I Debated the New Atheists. Here's Why They Failed - Alister McGrath

Let's jump ahead then to the early Let's jump ahead then to the early 2000s. Um 2000s. Um 2000s. Um one way that a lot of people got to know one way that a lot of people got to know one way that a lot of people got to know your work then was your engaging and your work then was your engaging and your work then was your engaging and debating the new atheists. debating the new atheists. debating the new atheists. What is it that stands out most to you? What is it that stands out most to you? What is it that stands out most to you? What did you learn during that era of What did you learn during that era of What did you learn during that era of engaging the new atheists? engaging the new atheists? engaging the new atheists? >> Well, I think I I learned a lot. Um let >> Well, I think I I learned a lot. Um let >> Well, I think I I learned a lot. Um let me let me just run a few things past me let me just run a few things past me let me just run a few things past you. One of the things I I I realized you. One of the things I I I realized you. One of the things I I I realized very very quickly that the new atheism very very quickly that the new atheism very very quickly that the new atheism was largely based on rhetoric. This is was largely based on rhetoric. This is was largely based on rhetoric. This is the obviously right view for an the obviously right view for an the obviously right view for an intelligent person. You don't think intelligent person. You don't think intelligent person. You don't think we're right, so you're stupid. You know, we're right, so you're stupid. You know, we're right, so you're stupid. You know, there's that kind of um highly there's that kind of um highly there's that kind of um highly rhetorical, slogan-driven rhetorical, slogan-driven rhetorical, slogan-driven um approach. And I thought this is um approach. And I thought this is um approach. And I thought this is intellectual nonsense. But here's what I intellectual nonsense. But here's what I intellectual nonsense. But here's what I noticed. Yes, it was intellectual noticed. Yes, it was intellectual noticed. Yes, it was intellectual nonsense, but it was influential nonsense, but it was influential nonsense, but it was influential intellectual nonsense because of the intellectual nonsense because of the intellectual nonsense because of the stridency, the certainty with which they stridency, the certainty with which they stridency, the certainty with which they asserted it. And Christopher Hitchens asserted it. And Christopher Hitchens asserted it. And Christopher Hitchens was very very good at this. And you was very very good at this. And you was very very good at this. And you know, in one of his um books, Aristotle know, in one of his um books, Aristotle know, in one of his um books, Aristotle says, you know, nothing nothing says, you know, nothing nothing says, you know, nothing nothing persuades like certainty. In other persuades like certainty. In other persuades like certainty. In other words, if you project this aura of being words, if you project this aura of being words, if you project this aura of being absolutely certain, people will trust absolutely certain, people will trust absolutely certain, people will trust you. So, that that was really very very you. So, that that was really very very you. So, that that was really very very important thing to realize for me important thing to realize for me important thing to realize for me because it gave me a way of beginning to because it gave me a way of beginning to because it gave me a way of beginning to challenge this and saying, "Look, you challenge this and saying, "Look, you challenge this and saying, "Look, you have subjective certainty, but there's have subjective certainty, but there's have subjective certainty, but there's no objective certainty in what you're no objective certainty in what you're no objective certainty in what you're saying at all." That was the first saying at all." That was the first saying at all." That was the first thing.

thing. thing. The second thing was this, the new The second thing was this, the new The second thing was this, the new atheism was terribly terribly good at atheism was terribly terribly good at atheism was terribly terribly good at demanding that Christians prove that demanding that Christians prove that demanding that Christians prove that their views were right. But there was their views were right. But there was their views were right. But there was this kind of epistemic asymmetry here. this kind of epistemic asymmetry here. this kind of epistemic asymmetry here. When you said, "Well, can you prove your When you said, "Well, can you prove your When you said, "Well, can you prove your views are right?" they would say, "No, views are right?" they would say, "No, views are right?" they would say, "No, no, we don't need to. Um we're just no, we don't need to. Um we're just no, we don't need to. Um we're just right. It's obvious. Any intelligent right. It's obvious. Any intelligent right. It's obvious. Any intelligent person would think that." And so, I person would think that." And so, I person would think that." And so, I think that one of the things I began to think that one of the things I began to think that one of the things I began to realize is that you could play a little realize is that you could play a little realize is that you could play a little game which is called being fair. I'll game which is called being fair. I'll game which is called being fair. I'll try and prove my position, but listen, try and prove my position, but listen, try and prove my position, but listen, you've got to prove yours as well. And you've got to prove yours as well. And you've got to prove yours as well. And that proved to be very very difficult that proved to be very very difficult that proved to be very very difficult for them because of course it can't be for them because of course it can't be for them because of course it can't be done. So, I think that That another done. So, I think that That another done. So, I think that That another thing. But here's the third thing I've thing. But here's the third thing I've thing. But here's the third thing I've learned, which is really over the many learned, which is really over the many learned, which is really over the many years since then, as I have met more and years since then, as I have met more and years since then, as I have met more and more people who come to me and say, more people who come to me and say, more people who come to me and say, "Alister, I read your book on Dawkins, "Alister, I read your book on Dawkins, "Alister, I read your book on Dawkins, and actually it moved me away from new and actually it moved me away from new and actually it moved me away from new atheism. Thank you so much." What I see atheism. Thank you so much." What I see atheism. Thank you so much." What I see is many, many people, some of whom now is many, many people, some of whom now is many, many people, some of whom now are good friends, who in effect came to are good friends, who in effect came to are good friends, who in effect came to faith through Dawkins by realizing that faith through Dawkins by realizing that faith through Dawkins by realizing that Dawkins was talking nonsense. But that Dawkins was talking nonsense. But that Dawkins was talking nonsense. But that Christianity seemed be saying something Christianity seemed be saying something Christianity seemed be saying something a lot more interesting. So, I think it's a lot more interesting. So, I think it's a lot more interesting. So, I think it's very important for us all to say, "Look, very important for us all to say, "Look, very important for us all to say, "Look, when some influential cultural opinion when some influential cultural opinion when some influential cultural opinion begins to develop, let's engage it and begins to develop, let's engage it and begins to develop, let's engage it and show Christianity is able to say show Christianity is able to say show Christianity is able to say something significant in response, but something significant in response, but something significant in response, but also offer something even better as an also offer something even better as an also offer something even better as an alternative."

alternative." alternative." >> Well, Christianity is still here. >> Well, Christianity is still here. >> Well, Christianity is still here. You're still doing your apologetics and You're still doing your apologetics and You're still doing your apologetics and evangelism work, but the new atheist evangelism work, but the new atheist evangelism work, but the new atheist movement has come and it's gone. What movement has come and it's gone. What movement has come and it's gone. What was it about the new atheism that failed was it about the new atheism that failed was it about the new atheism that failed to appeal, especially to younger to appeal, especially to younger to appeal, especially to younger generations? generations? generations? >> Well, I think there was several things. >> Well, I think there was several things. >> Well, I think there was several things. Let me list the ones that people have Let me list the ones that people have Let me list the ones that people have mentioned to me, and I've I've looked mentioned to me, and I've I've looked mentioned to me, and I've I've looked some of these, but some of these are some of these, but some of these are some of these, but some of these are observations others have made to me. observations others have made to me. observations others have made to me. One of them is they were very, very good One of them is they were very, very good One of them is they were very, very good at fighting among themselves. I mean, we at fighting among themselves. I mean, we at fighting among themselves. I mean, we don't think of Christians being very don't think of Christians being very don't think of Christians being very good at that, but actually I'll tell you good at that, but actually I'll tell you good at that, but actually I'll tell you the new atheism's even better. And the new atheism's even better. And the new atheism's even better. And really, you have some very significant really, you have some very significant really, you have some very significant political, cultural, and um political, cultural, and um political, cultural, and um spiritual disagreements within the new spiritual disagreements within the new spiritual disagreements within the new atheism. For example, Sam Harris is into atheism. For example, Sam Harris is into atheism. For example, Sam Harris is into um Indian spirituality. And many of his um Indian spirituality. And many of his um Indian spirituality. And many of his fellow atheists atheists were saying, fellow atheists atheists were saying, fellow atheists atheists were saying, "This is this is this is terrible. You "This is this is this is terrible. You "This is this is this is terrible. You are implying that atheism isn't good are implying that atheism isn't good are implying that atheism isn't good enough. You have to have something else enough. You have to have something else enough. You have to have something else to meet these spiritual needs. Why do to meet these spiritual needs. Why do to meet these spiritual needs. Why do you have spiritual needs? It's weird." you have spiritual needs? It's weird." you have spiritual needs? It's weird." So, I think that the first of all is So, I think that the first of all is So, I think that the first of all is this fragmentation of the movement.

this fragmentation of the movement. this fragmentation of the movement. Secondly, there was this growing Secondly, there was this growing Secondly, there was this growing realization that these guys simply could realization that these guys simply could realization that these guys simply could not prove that their beliefs were right, not prove that their beliefs were right, not prove that their beliefs were right, and people noticed that. I think that and people noticed that. I think that and people noticed that. I think that was very, very important. was very, very important. was very, very important. The third point which was made by many, The third point which was made by many, The third point which was made by many, many new atheists is, if you were many new atheists is, if you were many new atheists is, if you were choosing people to lead a movement, the choosing people to lead a movement, the choosing people to lead a movement, the kind of people you wouldn't want to lead kind of people you wouldn't want to lead kind of people you wouldn't want to lead it would be Richard Dawkins and it would be Richard Dawkins and it would be Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. In effect, these Christopher Hitchens. In effect, these Christopher Hitchens. In effect, these guys had their own agendas, and in many guys had their own agendas, and in many guys had their own agendas, and in many ways the movement simply became their ways the movement simply became their ways the movement simply became their their reflection. And that I think was a their reflection. And that I think was a their reflection. And that I think was a very, very bad mistake. But I think most very, very bad mistake. But I think most very, very bad mistake. But I think most people who come out of the new atheism people who come out of the new atheism people who come out of the new atheism saying, "We were in there for a while, saying, "We were in there for a while, saying, "We were in there for a while, but we realized it was really a big but we realized it was really a big but we realized it was really a big mistake." would say that they were they mistake." would say that they were they mistake." would say that they were they were looking for something that was were looking for something that was were looking for something that was rationally compelling and also that met rationally compelling and also that met rationally compelling and also that met their deep existential needs. And the their deep existential needs. And the their deep existential needs. And the problem they had with new atheism is, problem they had with new atheism is, problem they had with new atheism is, "Well, if this is right, so what? What "Well, if this is right, so what? What "Well, if this is right, so what? What difference does it make to the way you difference does it make to the way you difference does it make to the way you feel about the world, to your views feel about the world, to your views feel about the world, to your views about morality?" Um and really, if I'm about morality?" Um and really, if I'm about morality?" Um and really, if I'm put like this, the new atheism delivered put like this, the new atheism delivered put like this, the new atheism delivered a worldview which was, in their view, a worldview which was, in their view, a worldview which was, in their view, completely irrational.

completely irrational. completely irrational. not meaningfully engage questions like, not meaningfully engage questions like, not meaningfully engage questions like, "What is good? What is meaningful?" And "What is good? What is meaningful?" And "What is good? What is meaningful?" And I think many people said, "Well, look, I think many people said, "Well, look, I think many people said, "Well, look, these are big questions. If you can't these are big questions. If you can't these are big questions. If you can't answer them, well, go somewhere else and answer them, well, go somewhere else and answer them, well, go somewhere else and talk to other people." talk to other people." talk to other people." >> Let's bridge between that point of your >> Let's bridge between that point of your >> Let's bridge between that point of your conversion into the new atheism in conversion into the new atheism in conversion into the new atheism in decades of apologetics ministry and work decades of apologetics ministry and work decades of apologetics ministry and work and teaching and writing, and teaching and writing, and teaching and writing, would you identify as the biggest ways would you identify as the biggest ways would you identify as the biggest ways apologetics has changed? apologetics has changed? apologetics has changed? >> Well, I think what has changed uh to me >> Well, I think what has changed uh to me >> Well, I think what has changed uh to me um um um most significantly, I think, is that most significantly, I think, is that most significantly, I think, is that we've moved away from what I might we've moved away from what I might we've moved away from what I might unfairly call kind of hyper-rationalist unfairly call kind of hyper-rationalist unfairly call kind of hyper-rationalist approach, you know, you prove things are approach, you know, you prove things are approach, you know, you prove things are true, to a realization that everything true, to a realization that everything true, to a realization that everything in life that you really value, belief in in life that you really value, belief in in life that you really value, belief in God, for example, is not something you God, for example, is not something you God, for example, is not something you can absolutely prove to be true, but is can absolutely prove to be true, but is can absolutely prove to be true, but is nonetheless absolutely transformative. nonetheless absolutely transformative. nonetheless absolutely transformative. And the point I always make now is look, And the point I always make now is look, And the point I always make now is look, if the belief matters, you won't be able if the belief matters, you won't be able if the belief matters, you won't be able to prove it's true. And that's true of to prove it's true. And that's true of to prove it's true. And that's true of atheists as well. That's a key thing.

atheists as well. That's a key thing. atheists as well. That's a key thing. Once Once you see this, then atheism is Once Once you see this, then atheism is Once Once you see this, then atheism is a belief system, it's a faith, it's not a belief system, it's a faith, it's not a belief system, it's a faith, it's not a self-evidently true place. So, I think a self-evidently true place. So, I think a self-evidently true place. So, I think if you like, I'm a scientist, so this if you like, I'm a scientist, so this if you like, I'm a scientist, so this this is a very natural way for me to this is a very natural way for me to this is a very natural way for me to think. It's about which of the many think. It's about which of the many think. It's about which of the many explanations of our world is the best. explanations of our world is the best. explanations of our world is the best. And Christianity stands out brilliantly And Christianity stands out brilliantly And Christianity stands out brilliantly in that way. Um C.S. Lewis does this in that way. Um C.S. Lewis does this in that way. Um C.S. Lewis does this very very well in Mere Christianity, very very well in Mere Christianity, very very well in Mere Christianity, especially that chapter on hope, which especially that chapter on hope, which especially that chapter on hope, which says, "Look, there are lots of ways of says, "Look, there are lots of ways of says, "Look, there are lots of ways of explaining things, but I think this explaining things, but I think this explaining things, but I think this one's best, and here's why." So, if you one's best, and here's why." So, if you one's best, and here's why." So, if you like, like, like, Christians are being very realistic. We Christians are being very realistic. We Christians are being very realistic. We can't absolutely prove this. We can give can't absolutely prove this. We can give can't absolutely prove this. We can give lots of good reasons, but in the end the lots of good reasons, but in the end the lots of good reasons, but in the end the guy who convinces people is me, it's the guy who convinces people is me, it's the guy who convinces people is me, it's the Holy Spirit. And my role as an apologist Holy Spirit. And my role as an apologist Holy Spirit. And my role as an apologist is to help is to help is to help God convert people. I have a role to God convert people. I have a role to God convert people. I have a role to play, but God has an even more important play, but God has an even more important play, but God has an even more important role to play, which is opening people's role to play, which is opening people's role to play, which is opening people's minds and lightening them, changing minds and lightening them, changing minds and lightening them, changing their hearts, and finally bringing them their hearts, and finally bringing them their hearts, and finally bringing them home. So, as apologists, we're playing a home. So, as apologists, we're playing a home. So, as apologists, we're playing a really important role, but actually really important role, but actually really important role, but actually God's in there as well. I think that God's in there as well. I think that God's in there as well. I think that brings me to the final point I want to brings me to the final point I want to brings me to the final point I want to make, which is that um certainly, you make, which is that um certainly, you make, which is that um certainly, you know, about 20 25 years ago, apologetics know, about 20 25 years ago, apologetics know, about 20 25 years ago, apologetics was taught as a technique. Here is how was taught as a technique. Here is how was taught as a technique. Here is how you do things. I didn't like that you do things. I didn't like that you do things. I didn't like that really, because um really, because um really, because um where's God in all of this? You know, I where's God in all of this? You know, I where's God in all of this? You know, I I I I just I just felt that really you I I I just I just felt that really you I I I just I just felt that really you had to be open to God in every respect.

had to be open to God in every respect. had to be open to God in every respect. And so, I tend to see apologetics now as And so, I tend to see apologetics now as And so, I tend to see apologetics now as me doing my bit, doing my best, but then me doing my bit, doing my best, but then me doing my bit, doing my best, but then handing over to God. And that means you handing over to God. And that means you handing over to God. And that means you pray before you give your talks, and you pray before you give your talks, and you pray before you give your talks, and you realize you can't do everything, but realize you can't do everything, but realize you can't do everything, but nevertheless, you're giving God the nevertheless, you're giving God the nevertheless, you're giving God the breaks. You're in effect opening breaks. You're in effect opening breaks. You're in effect opening people's minds. And there's an analogy people's minds. And there's an analogy people's minds. And there's an analogy by a by a by a a 12th-century theologian called Alan of a 12th-century theologian called Alan of a 12th-century theologian called Alan of Lille, who's talking about the way grace Lille, who's talking about the way grace Lille, who's talking about the way grace works. And he says, "It's like being works. And he says, "It's like being works. And he says, "It's like being inside a room where there are shutters inside a room where there are shutters inside a room where there are shutters everywhere. And if you open the everywhere. And if you open the everywhere. And if you open the shutters, the light floods in." shutters, the light floods in." shutters, the light floods in." What you're doing is removing barriers What you're doing is removing barriers What you're doing is removing barriers to light. I I find that helpful. The to light. I I find that helpful. The to light. I I find that helpful. The apologetics of you helps remove barriers apologetics of you helps remove barriers apologetics of you helps remove barriers to grace. So, in effect, God can get in to grace. So, in effect, God can get in to grace. So, in effect, God can get in there and transform people's lives, but there and transform people's lives, but there and transform people's lives, but there are things we can do that help there are things we can do that help there are things we can do that help that process. Oh, that process. Oh, that process. Oh, >> during the rise of the new atheists, >> during the rise of the new atheists, >> during the rise of the new atheists, there was another apologist who emerged, there was another apologist who emerged, there was another apologist who emerged, and that's somebody you and I have have and that's somebody you and I have have and that's somebody you and I have have collaborated with or talked about quite collaborated with or talked about quite collaborated with or talked about quite a bit, and that's Tim Keller. Uh what a bit, and that's Tim Keller. Uh what a bit, and that's Tim Keller. Uh what was it about Tim Keller that helped him was it about Tim Keller that helped him was it about Tim Keller that helped him to stand out among apologists from that to stand out among apologists from that to stand out among apologists from that era, especially in the 21st century?

era, especially in the 21st century? era, especially in the 21st century? >> Well, I think that there are many >> Well, I think that there are many >> Well, I think that there are many things. I'll I'll go through what I things. I'll I'll go through what I things. I'll I'll go through what I think are the chief things about Tim think are the chief things about Tim think are the chief things about Tim Keller that make him I don't say so Keller that make him I don't say so Keller that make him I don't say so successful, because that that that successful, because that that that successful, because that that that implies he's kind of technique-driven, implies he's kind of technique-driven, implies he's kind of technique-driven, but but makes him so good at doing this but but makes him so good at doing this but but makes him so good at doing this role. role. role. And here's what I think. First of all, And here's what I think. First of all, And here's what I think. First of all, he had a very strong foundation which he he had a very strong foundation which he he had a very strong foundation which he built. He built on a rigorous biblical built. He built on a rigorous biblical built. He built on a rigorous biblical anthropology. He's you know, he's anthropology. He's you know, he's anthropology. He's you know, he's absolutely orthodox. absolutely orthodox. absolutely orthodox. But he also draws on a very strong But he also draws on a very strong But he also draws on a very strong traditional apologist which you find in traditional apologist which you find in traditional apologist which you find in Francis Schaeffer, which is in effect um Francis Schaeffer, which is in effect um Francis Schaeffer, which is in effect um critiquing alternative worldviews. If critiquing alternative worldviews. If critiquing alternative worldviews. If you like, it's presuppositionalism, but you like, it's presuppositionalism, but you like, it's presuppositionalism, but um Keller used it very very powerfully um Keller used it very very powerfully um Keller used it very very powerfully to undermine the plausibility of to undermine the plausibility of to undermine the plausibility of alternative ways of thinking. And I alternative ways of thinking. And I alternative ways of thinking. And I think the one thing that Keller does think the one thing that Keller does think the one thing that Keller does terribly, terribly well is in effect to terribly, terribly well is in effect to terribly, terribly well is in effect to undermine secularist worldviews and undermine secularist worldviews and undermine secularist worldviews and leave people wondering, "Well, where do leave people wondering, "Well, where do leave people wondering, "Well, where do I go now?" because you've shown me that I go now?" because you've shown me that I go now?" because you've shown me that I've got some big problems with what I I've got some big problems with what I I've got some big problems with what I think. think. think. I think one of the things that Keller I think one of the things that Keller I think one of the things that Keller Keller does very, very well is to draw Keller does very, very well is to draw Keller does very, very well is to draw on some more recent writings by people on some more recent writings by people on some more recent writings by people like the philosopher Alister McIntyre or like the philosopher Alister McIntyre or like the philosopher Alister McIntyre or indeed Charles Taylor, who are giving indeed Charles Taylor, who are giving indeed Charles Taylor, who are giving some very penetrating analyses of why it some very penetrating analyses of why it some very penetrating analyses of why it is that culture is that culture is that culture um fastens on to certain ideas and see um fastens on to certain ideas and see um fastens on to certain ideas and see says they seem to be great, they seem to says they seem to be great, they seem to says they seem to be great, they seem to be obvious, they seem to be self-evident be obvious, they seem to be self-evident be obvious, they seem to be self-evident the true, when in fact, they're simply the true, when in fact, they're simply the true, when in fact, they're simply influential opinions. And I think that influential opinions. And I think that influential opinions. And I think that McIntyre and Taylor in their different

McIntyre and Taylor in their different McIntyre and Taylor in their different ways really help us to realize this. ways really help us to realize this. ways really help us to realize this. What Tim Keller did was really to say, What Tim Keller did was really to say, What Tim Keller did was really to say, "Building on this foundation, I'm going "Building on this foundation, I'm going "Building on this foundation, I'm going to say to my audiences, what you think to say to my audiences, what you think to say to my audiences, what you think is self-evidently true is simply an is self-evidently true is simply an is self-evidently true is simply an opinion. It's simply what our culture opinion. It's simply what our culture opinion. It's simply what our culture thinks at the moment. It won't think thinks at the moment. It won't think thinks at the moment. It won't think this tomorrow. And what I'm saying to this tomorrow. And what I'm saying to this tomorrow. And what I'm saying to you is there are alternatives available, you is there are alternatives available, you is there are alternatives available, and I want you to think about them." So, and I want you to think about them." So, and I want you to think about them." So, I found Keller really very, very good I found Keller really very, very good I found Keller really very, very good at, in effect, without drawing attention at, in effect, without drawing attention at, in effect, without drawing attention to it, really, to it, really, to it, really, building his approach on a rigorous, building his approach on a rigorous, building his approach on a rigorous, intellectual, cultural analysis, which intellectual, cultural analysis, which intellectual, cultural analysis, which allowed him then to really speak allowed him then to really speak allowed him then to really speak powerfully to audiences. But here's the powerfully to audiences. But here's the powerfully to audiences. But here's the next thing I noticed about Tim Keller, next thing I noticed about Tim Keller, next thing I noticed about Tim Keller, and I I've really valued this. At and I I've really valued this. At and I I've really valued this. At Redeemer, Keller would re- regularly Redeemer, Keller would re- regularly Redeemer, Keller would re- regularly talk about um talk about um talk about um the the gospel to kind of um focus the the gospel to kind of um focus the the gospel to kind of um focus groups and would listen to what they groups and would listen to what they groups and would listen to what they said. He listened before he spoke. And said. He listened before he spoke. And said. He listened before he spoke. And that's one of the reasons why I value that's one of the reasons why I value that's one of the reasons why I value him so much. He isn't just um randomly him so much. He isn't just um randomly him so much. He isn't just um randomly generating ideas. He's listened to generating ideas. He's listened to generating ideas. He's listened to people, he's listened to their concerns, people, he's listened to their concerns, people, he's listened to their concerns, he's figured out how to engage these.

he's figured out how to engage these. he's figured out how to engage these. And the fact that he has listened to his And the fact that he has listened to his And the fact that he has listened to his audience before he goes on to to speak, audience before he goes on to to speak, audience before he goes on to to speak, so to speak, really means he is so to speak, really means he is so to speak, really means he is connecting with where they are, and connecting with where they are, and connecting with where they are, and helping them to move on. And finally, uh helping them to move on. And finally, uh helping them to move on. And finally, uh and this is my final point, he does and this is my final point, he does and this is my final point, he does speak very well. He's he's a good speak very well. He's he's a good speak very well. He's he's a good speaker. So, you know, you put all of speaker. So, you know, you put all of speaker. So, you know, you put all of those things together, and I you have a those things together, and I you have a those things together, and I you have a very, very effective apologist, for whom very, very effective apologist, for whom very, very effective apologist, for whom I have lots of admiration, as I think I have lots of admiration, as I think I have lots of admiration, as I think you'll have gathered. you'll have gathered. you'll have gathered. >> [laughter] >> [laughter] >> [laughter] >> Well, >> Well, >> Well, >> I think Alister knows surprise here. I >> I think Alister knows surprise here. I >> I think Alister knows surprise here. I think you did a better job of explaining think you did a better job of explaining think you did a better job of explaining cultural apologetics than I do as the cultural apologetics than I do as the cultural apologetics than I do as the director of the Keller Center for director of the Keller Center for director of the Keller Center for cultural apologetics. cultural apologetics. cultural apologetics. But I love the way you're putting it But I love the way you're putting it But I love the way you're putting it within that broader context of within that broader context of within that broader context of Schaeffer, of presuppositionalism, Schaeffer, of presuppositionalism, Schaeffer, of presuppositionalism, and then combining it with some of the and then combining it with some of the and then combining it with some of the more recent intellectual developments more recent intellectual developments more recent intellectual developments that that kind of high critical theory that that kind of high critical theory that that kind of high critical theory of cultural change, especially amid a of cultural change, especially amid a of cultural change, especially amid a significant de-churching across the West significant de-churching across the West significant de-churching across the West and especially in in the United States and especially in in the United States and especially in in the United States last 25 years. You mix up all of that last 25 years. You mix up all of that last 25 years. You mix up all of that and you get a pretty good example of and you get a pretty good example of and you get a pretty good example of what we're trying to do at the Keller what we're trying to do at the Keller what we're trying to do at the Keller Center now and going forward.