Recently, Channel 4 televised two programmes, 'The God Delusion' and 'The Virus of Faith', presented by Oxford professor Richard Dawkins. An evolutionary biologist, Dawkins has made his name popularising Darwinian evolution, and by being continually livid that anyone should continue to believe in God. In some of the programme's interviews, he is beside himself with self-righteous anger at the assumed stupidity of believers.

I expected Dawkins to use good, coherent arguments for his atheistic position. Instead, I heard rhetoric; the viewer was emotionally manipulated to agree with Dawkins by being told that Christianity was the reason behind the Holocaust, and that the sanctity of our children's education is under attack from religious fanatics. He also chose conversations with those who would appear unreasonable and unenlightened. If he was so sure scientific evidence proved that faith was the father of all lies, why did he have to use such emotive methods?

Dawkins' power is not in his use of science, but in his rhetoric. His reasons for abhorring religion when used in a visual medium were powerfully compelling. Yet what was stated as fact in many instances, while persuasive, was simply untrue.

I fear this sort of programming is symptomatic of current debate in the public square. Dawkins' most basic point in two hours of television was, 'I am an expert, so therefore I am telling you the truth.' Yet, he did not. Instead he used his public position to discredit the opposition, not their argument. This is pure demagoguery, not true speech.

How does a Christian respond to public discourse that is determined to push matters of faith to the margins? Powerful but simplistic rhetoric to sway the masses has always been a useful tool for anyone wanting to be heard. And most Christians implicitly agree with Dawkins that if you want to be heard, powerful oratory and presence at the centre of the public sphere is more important than nuanced argument. One only has to look at the actions of 'Christian Voice' over Jerry Springer the Opera, or the Christian protests against same-sex marriages in Belfast.

This cannot go on. Our continued presence in the public sphere cannot be based on protest, aggressive lobbying, or the threat of violence. These methods of influencing politics and culture are not true representations of our faith. In our desperation to be heard, our actions come to mimic our opponents, and true speech gets mixed up with falsehoods.

Perhaps true speech about reality can only occur on the margins of society. The temptation for Jesus, as it is for many of us, was to be at the centre - in Rome as emperor, or among the orators in Athens, or among the learned at the Temple in Jerusalem. But instead, he spoke true words - 'good news' even - in villages, to the unknown, to the ostracised. He says 'Your sins are forgiven' to a paralytic, not to scribes. True speech seems to care less about being heard at the centre, and more about the power to transform even the smallest of situations.

Gordon Brown

To comment on this or any other p.s. articles, please visit our p.s. weblog...