Ep. 70: Grilled Pastor for Two

[Emery]

So we get our second celebrity this week: Ed Buckner, president of American Atheists joins us to talk about the goals of atheism, and joins the effort to de-convert Scott. What starts as a general conversation about atheism turns in to a roast of the good pastor, and Emery sits back and watches the show.

I think Ed does a good job of hammering home his points, while Scott deftly parries each blow. What do you guys think? Sorry about the sound quality, Ed was on a phone, and perhaps we should all donate $20 to American Atheists to buy him a better one.

And finally, thanks to Brad for hooking us up with Ed. We hope he comes on the show again (but gets a Skype account first)

[EdBuckner]

The question I should have asked Pastor Scott--but, alas, didn't--was this: when choosing which religious truth to accept, you suggested it should be the one that makes you "comfortable." (If I'm misreporting your answer here, please correct me, of course.) But you seemed, repeatedly, to be suggesting that your capacity, as well as that of some of your congregation and colleagues, to choose wisely was superior to John Calvin's, the plain (or at least most obvious) words of the Bible, etc. So, the key question is, "Are you morally superior to the god you worship? If 'He' recommends burning heretics at the stake or taking virgins as spoils of war or putting witches to death or sending unbelievers to a fiery lake where they can gnash their teeth eternally--and you reject these teachings--is that because you're have a better moral sense than Calvin or god?"

I know, I know--I had my shots, my time is up. I'm just wondering.

Regards,

Ed Buckner
President, American Atheists

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Are there any transcripts for these podcasts?

[Emery]

Are there any transcripts for these podcasts?

No, unless you'd like to do the transcription. If you do, correct my grammatical errors, okay?

[Emery]

Hey Ed, welcome to the forum. This is a perennial question, and I think "true" Christianity for modern Christians gets closer and closer to humanism. I think this innate sense we have, that certain interpretations of the Bible are wrong no matter what the text seems to say, is proof that morality comes from our shared humanity rather than from a holy book.

The question I should have asked Pastor Scott--but, alas, didn't--was this: when choosing which religious truth to accept, you suggested it should be the one that makes you "comfortable." (If I'm misreporting your answer here, please correct me, of course.) But you seemed, repeatedly, to be suggesting that your capacity, as well as that of some of your congregation and colleagues, to choose wisely was superior to John Calvin's, the plain (or at least most obvious) words of the Bible, etc. So, the key question is, "Are you morally superior to the god you worship? If 'He' recommends burning heretics at the stake or taking virgins as spoils of war or putting witches to death or sending unbelievers to a fiery lake where they can gnash their teeth eternally--and you reject these teachings--is that because you're have a better moral sense than Calvin or god?"

I know, I know--I had my shots, my time is up. I'm just wondering.

Regards,

Ed Buckner
President, American Atheists

[Kiwi]

"Should Scott convert" ... I'm afraid I have to go with Scott on this one. At the start of the podcast during Ed's very eloquent introduction I thought oh boy, Scott's in for a tough time here. As the discussion picked up, though, I grew frustrated with the way Ed hammered his points so relentlessly without pausing to listen and ensure that they were in fact the best points to be hammering with this particular christian. Ed seems well versed in 'atheist apologetics' and maybe fired off his bullet points too rapidly. For the most part I think they were actually dud shots, or misdirected. I wanted to hear Scott explain himself and then Ed would have had to shift his argument slightly in order to accommodate Scott's response. Since that didn't happen, Ed seemed to pitch everything on one note, whereas I think Scott might have been willing to dance a bit more.

I think the question is an excellent one: what is the christian missing out on? It's not a question I have considered before and I'd love to hear Ed back on a future podcast to have another crack at this. I was unconvinced by the time wasting argument. People waste more time watching television than they do going to church, I suspect.

[Pseudonym]

Hi, Ed, and welcome to the forum.

Thanks so much for a very interesting discussion. I have a few objections (don't we all). These may seem nitpicky; the nitpickiness should be interpreted as being tacit agreement with many of the the general ideas that you put forward.

My first objection is to a word that you seemed to use a lot during one section of the discussion, and that's the word "delusion". I think that the way that you used this word is unhelpful, because it carries connotations that you didn't intend.

Psychiatrists define the word "delusion" to refer to a persistent, fixed belief which is false and pathological; the last point being the most important one. I don't think that you intended to imply that religious belief is caused by mental illness.

Richard Dawkins answered this objection by noting that he was using a lay definition of "delusion". In response, I'd like to point out that I can (and have) made the same object to new agers who use the word "energy" and creationists who use the word "information". Normally this wouldn't be that much of a problem, except that your argument relied a lot on scientific method and testability. You can't have it both ways. Pseudoscientific uses of scientific terms always seem to result in unnecessary confusion and muddied thinking.

I also took objection (on Scott's behalf) to the notion that people like him are "not taking the Bible seriously". I know that you don't believe that everything in the Bible is hyper-literal, scientific truth, and I don't think you're not taking it seriously because of it (not for that reason, anyway). I don't think it makes sense to take Christians to task for agreeing with you.

One last point.

Scott pointed out that Jesus' references to gehenna were probably figurative references to a real place (a rubbish dump in the Hinnom valley). You asked how he knows this. So I suggest a thought experiment:

Suppose we got a bunch of smart people who know nothing about historical Christian dogma, teach them the methodology of history and how to read and understand ancient texts, teach them Hebrew and Koine Greek and the literary forms in which the Bible is written, teach them a thorough background in the culture and thought of the day. We ask them a simple question: Did Jesus, as depicted in the New Testament, believe that at least some humans would end up facing eternal torment?

This is obviously not an experiment that we can actually perform, but it's a question that we've discussed at length here. The best that we can say is that there is no truly definitive evidence either way.

Looking at the Early Church confuses the situation even more, because there were multiple early schools of theology, only one of which (the Roman school) seemed to believe in eternal torment for humans (there is some evidence that other schools, such as the Alexandrian schools, believed in a form of conditionalism). The events which resulted in the Roman school dominating Christian thought are now fairly well-understood by historians, though some of the details, especially the motives of those involved, are disputed.

Still, I have to ask: How does interpreting the Bible, and the history of thought, using the best tools available from secular historians, amount to not taking the Bible seriously? I would have thought that doing anything else would be less serious, no?

People waste more time watching television than they do going to church, I suspect.

I thought that too, when Ed brought it up. If that was really the biggest complaint, then AA should really be going after golfers, not Christians.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Suppose we got a bunch of smart people who know nothing about historical Christian dogma, teach them the methodology of history and how to read and understand ancient texts, teach them Hebrew and Koine Greek and the literary forms in which the Bible is written, teach them a thorough background in the culture and thought of the day. We ask them a simple question: Did Jesus, as depicted in the New Testament, believe that at least some humans would end up facing eternal torment?

This is obviously not an experiment that we can actually perform, but it's a question that we've discussed at length here. The best that we can say is that there is no truly definitive evidence either way.

Didn't Mary K Baxter clear this confusion up? After all, she said that she had a revelation, just like the other assorted authors.

[mikedsjr]

Ed, I enjoyed the interview you did and the back and forth with the Pastor. I think you did a fine job at presenting your side. You are incorrect about John Calvin. He didn't want Servitus to be burned at the stake. If anything, John would have rathered him die by the sword because it would have been less painful to Servitus and quicker. He desired so much for Servitus to change his mind that he visited him in prison hoping for a last minute conversion. This isn't on Calvin's head.

[Pseudonym]

Didn't Mary K Baxter clear this confusion up?

Who?

[Angela]

Didn't Mary K Baxter clear this confusion up?

Who?

"Over a period of forty days, God gave Mary K. Baxter visions of hell and commissioned her to tell all to choose life. Here is an account of the place and beings of hell contrasted with the glories of heaven."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0883682796

So this would be a good book to buy if you're having trouble deciding where to spend eternity.

[NH Baritone]

Didn't Mary K Baxter clear this confusion up?

Who?

http://spiritlessons.com/Mary_K_Baxter_A_Divine_Revelation_of_Hell.htm

"Hear the eyewitness testimony on the True Existence of Hell. Mary Katherine Baxter was chosen by God to let the world know of the REALITY of Hell. Jesus Christ appeared to Mary Baxter on 40 consecutive nights and took Mary on a tour of Hell and Heaven. She walked, with Jesus, through the horrors of Hell and talked with many people. Jesus showed her what happens to souls when they die and what happens to the unbelievers and Servants of God who do not obey their calling."

[Pseudonym]

"Over a period of forty days, God gave Mary K. Baxter visions of hell and commissioned her to tell all to choose life. Here is an account of the place and beings of hell contrasted with the glories of heaven."

Ah. I think I'll pass. I read the Anne Rice version of that already.

[WinstonNoble]

My take on this podcast: I will NOT be joining the American Atheists Organization.

Ed Buckner made the same mistake I made when I first started posting to this forum: Assuming all Christians are the same. You lay out your argument for this average bible-thumping christian and your argument gets torn apart by these Christians who say 'Jesus First, Bible Second'. What? Who has ever heard of such a thing? Apparently, that idea is spreading...

I can't blame Ed though. Being in Atlanta, most Christians he interacts with are probably all the same: Bible-thumping and Baptist. I would recommend that Ed head over to the general discussion area and jump into the debates there. He will learn a thing or two.

I agree with Kiwi. I thought Scott was going to get pinned in a corner, but that never happened. I guess that Rocky analogy was a good one. Scott never stopped moving, he was nimble on his feet and never got blocked in a corner. Keep up the training. Congrats on the new addition as well.

I don't know about other agnostics/atheists on the board, but I found Ed's version of atheism a little too preachy for my tastes. Did you used to be a pastor Ed?

I'm more of the 'no harm, no foul' mindset. If Christianity is 'what works for' Scott and it isn't causing anyone any harm, then let him be. We all know he's wrong, but if he's happy, then we should be happy for him.

If atheist begin to feel they need to convert others to their belief system, then I think we become a religion no better/worse than any other. I was a bit disappointed that Ed, at the beginning of the conversation, admitted he wanted to convert Scott to atheism. (Perhaps it was a tongue in cheek joke.) Emery described it on the summary of the podcast as trying to 'de-convert Scott'. Evidently, Emery didn't want to call it converting to atheism either.

My theory on why Emery was silent: Emery didn't agree with Ed on very much. It is funny, but I have found that to be the case for me on the forums as well. While I feel that I am on the same side as many of the other nonbelievers on the boards, I don't necessarily agree with their approach or some of the things they say. It's like we are in the same book, but not on the same page.

Anyway, interesting podcast. Scott promised another in a week, so I'll be expecting one!

~Winston Noble

[Pseudonym]

My take on this podcast: I will NOT be joining the American Atheists Organization.

Actually, although the AA and the AAI are different organisations, I'd be interested to know what Ed thought about the recent controversy over Bill Maher receiving the Richard Dawkins Award.