I was sent it to read ahead of the conference I am currently attending. In the book Clayton and Knapp attempt to give a rational basis for their religious belief, a rational basis that can communicate with skeptics and nonbelievers.

Many of the issues they discuss and the options they give demonstrate a very careful, well-thought rational presentation of religious and Christian thought. And they are to be commended for attempting a form of realism about resurrection, Trinity, etc., rather than retreating into traditional progressive and liberal notions of metaphors, symbols, and mysteries.

However, I kept thinking, "I do not feel compelled to give rational justifications for my beliefs in the existence of God, the resurrection, etc. Why should I?" When I asked that question directly to Clayton tonight, I did not feel he gave a satisfactory answer. He treated it as if only a dumb, non-thoughtful person who didn't want to engage in dialogue with people who think and live differently would not want to give rational justifications. Hmm. Kierkegaard was not interested in rational justification, and he was definitely no dummy.