I’ve seen that blog entry and others like it. I would have liked a linked back to the original source of those, especially as the charge is that those comments first appeared on a book review of “There is a God’ on http://amazon.com and have never appeared in a press release from Harper One.

Regardless, I’ve made an effort to try to contact Mark Tauber directly. I’ll see where that leads.

Mathew Hamilton

No there is no fabrication going on here. Try this link for starters: http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/i-liked-the-old-atheists-better/

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Every search I’ve done only shows the text as quoted and is attributed to Mark Tauber, but never is a source linked to.

I would hate to think that we Christians are a rotten bunch for having fabricated something that ought not to have been fabricated …

Mathew Hamilton

In reply to your critic, and in fairness to McGrath, I would argue that it was not his main purpose to engage with every atheist and every atheist argument in this book. It was more of an historical and ideological overview. The only unfortunate aspect to this book is that it appeared just before the deluge of books from the new militant atheists. But since Harris, Hitchens, et. al. appeared on the scene, McGrath has penned two more books dealing with the new assault in detail (specifically with Dawkins).

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I caught up with a leading skeptic in NZ last year (Bill Cooke). He was very critical of Alistair McGrath. Having read his book ‘The Twlight of Atheism’, he felt McGrath was very dishonest and didn’t engage with any of the leading atheists (in his opinion) of the 20th century. He cited people such as JL Mackie, Michael Martin, Wallace Matson, John Dewey, and Sydney Hook. I wasn’t familiar with these people or their works so couldn’t comment. Any comments from you?

Mark Conner

But having dealt with your complaint (Flew not being a Christian – yet) at least a half dozen times here, I can only conclude that atheist reading skills are as weak as their reasoning skills.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Flew isnt’ even a christian yet. In your worldview, if he dies now, he’ll still burn in hell.

It seems you people are making way too much out of this.

Reynold Hall, Edmonton, AB, Canada

But I am afraid you are doing it again. Instead of dealing with the argument, you attack the person. Why is it if someone simply seeks to defend his or her point of view, it is called being contemptuous? I might as well ask you why you are being contemptuous of me. Indeed, yours is a loaded question which is not at all helpful. It is a bit like asking, ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ Please stop this silliness if you want to post here.

The reason many people hold to worldviews seriously is because truth claims are involved. You don’t get into big arguments over your favourite ice cream. But truth claims which have eternal implications are important, and should be argued for.

And the significance of Flew is that he is a world class intellect who has now abandoned his atheism which he so vigorously held for 6 decades. It is the shift from atheism to theism which is the issue here, and that is a tremendous shift of great significance. So please stop the red herrings here about Christianity.

I also see no big deal in collaborating on a book with others. No problems there at all.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

You wrote: >

This is an irrational approach to examining anything from history. Excluding what one does not want to find or is embarrassed about a possible find, is not a scientific approach to historiography. That’s called special pleading.

Again, you show your irrationality: >

The fundamental question is: What does an open, honest investigation reveal? Ordinary investigation obviously finds extraordinary claims with Jesus Christ, but finding extraordinary evidence from ordinary investigation is what open historiography finds.

Admit it! You are a naturalist and you will not listen to the evidence found by ordinary investigation that uncovers supernatural claims in history. Again, this is special pleading.

This is a red herring from you: > That’s a presuppositonal, anti-supernaturalist speaking. One who imposes his presuppositions on historical investigation!

You wrote: > You’re wrong again Steve because your world and life view will not allow revelational knowledge from God. Thus your presuppositions prevent access to ALL of the evidence.

If you would only let yourself be open to all of the evidence, you would be surprised how God’s view of the universe fits like a hand in a glove.

Spencer Gear, Hervey Bay, Qld.