Why A Pragmatic Gospel Won’t Work: Richard Dawkins on Bill O’ Reilly
by Eric Chabot
A ways back, Jim Wallace posted an article called, One Important Reason the Church Will Continue to Compromise. In it, he discusses the impact on pragmatism on the Church. Recently, I was told by an atheist that he didn’t even care if Christianity was true. As long as it ‘works’ for me and makes a difference, it doesn’t need ot be based in reality. And when we had Wallace here to speak last week at our Ratio Christi chapter, he said he isn’t a Christian because it ‘works’ for him. Rather, he is a Christian because it is true. Sadly, it is not only atheists and others that fall prey to pragmatism. Christians fall into pragmatism as well! In this clip, Richard Dawkins and others have no problem in saying religion is fine if you think it works for you. But that doesn’t make it true!
As you watch the clip, while I do respect Bill O’ Reilly, I never considered him to be a Christian apologist. When I watch this exchange about how Bill’s faith helps him, I am reminded of J.P. Moreland’s comments:
“Today, we share the gospel as a means of addressing felt needs. We give testimonies of changed lives and say to people if they want to become better parents or overcome depression or loneliness, that the Jesus is their answer. This approach to evangelism is inadequate for two reasons. First,
it does not reach people who may be out of touch with their feelings. Second, it invites the response, “Sorry, I do not have a need.” Have you noticed how no one responded to Paul in this manner? In Acts 17-20, he based his preaching on the fact that the gospel is true and reasonable to believe. He reasoned and tried to persuade people to intelligently accept Jesus.”–Moreland, J.P. Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress. 1997, 25.
One thing for sure is that Richard and many atheists have been publishing books to try to demonstrate that Christianity is not based in reality. Hence, Christianity is false and simply a delusion. Anyway, what is truth?
The Nature of Truth
Truth can be understood both from what it is and from what it is not. Furthermore, we must differentiate between the nature (definition) of truth and a test (defense) of truth, or from not distinguishing the result from the rule.
Truth by its very nature is absolute or relative. To say there is no absolute truth is self-defeating. Also, even though our grasp of truth is not absolute, it doesn’t mean there is no absolute truth…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>>