Yes, I humbly admit that if you could help me see why it matters, it would be much appreciated. You’re a gracious man, and I share your irritation.

It’s beautiful, it’s still mostly unexplainable, and I say thank you to whoever did it (god, the monkeys with typewriters, whoever) every day. That’s about as much as I care.

Still enjoyed reading your take on it, though, Paul.

Mike, thanks for the kind comments. I’m looking forward to reading the Plantiga essays to which you’ve provided the link.

This has an effect on the popular conversation too. Those who dogmatically defend naturalism know that when they attack things like the Creation Museum, with dinosaurs being loaded onto the Ark, they force that to become the public face of their opponents. If they were to engage thinkers like Plantiga and Moreland in serious debate, they would bring public focus on a kind of theism that is much harder to counter.

Paul, I think you’re right to identify this as a kind of fundamentalism. It is indefeasible (which is a bad thing in any kind of philosophy) , circular thinking that places a higher value on orthodoxy than critical thought.

I guess my point was that the Dallas Willards of the world don’t seem to be able to capture the ear of the larger population within the church. I was actually thinking, after I posted my comment, that one of the things that I do appreciate about Rick Warren is the fact that he’s at least attempting, in terms of mainstream public awareness, to address the perception in the world that Christians only care about unborn babies, those who are HIV negative, and the temperature of hell vs. this planet.

And… of course… Willard and Warren are two of the chief targets of fundamentalism.

Plantiga on Theism

Fundamentalist, in any form, is always a reactionary stance. It’s the response of those who feel threatened, shoring up the base.

Chad, I don’t see how you can sit for weeks under the teaching of Dallas Willard and still believe that the church isn’t offering a credible, articulate, reasonable response to secular naturalism. Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find people like J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, all of whom carry serious academic weight, all of whom are articulate and highly credible conversationalists on the subject of naturalism and theism.

It is the obligation of those in fields of critical inquiry, which proponents of NE claim to be, to defend their propositions against the best competing arguments, not the weakest and most irrational. It’s embarrassing to watch people like Richard Dawkins arguing against Sunday School creationism, instead of taking on the real and credible arguments presented by Theistic Evolution (or Intelligent Design, if you prefer). I think that’s what Paul is saying here - let’s have a real, substantial conversation, where each side addresses the arguments presented in their strongest form, without resorting to ad hominen attacks and straw-man arguments.

While I agree with what’s been stated here (hi Dad) I’d just like to point out, for the sake of fairness, that the dogmatic nature of the NEs wasn’t made in a vacuum. We, as Christians, are still not giving that crowd an indication that we’re (as a collective) ready to have rational and reasonable conversations about much of anything. This reality is why I get to miffed at those like the recently deceased Rev. Falwell, as their style of “Evangelism” reinforces and justifies the fundamentalism of the NE crowd.

As an afterthought… I think some of this fundamentalism is on the rise in the whole climate change debate. One crowd says we have five years to avoid total destruction, the other says there’s nothing at all happening. Both extremes ring false, and since no one other then John Mayer (check out http://www.johnmayer.com/blog, under the title “Not Waiting on the World to Change #1) seems to be proposing anything in the middle, I often find myself unable to choose a side.

My little Acura gets 30mpg, though. I guess I’m a reluctant fundie.