I made a bloggers mistake last week – I stepped out of my blog niche, and started talking outside of the topic and purpose of Communicate Jesus.
When I wrote ‘Reflections on watching ABC1′s Q&A with Richard Dawkins‘, I made the mistake of critiquing the content of Dawkins’ argument. This was a mistake, not because I agree with Dawkins (nothing could be further from the truth), but because debating the existence of God, absolute v subjective morality, how the world came into being etc – are not subjects that I desire to discuss on this site. It’s not that I am uninterested in those topics – there’s just a limit to what can be discussed (we won’t be discussing the Premier League either, just to make that clear also!).
For this reason and a couple of others, I concluded that online religious debate isn’t a good idea.
This was met with a varied response. Some accused me of running from debate. Some thought if I start the debate I should stick around to finish it (it would be a 24/7 pursuit to answer all the comments that came in). Others thought I should set the example for how Christians should debate these topics online.
This prompted me to think further about the benefits of online religious debate, and, aided by debate stirred up by Dawkins and Deveny in recent weeks, I’ve read a lot of articles with a goal to observe the type of debate that takes place.
This behavioral observation hasn’t just been a recent endeavour either. I’ve engaged with atheists online several times in the past 6 months – on Twitter, on this website and on others.
My conclusion this week is even more definite than it was last week – I cannot see any benefit to debating with atheists, about religion, online. Primarily, this is because of the attitude of many of the atheists whose opinions I read. Take for example, three letters in the Sydney Morning Herald today:
“When reasoned debate is confronted by unreasonable faith, it is hardly surprising that the standard of the discussion is lowered. But to blame the reasoned debater for that outcome is surely unfair.”
“Let’s put Richard Dawkins’s comment about Steve Fielding in perspective. Dawkins had just sat next to a man – a senator, no less – who weakly and ineloquently confirmed on national television his belief that the earth is about 6000 years old. The real issue here is how anyone espousing such a belief and all that comes with it, particularly someone who makes decisions affecting all of us, escapes with a mere name-calling.”
“Neil Ormerod says ridicule does not pass for reasoned argument when it comes to considering candidates for sainthood, yet considers a reasoned argument to be: ”If medicine can’t yet account for it, it must have been God.” Ridicule is exactly what he should expect.”
The general attitude of atheists towards Christians seems to be “We don’t have to be polite because you’re stupid”. And it’s no surprise that atheists have this attitude when they have a role model like Richard Dawkins. Speaking of former British Prime Minister (and recent Catholic convert), Tony Blair, Dawkins says “I’d like to think we didn’t have a complete idiot for Prime Minister”. As Melanie Phillips contends:
“Indeed, he [Dawkins] seems almost to believe that, since everyone who believes in God is stupid or evil and Christians are stupid and evil because they believe in God, those who oppose him must be Christian and can be treated with contempt.”
My question is this – how can you debate someone who thinks you’re an idiot and that anything you say is utter stupidity? That’s no platform for any meaningful discussion, and yet this is the attitude of many of those atheists I see in debates online.
Of course, not all atheists are like this. But the vast majority of those I have engaged with are angry, rude and dismissive. I can’t see a way of engaging online that doesn’t throw more fuel on the fire, let alone advance the discussion.
I’m writing this post because I want us, as Christians, to carefully consider how we use our time, and how we use technology, and particularly the internet (in this case) to bring glory to God. We need to think very carefully about engaging in these debates online, and it would take a lot of convincing to get me back into the arena.
There are great opportunities for offline debate. For example, John Lennox is compelling when he debates Dawkins in ‘The God Delusion Debate‘ (and I’ve asked the ABC to invite him onto the panel of Q&A when he arrives later this month). Not to mention conversations in person, between believers and non-believers.
I think there’s also opportunity for great discussions between Christians and agnostics, and people from other religions. I even think there is opportunity to have discussions with atheists who aren’t out of the Dawkins/Deveny mold.
But for those who seek only to mock, scoff, deride and ridicule, I think we need to speak less, and instead, take seriously the whole-of-life approach encouraged by Peter in 1 Peter 2:12 -
“Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.”
Do you agree with me? Why or why not?
Update (14 April 2010)
(Feature image attribution: Magnolia Red)
