Christians on the Run?

[Zzyzx]

.
When I “took sabbatical� nearly a year ago, it was my opinion that Christians, particularly those of fundamentalist inclinations, were at an extreme disadvantage in debate. They impressed me as being very weak in their attempts to defend supernatural beliefs based in bible stories – and could provide no corroborating evidence aside from their “bible�; no indication that what they presented was truthful or accurate.

Most seemed to be trying to convince others to accept “belief without evidence� (no “evidence� other than ancient tales by religious promoters, fanatics and storytellers) – and failing almost invariably (and often ignobly).

The few Theists who earned my respect for their ideas and their presentations have NOT been those who attempted to debate their faith as immutable (not capable or susceptible of change) or those who denigrated the convictions and beliefs of others – particularly NOT those who attempted to assume a superior or condescending position based upon their “Real Christian� beliefs.

On the other hand, many Non-Theists (of various persuasions) seemed to present sound, often irrefutable arguments – and ask questions that Fundamentalists / Literalists could not answer openly and honestly without acknowledging that there is no factual or evidential basis for their “arguments� (only strange tales by ancient storytellers and religious promoters – plus a “need to believe�).

Over the past months I have looked in occasionally incommunicado – and thought the imbalance was getting worse. As I now read these threads as an (again) active forum participant, I wonder, “Are there ANY competent Fundamentalist debaters?�, “Can ANYONE defend a literal interpretation of the “bible�?�, “Where are the “fire and brimstone� preachers and believers when asked pertinent questions about the beliefs they promote to others?�

Where are all the thousands of “preachers� who can appear to be so forceful and dogmatic in their sermons? Can they not debate honestly and openly? Can they not defend the fundamentals of the tales they tell? Where are the “truly convinced� who spout religious talk? Are they incapable of debating the ideas they present to uncritical believers?

[otseng]

I'll make a comment.

Actually, I agree with the general assessment that "Christian Fundamentalists" are terrible debaters. I have not come across one either that has given very persuasive arguments.

But, this is not to say that persuasive arguments do not exist. And it doesn't mean that it's impossible to defend a literal reading of the Bible. And it doesn't mean that only "non-literalist Christians" can debate well.

As for non-theists presenting sound, irrefutable arguments, which posts are you referring to?

[JoeyKnothead]

As for non-theists presenting sound, irrefutable arguments, which posts are you referring to?

I'd say his own.

McCulloch and goat also come to mind.

[Zzyzx]

.

Actually, I agree with the general assessment that "Christian Fundamentalists" are terrible debaters. I have not come across one either that has given very persuasive arguments.

Might you have suggestions about why this is true?

There should be no difference between Fundamental Christians vs. Non-Christians in intelligence, education, knowledge, writing skill, etc, etc. So, why should there be such a great difference as we see in these debates?

Does Fundamentalism select against reasoning and logic – or against critical thinking – or maybe decision-making? I have no idea in that regard myself.

Could it be that defending a position for which there is little, if any, real (or objective, or concrete) evidence is too demanding?

But, this is not to say that persuasive arguments do not exist.

I have encountered “persuasive arguments� for Fundamentalism / Literalism ONLY where those presentations are made in “Christian friendly� environments – and NOT where the “playing field is level� as it is in this forum (thanks to you).

Where are the preachers who seem so confident and convincing when their “sermons� are not challenged?

Do they realize they and their ideas can’t “cut the mustard� in fair debate – where they will be asked to substantiate their claims and demonstrate the truth in their stories – where their opinions and pronouncements will not be unquestioningly accepted (or at least not openly opposed)?

Could it be that they prefer to preach where the odds of success are greater ("easier pickings")?

And it doesn't mean that it's impossible to defend a literal reading of the Bible. And it doesn't mean that only "non-literalist Christians" can debate well.

I agree.

As for non-theists presenting sound, irrefutable arguments, which posts are you referring to?

I had no particular posts in mind. Just as with my general observations regarding Fundamentalist posts, my comments regarding Non-Theist posts were general in nature.

If asked to name the people I would LEAST want to debate against (or be most challenged by), almost every one would be either Non-Theist or Jewish (with a couple notable exceptions).

[otseng]

.

Actually, I agree with the general assessment that "Christian Fundamentalists" are terrible debaters. I have not come across one either that has given very persuasive arguments.

Might you have suggestions about why this is true?

There are many. Here are some I can think of:
- Christians are not encouraged to think critically, particularly in church settings.
- Christians have little experience debating capable atheists.
- Fundamentalists feel compelled to persuade non-Christians, even if they are not equipped to do it.
- Fundamentalists rely too much on the Bible to support their positions. This is fine when dealing with other Christians, but ineffective when dealing with non-Christians.
- Fundamentalists generally have less formal education than the general population.

There should be no difference between Fundamental Christians vs. Non-Christians in intelligence, education, knowledge, writing skill, etc, etc. So, why should there be such a great difference as we see in these debates?

I would say there is a difference between Fundamentalists as a whole and non-Christians as a whole in all the areas you mentioned.

Could it be that defending a position for which there is little, if any, real (or objective, or concrete) evidence is too demanding?

Defending any position is demanding. Attacking a position is comparatively easier.

As for defending the Bible, there are people here that I think do a pretty good job (Goose comes to mind).

I have encountered “persuasive arguments� for Fundamentalism / Literalism ONLY where those presentations are made in “Christian friendly� environments – and NOT where the “playing field is level� as it is in this forum (thanks to you).

Actually, I don't visit "Christian friendly" debating environments, so I'm not able to see how well they perform there. I'm glad though you consider this place a level playing field. It is a goal of this place to be fair to all.

Do they realize they and their ideas can’t “cut the mustard� in fair debate – where they will be asked to substantiate their claims and demonstrate the truth in their stories – where their opinions and pronouncements will not be unquestioningly accepted (or at least not openly opposed)?

That could be one reason why it's only a monologue in church.

[McCulloch]

- Christians are not encouraged to think critically, particularly in church settings.

Why not!? Could it be that critical thinking among the laity is just too dangerous?

- Christians have little experience debating capable atheists.

Again why not!? I would think that anyone who believed the Great Commission would have some experience debating atheists.

- Fundamentalists feel compelled to persuade non-Christians, even if they are not equipped to do it.

Of course they do. They are commanded to make an attempt. What I find dumbfounding is that after failing, they do not regroup and rethink the strategy. They keep up with the same old tired arguments. They show very little understanding of their opponents' point-of-view.

- Fundamentalists rely too much on the Bible to support their positions. This is fine when dealing with other Christians, but ineffective when dealing with non-Christians.

The odd thing is that they are frequently ignorant of their own Bible. Not the contents, that many Fundamentalists have a good working knowledge of. But the history; how it came together.

- Fundamentalists generally have less formal education than the general population.

The question to be asked here is why? Is it that those with little education are more likely to become Fundamentalists or is it that those who are Fundamentalist are more likely to become anti-intellectualists?

Defending any position is demanding. Attacking a position is comparatively easier.

Yes, that is true. We who do the attacking should remember that.

Do they realize they and their ideas can’t “cut the mustard� in fair debate – where they will be asked to substantiate their claims and demonstrate the truth in their stories – where their opinions and pronouncements will not be unquestioningly accepted (or at least not openly opposed)?

That could be one reason why it's only a monologue in church.

Is that a shortcoming that you are planning to address in the New Kind Church?

[otseng]

Why?

As to the whys, I'm not sure. That would be a good research topic.

Is that a shortcoming that you are planning to address in the New Kind Church?

There are many shortcomings that I'm attempting to address.

Some issues that are on my mind:
- To not be boring
- To be relevant
- To attract men
- Being able to address non-Christians effectively
- Have Bible studies that are both deep and practical
- Don't be holed up in the church walls, but go out and minister to the world
- Serve and love non-Christians with no strings attached
- To be respectful to all
- To be racially inclusive
- To deemphasize giving to the church, but to give directly to other causes
- To not build up a personal kingdom of having a nice church building and a paid staff
- To minister to the less fortunate

[Zzyzx]

.
When I taught college / university classes I observed that students who I knew to be Fundamentalists tended to resist thinking critically (as though looking for direction from an authority figure and NOT wanting to hear alternatives that were different from church doctrine or indoctrination).

Any person, regardless of position, who believes what they are told without verification in the real world is known as gullible (defined as: easily deceived or cheated: readily duped – Merriam Webster).

These are not my definitions of words, but the resistance to critical thinking is my observation based upon exposure to thousands of college / university students. I was neutral toward religion during those times, but was very attuned to the learning environment and attitudes.

My subject matter was Conservation, Earth Science, Geology and Geography – primarily at freshman and sophomore level – but extending to graduate level quite often. It was “near impossible� to teach any of those subjects to people who were adamant that the earth was created in 4004 BC (as per “calculations� by Archbishop Ussher – at 9 AM on October 3rd added by Sir James Lightfoot). Fundamentalists / Literalists tended toward other majors – and to avoid science classes.

This is NOT to say that Fundamentalists / Literalists are incapable of critical thinking – but rather to suggest that critical thinking, analysis of real data, and factually-based decisions – all quite valuable in decisions and debate – may be uncomfortable for or unavailable to some who attempt to debate as apologists.