting reproducing churches that will become the centers from which other churches will be planted. We’re talking developing a movement that results in the multiplication of churches, not just the addition of churches.

· Churches plant churches not denominations or para-church organizations.

· Church planting is not an end in itself but rather a means by which we reach more for Christ.

In so many ways the book is not radical to those who like reading about where the church is headed. This book simply points us to the visible evidence of what God is doing in a number of churches that appear to be trend indicators for the future. These are trends that the authors are convinced will strengthen the church in her mission to reach and disciple the lost. From my perspective and experience they are not too far off.

The book concludes by giving a description of a “Beyond the Box Leader”. One additional observation about a Beyond the Box Leader caught my attention: “Because they are sailing uncharted waters, none of these leaders has or follows a strategic plan. Instead they have a clear destination in mind and make up their strategic map as they go. Think of strategic mapping not has a highway map that says “this way” or “turn here” but as a topographical map in which explorers and surveyors fill in the hazards, the terrain, the canyons, the streams – contours of the culture. They make up a lot of it as they go. For these leaders, methodology is relatively unimportant compared to the one driving criterion: Does it transform people and community?”

The book is worth a read, particularly the visionary chapter on “planting churches that plant churches” and the challenging examples of churches that are doing that. It’s insight into where God is leading His church, or at least portions of his church. It paints a bright picture of what the church may be in the not too distant future.

Thank you, William, for leading me Beyond the Box and for showing me that a group not open to new life, guarantees that it is dying.

In the past two weeks, I have had the great pleasure of conversing with some of my old friends from the Union Biblical Seminary, Pune, India – Rev. Father Miland Sojwal, Rev. Joseph Thomas, Rev. Praveen, Rev. David Doraisingh, and Rev. Sam Robinson. God’s kaleidoscope of His church in America during these changing times is being transformed and brightened by their varied ministries.

I spoke at length with Rev. William Nathaniel, now President, South Asian Church Network of the Southern Baptist Convention. I first met William in 1989 while studying at the same seminary. I found it striking that I had forgotten the exact circumstance of our first meeting at the hostel. Recounting memories with William helped me maintain the fidelity and the breadth of those memories, because those things that I had forgotten, William remembered. Together the memory was complete. It was rather interesting to note that after so many years had passed without hearing another person’s version of events, my own memory had become selective. I had reinforced or embellished some experiences, and had eliminated other events altogether.

It has taken almost two decades and two continents to finally touch base with William again. A few minutes into the conversation, we found ourselves talking about evangelism-focused small groups and how they are entwined into the life of the church. Together, our common interests kept us chatting away until very late.

Not being from the United States, I find a lack of old friends. It was particularly enjoyable to talk with an old friend from seminary and to discuss a range of topics including politics, food, theology, and culture.

After our very stimulating conversation, I read about evangelism-focused small groups in America. I discovered that no two situations are the same. Each neighborhood, language, and church needs its own action plan. Each plan becomes its own model.

Bill Easum (former United Methodist Pastor now working as a Church Growth Consultant) and Dave Travis (former Southern Baptist Pastor now working with the Leadership Network) have combined to author a quick-to-read but nonetheless inspiring overview of what they call “Beyond the Box churches and Church leaders.” Their book left me with all kinds of good ideas and challenging thoughts.

Not bad from two aging boomers, raised in the modern era – they seem to have their finger on the pulse of what appears to be emerging in the church next.

The theme of the book is that the future belongs to churches who understand that healthy growth comes not through addition, but multiplication. A corollary theme is that healthy church leaders focus on contributing to a larger kingdom movement rather than growing a single institution. Easum and Travis describe three kinds of churches:

· In the Box

· Out of the Box

· Beyond the Box

Most churches in North America can be described as “In the Box churches.” They tend to be stuck or in decline; tethered to property; wanting to protect heritage; a bit controlling; formal membership and staff are doers.

“Out of the Box Churches” are churches that are thriving and growing today; they often relocate or expand; they invite the public in (seeker sensitive); are good at training key leaders; comfortable with change; tend to ignore constitutions; focus on volunteers rather than members; and staff are equippers.

The third type of church is what this book is all about, “Beyond the Box Churches.” These are churches that live and lead as if the box doesn’t exist. Some of their characteristics:

· They are radically innovative.

· They are not tethered to property, and are often multi-sited.

· They pursue opportunity with a missionary mindset.

· They think broadly in terms of kingdom, rather than institution and heritage.

· They multiply rather than add in terms of leaders, ministries, and new churches.

· They are not just comfortable with change, but embrace change.

· Rather than being a slave to the constitution or ignoring the constitution like “Out of the Box Churches,” they develop flexible guidelines.

· Rather than a focus on formal membership or the deployment of volunteers, the focus is on discipled servants.

· Instead of staff as doers or staff as equippers, the whole church is an equipping culture.

They make the claim that “Beyond the Box Churches” are far closer to what you’d expect to find in early Christianity, at least in contrast to “Modern in the Box Christendom,” It would be easy to be cynical of such a claim; doesn’t everyone say that about their approach to church? However, take a look at some of the parallels the authors draw between the early church and “Beyond the Box churches:”

· The early church was led by nonprofessional missionaries who traveled in teams.

· Early Christians didn’t set out to establish a form of organized religion.

· The early church was more of a movement than an organized institution.

· The early church “happened” wherever two or three Christians gathered together.

· The early church didn’t need any formal agreement of the people participating, or formal membership, or some sort of dispensation from a head office.

· The purpose of the church was to model and proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God, telling the story of Jesus to anyone who would listen.

To unpack all this the authors focus on five issues – two leadership issues and three ministry practices. They do this by looking at specific working models of “Beyond the Box Churches.” All of the churches they chose were American, despite the fact that Dave Travis’ Leadership Network is very conscious of serving Canada as well as the U.S. It could be that the authors just didn’t look beyond the border, or perhaps they couldn’t find what they were looking for in Canada. Both, in fact, may be true.

I suspect by the definitions found in this book that my church in India would be considered an “Out of the Box Church,” which might dabble with a few “Beyond the Box” ideas, but we’re not there yet.

A sequel to this blog will be available in a few days

Events in Israel are of particular importance to Bible prophecy. As a consequence, the crisis in Israel dominates our coverage of events relative to the unfolding of Bible prophecy in this generation.
Israel is the linchpin in studying Bible prophecy. Jesus’ description of the signs of His Return [Matt 24:3] are given from the perspective of someone standing on the Mount of Olives.
Israel, Center of Global Attention
In addition, Israel is at the top of the world’s agenda, I attempt to document the world’s slide toward the Tribulation using secular resources to demonstrate the accuracy of Bible prophecy.
Since Bible prophecy for the last days and through the Tribulation is centered around Israel [ Daniel's 70th Week] . Israel serves as a mile marker.The closer it appears to come to extinction, the closer the Return of Christ, who, according to Scripture, prevents that from happening.
The Eternal Generation
In a very real sense, what we are witnessing is not the actual fulfillment of prophecy for the last days. The next prophetic event to be fulfilled in the Church Age is the Rapture. Then the events of the Tribulation follow. Both remain future –near future, we would argue. Are we are eyewitnesses to the staging process? The Bible says that there are a number of seemingly unrelated events that take place all in a single generation, somewhere in time.
Bible Prophecy Demands A Jewish State
Bible prophecy makes numerous references to the existence of a Jewish state called Israel in the last days [Ezekiel 37]. It also demands that Israel be in disputed possession of the city of Jerusalem [Zechariah 12].
It demands a conflict between Israel and her neighbors [Daniel 9]. The conflict is so intractable it will require supernatural intervention to resolve it [Dan 9:27 Zech 12:2-3].
Israel’s rebirth even took the Jews by surprise. Abba Eban, one of Israel’s Founding Fathers, wrote in his book, Personal Witness, that on the day David Ben Gurion composed the telegram asking Harry Truman to recognize the Jewish state, it was still unnamed. The name ‘Israel’ wasn’t selected until the following day.
["Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." Isaiah 66:8].
Bible Prophecy Demands A Global Government
Throughout history, men have sought to rule the world. And throughout history, other men have resisted the attempt. In the last two World wars, the effort began with the conquest of Europe.
Following the last attempt, the Benelux Treaty brought together the first six European states, forming the nucleus of the modern European Union. Wars couldn’t unite them. Peace did [Daniel 8:25].
The same global war was responsible for the creation of the United Nations. The UN created the template for a global government. But the UN is an organism with 188 heads and no brain.
It doesn’t take a political scientist to see it is a failed experiment. How Europe will eventually replace the UN is unclear, but it is the most likely candidate — the world would never accept the US or Russia. Europe would be far more acceptable. The Bible says it will happen [Daniel 9, Rev 13].
Bible Prophecy Demands a Global Economy
The global economy is a reality. The prophecy of the Mark of the Beast [Rev 13:17] demands a system whereby the buying and selling of individuals will be tracked and monitored. Those outside the economic system of antichrist will be ‘unable to buy or sell’.
Entry into the system requires some kind of mark of allegiance to the antichrist. Tracking sales is a reality. Nobody can function in today’s economy unless they are in the ’system’.
Bible Prophecy Demands a Global Religion
The Mark of the Beast is an economic system, but also a system of worship. The false prophet [Rev 13:11] has two horns like a lamb [symbolic of Christianity - the Lamb of God] but speaks as a dragon [Satan].
A counterfeit Christianity preaching another Jesus and a different gospel [2 Cor 11:4]. That is already well entrenched in mainstream Christian denominations that teach salvation by works, church membership or ritual.
What is a Fundamentalist?
To a Christian, a fundamentalist is one who practices the fundamentals of Christian faith, eschewing traditions of men and preferring the Word of God. The world has a different perspective.
Fundamentalists, Jewish, Christian, Muslim — Jewish fundamentalists blow up Arabs and Muslim fundamentalists blow up anybody.
That is the prevailing propaganda, is it not? It isn’t a stretch to expect that the sudden legitimization of ‘faith’ [whether in Jehovah, Jesus or Allah] will eventually blend together into a kind of global ecumenical belief in one ‘god’ for all.
Those who hold to the ‘old ways’ would be, well, fundamentalists.
Israel was reborn in 1948. The Benelux Treaty was signed in 1948. The World Council of Churches was created in Amsterdam in 1948. The transistor — the invention credited as giving birth to the Computer Age [making possible a global economy] was invented in 1948. The General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trades [forerunner to the World Trade Organization] was signed in 1948.
Where are we in Bible prophecy right now? Jesus said ‘when these things begin to come to pass, look up’ [Luke 21:27] because ‘this generation shall not pass, til all be fulfilled’ [Matthew 24:34].
Although no man knows the day or hour, [Math 24:26] ‘when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors’ [Mark 12:29].
Where are we in Bible prophecy right now? I was born in 1965 and I expect the Rapture and the Tribulation to occur in my lifetime. Events in Israel suggest it could take place at any moment.

Dear Lord,
In the new year, we pray
that You will guide us each new day
in paths that are pleasing to You.
Lord, the new year gives us another chance
to rededicate our lives to You,
to study Your Word
so that we know right from wrong
and to act in accordance with Your commands.
Thank you for the sense of
direction, purpose and peace we get
from aligning our lives with Your Holy will.
We pray for the strength and the will to obey You
each and every day of the new year,
and when we fail, we pray for Your mercy,
Your compassion, Your grace and Your love.
Help us in the new year to be your faithful servants.
In Jesus’ name we pray, Amen.

By Joanna Fuchs

The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, supplies their demands

Dawkins states, real scientists are naturalists. As such, they eliminate entirely the question of a supernatural being’s existence. “The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.”

As Dawkins then makes clear, his attack upon belief is explicitly and exclusively directed toward belief in supernatural gods. As he explains, “the most familiar” of these deities is Yahweh. Put simply, Dawkins holds no respect for those who believe in the God of the Bible, whom he describes as ruthless, cruel, selfish, and vindictive.

Accordingly, Dawkins does not understand why social etiquette requires respect for those who believe in God.

In one of the central chapters of his book, Dawkins attempts to accomplish two simultaneous purposes: to undermine the intellectual movement known as Intelligent Design and, in a twist of its logic, to suggest that belief in God is itself a refutation of the very notion of an intelligent design. As Dawkins sees it, “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.” As he sets out his case, he denies that there could be any legitimate basis for belief in God. The very notion of a supernatural agent flies directly in the face of his presuppositional naturalism. Therefore, by definition, such a God cannot exist and those who believe in such a God prove their intellectual inadequacy or gullibility.

In accordance with his own evolutionary theory, Dawkins acknowledges that the universe displays appearances of design. Nevertheless, he suggests that these appearances are false, and that any example of apparent design is actually due to the Darwinian engine of natural selection. He considers the traditional proof for God’s existence offered by the philosophers and rejects each out of hand. Finally, he considers the argument that the existence of God can be proved by Scripture–but then launches a broadside attack upon Scripture itself.

When it comes to the fundamentals of the Christian faith, Dawkins displays absolute amazement that any intelligent person could even entertain the notion that such teachings might be true. Pointing back to the nineteenth century, Dawkins asserts that the Victorian era was “the last time when it was possible for an educated person to admit to believing in miracles like the virgin birth without embarrassment.” He adds: “When pressed, many educated Christians today are too loyal to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection. But it embarrasses them because their rational minds know it is absurd, so they would much rather not be asked.”