Ep. 83: Questions for the atheist

[Emery]

Congratulations to Mitch for his first appearance on the show. Yes, that's our very own Mitch McKain. Due to our forum database issues, this podcast is being posted over a week late. But again, the time travel is free on this podcast.

Sound balance is a little off on this one, as Mitch was getting feedback on his end if I turned his levels up too much. This is one you may want to listen to with headphones. All that being said, Mitch presents some novel views on Christianity, in my opinion. I think they'd have booted him out of my Baptist church, just after they gave Scott the boot, but before I booted myself out.

Post your observations here.

[mitchellmckain]

By the way, here are my notes I made in preparation for the podcast


First you wanted me to express my criticisms of atheism and then you asked me to come up with 4 questions against atheism. This I will try to do, but I have to make it clear at the outset that I am not critical of atheism per se.. for I do not believe there is anything inconsistent with either theist or atheist positions. As I recently explained on the forum, all such positions are defensible because there is no objective means of deciding between them.

But ok, here are 4 questions challenging atheists, and to bring it down to earth a little, I also want to suggest some specific topic that the question might be applicable to.

1) Is it true that the difference between atheist and Christian can really be legitimately characterized as one between rational and irrational?

2) Does the fact that religion has no value in your life necessarily mean that it has no positive value in the lives of others?

3) In science we can separate the principles of science from any erroneous conclusions that scientists may have had at one time, so why can't we do the same for Christianity and seperate the ideals of Christianity from various irrational beliefs and behaviors that Christians may support at the moment or in the past?

4) What would happen if you approached Christianity looking for something of value in it rather than looking for excuses to condemn it?


-------------------------------
1) What makes you sure that the difference between atheist and Christian can really be legitimately characterized as one between rational and irrational?

However much the converted atheists may have experienced a transition to greater rationality by abandoning things they previously believed by faith alone, one must be careful of generalizing this to mean that the atheist is therefore always more rational than the theist. Being an atheist and having a particular view on religion does not make one more rational. I certainly have encountered some terribly irrational beliefs on the part of some atheists such as: 1) No religious person can be a scientist, and 2) The only religious people are those who have been brainwashed/indoctrinated as children.

Logic only takes us from premises to conclusions. But we have an enormous freedom in choosing which premises to start from. Yes we want the conclusions that logic draws from those premises to agree with reality, but problem here is what aspects of reality different people consider to be significant. Scientific standards are good for science but not for life in general.

I was watching a British Mystery series called "A Mind to Kill", when the policeman's daughter says to him that it seems that his profession destroys peoples lives. The total illogic of that statement not only astounded me but caused me to feel that there was a strong similarity of attitude that I see in the many objections that I often hear atheists make about God. I would suggest that this draws a parallel between the typical Christian argument from morality and the the typical atheist argument from the so called problem of evil and/or suffering. It seems to me that both inject some degree of irrationality or subjectivity in those that cling to such arguments, and I guess I would say that the atheist attempt to say that the Christian God cannot be moral is no more defensible than any theist attempt to say that atheists cannot be moral.

But I think a big part of this is going to be what role the Bible plays in how you think of things. I think there is common atheist complaint that looking upon a text like the Bible as a source of truth makes Christianity incapable of correcting its errors. Well there are certainly some attitudes about the Bible that do have an effect like that. One that drives me particularly crazy as a scientist is the irrational idea that the Bible is the source of all truth.

But I think the amazing thing about the Bible is that you can find so many things that strike right a the roots of everything you find wrong in religion. There is Isaiha chapter 1 where we have God saying how sick he is of rituals an sacrifices when people will not even take take care of those made desitute by circumstances among them. There is the book of Job which is a scathing commentary about some prevalent attitudes in religion. There is Jesus' constant condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Then there is both Jesus explanation of His use of parables in Matthew 13:10-15 and the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:15-30 which when applied to scripture, can easily be seen as a criticism of literalism.


-------------------------------
2) Does the fact that religion has no value in your life necessarily mean that it has no positive value in the lives of others?

There are many human activities that some people find of value that others do not. Just because some don't like chess or football does not mean that it should not be of great importance to someone else, and why should relgion be any different? Yes it deals with some fundamental issues, but think about, just because we are all made of atoms does not mean that we all need to be atomic physicists. So I would put it to the atheist, that the attitude that religion is inherently evil is just as ridiculous as ideas in the 1950s and 1960s that rock and roll was inherently evil. The fact is that now a very large number of Christian churches play that style of music in their church services.

I ask the atheist to realize that life cannot be reduced to objective observation alone for it is also very much about subjective participation. In science you have to set aside what you want to be the case in order to look at things objectively, but you cannot live your life that way because what you want to be the case has everything to do with what you are going to do in life. But what people want varies from person to person and so I think that one of the things that has to be acknowledged rather honestly in this approach is that diversity of thought is going to be an inherent aspect of religion and this whole subjective participation thing.

Although I am Christian, I am also a pluralist and I think there is a highly semantic element to religious issues including the question of theism. This is reflected in my view of reality itself which asserts that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality -- or in other words, life and human existence cannot be reduced to objective determinations. This is not a simple thing but a complex issue to expore -- what are the limits an objective description of reality and what are the limits to which a reasonable man can make subjective determinations about reality?

On the other hand, I am not a universalist. So I do believe in an eternal hell, but not as a punishment which I don't think makes any sense at all, or as something to which we can or will be sent -- but only as something that people do to themselves. I believe that our choices can have eternal consequences and that human beings can be rather stubborn in habits of tormenting themselve or in choosing to pursue things which ultimately have very little value. But the point is that this approach of, "do this and believe that or else", making cowardice -- particularly intellectual cowardice a virtue is not something that I can see as leading to any good result. That is as much a path to hell as anything else.

In our first attempt at making a podcast, Emery asked my opinion on the following passage: Matt 7:13 "Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the road is spacious that leads to destruction, and many people are entering by it." And my agreement with this passage was rather reluctant. As far as numbers is concerned I suppose this could be right. Who knows? What bothers me is how this is used and imagery it presents. It is too easily used to justify thinking that you are right and everyone else is wrong - but too much absurdity results from that. The consequence of this imagery of "narrow road" is that people remake Christianity into a door that is their own shape and so only people that are carbon copies of themselve can fit through the door. But frankly this is the behavior that I think that Jesus describes in Matt 23:13 -- where they cannot enter and won't allow anyone else either. Thus I have prefered the slightly different imagery of the comfortable road versus the difficult road. The point is that it is not about numbers as if God has quotas to fill. God welcomes everyone. It is more a matter of looking at what kind of world people have made for themselves and concluding that they do perhaps out of laziness seem to prefer hell to heaven.


-------------------------------
3) In science we can separate the principles of science from any erroneous conclusions that scientists may have had at one time, so why can't you see that some people can also seperate principles in Christianity from various irrational beliefs and behaviors that Christians may support at the moment or in the past?

Both science and Christianity are founded upon ideals. That means that it is all about things that we strive for. It is pointless to point at a work of science and say that it is invalid because of the various ways that the researcher was subjective in his thinking at the time. We can acknowledge that subjectivity is something that we cannot escape by the very nature of our existence but that does not mean that we cannot strive for an ideal of objectivity in science.

So one of the things that I think is unfortunate is the hostility that has been created between science and Christianity. While science is based on methodology so that theology has no relevance to it, the conclusions of science can indeed be highly relevant to a lot of theological issues. Since I think that evolution is more compatable with Christianity than idea of design, I find it rather unfortunate that this hostility has resulted in a failure to examine the philosophical implications of evolution in Christian theology.

We saw a really good example of this in the recent dicussion with Norton in podcast 78. For although Norton had come to accept the truth of evolution, when challenged with your idea that God can just start over again, Norton failed to realize how this was linked to this same issue of evolution versus design. Norton's objection that a parent never thinks of his children as replaceable doesn't work in the context of design and absolute predestination but it works just fine when you realize that God's creation of life is not a process of design but one where the living things He creates also participate in the process of their own creation.

-------------------------------
4) What would happen if you approached Christianity looking for something of value in it rather than looking for excuses to condemn it?

I think what you find in a book like the Bible, very much depends on what you are looking for. So when I, who was not raised in any religion but grew up with science becoming for me an extension of sight, went looking to see whether I could find anything of value, I did. Sure I could see all the failing and the ways that it has been twisted in the very worst of ways. But the way to deal with that is not by denouncing everything, because then for the sake of the good in it people will only fight to defend it when they really should be looking at it more critically.

So for example lets take a look at substitutionary atonement. On the face of it the idea seems pretty ridiculous that justice can be satisfied by someone standing in and taking upon themselves the punishment or consequences of what someone else has done. On the other hand, people do take upon themselves the consequences of other peoples actions to give them a second chance or in the hope that their love for them will motivate them to change.

People learn by what happens to others all the time. Thus a loved one who dies of lung cancer due to cigarette smoking, or in a car accident as a result of you driving under the influence, can both be considered blood sacrifices by which people finally learn the lesson they need in order to change their lives. This is part of the facts of life we learn in the theory of evolution that our redemption is indeed most often by the blood of the innocent -- for it is by pain and death that living things learn their ultimate lessons.

[AA/PK]

Obviously, the "novelty" of Mitch's "Christian" beliefs is that I can't remember a time I have ever come across any Christian holding such relativistic and pluralistic ideals. On my route to deconversion I made a pit stop at pluralism but I didn't stay long because of the absolute nature of most religions' teachings. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me," I don't see any wiggle room for such pluralities. In my experience, and in my studies I have found that the major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) hold basically singular claims to the afterlife. In that they claim that unless you believe and do as their books say, you aren't going to enjoy what is to come after death.

Emery,

I enjoy listening to what you have to say because you appear to be a few years down a road that is very similar to the one I am on. I was raised a PK. Church twice a week for 23 years. Assistant Pastor to my father for a few there at the end.

What I wanted to ask you is a few comments made in the podcast led me to believe that you feel as though another religion may be viable for you down the road. Did I hear that, or understand that correctly?

The reason I am asking is that during the course of studying different philosophy's and attending courses at my university; I have come to think that a basic belief in the existence of a "being for which no greater exists," has implications across the board. What I mean by that is, if one believes a god exists they must lend credence to every human definition (religion) given to that being. Because when it comes down to it, I really don't see any way mankind can definitively define the being. This conclusion was integral to my atheism because if it is impossible to know who or what this god is why bother with it? When Pascal set the terms of his wager he hinged it upon a single set of outcomes, but the world's religions aren't that simplistic.

In any event, I just recently stumbled upon the podcast while looking for something exactly like it, and since I am new to this forum I wanted to express my sense connectedness to your story. Although, I have not come out of the atheist closet...

[Exrev]

Obviously, the "novelty" of Mitch's "Christian" beliefs is that I can't remember a time I have ever come across any Christian holding such relativistic and pluralistic ideals. On my route to deconversion I made a pit stop at pluralism but I didn't stay long because of the absolute nature of most religions' teachings. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me," I don't see any wiggle room for such pluralities. In my experience, and in my studies I have found that the major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) hold basically singular claims to the afterlife. In that they claim that unless you believe and do as their books say, you aren't going to enjoy what is to come after death.

Emery,

I enjoy listening to what you have to say because you appear to be a few years down a road that is very similar to the one I am on. I was raised a PK. Church twice a week for 23 years. Assistant Pastor to my father for a few there at the end.

What I wanted to ask you is a few comments made in the podcast led me to believe that you feel as though another religion may be viable for you down the road. Did I hear that, or understand that correctly?

The reason I am asking is that during the course of studying different philosophy's and attending courses at my university; I have come to think that a basic belief in the existence of a "being for which no greater exists," has implications across the board. What I mean by that is, if one believes a god exists they must lend credence to every human definition (religion) given to that being. Because when it comes down to it, I really don't see any way mankind can definitively define the being. This conclusion was integral to my atheism because if it is impossible to know who or what this god is why bother with it? When Pascal set the terms of his wager he hinged it upon a single set of outcomes, but the world's religions aren't that simplistic.

In any event, I just recently stumbled upon the podcast while looking for something exactly like it, and since I am new to this forum I wanted to express my sense connectedness to your story. Although, I have not come out of the atheist closet...

Welcome to the fourm AK/PK. I too am a former minsiter turned atheist. Nice to know there are others like us out there.

P.S.

[Exrev]

By the way, here are my notes I made in preparation for the podcast


First you wanted me to express my criticisms of atheism and then you asked me to come up with 4 questions against atheism. This I will try to do, but I have to make it clear at the outset that I am not critical of atheism per se.. for I do not believe there is anything inconsistent with either theist or atheist positions. As I recently explained on the forum, all such positions are defensible because there is no objective means of deciding between them.

But ok, here are 4 questions challenging atheists, and to bring it down to earth a little, I also want to suggest some specific topic that the question might be applicable to.

1) Is it true that the difference between atheist and Christian can really be legitimately characterized as one between rational and irrational?

Maybe. It depends on the belief. I think Emery had it right. But I might not be so generious. How rational is it to deny a child health care because you think God will heal the baby? I think that is insanity (and criminal). So to me it all depends on how much the person really believes that christianity is apart of reality. The more they think its reality the larger the delusion really is and more harmful the consequences.

2) Does the fact that religion has no value in your life necessarily mean that it has no positive value in the lives of others?

If this was a courtroom that would be a leading question! I think truth is what really matters and is extreemly valueable. But yes even lies and myths might have some value to them. But to me very low.

3) In science we can separate the principles of science from any erroneous conclusions that scientists may have had at one time, so why can't we do the same for Christianity and seperate the ideals of Christianity from various irrational beliefs and behaviors that Christians may support at the moment or in the past?

Thats the chruches fault. People who try to do this are usually condemened as heritics. You should hear the hatered of conservative scholars to the so called "liberal" theologians. Thomas Jefferson even wrote his own bible. Mostly the point is that the church has overwhelminly rejected this idea.

4) What would happen if you approached Christianity looking for something of value in it rather than looking for excuses to condemn it?

I think 29 years of my life and 10 years of ministry was plenty thank you very much. Loaded question really, as though there is something wrong with critizing Christianity as though its beyond critique. I think the problem in todays world is that its not critisised enough. Most athiest I know, were raised christian anyways.

The only question I care about, is, IS christianity true or not? No extenistialism philosphical tricks..trying to say its subjective and subjectivey is reality...therefore anything could be true. Is it true objectively? That is the frist thing I care about regarding religion. Regardless if some parts of our reality is subjective (e.g. emotions,). To me all this boils down to this it; If truth is subjective, then truth can be whatever you want. If there is no truth or "subjectiveity is truth" then Christianity is irrelevant, it wouldn't matter if Jesus did raise from the dead or not. It wouldn't matter if Jesus said he was the truth, because truth is subjective. So if its all subjective then Christianity loses all its meaning. I think turning Christianity into something subjective, isn't the originial context of it. Paul was pretty clear that if Christ didn't raise from the dead what they were doing was worthless. 1 Cor 15:17 "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins"

1. This means Christ needs to have been raised and that if he really didn't then faith is worthless. This is an example of the bible claiming that its objectively true.
It can't be subjective if Christ rose or not. He either did or he did not. Now weather or not its knowable is a different matter. And how you treat unknowable things maybe that is subjective. It seems to me that Paul is clear that Christianity rest on this idea that Christ rose from the dead.

However, that is my personal feelings on the subject. Maybe its because I was told over and over that it was objectively true and that Jesus was the TRUTH. I did like the fact that Mitch said that these things can't be ojectively knowable. SO, maybe what we need to do is decide how do we handle the unknowable things. What is reasonable and rational way to treat unknowable ideas and subjects. If the Church would keep that in mind and do what Mitch was talking about in question #3, I think christianity could become meaninful and hopefully do some positive good. At least the church would be honest, of course this might turn the church into a ethical society, but IDK.

[AA/PK]

Exrev,

"A is A." And another quote from this ever so enjoyable book, "There are no contradictions. If you find one, check your premises." I may not agree with all of Ayn Rand's economics but her logical theories tend to provide me with explanations of my own, and I just kept finding more and more contradictions within Christianity and the religion's definitions/attributes of God. So I checked the premises. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the premise stipulating God's existence was incorrect.

Exrev wrote: "The only question I care about, is, IS christianity true or not? No extenistialism philosphical magic tricks..trying to say its subjective and subjectivey is reality...therefore anything could be true. Is it true objectively? That is the only thing I care about regarding religion. Regardless if some parts of our reality is subjective. To me all this boils down to this it if just subjectively true then there is not truth. If no truth then it really is pointless. And if there is no truth or subjectiveity is truth then Christianity is irrelevant, IT woudln't matter if jesus did raise from the dead or not. It wouldn't matter if Jesus said he was the truth... because truth is subjective. So if its all subjective then Christianity loses all its meaning."

I agree. If a god exists, there is an absolute objective truth as to that god's definition/attributes. The problem I see is a complete lack of any means to discover the attributes of that god. All the world's religions can't be right, and the way I see it there is an equally large probability that even if there is a god all of the world's religions could have the definition of that god wrong. From where I sit, this universe is moving along on its own just fine and has no need for a god, let alone an anonymous one.

[mitchellmckain]

Obviously, the "novelty" of Mitch's "Christian" beliefs is that I can't remember a time I have ever come across any Christian holding such relativistic and pluralistic ideals. Obviously, the "novelty" of Mitch's "Christian" beliefs is that I can't remember a time I have ever come across any Christian holding such relativistic and pluralistic ideals. On my route to deconversion I made a pit stop at pluralism but I didn't stay long because of the absolute nature of most religions' teachings. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me," I don't see any wiggle room for such pluralities.

Of course not. You were trained not to. But I have been thinking for myself all of my life. I certainly wasn't fed this line of bull that turned Chrisitanity into a form of Gnosticism where one is saved by believing the right things. Instead it was perfectly obvious to me that salvation by a work of belief was still saving yourself by your own works. And that changes everything.

No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. It is true. But Jesus is NOT a dogma you have to believe or a magic password that gives you an indulgence for sin or an excape from its consequences. Jesus is God born as an infant human to grow up among us. Of course no one comes to the Father except through Jesus -- the doctrine of the Trinity makes that a tautology. But since Jesus is not some leader of a human religion this doesn't represent any kind of exclusivity whatsoever. Since He is the only mediator between man and God, there is not religion on earth or organization of man that signifies.

In my experience, and in my studies I have found that the major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) hold basically singular claims to the afterlife. In that they claim that unless you believe and do as their books say, you aren't going to enjoy what is to come after death.

Of course they do. It is a constant of human nature that people twist and manipulate everything they touch to serve their own selfish interests and so all of these have tried to make God into their own personal tool of power. This motivation is so predictable it makes it rather easy to discern the truth from the lie.

The only question I care about, is, IS christianity true or not?

It is like an explanation of quantum physics to a first grade class. To those who know better, it does sound a lot like a fairy tale, but one can acknowledge that this is the best can be done in a language not suited for quantum physics and to an audience that just doesn't have mental tools to communicate the truth of this any better.

So yes it is true.... and yet the fairy tale really is a fairy tale. The truth isn't in the matters of fact that are just devices of communication but in truths that transcends any matters of fact. This is the implication of Matthew 13:10-15.

Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the premise stipulating God's existence was incorrect.

It is a lot like how many students handle their fustration with math by coming to the conclusion that math is just a waste of their time -- an easy solution indeed.

[Pseudonym]

AA/PK, welcome to the forum.

Obviously, the "novelty" of Mitch's "Christian" beliefs is that I can't remember a time I have ever come across any Christian holding such relativistic and pluralistic ideals. On my route to deconversion I made a pit stop at pluralism but I didn't stay long because of the absolute nature of most religions' teachings.

If you don't mind me saying, could this be that you've led a sheltered life? And, if I may ask, how many of "most religions" did you survey?

[AA/PK]

Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the premise stipulating God's existence was incorrect.

It is a lot like how many students handle their fustration with math by coming to the conclusion that math is just a waste of their time -- an easy solution indeed.

[/quote]

Mitch,

I will assure you that your assumption has lived up to its name, and that your condescension hasn't gone unnoticed. The simple audacity to assume that my coming to this conclusion was "easy," after 23 years of Christianity is laughable. It took years of reading, meditating, calculating, and pondering to come that conclusion. I don't believe math is a waste of time, and I don't believe that because my conclusion was different from your's that it was easy. You came up with an intellectual reason to believe in a religion you call Christianity, and just like you did, I studied and came up with an intellectual reason not to.

[AA/PK]

AA/PK, welcome to the forum.

Obviously, the "novelty" of Mitch's "Christian" beliefs is that I can't remember a time I have ever come across any Christian holding such relativistic and pluralistic ideals. On my route to deconversion I made a pit stop at pluralism but I didn't stay long because of the absolute nature of most religions' teachings.

If you don't mind me saying, could this be that you've led a sheltered life? And, if I may ask, how many of "most religions" did you survey?

A sheltered life because it is my experience that the vast majority of Christians I come in contact with don't hold pluralistic ideals? I mean where would the religions of the world get their power to convert if those that adhere to them didn't really believe they have it right? And while I never claimed expertise in other religions I surveyed enough to feel comfortable with my conclusion (if you feel there is some number needed to justify my position let's start with 7 keeping in mind that doesn't include denominations of a single religion). Admittedly, the depth of my surveys was limited by my conclusion that if a god exists how can we be sure of any definition of it?

[Exrev]

The only question I care about, is, IS Christianity true or not?

It is like an explanation of quantum physics to a first grade class. To those who know better, it does sound a lot like a fairy tale, but one can acknowledge that this is the best can be done in a language not suited for quantum physics and to an audience that just doesn't have mental tools to communicate the truth of this any better.

Yet we are not talking about quantum physics and the question is not that complex.

So yes it is true.... and yet the fairy tale really is a fairy tale. The truth isn't in the matters of fact that are just devices of communication but in truths that transcends any matters of fact. This is the implication of Matthew 13:10-15.

So yes its true and we know its true because....? Yes a fairy tale is a fair tale, so are you comparing Christianity as being true in the same scene that a fairy tale is truly a fairy tail?

Mathew 13 great chapter to pick, probably one of the most debated chapters of the bible.

Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the premise stipulating God's existence was incorrect.

It is a lot like how many students handle their frustration with math by coming to the conclusion that math is just a waste of their time -- an easy solution indeed.

Hmmm, I just see that statement as unnecessary and condescending. As though believing in God is hard or something. Still, this goes down to the fact Christians can't seem to get it through their head that its not about easy or hard, what i want, or what i want to do... its about what is most likely true. And being that beliefs affect the decisions that effect my life. I like to believe as many true things and as few false things about my world to help me make the best choices. (paraphrase from Matt D)
So that is what it is do you really care about truth, do you really care what you believe is true or not... or do you just want to believe what makes you feel good? I think that is what it comes down to.

[Exrev]

AA/PK, welcome to the forum.

Obviously, the "novelty" of Mitch's "Christian" beliefs is that I can't remember a time I have ever come across any Christian holding such relativistic and pluralistic ideals. On my route to deconversion I made a pit stop at pluralism but I didn't stay long because of the absolute nature of most religions' teachings.

If you don't mind me saying, could this be that you've led a sheltered life? And, if I may ask, how many of "most religions" did you survey?

A sheltered life because it is my experience that the vast majority of Christians I come in contact with don't hold pluralistic ideals? I mean where would the religions of the world get their power to convert if those that adhere to them didn't really believe they have it right? And while I never claimed expertise in other religions I surveyed enough to feel comfortable with my conclusion (if you feel there is some number needed to justify my position let's start with 7 keeping in mind that doesn't include denominations of a single religion). Admittedly, the depth of my surveys was limited by my conclusion that if a god exists how can we be sure of any definition of it?

I have an idea why this isn't given as much attention. Pluralistic Christians probably don't evangelize as the evangelicals/fundies do, maybe less likely to talk about their beliefs. From my experience it seems that even liberal pastors will preach more to the right to appease a moderate or conservative audiences. Yes it does seem that the church is more conservative than the clergy.
I have to say that I am impressed by the emergent movement. Which seems to view the world as postmodern. They see the older generations church stuck in modernist ways of thinking. They seem to be loosing conservative Christianity up. Even some of the Pentecostal are moving toward this movement (aka foursquare). So it will be interesting to see where this grass roots Christianity goes. I think we will be hearing from more moderate/liberal voices in the future.
However, I have to say Mitch is pretty unique and rare guy (I mean that as a compliment). I think Mitch has his theology very well thought out. He is getting me interested in studying extensialism. But Mitch does have a very unique take on Christianity. I have run into someone like Mitch before (he was philosophy major i believe.) I think the bible study group overwhelmed him as he never came back after that discussion. I wish he had, love to discuss things like that. I do think that Christianity is in a culture war, not only with secularist, but within itself.

[Emery]

What I wanted to ask you is a few comments made in the podcast led me to believe that you feel as though another religion may be viable for you down the road. Did I hear that, or understand that correctly?

Hi AA/PK. No, I don't see myself ever following a religion. Of course we each have our philosophies of life, and those could be called our 'religions' I guess. But other than that, no. Perhaps you felt that way because I like to presume that God exists, and ask "what if other religions were true" just for sake of discussion and illustration.

Welcome to the forum by the way, and thanks for tuning in!

[humanguy]

Mitch, I thought you did great. Look at you, you're a star! You started off a bit stiffly but you found your pace. Well done, sir.

My turn.

"1) Is it true that the difference between atheist and Christian can really be legitimately characterized as one between rational and irrational?"

No.

"2) Does the fact that religion has no value in your life necessarily mean that it has no positive value in the lives of others?"

No.

"3) In science we can separate the principles of science from any erroneous conclusions that scientists may have had at one time, so why can't we do the same for Christianity and seperate the ideals of Christianity from various irrational beliefs and behaviors that Christians may support at the moment or in the past?"

False comparison. Doesn't work. Come on, Mitch.

"4) What would happen if you approached Christianity looking for something of value in it rather than looking for excuses to condemn it?"

Now this, to me, is really the question. Why should I approach Christianity with an attitude of looking for anything of value? Why?

[Pseudonym]

A sheltered life because it is my experience that the vast majority of Christians I come in contact with don't hold pluralistic ideals?

I'm being over-dramatic, but yes. The key point here is that the Christians that you come into contact with is probably a biassed sample.

The same is true of myself, incidentally. The vast majority of Christians I know in real life don't believe in a literal hell, and are happy to tell you this if you ask them. It wasn't until I was an adult that I realised that this was a biassed sample.

I mean where would the religions of the world get their power to convert if those that adhere to them didn't really believe they have it right?

Believing that you "have it right" is not the same thing as believing that everyone else has it wrong, and it is also not the same thing as believing that you have everything that is right. Does that make sense?

Pluralistic Christians probably don't evangelize as the evangelicals/fundies do, maybe less likely to talk about their beliefs. From my experience it seems that even liberal pastors will preach more to the right to appease a moderate or conservative audiences.

I agree with the facts, but I disagree with the interpretation. Most experts will simplify ideas on which they have expertise when explaining those ideas to a lay audience. Theologians and clergy are no different.

Moreover, liberals tend to be pro-multiculturalism. Even though we believe that more moderate or conservative audiences are probably wrong about a bunch of stuff, we tend to leave them alone if we think they're not harming anyone.