Godless (14 page)
When all is said and done, we can’t help being who we are. I had developed certain habits and skills in the ministry and still wanted to change the world for the better. That’s why some people will tell me: “You’re still a preacher!” And I reply, “Is that bad?” Some accuse me of replacing one ideology for another. “You have turned 180 degrees. You thought you were right before, and you think you are right now.” Well, yes. I do think I am right now, and I am zealous about it. If zealousness is a fault, then all preachers are guilty. If advocacy is good, it is good for all of us. “You were wrong before, maybe you are wrong now.” If that is true, I will admit it and apologize, like I have already shown I know how to do. “If there is no God,” they say, “why do you care? Why be obsessed with something that does not exist?” (In other words, why not shut up?)
I am not “obsessed” in a manic sense—I do have a life;
they
are the ones who seem to be obsessed—but yes, I am very concerned about our species’ preoccupation with superstition and irrationality and confident that if someone like me can be healed of such delusions, so can others.
they
are the ones who seem to be obsessed—but yes, I am very concerned about our species’ preoccupation with superstition and irrationality and confident that if someone like me can be healed of such delusions, so can others.
So when I started working with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I felt like I had come home. Even before then I was speaking out, but now I could actually continue my life as a “professional evangelist,” devoting my time to promoting reason, science and humanistic morality. Not unlike the cross-country evangelist I was before, I now get to travel the continent and the world, speaking, performing at freethought concerts and debating theists. What a blast! I get to do all this as a part of my job!
As I write this, I have participated in 64 formal public debates. I have also done hundreds of informal debates, mainly on the radio, television and as part of panel discussions, but when it comes to the number of timed, moderated debates before an audience, I think I now hold the record for an atheist. There are dozens of good, qualified atheist debaters in the world, and many of us are in touch with each other, comparing notes, discussing strategies and recommending books, so I can’t pretend that my ideas are all original. The most common debate I do is “Does God exist?” I also debate:
• “Can we be good without God?”
• “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”
• “Should state and church be separate?”
• “Is the bible reliable?
• “Evolution vs. Creationism (or Intelligent Design)”
• “Is Christianity true (or worthwhile)?”
My first debate was in February 1985 in Nashville, Tennessee, on the historicity of Jesus, with Dr. Rubel Shelly, author and well-known pastor of Woodmont Hills Church of Christ. He and I have done five debates over the years. One of them, focusing on the “problem of evil,” took place in his large church with more than 1,500 people in the audience, on April 21, 1999, the day after the Columbine school shootings. (We had done the first half of the debate at Vanderbilt University the day before.) There were two armed policemen standing in the back of the church that night, apparently because the city was worried that a large gathering with lots of young people might become a target for copycat shootings (and perhaps because there was an atheist in town.) The only thing unusual that happened was that someone stole my box of books and literature from beneath the display table in the lobby, in spite of the presence of law enforcement. The thief may have been a Christian who did not think such literature should be read by impressionable minds.
During preliminary remarks, I said I would have liked to perform a song, but since this was the non-instrumental denomination of the Church of Christ, there was no piano in the building. (No kidding! This sect believes it is wrong to use any musical instruments in worship. There was also a split by a related Christian Church faction that does not think the communion cup should have a handle.) During questions from the audience that night, a young man came to the microphone to thank me for my remarks because, after hearing the debate, “My faith has been strengthened.” I thanked
him
for the compliment! If his faith was strengthened, then his pastor lost the debate. Faith is what you need when you don’t have certainty. The more you learn, the less you need to believe.
him
for the compliment! If his faith was strengthened, then his pastor lost the debate. Faith is what you need when you don’t have certainty. The more you learn, the less you need to believe.
I debated Doug Wilson twice, once at the University of Delaware and again in his hometown of Moscow, Idaho. He is the author of
Letter from a Christian Citizen
(a response to Sam Harris’s
Letter to a Christian Nation
) and a presuppositionalist Calvinist pastor. During our first debate, he claimed that without the bible there is no basis for morality, so I read him Psalm 137:9, which says, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” I then asked, “Is it moral to throw little babies against rocks?” With little hesitation, he replied, “Yes, it is.” (I’m paraphrasing from memory.) There was audible gasping from members of the audience, including many Christians.
Letter from a Christian Citizen
(a response to Sam Harris’s
Letter to a Christian Nation
) and a presuppositionalist Calvinist pastor. During our first debate, he claimed that without the bible there is no basis for morality, so I read him Psalm 137:9, which says, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” I then asked, “Is it moral to throw little babies against rocks?” With little hesitation, he replied, “Yes, it is.” (I’m paraphrasing from memory.) There was audible gasping from members of the audience, including many Christians.
According to Wilson, we mortals are incapable of making moral judgments on our own and must submit to the superior wisdom of God. If the bible says we should be happy (or “blessed,” as some translations render it) to kill the innocent children of those who worship other gods, then it would be immoral not to do it.
I then switched to the Christian scriptures and read from Luke 12:47-48 where Jesus demonstrated his compassion by advising us that there are some slaves who should not be beat as hard as other slaves because they didn’t know any better: “That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating.” (NRSV) I asked Doug, in front of that stunned audience, “Is it a good idea to beat your slaves?” He replied, “Yes, it is.” Another gasp from the audience.
I was expecting Wilson to be a compassionate Christian and attempt to apply a modern interpretation, claiming context or metaphor or insist that Jesus was simply giving an example of what does happen, not what should be done. But there is no need to defend the bible when all we have to do is blindly obey it. In Wilson’s mind, slavery is not a bad idea, since the bible commands it and Jesus not only never condemns it, but also incorporates it into his teachings as if it were the most natural order (which it was to the authors of the bible). At least Wilson is consistent, I’ll give him that. Consistently awful. During our second debate, attended by many Calvinist ministers, I told the horrible story of how John Calvin had co-reformer Michael Servetus burned at the stake for the “crime” of questioning his scriptural interpretations. Not only did Wilson not join me in denouncing Calvin, he came to his defense! Well, how could he not, being a Calvinist pastor? “Anyone who holds John Calvin in high regard,” I told that audience, “is morally bankrupt.”
Christian philosopher Peter Payne, during our “Does ethics require God?” debate at the University of Wisconsin in Stevens Point in 2005, made a similar argument, though I think he is generally more compassionate than Doug Wilson. During cross-examination, I asked Payne, “If God told you to kill me, would you do it?” He was (thankfully) hesitant to answer, and said something about being certain God would never ask him to do such a thing. I repeated the question, stressing the first word: “
If
God told you to kill me, would you do it?” He was still reluctant to respond, but finally admitted that if he were certain God were telling him to do it, he would “have to consider it.” After the debate, the organizers collected response cards from the audience, one of which was from a student named Kerri with this message penned at the bottom: “I love (heart-shape) Dan Barker, but if God told me to kill him, I would. (smiley face).”
If
God told you to kill me, would you do it?” He was still reluctant to respond, but finally admitted that if he were certain God were telling him to do it, he would “have to consider it.” After the debate, the organizers collected response cards from the audience, one of which was from a student named Kerri with this message penned at the bottom: “I love (heart-shape) Dan Barker, but if God told me to kill him, I would. (smiley face).”
I have a debate tactic on hand that I rarely get to use, but is very effective when it happens. Dr. Shelly was one of the victims, at our debate in Birmingham, Alabama. I felt bad because he is a kind and gentle person and his public embarrassment was obvious. I guess by telling this tactic, I’ll never get to use it again. Here’s what you do: If the theist brings up the second law of thermodynamics, ask if he or she knows how many laws of thermodynamics there are. If the answer is “no,” this is a good indicator that the person you are debating is superficially informed about the topic, probably recycling an argument from a creationist book, and has no real understanding of the science.
Michael Horner was my first victim of this tactic, at a debate at the University of Northern Iowa in 1992. He had included the second law of thermodynamics in his opening statement, claiming that since entropy (or “disorder”) increases in a closed system, evolution or the emergence of an ordered universe is impossible, requiring an outside creator. During cross examination, I said to Mike: “You mentioned the second law of thermodynamics. Do you know how many laws of thermodynamics there are?” He stammered a bit, searched for words, and then smiled and said, “There are at least two.” That earned him a good laugh, which probably included some deserved sympathy.
An argument is not bad simply because you don’t know the whole science, so if I had left it at that, I might be accused of an
ad hominem
attack. Showing that your opponent’s grasp of a topic is not as deep as he or she might make it appear can remind the audience that your opponent has something to learn (we all do), but the argument still needs to be rebutted on its merits. (Hint: Never bring up an issue during a debate that you are not prepared to defend in depth.) It is easy to point out that the earth, bombarded by energy from the sun, is not a closed system, and though our observed universe is probably indeed a “closed system” (if that means anything), the second law of thermodynamics applies only to the energy of particles, which did not exist at the earliest stage of the Big Bang. The second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to the topic, and useless as a theistic argument.
ad hominem
attack. Showing that your opponent’s grasp of a topic is not as deep as he or she might make it appear can remind the audience that your opponent has something to learn (we all do), but the argument still needs to be rebutted on its merits. (Hint: Never bring up an issue during a debate that you are not prepared to defend in depth.) It is easy to point out that the earth, bombarded by energy from the sun, is not a closed system, and though our observed universe is probably indeed a “closed system” (if that means anything), the second law of thermodynamics applies only to the energy of particles, which did not exist at the earliest stage of the Big Bang. The second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to the topic, and useless as a theistic argument.
There are four laws of thermodynamics numbered Zero through Three.
1
If my opponent doesn’t know this, I have scored an easy rhetorical point, but in order to be fair, it is important to follow quickly with the more relevant question: “Since you obviously imagine that the Second Law, which is derived from
within
the universe, applies to the universe as a whole, does the First Law also apply? Since the First Law states that energy/matter cannot be created, doesn’t that rule out the creation of the universe?”
1
If my opponent doesn’t know this, I have scored an easy rhetorical point, but in order to be fair, it is important to follow quickly with the more relevant question: “Since you obviously imagine that the Second Law, which is derived from
within
the universe, applies to the universe as a whole, does the First Law also apply? Since the First Law states that energy/matter cannot be created, doesn’t that rule out the creation of the universe?”
Some debate opponents have made comments that are just plain nutty. At Arizona State University, Bob Siegel, a former Jew who is now a Christian minister and radio talk show host, claimed that one of the evidences for the existence of God is that God talks to him personally.
“God talks to you?” I asked.
“Yes, he does.”
“What does his voice sound like? Is God a tenor or a baritone?”
“He’s a baritone,” Bob replied. (Audience gasps.) The voice of God sounds very much like the voice of Bob Siegel.
I was debating a local Christian minister in Colorado Springs who used the last three minutes of his opening statement to play a Christian song on a tape machine. “Close your eyes and listen to this music,” he said, “and you will feel the spirit of God.” So we listened, though I noticed that not all of the freethinkers in the audience had their eyes closed. When I stood up to make my statement, I started by saying that I indeed felt something while listening to that music. I heard a repetitive cadence between the dominant seventh and the major tonic with an occasional suspended fourth on the five chord, a composing tactic that is designed to evoke a trance-like effect. I did feel the emotion, but not the Holy Spirit.
In March 2006, I debated Todd Friel, a popular Christian radio talk show host, at the University of Minnesota. Todd is a funny guy, a former stand-up comic with lots of punchy one-liners. When he was introduced, there was a huge response of cheering and applause from the audience, and I could see how happy he was to be among his friends and admirers. Then, when I was introduced, there was an even louder burst of applause and cheering, for just as long, from the atheist and agnostic students who were not about to be outdone by the believers. You should have seen the look on Todd’s face when he realized, “This is not my crowd.” The debate was quite lively, if not terribly deep, and I would have thought Todd would want to forget his performance. But to my surprise, he chose to put it on the Internet as an example of how to deal with nonbelievers. I have heard from people who say it had the opposite effect.
Many debate opponents have been much better than that. Pastor and Christian author Greg Boyd and I did two debates, one on the historicity of Jesus and another on the resurrection. He is articulate and friendly, and since he plays drums, we joked that we might scrap the debate and just play music all evening. Although he is a bible-believing conservative, he has come under a lot of flak from other Christians for his advocacy of “openness theology” (which puts limits on God’s omniscience) and a strict separation of church and state.
Some debaters, of course, are expert in their field and I am forced to deal with sophisticated scientific and philosophical arguments that are not always easy to dismiss.
Other books
ONCE UPON A LIE (A Fitzjohn Mystery) by Paterson, Jill
The Minotauress by Lee, Edward
How to Live Indecently by Bronwyn Scott
The Ivy Lessons by Lerman, J
THE RIPENING (Dark Side of the Moon Book 1) by MJ Riley
Slingers by Wallace, Matt
A Chance Mistake by Jackie Zack
Thick as Thieves by Spencer, Tali
