One of the benefits of retaining most of the books I have had to read while I was in college is that at times I can 1) share them with my children and 2) they have been required reading from my children. It is nice to see the money spent years ago still reaps a return. Just this past weekend I was rummaging through a dozen boxes looking for The Scarlet Letter. I was convinced it was somewhere in my possession as it was my own required reading years ago. Sadly this time I was mistaken. I had confused it with The Screwtape Letters which had a scarlet cover so while disappointed I at least felt justified in the confusion. Yet the boxes spoke to me through reminders that many half-read, non-read and yet-read books demanded my attention. So I pulled out Mill’s On Liberty and Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God along with a half-dozen others, leaving them in well walked area so they can realize their full potential of being mentally consumed. One book I passed over was Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. I vividly remember reading the book, thinking Dawkins hit on some strong, obvious and weak points in his argument against Christianity. None of them are worth going over in detail. At least coming from me. David Marshall, founder of the Kuai Mu Institute for Christianity and World Cultures, took the time to write a granular and detailed response to Dawkins. Only three pages into the sixty-eight page retort and I am taken with Marshall’s mind. It would be irresponsible to recommend the paper on Dawkins’ errors but first impression tells me I will need to re-read Delusion. I am reminded of the mantra given to me by my philosophy professors: the best argument is found when building the strongest counter argument. In our daily lives we are too often only given on side of a position and in process a very weak form of the alternate position. That does not help us as a country or as individuals. While Dawkins may seem a fool or Christianity a false belief, here is an opportunity to confirm or debunk that position. At the very least you might better understand your opponent.