This week on Unbelievable : “Losing my religion – dialogue with an ex-Christian”
Rebekah Bennetch lives in Saskatoon, Canada. She grew up in a Christian family. Her dad is a pastor, and other family members are involved in Christian ministries. She professed faith from a young age, went to Bible college, atteneded church and went on mission trips. But in 2007 she “came out” as an atheist and now describes herself as the “black sheep” of her family. Sheridan Voysey is a writer, speaker and broadcaster on contemporary spirituality. For many years he presented “Open House”, a nationally-syndicated Australian radio show on life, faith and culture. He now resides in the UK. They discuss what led Rebekah to abandon her faith, how Christians can best treat their “apostate” friends and family, and what lessons can be learnt for fruitful dialogue between believers and atheists.
Here’s the link for the interview — it’s a little over an hour long. Right now I’m buried in end-of-term marking of student reports and finals, but later this week I’m planning to reflect on the exchange I had with Justin and Sheridan. In the meantime, check out the interview, and make sure to read the latest comments on the blog here (and here, and here), by my old youth group pal Alison — she’s always good for a laugh, and for a reminder of why I rejected the faith system she represents.
Pierce Brosnan as a megalomanical megachurch pastor? Yes, please!
Set in the world of mega-churches in which a former Deadhead-turned-born again-Christian finds himself on the run from fundamentalist members of his mega-church who will do anything to protect their larger-than-life pastor.
Funny, I could have given Salvation Boulevard’s writer/director some pretty good material re: larger-than-life pastors I’ve experienced in my religious past.
Earlier this week I attended a Campus Crusade for Christ sponsored debate, “Does God Exist?” — featuring rock-star apologist William Lane Craig and fellow Saskatoon atheist George Williamson. It was a rematch of an earlier debate they did in 2007 (YouTube).
In case you didn’t know this about me, I *love* listening to debates. It’s not at all uncommon to find me listening to a debate while I’m doing my housework (here’s the best site to find debates — I probably have 80% of them on my iPod). I love listening to debaters set up their arguments, and love even more the spur-of-the-moment interactions between both sides during cross-examinations and Q & A periods.
The one Christian debater I’ve heard the most is Dr. Craig — I’ve heard him so many times that I can even cite all 6 of his arguments. It was quite the treat to not only see him in person, but on Friday morning I had an opportunity to share a cup of coffee with him and fellow apologist Michael Horner! (along with a few other of my atheisty friends)
What I learned from my Craig encounter (in no particular order):
It was so fun to be able to talk about anything and everything with an articulate believer. There haven’t been many opportunities where my questioning was welcomed. There weren’t any heated discussions, just exchange of ideas.
Despite how smart he is, I think Dr. Craig is out of touch with many contemporary issues and their implications in the world today. For example, he’s very quick to be dismissive of the “new atheism”, and labels it as only a “pop-culture” phenomenon. I’m never impressed by a snobby scholar attitude (and don’t get me started on people who brandish their PhD diplomas).
The best part of our discussion was when we started talking about morality. I love talking about real, concrete issues — which means talking about moral/ethical dilemmas are more up my alley than discussing the ins and outs of cosmology. Cosmology doesn’t affect me in my day to day life.
What I found the most interesting in our conversation about morality was noticing how uncomfortable Dr. Craig got when we starting applying morality to situations — he complained that his area was “meta-ethics” and not “practical ethics.” This really shocked me, as I find practical ethics *so important*, and waaaaaay more meaningful to discuss than vaguely pontificating about loosely-defined “objective morality” and supposedly “cosmic” implications. I asked Dr. Craig to give me an example of an objective moral value — I didn’t get one.
At one point, Dr. Craig was dismissively (he’s very good at being dismissive) talking about the ethical theory of consequentialism. He gave an example that was meant to be horrifying to us to hear — he said, according to this theory, if raping/torturing a little girl would bring more good to society, then you would be morally bound to do such an atrocious action. He wanted us to be repulsed by such an idea — and it is repulsive! But I interjected that if Craig’s God were to issue a divine command for him to rape/torture a little girl because God deemed it morally “right,” Craig would have no choice but to follow it — according to the ethical guidelines that he’s under (read: Abraham’s command to sacrifice Issac). And I find that equally repulsive, if not moreso that a supposedly personal God could make such commands. Craig conceded (as much as he could — which is to say not much) — but he also made the point that it would be “logically impossible” for God to command such a thing. (?)
Ultimately it comes to Craig’s system of morality, I don’t trust God as much as he does. I also don’t buy into Craig’s forced dichotomy of objective morality vs. nihilism.
Another interesting part of the conversation came up when we started talking about the character of God, especially as portrayed in the Old Testament. Here’s where the theological contorting really starting taking shape. First Craig tried to diminish the genocidal acts by saying that God really commanded the Israelites to “drive out” the Canaanite residents — and then only killed those left behind. Later Craig mentioned that there’s no evidence that women and children were killed, and that it was mainly soldiers who were brutalized (not sure where he’s getting that claim from). And there were several other excuses given, but his main premise — God can take life, because he has given life — I found terrifying enough on its own ground. (and again, here’s another example where Craig seems very willing to hand over his own volition/judgement over to God, something that I don’t think I’m able to do)
At one point in the conversation (I think it was in the midst of the ethical dilemmas), Michael Horner just sighed and said he didn’t know an answer to our questions. AND I LOVED THAT. I didn’t love it because I felt like I “scored” a point by stumping the apologist, but rather because it showed a moment of vulnerability and honesty. As much as I enjoyed Dr. Craig, I didn’t see that side of him in our conversation. The most he would concede would be to say “Well, I’ve struggled with that …” and then continue to give a definitive (to him) answer.
Toward the end of our chat, the apologists asked if there were any remaining “burning questions” left for us to ask — I, of course, took that segue way into asking about hell. And that was when Dr. Craig told me that I should “come back into the faith.”
Dr Craig thinks that if you have a “open mind and open heart , you will come to a belief in god” — which is a really interesting statement to unpack. This statement implies that someone who is skeptical of Christianity’s claims has a closed mind and heart. My mind/heart isn’t closed, I’m just not willing to assume God is there and then go looking for him, essentially turning off my critical faculties. It reminds me when some Mormons once asked Jerry and I to pray, just to “try it” and see if we felt god. Ummmm, no thanks.
As much as I want to be impressed by Dr. Craig, I left our discussion thinking his faith rationale is pretty simple. In many ways, I think it just boils down to an elaborately-structured ‘God of the Gaps’ argument, which is an explanation I’m not content to settle for.
Looking back on the whole experience, I’m really glad I had this opportunity to sit and chat with 2 prominent apologists. I want to think that I’m always open to hearing good arguments that could persuade me to change my mind — but that said, even if I could be persuaded into conceding a deistic or theistic god exists, I’m not sure if I would be so apt to fall into line to worship him/her/it.
My hesitancy isn’t because I’m angry with god, or that I’m too selfish to let god into my life. I just honestly don’t see how I need a relationship with such a being. Maybe one day my mind will change — until that time, I’ll keep a lookout for him/her/it — but I won’t stop asking hard questions and I won’t settle for cliched answers.
p.s. In case you want a taste of what Dr. Craig sounds like in conversation, here’s a clip from his trip up here to Saskatoon.
p.p.s. If you want to hear my favorite debates featuring Dr. Craig, check out these:
My very favorite: Craig v. Shelly Kagan, Yale prof. The debate was “Is God Necessary for Morality?” — which means Craig was off-script! And he loses the debate, I think.
If you want to hear Craig’s 6 proverbial arguments in action, you should listen to his debates with atheist Austin Dacey. These two debates (2004 & 2005) are the best tackling of the subject, and Dacey offers the best opposition to Craig.
Later this spring, Craig is slated to debate both Lawrence Krauss (the physicist) and Sam Harris.
How did I spend my Sunday morning? Writing out a long comment to a pastor who was attempting to defend the genocides of the Old Testament. Here’s my response to his rationalizations:
Thanks for the time you took in writing out this response. I can tell you put a lot of time and energy into it, and I would be open to reading a book you’d write on the topic! I do have a few issues with some of your explanations.
But before I get too picky, can I just state the obvious? Can you hear yourself defending (rationalizing!) acts of genocide? I’m always dismayed when I hear someone mentally disconnect the argument they’re making from the act they’re defending. To be honest, it was one of the primary motivating forces that helped me reject my faith. I got tired of having to condone God’s go-ahead for genocide.
You say that applying our “cultural mores” onto the horrors of genocide is an “anachronism.” I’m not sure what to make of that statement. So genocide (ie., the systematic act of killing a racial/cultural group) is a value that is relative to the time one lives in? I’m having a hard time imagining a period of time in human history when it would be excusable to slaughter an entire people group.
So proving to me that I’m being anachronistic is going to be a tough sell. You’re going to have to show me that the moral precept we hold that genocide is wrong was somehow NOT wrong back then. I have a feeling we’ll come back to the supposedly-moral framework of “God is moral, God told the Israelites to murder, Murder is moral.” You may be content in such a framework, I am not.
I know that there are other examples of ancient literature where these acts of systematic murder are described, and I find those passages equally horrifying as well. But the difference between reading the Illiad and reading the Bible is that people don’t put any spiritual credence in the former.
I’m disappointed that you describe genocide as simply “distasteful.”
To summarize your arguments rationalizing genocide:
1. Genocide was not as evil of an act back then as it is today, so applying our 21st-century standards to this act is “anachronistic”.
2. Other people groups back then were committing genocide, so the Israelites were just following warfare protocol.
3. The ends justify the means argument: wiping out Israel’s enemies may have been unfortunate, but necessary — akin to the violence necessary to resolve other human atrocities such as slavery, racism, and fascism.
4. God compromised morality on behalf of the Israelites, and allowed them to commit such acts.
5. Israel is God’s “covenant people”, so “to maintain their cultural and religious distinctiveness”, wiping out a few ancient near eastern cultures is completely excusable.
6. The Midianites were bad people in their day, so they had it coming to them.
I asked you specifically about Numbers 31. I find it telling that you completely avoided commenting on the another morally “distasteful” passage in that chapter. Not only does God condone genocide, but he also mandates rape.
The Israelites went and destroyed all the males of the Midianites, but brought back as captives the “women and the little ones” (verse 9). Moses then specifically goes to the Israelite army and tells them to KILL all the “women who had known a man” along with all the male children — *BUT* they could keep all the young virgin girls for themselves (verses 17-18). As the chapter closes, these (32,000!) young girls were counted — along with the livestock — in the list of Israel’s war “booty” (32-35). I don’t think I’m being anachronistic in being horrified by such actions on the part of such a God, and such a “covenant” people.
…
As I close, I noticed you describe yourself as a “good historian” — have you watched the PBS documentary of “The Bible’s Buried Secrets”? This doc consults many historians, scholars, and archeologists who have the thesis that much of the OT as history is inaccurate. The genocidal atrocities weren’t military coups, but more of a social/cultural revolution.
I’m curious how he’ll respond. I, for one, am feeling pretty sick inside after having to think about such atrocities. But, at the same time, I’m also glad I got out of the business of finding theological reasons to condone such cruelty.
I spent my Sunday morning, in my pajamas, watching this debate:
(part 1 of 11)
Is There Meaning in Evil and Suffering?
Description: A panel discussion and debate on the meaning of evil and suffering from theists Dr. William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias, atheist Dr. Bernard Leikind (a plasma physicist and senior editor of Skeptic magazine), and Hindu Dr. Jitendra Mohanty (one of India’s most distinguished Hindu philosophers and professor at Emory University).
These are the kind of debates/discussions I enjoy the most — why waste time arguing over the existence of something unprovable, one way or another? It’s far more interesting to talk about the problem of evil. These kinds of discussions confirm for me why I rejected Christianity. In this debate, the explanations provided by Craig and Zacharias for the evils allowed (condoned?) by an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God fell FLAT. It basically boils down to “trust God to work things out in the end,” which doesn’t answer the question (not to mention it’s unsatisfying).
One thing interesting to note when watching this debate (and it’s a trait I’ve noticed when talking with believers) is how quickly Zacharias and Craig divert themselves away from specific examples/questions of evil or morality and rush back to the generalized platitudes of their faith. For example, in the debate above, when talking about absolute morality, at one point the naturalist asked the theists whether they thought divorce was immoral. Faster than you could bat an eyelash, Zacharias diverted away from the question into generalizations.
And I suppose I can’t blame ‘em, because the rhetorical power in saying you have absolute objective morality lies in being able to make the statement without having to provide specific examples to back it up.
A final lesson learned from the above debate: I think Ravi Zacharias is far more of a jerk than William Lane Craig (and this is saying a lot, because I am *not* a fan of Craig’s snarky delivery). In the debate, watch how Zacharias first responds to the naturalist (Dr. Leikind), and you’ll see why I award Zacharias the “asshole apologist” award.
In case you didn’t grow up in the church, that’s code for: I’m going to offend you, but I get a free pass to say whatever I want to with this disclaimer.
Tonight Jerry turned on Larry King Live, and we watched an interview with Christian singer Jennifer Knapp, who this week officially “outed” herself to the world as a lesbian. Thankfully, more and more these days this kind of announcement is becoming less “news” — but in Knapp’s evangelical context, announcing you are a content lesbian in a committed relationship is pretty high up there on the list of SIN (usually mentioned in the context of bestiality and pedophilia).
I can remember listening to Knapp, back in my believer days. In fact, I still have her CD and find myself still digging her song “Undo Me“. I thought of her as part Alanis, part Melissa Etheridge (little did I know how right-on I was in my generalizing!).
Anyway, this week Knapp did an interview for Christianity Today, Reuters, and The Advocate — talk about three very different audiences! I enjoyed listening to her chat with King, and he did a good job of asking some pretty interesting questions (I’m usually not a fan of his interviews).
If you’re ever curious about one of the (many) reasons why I left the church and haven’t looked back, watch this clip:
Needless to say, Knapp had way more composure than I would have had if we were to have traded spaces. I find the patronizing, pious righteousness of people like Pastor Bob incredibly nauseating. It was difficult to watch him sit there and say that he “loves” Jennifer, and then spew such religiously-motivated discrimination — let’s just say I was glad that he was so confident to be speaking the words of Jesus. Anyone with a mind (or heart) can see how wrong and bad he looked in his judgement.
Anyway, of course I had to look up good ol’ Pastor Bob, and let him know how much I appreciated his representation of his side of the issue — after all, the more people like him speak out publicly, the more others will see how bankrupt this “moral” position really is. Here’s the comment I left on Pastor Bob’s blog — one that finally showed up, after several attempts to have it get past the moderator:
(if this comment doesn’t get published, I’ll realize it’s because the moderator is only allowing supportive comments to be shown — which states a lot about the character of this “Pastor Bob.”)
Pastor Bob, your pious faux-compassion shown on Larry King Live tonight reminded me of why I left the church, and haven’t yet looked back. It’s “compassionate Christians” like you that give your faith system a bad name. (and this is coming from an evangelical pastor’s kid who grew up in the church)
I’m just glad your righteous homophobia will now be recorded on tape, for all posterity. It’s going to be hard to explain these discriminatory statements to your flock and grandkids, when as the world continues to change and leave this religiously-driven bigotry behind.
FYI: viewing the eclipse via your cell phone camera isn't that romantic 21 hours ago
Few things more pleasant than a sunset picnic at the park w/your 5 year old ... along with the cursing dysfunctional family sitting nearby 22 hours ago
This week on Unbelievable : “Losing my religion – dialogue with an ex-Christian”
