It has been a long weekend….indeed a long week. I decided to reenter the Dawkins website, after reading an article and many comments on the debate between my friend Professor John Lennox of the University of Oxford and Professor Richard Dawkins – who apparently does not want to be my friend (I can’t understand why!). It was an interesting experience (leading once more to my being ‘trolled’/banned) and resulted in a week of debate which cumulated this weekend in taking part in a debate on morality on Premier Radio (see ‘unbelievable’ on www.premier.org.uk) and a debate in London with the British Humanist Society philosopher, Peter Cave. Overall the various experiences have left me exhausted, drained and astounded at the intolerance, arrogance and emptiness of secular humanism, and the fullness, depth and breadth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Why?

Intolerance
RD.net is a strange place. It claims to be ‘a clear thinking oasis’ but anyone who reads it, unless they belong to the cult, will soon walk away feeling a sense of disgust and dirtiness. Yes – there are some good and interesting articles – and there were (and still are) some intelligent, polite and articulate posters. However the overall tone is poor and the whole impression given is that of a cross between a fan club, a militant political group and a recovering therapy centre for recovering religious people. The language is often rude (especially to those of us who dare to disagree with Dawkins), the standard of debate is poor and worst of all is the sheer intolerance. I seem to get under their skins quite a lot. I don’t do it deliberately. Honestly. I am not a ‘Troll’ (not someone from Lord of the Rings but rather someone who deliberately goes on message boards to wind people up and enflame). Last week the only reason I came on to the site again was because of the Dawkins/Lennox thread, which looked at their most recent, encounter. Actually I thought that Dawkins did much better in this debate than he did in the previous one and I said so. Yet this did not stop my post being ‘trolled’ (in effect banned). On another thread in which I was interested, the atheist bus campaign in Sweden, the same thing happened. I wrote the following. Try and work out why it was banned. Answers on a postcard to RD.net. Not sure what the prize is.

“I thought Sweden was meant to be the godless atheistic paradise. So why do you need an atheist bus campaign there? Not so sure? And 2 million Swedes claim to be religious - and many Swedes still support the State church - and evangelical churches are growing - I guess things are not what they seem in paradise after all. I have preached in Sweden and I would suggest that there is as much interest in Christianity there as in the UK. It is after all a nation founded on Christian principles.”

Sometimes I cannot work out if this intolerance is something endemic in all forms of atheism (the state sponsored forms for example have not exactly been beacons of enlightened tolerance) or just peculiar to the more militant Dawkins style exemplified on his website. I suspect it is the latter. Many atheists I know are considerably more tolerant and willing to genuinely discuss. I also fear that there is a great of personal arrogance involved here. On this particular thread one individual who regularly uses the most offensive language (including against yours truly) was told by Richard Dawkins himself to ‘b****** off’. He had committed the cardinal sin of criticizing the master and I suspect what really hurt was his suggestion that Dawkins should leave off the debating as he is not particularly good at it.

Arrogance
The arrogance is also seen in another way. Gunnersby Baptist Church in Chiswick London, had invited me down to debate on the question of whether society would be better with or without God. They asked Richard Dawkins to be involved. His response was less than polite….

Thank you for your kind invitation to have a debate with David Robertson. That would, of course, be excellent publicity for Mr Robertson's dreadful book, but if you think that is a persuasive inducement for me, dream on! Unlike the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, David Robertson is not someone I want to meet.” There is so much revealed here. Dawkins snobbery and self-importance shines through – ‘you are not important enough for me’. This is the same snobbery that caused him sneeringly to describe John Lennox as an ‘Irish mathematician’ or Anthony Flew as a not great philosopher who in his old age had turned to religion either out of confusion or because he was being used, or Frances Collins as the ‘administrator’ of the human genome project.

Dawkins believes that to debate with people like yours truly is beneath himself. Furthermore he cannot believe that we have any motive other than personal financial gain (does he know how Christian publishing works!) or personal fame. He once suggested that to debate with people like the minister of St Peters would look better on ‘your CV than mine’. Perhaps one day Richard Dawkins might think a little better of his fellow human beings and work out that we want to debate and discuss because we are actually interested in truth, and in interacting with his published views, rather than just assuming that our lives revolve around him. For me there is nothing personal in this and to be frank I am very thankful for Richard Dawkins and what he has done. Not because of his illiberal and intolerant views, nor because I can make my fortune by getting a book published by Christian Focus (as if!), nor even because I have become associated with the ‘great man’ (big hint Richard – I much prefer my association with Jesus Christ); but rather because he has opened the door for us to communicate the Good News of Jesus Christ to tens of thousands of people who before, in their apathy, would not have listened.

Emptiness
Which brings me on to the debates on Saturday in London. On Saturday evening I debated with Peter Cave, philosophy professor of the Open University, and author of some interesting books on philosophy and morality – perhaps the best of which is Can a Robot be Human? It was a good evening with a good number of non-Christians attending a meeting held in a church building. The questions were interesting and the discussion helpful. Peter was colourful, amusing and very likeable.

Earlier that afternoon I had debated Paul Orton on Premier Radio on a similar theme – the place of tolerance. To be frank Paul was not in the same league as Peter, although again he came across as a nice person, and found himself a little out of his depth. His attempts to defend a relativistic morality on the basis of society and feelings were weak. Peter on the other hand anticipated that particular trap and so boldly announced that he was not a moral relativist and that secular humanists did believe in absolute morals. This sounded good until he was asked where they came from. The response? That was as daft as asking ‘where does this building come from?’. But we can answer where the building comes from. And we need to answer where the absolute morality comes from. It 'just is' is an empty answer. Anyway it was a fascinating evening (as was the follow up the next day when I did a question and answer session at the evening ‘service’). I understand that the Saturday evening debate, Sunday morning sermon, and Sunday evening discussion will soon be on line.

As I came home on the Sleeper (which was not living up to its name last night!) I reflected on many of the different things I had heard and seen. And I was filled with a profound thankfulness for the richness and fullness of the Gospel, as well as its logical consistency and its overall realistic worldview. The philosophies of this world are fundamentally foolish, because they seek a wisdom outwith the Fount of all Wisdom, they replace God with man, and they exchange the truth of God for a lie. Pilate asked ‘What is Truth?’. Jesus had already given the answer – “I am the Truth”. Hallelujah!

PS. Thanks to Rory Stott for preaching the glorious truths of Jesus Christ in St Peters this weekend and to Andrew Robertson for teaching the children of St Peters the truth so well. You both brought honour and glory to Jesus.