Tuesday, August 20, 2013

I Got Challenged To A Debate


Living as I do here in the Bible Belt, religion is a big topic. One could even say that for the majority, it is the most important thing going on here. This is true even among those who don't attend church on a regular basis. Around these parts it is generally considered bad form not to at least give lip service to the God of the Bible. 
 
Also, religious fundamentalism thrives here. By that I mean that most Bible believers are really Bible believers, who think the sixty-six books collected between leather covers which they call The Holy Bible represents God's actual revelation to humankind - to be understood literally (unless it is apparent figurative speech is being used) and taken to be the great repository of the world's truth.
 
One of my good friends at work is a more progressive type of Christian. He at least entertains the idea that the Bible is not infallible. He is drawn to me because while I hold a certain respect for the Bible and its place in history, I am not bound to a theory about divine inspiration. 
 
The other day he came to me and asked if I believe the story of Noah as contained in the Bible. I told him that over long years of contemplation I had arrived at the conclusion that the first eleven chapters of Genesis contained religious myth rather than literal history. (Not to mention the fact that I do find credible the theory that that material shows distinct traces of being merged traditions.)
 
Within fifteen minutes my friend returned to my work area to let me know that one of his fundamentalist coworkers wanted to debate me about the historicity of Noah and the great flood. That fundamentalist's big point, I was told, is that Jesus referenced Noah, therefore it must have happened as the Bible says. 
 
I politely declined the opportunity to take part in such a debate. I told my friend it would be akin to arguing with his coworker about which of us has the better mother. In other words, the debate wouldn't be so much about Noah and the flood, but rather about the issue of biblical inspiration and whether Jesus is God. Those issues are highly personal and self-validating. Without a willingness or ability to at least allow that the alternative might be true (and if a fundamentalist Christian did that he would not be a real Christian) there could be no legitimate way to argue the point. All we would be doing is airing our opinions.
 
Of course I would be happy, I told my friend, to discuss my reasons for thinking along the lines I do. But my friend's coworker was a no-show during our lunch break. Just as well, as I doubt much would have been accomplished.
 
I know very well the arguments of the Creation Scientists, having read many of their books back when I was trying to hold on to my dwindling faith. I have tried to entertain their thoughts with an open mind. I concluded I would have to grant too many assumptions to take their ideas seriously. My problem with that is I would be conceding too much for one reason only: to keep intact the plausibility of a literal reading of the Bible.
 
On the other hand, I'm not convinced my would-be debate opponent has given the "secular science" evidence a fair study. I'm fairly certain he, too, would feel as if he were conceding too much by allowing that the Bible version (read: God's version) of Genesis might be wrong. And there the matter stands.
 
My position is more accommodating: I believe myth can be true in a different way than scientific knowledge generally is. But it was a long journey indeed from my Christian fundamentalism to my present way of thinking.
 
Do I think I have finally arrived at The Truth now? No way, man! I'm only seeking a way to make sense of life in the Cosmos. No need to debate anything, nor to needlessly exclude people from my circle of fellowship.

14 comments:

  1. I think you made the right call there Doug.

    The argument that Jesus referenced it so that must add validity is just a form of circular reasoning and could just as easily be used to weaken the claims of Jesus and therefore the whole bible.

    There is course the inconvenient fact that there simply is not enough water on the planet to flood it to the depth required.

    If I were made the same offer I'd probably be brash enough to go for it, not because I thought I could win but because I'd be interested in testing myself. Which probably makes you wiser than me. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, I have pointed out that lack of water many times and it never fails to be dismissed with something like "God could provide the water." So really there is nothing to debate about except" do you believe the Bible is God's literal, inerrant word?" I have my reasons for doubting that, but of course it would not sway the true believer.

      Delete
    2. Ah yes, the ol' if its impossible, God would have found a way to make it a miracle. I remember being there. The thing is, it makes perfect sense to the creationist mind.

      If it looks like a natural phenomena, then God used the laws of nature that He created, if it doesn't, then God did something special. Either way, the believer wins and no logic will stop them. Its a terrible trap to fall into.

      Delete
    3. Well do I remember when it never occurred to me to doubt. By the time I was a teenager I was already ready enjoying the more liberal minded religious thinkers such as Thomas Paine.

      Delete
  2. "Within fifteen minutes my friend returned to my work area to let me know that one of his fundamentalist coworkers wanted to debate me about the historicity of Noah and the great flood."

    Ugh. Why did he feel the need to challenge you to debate? Why couldn't he just let you believe what you believe and leave it at that? Is the co-worker so insecure that he has to prove himself right on all religious matters?

    You made the right decision when you declined the debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fundamentalists are taught to be always ready to give an answer to the hope that lies within them. I have no doubt Doug's co-worker saw Doug's words as a direct assault on the faith once delivered to the saints, an assault that required immediate response.

      In the Fundamentalist world, everything is divided neatly into 2 categories: truth and error. Of course, Doug was put in the error category. :)

      Delete
    2. Bruce is right. I am a nice guy but terribly misguided about religion, or so say many of my friends.

      Delete
  3. You are wise not to debate. I am not a fan of debates. I much prefer the approach you use. Let's sit down over lunch, coffee, or a beer and talk. Debates seem to all about scoring points. I prefer discussion, realizing that most people are not going to change the point of view based on a single discussion with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Debates can be entertaining sometimes, but rhetoric and style can turn a weak argument into a stronger one. I doubt many minds are changed by debates. I'm more content to discuss casually and hopefully plant some seeds that may sprout eventually.

      Delete
  4. Reminds me of a co-worker I had. He was a fundie, a terrible employee, a hoarder in his cubicle and quite dirty from his hair to his shoes. He liked to talk and I am not one to be rude, especially at my job. I was one of only three 'out' gay people there, the others, all men, ignored him, but I enjoyed chatting with him. It often led to "Why do you believe that?" I had nice chats w/him. Both of us being polite, calm, it was truly interesting to me. I hope he felt the same. You make good points about the pointlessness (is that a word?) of the 'debate' request ("En Garde!") via a third party. The best intended debates should have a goal of searching for truths...not easy when neither of you can prove any when the foundation is unable to be proved to exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love "why do you believe that" discussions. Debates are not generally fruitful, in my opinion. But I have many friends who are Christian fundamentalists, and am usually able discuss things with them without too many fireworks.

      Delete
  5. I'm with you Doug. I'll talk with whoever, but debate gets neither one anywhere positive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I think endless arguing gets you nowhere. What's that old saying? "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

      Delete