Why I’ve decided online religious debate is a bad idea

I’ve spent some time reflecting on the debate that has taken place following my reflections on Monday’s Q&A debate.

First of all, I didn’t write this post with the intention of converting atheists (I can hear the atheists saying – “well in that case you were very successful!”). This audience for Communicate Jesus is primarily Christians, although atheists (and those of any other faith – don’t take the bait!) are welcome here any time.

Secondly, I’d like to thank all who participated in this debate for doing it in good spirits, without resulting to death threats, foul language and a general hatred for the other. I’ve seen some ugly debates where neither atheists or Christians have acted in a way that would make either atheism or Christianity seem an attractive option for someone looking in on the conversation. Thanks for keeping the debate in good spirits.

However (and thirdly), I’m far from convinced of the value of having these discussions online. There’s a couple of reasons for this -

  • The participants have different amounts of time, allowing some to write long responses, others to write shorter responses. The problem comes when the person who wrote the longer response thinks k that the person who wrote the shorter is avoiding the questions! You don’t get to you talk, I listen, I talk you listen conversational style that is necessary for these types of conversations.
  • It’s easy to forget that we are all people, and it’s easy to slip into treating one another in a way that we certainly wouldn’t do face to face.
  • So much of our communication is non-verbal, and for a topic that is so personal, a conversation that is missing so many of these non-verbal cues (tone, facial expression, etc) is prone to misunderstanding and potentially, hurting those who read. No one wants that.

Fourthly, I’m yet to see much value in these debates. The points raised are never new, the arguments are circular and they never go anywhere. They’re also of interest to a very limited pool of people.

In short, my conclusion is that the nature of the medium makes these conversations nigh on impossible, and highly unfruitful. So I’ve decided not to publish any more atheist/Christian-related comments on that post.

Amidst a lot of debate about morality, evolution, other religions, objective and subjective truth, the age of the earth, how God acts in the Old Testament and more, I’d like you to know this one thing: meeting Jesus changed my life.

As I read about Jesus in the Bible I see a man who is like no other. I see a man with authority over all creation – wind, waves, demons, disease, death – none are a match for Jesus. I see a man who treats all people as they should be treated. I see a man who rebukes the proud, but has compassion on the people who are meek, weak and down-trodden. I see a man who practices what he preaches. I see a man who explains how we ought to relate to God and each other. A man who explains that love is about getting your hands dirty. I see a man whose teaching amazed the crowds, but infuriated the religious leaders. I see a man who said “I have come that you may have life, and have it to the full”. And for all his perfect living and teaching, he was nailed to a cross to suffer the most agonizing death humans could concoct.

And three days later, he rose again.

And the Bible tells me that Jesus wasn’t just any man. Jesus was the son of God. It’s the only conclusion I can come to when I examine his life. And the Bible tells me that this life, death and resurrection were God’s means of providing forgiveness for me, and for you, and for anyone else who will believe it to be true. And boy, do I need forgiveness. I haven’t acknowledge God as God. I haven’t lived rightly under his rule. I haven’t given him the glory he deserves. I haven’t loved others as I’ve loved myself. I know me better than anyone else, and I can tell you – I’m deserving of God’s wrath.

But God doesn’t treat me as I deserve. He is merciful and shows me grace. He sent his son to die in my place. God raised his son from the dead to prove that I too will rise up from the dead – death shall not be the end.

This may sound like a foolish message to you. Richard Dawkins thinks it’s foolish that God would send his son to die on a cross for the sins of the world  – but the truth is, this foolish message is my salvation and gives me unspeakable joy.

This message can be your joy and salvation too.

(Title image attribution: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thehappyrobot/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

  • James Mason

    Well one way to win a debate, I see, is to shut down the debate and have the final word by posting a personal testimony about how Jesus changed your life!

    Take care ;-)

  • James Mason

    Could you do me one favour, though, and attempt an answer to the final question I posed…

    If there can be no meaning to our lives without God, then what do you suppose is God’s own purpose?

  • http://macintoshhowto.com Wayne

    Steve I’m not sure I agree with any of your 4 points!

    1. This occurs in any debate. Even in face-to-face debate we have two people with different intellectual and persuasive abilities and so a debate is never on equal footing. The aim of any debate is not to totally interact with someone else’s point of view or answer all of their questions. All you need to do to move the debate forward is answer one of their questions well, or ask them a question.

    2. This can happen face-to-face, the onus on us as Christians is to be gentle as we debate, online or off. Plus you can moderate comments if you find them too heated.

    3. I find that surprising coming from a proponent of social media and someone who writes a blog! It does mean we have to be more careful about what we say, and I agree it would be preferable to talk face-to-face, but I think any medium is a good medium to discuss these issues.

    4. I guess a way round this might be to make your initial blog about one particular aspect of the discussion and ask people to limit their comments to that issue, and moderate anything that’s off topic. I think what you want to avoid are the Christians or atheists who feel that it is their role to download as much information as they can on their worldview into a topic of discussion.

    Secondly, have a closer look at the debate that followed your last post. Your post was a series of ‘reflections’ on the qanda debate. Most of the initial comments that followed were also reflections upon the debate. That was, until the point where you engaged James on a debate on morality. “Hi James, thanks for joining the conversation. If we take God out of the picture, on what grounds do we establish morality?”

    A better response might have been, ‘ yes I agree sometimes Christians cherry-pick parts of the Bible’, was there anything else that stood out to you from the debate? Or perhaps an even a better response would be to let Jason’s first comment go through to the keeper and interact with his second one which was more in line with your blog post – it was about Stephen Fielding avoiding the question of the young earth. Maybe you could have said, what impression does give the people we are debating when we avoid their questions, and what other questions were avoided in the debate? (Dawkins ducked a few as did the others!)

    I think the lesson to be learned is to keep the debate on topic, or else it’ll end up on that same debate that is going on on every other forum!

    If I were you, as moderator ( which gives you the right to do this) I would go and delete every comment that is a general Christian versus atheist comment, put a little comment that it might be best to keep the discussion purely to people’s reflections on the debate itself, that if people want to discuss Christian morality there are probably better forums to do that elsewhere, and then let the debate on your site continue. I think the topic of your discussion should be ‘ what can we learn about communicating Jesus from this QandA debate?’

  • Steven Kryger

    Hi Wayne, you’ve got me thinking! I’m pondering what you’ve said, and will respond (when I’m not at work!).

    In the meantime, I’d welcome the thoughts of others. The internet provides some interesting opportunities for debate – how should this be facilitated?

  • Luke Stevens

    Yeah I have to say it’s a bit discouraging when you’re in the middle of what seems like (?) a productive discussion and it’s shut down and used as an example of discussions without any value.

    As Wayne has said, I think your objections would apply to almost any debate — it’s a messy business! I’m not sure what kind of debate you are expecting?

    I think being able to participate in online discussions is one of the best things about the internet. Sure, there’s a lot of rubbish out there, but being able to have meaningful back and forth with someone of a very different view is an excellent opportunity that I don’t think is possible in any other context I can think of.

    I think the point is participation though — iron sharpens iron and all that. Having to articulate and defend our views is what makes us smarter and better equipped to do it in offline contexts, too. I’ve learnt so much about what other people think, how they think, what I think, and how I can best express my own views in a logical, reasonable way by engaging in online discussion over the years. It’s an incredible opportunity, and sure it’s messy sometimes, but given the choice of having some debate vs no debate because it’s not ideal, I’ll take something over nothing every time. Otherwise we’re going to be waiting a long, long time for the perfect opportunity!

    I think having to manually approve every comment can be a real pain (for you) though. I can understand for spam purposes, but having the option to approve someone once and then let them comment freely (or sign in with Twitter/Facebook) would save a lot of hassle. Add a report abuse function and you’re all set. If a few people want to have a lengthy discussion, assuming it doesn’t get too heated, I don’t see the harm? It’s not like we’re going to run out of bytes :)

  • Luke Stevens

    Let me try another analogy: so much of Christian life is spent on the training park, and so little of it is spent out In the game in a real match, to me it seems like we get discouraged when game day comes and it’s not what we expect. We then go back training, training, training… but for what? At the end of the day we’ve either got to be in the game or not, and to use a well worn sporting cliche, it’s ‘match fitness’ that really matters. That match fitness only comes from diving in and participating, and (imo) in moderation it’s invaluable.

  • James Mason

    Hi, me again!

    This forum is not a particularly good one for “debate”…

    1. Comments awaiting moderation slows things down too much, and the conversation gets out of sync, with new
    2. There is no quote feature.
    3. Nor is there (as far as I’m aware) the ability to provide links to external sources, or embed images or other icons within the posts, or format text in any way to make meaning clearer.

    If you want to sharpen your debating skills, Luke, I suggest you try a forum such as Rational Skepticism (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/). There are plenty of brilliant minds there, and a few theists as well (ha ha – a joke, ok?) Actually, they’d welcome a theist to lock horns with, and the whole site is moderated to prevent things such as personal attacks, which keeps the debate nice and civil, without descending into a slagging match.

    Also, the posts are instant, not being subject to moderation before publishing.

    Hope to see you there! (But be on your guard – those guys have heard and destroyed every theistic “argument” under the Sun!) I’d love to see if you could bring something new to the table.

    Ciao!

  • http://macintoshhowto.com Wayne

    I think I agree with James. I might try it out. I reckon go there to continue the content of Dawkins debate, here you can talk about the method of communication.

    On that note, to me, Dawkins was the most persuasive on the panel even though I disagree with a lot of what he said, and the reason is because he knew his opponents position and was able to easily undermine them and make them look like absolute idiots. They on the other hand had poor answers for his arguments (apart from the agriculture guy) and looked foolish as they floundered about for what to say. I think it’s a good lesson about being prepared to give an answer for the belief system you hold to.

  • http://arthurandtamie.wordpress.com Arthur

    Hi all

    I’m always up for a friendly online discussion about beliefs, but I try to make it ‘personal’ contact as far as possible — so I stick to my blog and to Facebook. In both cases I’ve been part of some high-quality, friendly conversations where people have listened to one another and learnt a few new things. Like Luke, a number of these conversations over the years have significantly changed what I communicate about and the manner in which I do so.

    In the case of my blog, my wife and I have found that we can set a pretty high bar for discussion by the way we write for and then respond to our readers.

    The most helpful thing I’ve found is not to rehearse arguments but to focus on why we believe what we believe.

    James, I tend to steer clear of massive online conglomerates, which I figure are most useful just for connecting like-minded people. Otherwise they tend to be far too time-consuming — there’s so much to wade through, and so many denizens to keep track of! +_____+

    Always happy to thrash ideas out with you, James! :)

    Cheers

  • http://arthurandtamie.wordpress.com Arthur

    By the way –Tim Keller reckons:

    After several years of reading blogs I conclude that these sharp exchanges between people with different points of view almost always generate far, far more heat than light. Blogs seem to best for helping like-minded people to share information and to mildly revise one another’s thinking. Alan Jacobs (in an article on weblogs in May/June 2006 Books and Culture) said that blogs are ‘the friend of information, but the enemy of thought.’ I absolutely love blogs for getting news and opinion of all kinds, but the ‘dialogues’ are generally unhelpful. I’m sure everyone can point to one or two exceptions.

  • ray

    well said Arthur. I also think it is difficult to discuss this issue with people who have such vast differences in their world view. For what its worth, I believe that people generally inherit their views on this issue from their families and rarely change them. I’m sure in a thousand years there will be atheists and religious people debating similar points.

  • http://st-eutychus.com/2010/eight-things-ive-learned-from-arguing-with-atheists-online-and-why-i-mostly-cant-be-bothered-anymore/ Eight things I’ve learned from arguing with atheists online and why I (mostly) can’t be bothered anymore » St. Eutychus

    [...] Why I’ve decided online religious debate is a bad idea [...]