You make a very good point, that we must never allow Christianity to be anti-rational. I’m simply arguing that reason will never work against someone who doesn’t want to be persuaded — and that our accusations of “Bulverism” and so on are just a mask for our own intentions.

My experience in Britain is that for people to even begin to consider Christ, they first have to understand it is not intellectually naive to believe in God; they need first to be helped to get over these false science : religion, faith : reason dichotomies. Only then will they even consider faith in God as an option, and presumably be open to divine illumination. I just think we need to be careful not to be over-dichotomising faith and reason ourselves, so that we’re not lapsing into a very modern kind of fideism which is anachronistic. Only when we understand faith and reason to be working together, in I suppose a more holistic, pre-modern way, can we allow theology to offer a rational (though not strictly logical) account of Christian faith at a time when it most needed; not rational in terms of justified by science, necessarily (contra McDowell etc.), but rational in terms of its own coherency, set on its own terms (or, I suppose, somewhat ‘ad hominem’).

Site looks interesting.

A bit frustrating, but it’s nice to have Christians there too.

IMO, the issue is what are the intentions of the person you’re talking with? If they do not want to see, no amount of reason will ever make them see. That’s why Christ said things like “he who has ears, let him hear”, or “cast not your pearls before swine”. IMO, there is noting wrong with making “ad hominem” judgments about someone, and refraining from further discussion once you have enough evidence to question their willingness to be enlightened.