Site under construction!!
This is a debate between 2 Oxford professors.
*Richard Dawkins is considered one of the leading Atheists Debaters and has a Doctorate in philosophy and is an evolutionary biologist according to Wikipedia.
*John Lennox is a leading Christian apologist and holds Doctorates in science (specifically mathematics) and philosophy.
I know this is a longer piece but any shorter version would not due justice to both sides of the debate.
We may disagree on who won but it clearly was not a strong win for the Dawkins.
Cliff Knechtle Engages College Students
A Collection of his interactions with college students from many campus’s is at this link (be aware that his goal in the interactions is get the student to personally read the gospels encountering Christ in them. He is not trying to lead them to the sinners prayer) :
J.Werner Wallace shares something learned from jury selection that also applies to evangelism and apologetics. Often the potential jurists fall into 1 of 4 categories (my paraphrase of his explanation):
1. Solidly pro-police (or pro belief). This is the person that is so trusting of the police and that they will accept all police testimony and evidence and view anything submitted by the defense suspiciously. Even without hearing the case they are likely to vote guilty. Guilty verdict 90% of the time.
2. Leans pro police (or willing to believe). Open to persuasion and listening to the evidence but they will favor the prosecution and the defense has an uphill battle to persuade them. But they can be persuaded. Guilty verdict 51-90% of the time.
3. Leans anti police (or hesitant to believe). They have a negative opinion of law enforcement and are more likely to believe the defendants than the prosecution. Here it is the prosecution that has to do a better job in order to persuade the jurist. Guilty verdict 11-50% of the time.
4. Solidly anti police (or determined not to believe). Deeply suspicious of the police, may have a history of bad encounters or know stories of police corruption. Evidence presented is suspected of being tampered with or otherwise false. Presumes the defendant is likely to be a victim of bad police. Guilty verdict less than 10% of the time.
The fact is that when it comes to evidence we all have histories and experiences that cloud the way we view facts and evidences. Please don’t misunderstand the purpose of this website. There is no silver bullet here that is guaranteed to make every non Christian repent and become a believer. But I do have these hopes from this website.
-
Believers can be open about their doubts and get answers that are reasonable. Either for themselves or for those in their lives.
-
For members of both groups 2 and 3 that are open to persuasion there are many lines of evidence for the truth of Christianity. What is often called the cumulative case.
-
As a resource for the common christian to turn to when challenged.
What are the 3 types of doubt?
1. Logical doubt
2. Psychological doubt
3. Moral doubt
Below in the video Brett Kunkle describes how it is ok to doubt and what are the best responses.
