Richard DawkinsIn his book, A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love, the ardent evolutionary atheist, Richard Dawkins, writes:

Why has our society so meekly acquiesced in the convenient fiction that religious views have some sort of right to be respected automatically and without question?  If I want you to respect my views on politics, science, or art, I have to earn that respect by argument, reason, eloquence or relevant knowledge. I have to withstand counter-arguments. But if I have a view that is part of my religion, critics must respectively tiptoe away or brave the indignation of society at large. Why are religious opinions off limits in this way? Why do we have to respect them simply because they are religious?

While he wrongly concludes that there is no evidence for religion and, therefore, it should not be respected, he has a good point nonetheless.  In the pluralistic age in which we live everybody believes we ought to respect what other people believe, even if we think their views are mistaken.  While we should tolerate the individual who holds to flawed religious beliefs, why should we have to respect their views if they do not reflect reality?  Why shouldn’t we press people to justify their beliefs with sound reason and good evidence; and if they can’t, tell them their views are mistaken, if not ridiculous?  Would we do any less to the person who believes he is a bird who can fly, or who claims water freezes in the oven?  Then why won’t we expose errors and absurdities when it comes to religion?  Have we bought into the idea that it is wrong to tell someone they are mistaken?  Have we bought into the idea that religious claims are beyond testing?  Or could it be that we don’t have the goods to defend our own faith, and fear that the tables might be turned on us if we pressed others to the task?  As Yoda would say, “Faith with no evidence you have, hmm?”

Dawkins may be the devil’s chaplain, but he has something to teach us here.  Christianity should not be taken seriously if we cannot justify our claims through argument, reason, and relevant knowledge; Christianity should not be taken seriously if it cannot withstand counter-arguments to our faith.  If you are going to communicate Christ to a non-Christian culture but do not have the relevant knowledge to argue the case for Christ and defend Christianity against the counter-arguments of its detractors, why should the culture take your claims seriously?  Why should they become Christians?  How are they to know that your claims about Christ are true, as opposed to other religious claims?  Why should they privilege Christianity above other religious views?  Just as you would not buy a product from a salesman who didn’t know anything about his product, and could not show why it was better than the competition’s, likewise, the lost world is not going to buy Christianity from an ambassador of Christ who doesn’t know much about his product, and cannot show why it is better than the others.

After nearly 10 years of studying philosophy and apologetics, I am absolutely persuaded that Christianity has the goods necessary to demonstrate that it is true, and can be successfully defended against counter-arguments.  I am a Christian—not because I have shut my eyes to other philosophies and religions—but because I have examined them and compared them to Christianity, and found all but Christianity to be lacking.  Christianity is a rational religion because our God is a rational God who has not left us without witness of His existence, nor of His acts in history.  The evidence is out there.  We simply have to make the time to find it through personal study.  In doing so we will both glorify God, and we will equip ourselves to be better ambassadors for Christ.