A Daniel in the lion's den

When Nero wanted a scapegoat for the fires of Rome, he covered Christians in the skins of wild beasts, set the dogs on them then opened his gardens for the people to watch. No doubt there will be angry lions salivating at the prospect of tearing apart religion yet again at the upcoming Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne.

I'll be there. A Christian, I've paid my $270 to sit among the lions.

I'm attending to see whether the giants of New Atheism – Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett – or our home-grown atheists - Peter Singer, Leslie Cannold, Catherine Deveny - can wean me away from 50 years of faith.

If they're to be believed, I'm somebody who, despite not coming from a religious home, was brainwashed into believing in Jesus Christ, Saviour of the World as a 15-year-old and has never dared have a rational thought since.

Perhaps they can re-educate me. I'm particularly interested in some of the big questions like why are things the way they are, and for what purpose?

In the past, reading Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Michel Onfray, I have noticed some basic questions elude them and therefore suspect have them stumped. Questions like: What is the origin of the universe? Why is there something and not nothing? What is the origin of life? How do you get life from non-life? What is the origin of mind? How does a living being become a self conscious being? And is there any purpose in life?

Christianity has solid answers to these questions that have satisfied its adherents for more than two millennia.

I suggest this difficulty for atheism is a direct consequence of their a priori rejection of a creator God in favour of purposeless Darwinian evolution. However, I'm prepared to listen and see whether the atheists have some answers other than the usual stale debating points about the marvels of evolution and the evils of religion.

There are a number of other issues I'm interested in.

Will I see evidence during the Convention of social concern finding practical outcomes? Christians start schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, run soup kitchens, and provide shelter for the homeless. Will I be hearing about similar initiatives from the atheists or is it just another platform for Dawkins and company to rally the troops with high falutin anti-God talk?

Christians, regardless of whether wealthy or poor, understand that giving a tenth of their income is a reasonable goal in their support of religious and charitable work. I'm wondering if this kind of financial commitment will be mirrored by the atheists beyond their $270+ ticket. For example, will the organisers and speakers take up a collection for Melbourne's first hospital to be run on entirely atheist principles or Melbourne's first atheist school, perhaps named The Richard Dawkins Atheist Academy? Or is the state school system set to achieve this, once the last few religious families have been driven out? Just how committed are atheists to sacrificial giving? I want to see the humanity of the atheists, not in the self focussed individualistic sense but in the sacrificial self giving sense. I'm not sure it exists, but I am willing to be convinced.

I'm interested in the issue of morality as well.

Christians have come in for considerable flak in recent times for their opposition to, and indeed, to a degree, acquiescence in the breaking down of what were once clearly defined societal mores regarding human relationships. These include issues such as sex belonging within a marriage between a man and a woman - definitely not two men or two women, divorce being regarded as a bad thing, best avoided if at all possible and children being taught self discipline as well as obedience to parents and teachers. These customs or rules were seen as building a strong, decent, law-abiding society in which families and individuals would flourish. Since the 1960's sexual revolution everything has gone downhill. Sure, we may be wealthier, possess bigger cars and homes, take longer holidays, enjoy more gadgets, but we also have more broken families, more hurting people, more and nastier crime.

So, does atheism stand for moral recovery, and does it have a firm identifiable basis for moral values, or does it just "go with the flow" or settle on whatever is?

Sound moral values appear to be a strength of Christianity, grounding morality in the character of God as revealed in his creation but more especially in the Bible, a book with a very long history and a proven track record. So where does atheism stand in relation to the things that bring happiness, purpose and a sense of community into the lives of ordinary people?

Another area I will be interested in is the "reason" verses "faith" issue.

As a Christian, atheism would have me believe that because I'm faith orientated, I'm irrational whilst atheists, being reason based, are entirely rational. This is self aggrandising nonsense. Without trust we will never get far in life. I know Richard Dawkins has postulated the existence of memes in cultural formation operating in a manner analogous to biological evolution, something Daniel Dennett agrees with. There is no evidence for memes but I am willing to grant Dawkins the possibility that they may exist. To the extent that Dawkins and Dennett espouse the existence of memes this is clearly a faith position.

On the other hand and contra Dawkins, Christians do not believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. They believe what the Bible has to say about God creating the universe out of nothing simply for the pleasure of it, and about Abraham and his family, the exodus from Egypt, the life, death and resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ as well as the final judgment of God at the close of human history as we know it. That to believe in such matters is clearly a faith position but it is not a faith without evidence. No, not evidence that we can investigate today with our own eyes, hands and ears, but nevertheless historical evidence that people found compelling at the time it presented itself to them and which still remains open to historical verification much as any human history from times past. Thus the documentary evidence surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, verified by the ongoing existence of the church is arguably far stronger than comparable documentary evidence for any other person from the ancient world. That's a fact.

I know I'm going to have to put up with the constant attack on religion. Mohammed may be spared for good reason, but not the religion of Jesus Christ. I know we Christians have learnt to put up with it, but it is a crying shame that it is so often mean spirited.

Any movement such as atheism to survive must find a reason other than being a reaction to something else. In a way, atheism is defined by the religion it denies. In a recent debate on the BBC, Dawkins in mocking Christians for not knowing the first book in the New Testament completely muffed his lines when asked the full title of On the Origin of Species, and was heard to exclaim, "oh, God", which somewhat cheered me. But the question remains, "can atheism stand on its own two feet?".

What I will find completely unacceptable is the ubiquitous, "religion is the root of all evil". Not so! Look no further than men and women themselves, and yes some will use religion as their vehicle for evil, just as others will use racism, greed, lust for power and even atheism.

I hear Richard Dawkins claims the biggest damage religion does is in the brainwashing of children.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I, as a believer, have every right to be equally concerned that atheists are doing their own brainwashing of children, chiefly through the education system. The more important point is that the believers have more children than atheists. Here's another question: "why is this so"? If I were an atheist that would be the issue worrying me for despite some success for atheism in the affluent, though demographically declining West, religion shows no sign of dying, more the opposite.

Well I'm looking forward to attending Convention to see what atheism has to offer. I will certainly be interested in seeing who attends the Convention, their demeanour, what excites them, do they find joy in their atheism? Is it a matter of the heart, to use an old fashioned expression? Christians love to sing, extolling the virtues of their God and their pleasure in being believers. Will I see 5,000 atheists singing the praises of atheism?