The Washington post is hosting a discussion amongst religious panelests about faith called "On Faith". The first question is this: "If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?"
Al Mohler has given a response that is worth checking out. It is also very interesting to follow the discussion and see what kinf od responses Mohler gets.
Here is the comment that I left on Mohler's response page:
You hit the nail right on the head Dr. Mohler. There is no point in having a discussion about what we believe unless we really believe it. The best thing to do is just be honest about what you believe. Why must everyone become offended when one says that he simply believes the Bible? Everyone, no matter what they say, has a standard of truth. That standard may simply be their own opinion, or it may be the consensus of scholarship, or it may be the holy book of their religion, or it may be an institution. But the fact remains that everyone appeals to something to define their reality. The question is what truth is really true? A good discussion, then, cannot take place on a superficial level. Instead it must begin with ones standard of truth. The question then is: Does your standard of truth give you the capability of understand life as it really is. I am a born again Christian. I only understand myself, the world, God, others, the future because God's word defines reality. It is only because of this that I can make sense of anything. These are the questions that need to be asked: How do you make sense of everything? Does it really make sense? Do you have answers to ultimate questions?