"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . ."
INTRODUCTION: That's right folks, you're seeing the photo above correctly and no, its not Photoshopped; it really is an atheist wearing a "Jesus riding a T-rex" suit. That's about as sophisticated (but not as blasphemous) as the inaugural 2012 "Reason Rally" was. Here's what the Reason Rally website said about how things were going to go down:
Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?
No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years (and beyond) and motivating those in attendance to become more active. While speakers have the right to say what they wish, the event is indeed a celebration of secular values.
This in fact was an opportunity to trash religion in general and Christianity specifically. Yes, there was the occasional insult directed towards Islam, but for the most part, this was a highly organized rant against the God of the Bible.
The turnout was pretty good, but not as good as I expected.
Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me!
Given the fact that most of the atheistic "pastors" and "worship leaders" had such a filthy mouth that I either had to immediately cover my 8 year old daughter's ears or they used so much blasphemy that it would make a sailor blush, I can tell you that this was indeed a flamboyant "trashing" of religion. But again, that's about as intellectually sophisticated as it got.
ASSESSMENT
Here's a great example of the kind of nonsense I encountered this weekend (and no, I'm not interested in discussing controversies related to Kent Hovind, tax-protesting, or the like; this video serves only as one example of the type of irrationality I regularly encountered when interacting with its participants):
While that type of irrationality was plenteous, we had a great time of outreach:
After being on the streets surrounding the Rally for one-on-one evangelism, tract distribution, and open-air preaching, we then went into the outskirts of the Rally itself and intermingled among the crowd of atheists that the street preachers gathered in order to attempt to have rational dialogue and discussion:
Some of the preachers holding signs were decent apologists whereas others were unprepared to interact intelligently with the unbelievers surrounding them.
Me interacting with a small group at first.
Thankfully, the guys with the big signs drew huge crowds of atheists around them and all you had to do to get your own crowd was to ask some of those on the outskirts of the already existing crowds, "Are you an atheist?" and when they said "Yes" then I asked "Why?" This was a great way to profitably start a conversation with these folks, though not many of the conversations were profitable thereafter because atheists don't know the weaknesses in their own worldviews very well.
Some of the sign-holders agitated the atheists at times, but it made for a great way to start conversations.
Like many Christians, most young atheists only read the pop-level New Atheists and don't attempt to read and seriously grapple with the many robust criticisms of their own views nor are many of them even aware that there are serious, weighty philosophical criticisms of their views. Many of them seemed to expect that most Christians are like those associated with the "Westboro Baptist Church" instead of having the ability to offer serious theological, philosophical, scientific, and historical arguments against their views. Several of the atheists I interacted with said that we were like a breath of fresh air to them simply because we knew what we believed and could defend it adequately. These types of atheists seemed to really enjoy conversations with us, even after we explicitly told them that they needed to repent.
Me explaining to an atheist that he is taking Scripture out of context to justify his position. This drew a huge crowd of people who were able to hear the gospel.
Many listening to me reason with the unreasonable.
It was heartbreaking to see someone so Hell-bent against God that they had tattooed "unsaved" on their arm.
I found that trying to video tape any of the interactions resulted in the unbeliever trying to "perform" for the video camera rather than actually grappling with the arguments I was presenting against their position, thus further promoting irrationality. Therefore, I have no video footage to offer.
The crowds in the perimeter were growing just as steadily as the dialogues were.
OUR APPROACH
I attacked the four areas that skeptics pride themselves on by asking the following simple questions:
1. Truth - I asked, "What is truth in your worldview? What's your definition of 'truth'?"
2. Logic - I asked, "If you believe that only matter exists, (a) how do you account for the immaterial, universal, propositional, immaterial laws of logic given your philosophical materialism apart from an appeal to God and (b) how to you make sense out of our obligation to be rational?"
3. Science - "How do you answer the problem of induction from a secular perspective?"
4. Morality - "How do you account for objective morality without God?"
Regarding truth, most atheists responded, "I don't have to give a definition or account of truth to know what's true." I then responded usually with something like this, "If you don't know what truth is and can't account for it at all, how do you know that Christianity is false and atheism is true?"
Regarding logic, every atheist I interacted with in an in-depth way (which was probably 10-15 people) was completely unprepared to deal with this line of argumentation. I essentially simplified and used Drs. Welty and Anderson's argument for God from logic. Most of their rejoinders were of two kinds: (1) the laws of logic are just descriptions of the way humans have evolved to think, and (2) Nominalism - the laws of logic don’t really exist; claims about laws of logic are just convenient fictions. I refuted both of these by pointing that (1) confuses a description of those laws with the laws themselves, and (2) if the laws of logic don't really exist then they do. In other words, I pointed out that the laws of logic must exist in order to deny them; i.e., they exist necessarily.
Regarding science, we defined the problem of induction and then asked them if they knew how to answer the problem of induction apart from an appeal to the Judeo-Christian God. Using arguments from this paper, we showed that they can't make sense out of their scientific investigation apart from an appeal to God.
Regarding morality, we defined what objective morality was, showed that it requires God to make sense out of it, and as expected, most atheists defended moral relativism. When we showed the self-defeating nature of moral relativism, several atheists became emotional, inconsistent, and/or admitted that it would be okay to torture little girls for fun as long as society agreed to it. Please read the italicized portion of that last sentence again, its not a typo.
As expected, the atheists we interacted with were a philosophical and theological mess. All of the ones we interacted with were clueless about the very worldview they were attempting to critique and every one of them had a "Christian" background. We lovingly called every one of them to repentance and weaved Scripture in and out of our apologetic discussions. Paul nailed their predicament 2,000 years ago,
So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. (Eph. 4:17-19)
FUN
Nevertheless, we had some fun by enjoying some sightseeing the day before, some fellowship the night before during the "training time" and when taking breaks from evangelism:
A decent high-definition photo of the Capitol Building. It was a beautiful day for sight-seeing.
Elissa pondering the tulips as we overlook the National Mall.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution chiseled in stone on the side of this building.
Daddy and daughter enjoying some time together after evangelizing for almost 6 hours straight.
Mommy and daughter gettin' their grin on for the camry!
Bethel World Outreach Church - these were the only facilities we could procure for our training Friday night.
Photo opp with Pastors Jeff Durbin and Luke Pierson of Apologia Church. Both of these men are ardent defenders of the faith and good friends.
Enjoying Pastor Luke Pierson's manly beard.
IN CONCLUSION, atheism has nothing to offer and it was further confirmed this weekend. However, I want to finish on a good note. The last young man we spoke with was an early twenty-something who said he was as "former Christian". From a strategic standpoint, we didn't immediately challenge this claim as we sensed that it would have caused him to shut down to further dialogue, but we first listened to him and then asked diagnostic questions in order to show the problems with his worldview using the four categories above. When challenged, he then started "performing" in front of the other atheists standing around listening. They then entered the conversation but when we shut them down too, they all became very irrational and this young man picked up on their inconsistencies and irrational behavior and by his body language, you could tell that it made him uncomfortable and embarrassed. We then closed down those conversations since they were becoming unprofitable and then the young man said, "Hey, why don't we go over here and talk since I'd really like to listen to the next speaker." This was a sign that he wanted to ask some sincere questions, so we walked over to the edge of the Rally's main crowd while the next speaker began, and the young man began to ask me, "How do you really know that Christianity is true, how do you really know the Bible is God's word? Why do you believe that?" and as I began to "slice and dice" with apologetics and he said, "No, I don't want to challenge you or put you on the defensive, you see, I used to be a Christian, and I want to really know why you personally and sincerely believe these things." I essentially gave him this answer,
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. [1689 LBCF 1:5]
I then explained that when you begin with the correct foundation for all your reasoning, you're not left to "the futility of [your] mind, being darkened in [your] understanding" (Eph. 4:17-18). He then said, "But I really don't believe in God anymore." I then said, "I believe you're being sincere as well, but there's a part of you that's agreeing with me right now and saying, 'What's this guy's saying makes a whole lot of sense' and there's another part of you that's saying, 'No, run from this nonsense!' I know man, I've been there!" I then explained per Romans 1:19-32, that all people with normally functioning mental faculties intuit God through their own consciences and through the external world. However, because he went above and beyond in his truth suppression by drinking deeply from the sewage of secularism, those mental faculties that naturally intuit God were now damaged by sin. I then explained to him that this is the downward spiral of reprobation that God describes in Romans 1:18-32. At this point his hands began shaking and his jaws were clenching from what appeared to be some measure of conviction of sin. I then told him, "Many of the people in this crowd in front of you are too far gone. They have suppressed the truth for 30-40 years and as a result, they have been given over fully to a depraved mind." I then pointed out that he too was on that path and that he needed to beg the God that he hated for the ability to love Him. I gave him my ministry card and it was then that I was whisked away by one of the bearded pastors in the photos above. May God get great glory to Himself in these outreach endeavors and may He move Christians to both support those who are going into the secular mission field and equip themselves to do the work of evangelism in their own little sphere of influence.
Excellent post. This post should be used as a primer for people before they go out witnessing. I find the problem of morality to be extremely effective as it affects three key areas: Logic, Emotion and the Conscience.
These posts are pretty much my favorite part of this blog, Dusman. I don't see them often enough.
I'm curious how you responded to claims like "there's no evidence for God existing"? Or "evolution shows God didn't create man"? Or did these actually not come up in your conversations?
""I'm curious how you responded to claims like "there's no evidence for God existing"? Or "evolution shows God didn't create man"? Or did these actually not come up in your conversations?"
They did. I simply responded, "Before we can talk about evidence, you have to explain how you can have evidence if you can't account for truth, logic, and the moral obligation to be rational." I then proceeded to argue mostly in a transcendental fashion by using the evolutionary argument against naturalism and the other types of arguments in the papers linked in the report. I then said something like this, "Look, there's plenty of evidence that God exists in the created order and in your own person (cf. Rom. 1:19-21), but you've suppressed that natural knowledge of God to such an extent that the mental faculties that should intuit God don't function properly anymore because they've been broken by your continued truth suppression and now God is giving you over to your own concocted lie."
Did you cite any evidence in the created order? Or did you maintain that it was self-evident to someone not in the grip of whatever atheists tend to be?
"Some of the preachers holding signs were decent apologists whereas others were unprepared to interact intelligently with the unbelievers surrounding them."
Recently, there's been a lot of blogosphere discussion about classical, evidential apologetics versus presuppositional apologetics.
From your vantage point, which seemed to be more "effective" in talking to the atheists at the Reason Rally?
Does it really matter whether a pastor/evangelist prefers one apologetic method over another?
It's interesting to see new atheists claim that there's nothing morally that a Christian can do that an atheist can't. As mentioned, one could argue from objective morality to question why atheists should behave in a certain way. But the other thing worth considering is how many atheists don't do what they could morally. Sure, some of them are well-mannered, but how many of them prefer to behave like PZ Meyers or Christopher Hitchens?
"Did you cite any evidence in the created order? Or did you maintain that it was self-evident to someone not in the grip of whatever atheists tend to be?"
I maintained that it was self-evident because Romans 1 and Psalm 19 teach as much. I argued that the God-given faculties used to intuit God had been damaged by sin. Also, as a strategic move, I normally don't discuss evidence with hardened unbelievers because they can't account for the preconditions of evidence to begin with. Before we can talk about the facts, we've got to talk about their philosophy of facts first.
"From your vantage point, which seemed to be more "effective" in talking to the atheists at the Reason Rally?"
It depends upon the conversation and who you're talking to. A few atheists were open to discussing hard evidence after I showed that in terms of their own worldview, they can't make sense out of the concept of evidence in the first place without assuming things about reality that couldn't exist unless God exists. We discussed things like the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the evidence for the resurrection, and the textual reliability of the Bible.
"Does it really matter whether a pastor/evangelist prefers one apologetic method over another?"
I think so. I believe that arguing in an autonomous fashion is sinful (i.e., purposefully and strategically avoiding discussing the Bible and your Christian convictions to defend Christian truth - like Kokul and Klusendorf do in their "Making Abortion Unthinkable"). However, there's nothing wrong in an of itself in using evidences or philosophical arguments for God. I use them all the time to prove the unbeliever wrong when they misquote facts and figures. When they take me to task on it, I pull out the facts to shut their mouths. The problem is when you purposefully give up your worldview and attempt to reason with unbelievers on supposed philosophically neutral ground. There is no neutral ground, for the unbeliever is poaching on the King's land and saying "there is no King, I am the King!"
"But the other thing worth considering is how many atheists don't do what they could morally. Sure, some of them are well-mannered, but how many of them prefer to behave like PZ Meyers or Christopher Hitchens?"
Its interesting that you mention PZ Myers, for Sye TenBruggencate personally took PZ Myers to task at the Reason Rally and Myers simply cursed at him and walked away. Sye then interacted with Dan Barker and Barker did so badly that his hands were literally shaking. They got the whole thing on videotape, but the footage became corrupted. Had they been able to recover the footage, the video of Sye refuting Barker would have gone absolutely viral. However, in the Lord's providence, it seems they won't be able to recover it.
Thanks for the reply. Very interesting method of approaching the subject - I'll have to consider that.
Sorry to hear about the footage being lost. Sounds like it would have been a sight to behold.
Tom Gilson over at Thinking Christian said he saw someone who interacted with Myers, and he was polite at that particular point. I've often heard Myers is far more polite in person than online, and I've never been very impressed by that claim.
Do any of the people you worked with have sites or articles or blog entries discussing what their experiences were at this place?
You asked, "From your vantage point, which seemed to be more "effective" in talking to the atheists at the Reason Rally? Does it really matter whether a pastor/evangelist prefers one apologetic method over another?"
With all due respect, I tend to think these concerns are slightly misguided. I respond to similar concerns in a post of mine here:
Actually I was the one who interacted with PZ Myers. He was very charming. He smiled a lot. He said, "Is anyone here ridiculing you? They should be!" He meant every word of it.
In other words, he was quite amazingly gracious as he delivered an intentionally deep insult.
He also told us that the reason he wouldn't attend a church is that he doesn't like to be impolite in public, but he wouldn't be able to be polite in a church.
That was a great discussion with (I think you called him:'Thunderfoot').
It's great to challenge. If we, Christians, realize that Christ said: "Out of your bellies will flow river of living water", then we will be prayed up and trust that the Spirit will do just what our lord said. It may be difficult at times, but the "living waters" shall flow. Thanks for walking the straight and narrow, and being the salt out there in a very rotten world, which needs to be salted with the truth in love and grace.
I had an atheist friend, who died last May. Had some good discussions, and some not so good, and some bad discussions as well. But at least we talked about life and truth.
I was at the Reason Rally. I could not listen to many of the speakers, since it sounded like a lot of angry ranting that unfairly characterized religion, so I only lasted a few minutes there. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I dislike or disapprove of all religion nor that I entertain myself by taking cheap shots at it. Instead a friend and I -- I'd call myself an atheist, she wouldn't call herself one -- visited the information tent and made friendly conversation with people about their atheist organizations.
I did see the crowd gathered around the same Christian signs that you photographed for your blog here. Yes, I admit, I thought you might be Westboro Baptist at first and my strategy with them is to stay far away, but then I realized your signs looked different. (WBC did come, but they were protesting somewhere else nearby.) So ultimately the reason I dd not approach you was that I didn't want to be subjected to theistic rants any more than I wanted atheistic rants, and even if a polite discussion were possible, I didn't want to be pigeonholed into an "atheist" position in a debate where my interlocutor had already framed the debate for me and assumed what I must believe as an atheist, nor did I want to undergo this rite in front of my friend who didn't necessarily even want to be there and in the midst of a chaotic crowd in the rain. Lastly, since I was raised Jewish, not Christian, if I decided I believed in God I would be more likely to deepen my faith in Judaism rather than in Christianity.
Many atheists can defend their views. Just because the ones who approached you were not articulate does not mean that more articulate people do not exist, nor that the views themselves cannot be defended.
"Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I dislike or disapprove of all religion nor that I entertain myself by taking cheap shots at it."
This is refreshing to hear.
"I did see the crowd gathered around the same Christian signs that you photographed for your blog here. Yes, I admit, I thought you might be Westboro Baptist at first . . ."
We weren't with those carrying signs except the one held by Sye Tenbruggencate in the above photos. We were with a completely different group called "The Five Hundred".
"Many atheists can defend their views. Just because the ones who approached you were not articulate does not mean that more articulate people do not exist, nor that the views themselves cannot be defended."
There are articulate atheist philosophers, but most of them have nothing to do with organized rants like the Reason Rally. Most atheist philosophers want nothing to do with "hillybilly, fundy atheism" and instead want to pursue and develop their careers as scholars. Some astute atheistic scholars such as Peter Millican have debated Christians like William Lane Craig, but the challenges have been far and few between and when they come, they are always shot through by Christian philosophers, theologians, and scientists. Listen to the most two recent debates between agnostic textual critic Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace and you'll see what I mean.
Excellent post. This post should be used as a primer for people before they go out witnessing. I find the problem of morality to be extremely effective as it affects three key areas: Logic, Emotion and the Conscience.
ReplyDeleteThese posts are pretty much my favorite part of this blog, Dusman. I don't see them often enough.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious how you responded to claims like "there's no evidence for God existing"? Or "evolution shows God didn't create man"? Or did these actually not come up in your conversations?
Pastor Dusman,
ReplyDeleteAwesome testimony. I hope that the young man at the end of your post does come to the Lord.
"As expected, the atheists we interacted with were a philosophical and theological mess."
What's funny, is that I can imagine an atheist saying exactly the same thing, but with one substitute:
"As expected, the Christians we interacted with were a philosophical and theological mess."
Hard to make headway when both sides are making the same claim about each other.
Crude,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind comments. You asked,
""I'm curious how you responded to claims like "there's no evidence for God existing"? Or "evolution shows God didn't create man"? Or did these actually not come up in your conversations?"
They did. I simply responded, "Before we can talk about evidence, you have to explain how you can have evidence if you can't account for truth, logic, and the moral obligation to be rational." I then proceeded to argue mostly in a transcendental fashion by using the evolutionary argument against naturalism and the other types of arguments in the papers linked in the report. I then said something like this, "Look, there's plenty of evidence that God exists in the created order and in your own person (cf. Rom. 1:19-21), but you've suppressed that natural knowledge of God to such an extent that the mental faculties that should intuit God don't function properly anymore because they've been broken by your continued truth suppression and now God is giving you over to your own concocted lie."
Did you cite any evidence in the created order? Or did you maintain that it was self-evident to someone not in the grip of whatever atheists tend to be?
ReplyDelete"Some of the preachers holding signs were decent apologists whereas others were unprepared to interact intelligently with the unbelievers surrounding them."
ReplyDeleteRecently, there's been a lot of blogosphere discussion about classical, evidential apologetics versus presuppositional apologetics.
From your vantage point, which seemed to be more "effective" in talking to the atheists at the Reason Rally?
Does it really matter whether a pastor/evangelist prefers one apologetic method over another?
It's interesting to see new atheists claim that there's nothing morally that a Christian can do that an atheist can't. As mentioned, one could argue from objective morality to question why atheists should behave in a certain way. But the other thing worth considering is how many atheists don't do what they could morally. Sure, some of them are well-mannered, but how many of them prefer to behave like PZ Meyers or Christopher Hitchens?
ReplyDeleteCrude asked,
ReplyDelete"Did you cite any evidence in the created order? Or did you maintain that it was self-evident to someone not in the grip of whatever atheists tend to be?"
I maintained that it was self-evident because Romans 1 and Psalm 19 teach as much. I argued that the God-given faculties used to intuit God had been damaged by sin. Also, as a strategic move, I normally don't discuss evidence with hardened unbelievers because they can't account for the preconditions of evidence to begin with. Before we can talk about the facts, we've got to talk about their philosophy of facts first.
"From your vantage point, which seemed to be more "effective" in talking to the atheists at the Reason Rally?"
It depends upon the conversation and who you're talking to. A few atheists were open to discussing hard evidence after I showed that in terms of their own worldview, they can't make sense out of the concept of evidence in the first place without assuming things about reality that couldn't exist unless God exists. We discussed things like the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the evidence for the resurrection, and the textual reliability of the Bible.
"Does it really matter whether a pastor/evangelist prefers one apologetic method over another?"
I think so. I believe that arguing in an autonomous fashion is sinful (i.e., purposefully and strategically avoiding discussing the Bible and your Christian convictions to defend Christian truth - like Kokul and Klusendorf do in their "Making Abortion Unthinkable"). However, there's nothing wrong in an of itself in using evidences or philosophical arguments for God. I use them all the time to prove the unbeliever wrong when they misquote facts and figures. When they take me to task on it, I pull out the facts to shut their mouths. The problem is when you purposefully give up your worldview and attempt to reason with unbelievers on supposed philosophically neutral ground. There is no neutral ground, for the unbeliever is poaching on the King's land and saying "there is no King, I am the King!"
Mathetes,
ReplyDelete"But the other thing worth considering is how many atheists don't do what they could morally. Sure, some of them are well-mannered, but how many of them prefer to behave like PZ Meyers or Christopher Hitchens?"
Its interesting that you mention PZ Myers, for Sye TenBruggencate personally took PZ Myers to task at the Reason Rally and Myers simply cursed at him and walked away. Sye then interacted with Dan Barker and Barker did so badly that his hands were literally shaking. They got the whole thing on videotape, but the footage became corrupted. Had they been able to recover the footage, the video of Sye refuting Barker would have gone absolutely viral. However, in the Lord's providence, it seems they won't be able to recover it.
Dusman,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. Very interesting method of approaching the subject - I'll have to consider that.
Sorry to hear about the footage being lost. Sounds like it would have been a sight to behold.
Tom Gilson over at Thinking Christian said he saw someone who interacted with Myers, and he was polite at that particular point. I've often heard Myers is far more polite in person than online, and I've never been very impressed by that claim.
Do any of the people you worked with have sites or articles or blog entries discussing what their experiences were at this place?
Truth Unites,
ReplyDeleteYou asked, "From your vantage point, which seemed to be more "effective" in talking to the atheists at the Reason Rally?
Does it really matter whether a pastor/evangelist prefers one apologetic method over another?"
With all due respect, I tend to think these concerns are slightly misguided. I respond to similar concerns in a post of mine here:
http://www.choosinghats.com/2012/03/the-substance-of-success-in-apologetics/
In case you're interested. Hope you're edified!
Regards,
McFormtist
Actually I was the one who interacted with PZ Myers. He was very charming. He smiled a lot. He said, "Is anyone here ridiculing you? They should be!" He meant every word of it.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, he was quite amazingly gracious as he delivered an intentionally deep insult.
He also told us that the reason he wouldn't attend a church is that he doesn't like to be impolite in public, but he wouldn't be able to be polite in a church.
That was a great discussion with (I think you called him:'Thunderfoot').
ReplyDeleteIt's great to challenge. If we, Christians, realize that Christ said: "Out of your bellies will flow river of living water", then we will be prayed up and trust that the Spirit will do just what our lord said.
It may be difficult at times, but the "living waters" shall flow.
Thanks for walking the straight and narrow, and being the salt out there in a very rotten world, which needs to be salted with the truth in love and grace.
I had an atheist friend, who died last May. Had some good discussions, and some not so good, and some bad discussions as well. But at least we talked about life and truth.
I was at the Reason Rally. I could not listen to many of the speakers, since it sounded like a lot of angry ranting that unfairly characterized religion, so I only lasted a few minutes there. Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I dislike or disapprove of all religion nor that I entertain myself by taking cheap shots at it. Instead a friend and I -- I'd call myself an atheist, she wouldn't call herself one -- visited the information tent and made friendly conversation with people about their atheist organizations.
ReplyDeleteI did see the crowd gathered around the same Christian signs that you photographed for your blog here. Yes, I admit, I thought you might be Westboro Baptist at first and my strategy with them is to stay far away, but then I realized your signs looked different. (WBC did come, but they were protesting somewhere else nearby.) So ultimately the reason I dd not approach you was that I didn't want to be subjected to theistic rants any more than I wanted atheistic rants, and even if a polite discussion were possible, I didn't want to be pigeonholed into an "atheist" position in a debate where my interlocutor had already framed the debate for me and assumed what I must believe as an atheist, nor did I want to undergo this rite in front of my friend who didn't necessarily even want to be there and in the midst of a chaotic crowd in the rain. Lastly, since I was raised Jewish, not Christian, if I decided I believed in God I would be more likely to deepen my faith in Judaism rather than in Christianity.
Many atheists can defend their views. Just because the ones who approached you were not articulate does not mean that more articulate people do not exist, nor that the views themselves cannot be defended.
(WBC did come, but they were protesting somewhere else nearby.)
ReplyDeleteI hope you're aware they were expressly invited by the Reason Rally's management.
Stone Dead,
ReplyDelete"Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I dislike or disapprove of all religion nor that I entertain myself by taking cheap shots at it."
This is refreshing to hear.
"I did see the crowd gathered around the same Christian signs that you photographed for your blog here. Yes, I admit, I thought you might be Westboro Baptist at first . . ."
We weren't with those carrying signs except the one held by Sye Tenbruggencate in the above photos. We were with a completely different group called "The Five Hundred".
"Many atheists can defend their views. Just because the ones who approached you were not articulate does not mean that more articulate people do not exist, nor that the views themselves cannot be defended."
There are articulate atheist philosophers, but most of them have nothing to do with organized rants like the Reason Rally. Most atheist philosophers want nothing to do with "hillybilly, fundy atheism" and instead want to pursue and develop their careers as scholars. Some astute atheistic scholars such as Peter Millican have debated Christians like William Lane Craig, but the challenges have been far and few between and when they come, they are always shot through by Christian philosophers, theologians, and scientists. Listen to the most two recent debates between agnostic textual critic Bart Ehrman and Dan Wallace and you'll see what I mean.