The room was overflowing with people. Many of the panelists invited their friends, so we had a very mixed audience. One panelist, Jennifer, was part of the Passion for Christ Movement, so we had several audience members wearing their distinctive T-shirts with words like “EX-Hypocrite” and “EX-PornAddict”. Someone from the Passion for Christ Movement was also kind enough to videotape some of the discussion. I will let you know if these videos are made available online.

The following is not a transcript. I simply took detailed notes of the discussion. Nothing is quoted, everything is paraphrased. I try to be fair and accurate, but I apologize in advance for any important omissions or errors.  No attempt has been made to verify the various claims which were made.

Introductions

The first introduction was by Shoshana, a conservative Jew. She explained that Judaism is primarily based on the Old Testament and the Talmud. The Talmud consists of two parts: Mishna, the oral laws, and Gemara, which is basically commentary. There is a range of different positions in Judaism, going from orthodox, to conservative, to liberal. She is part of the smallest group in the middle, the conservatives.

The second introduction was by Ben, a deist. Deists are monotheistic, but they believe the Bible is a metaphor. They don’t believe in miracles or in the divinity of Jesus. They believe in using reason to justify faith. It is more a philosophical position than a religious one. Ben listed a few Deists including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, and possibly Benjamin Franklin. Deism originated in Europe, and declined around the time of the French Revolution, but there has been a resurgence in the last decade or so.

Leilani offered her own brief introduction by explaining the historical meaning of “infidel”. Infidel means to cover, as in covering the ears or eyes. The word was not originally intended as an insult, as it is often used now, but as guidance or a warning.

Opening questions

The first question was posed to the Christians, Tim and Jennifer. Why base your theology on an interpretation of Paul? That is, why is the resurrection necessary for forgiveness? Jennifer began by noting that nothing is wrong with interpretation. The crucifixion is based on facts. For example, the Roman historian Tacitus described Christ and Christian beliefs. The Talmud, too, mentions Yeshua, and the historian Thallus mentions a darkness at the time of Christ’s death. Tim discussed God’s justice. According to Tim, if you live under Sharia law, stealing is punished by cutting off the thief’s hand. This is a just punishment, because you are under Sharia law. Likewise, we are part of God’s system, so God’s justice must be just. Under God’s justice, God used an innocent man to forgive everyone’s sins.

The second question was posed to the atheists, Andrew and Daniel. What is the purpose of life? Andrew said that there is no inherent purpose. He assigns the meaning and purpose himself. He would like to have a life which is sustainable and enjoyable. Although the freedom to assign one’s own meaning can be scary, he feels more peaceful and content to rely on his own values. He is free to make himself a better person. Rather than being a pawn, he is actively responsible for changing the world. Daniel said that this made him feel more empowered, though Andrew disagreed on this point.

The third question was posed to the Muslims, Nader and Naqib. How do you weigh the evidences for different gods? After opening with a prayer, Nader explained that our purpose is to worship the greater. If we study past societies, we find that they always have a higher figure, though they often have different characteristics. To understand the details of this higher figure, it is best to ask God himself. Nader then pointed to the Koran as a book without contradictions, and some scientifically confirmable facts. The Koran refers to male and female parts of plants before people would have known it was true. It refers to the earth as egg-shaped (the kind of egg in question is a spheroid). The Koran is only a book of guidance, an instruction manual for life, but these things confirm it. While other texts have made predictions, only the Koran is perfect. The Koran says that Allah is absolute one, has no beginning or end, and has no family. Jesus clearly doesn’t fit this description. Nader said that the creation will not have evidence of the creator. Naqib added that intuition of God is not sufficient. That’s why we need the prophets.

The Muslims were also asked what they thought of the story of Abraham (summary: God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, but stops him at the last moment). They described the story as a test of faith.

More prepared questions

Each of the next four questions was asked of all three groups. Each group was allowed about 20 minutes total to answer all the prepared questions (including the ones above). If some answers are longer or shorter than others, that means that the group allotted more or less time to that question (or I took worse notes).

Prior to these questions, Jennifer took a moment to explain the “EX-Hypocrite” T-shirt she was wearing. She said that labeling oneself a Christian does not make oneself a Christian. At an earlier point in her life, she may have thought of herself as Christian, but she wasn’t. She went on to say that she thinks there is clearly design in the universe. And she referred to the Job verse 37:18 which says that God “spread out the sky”, in agreement with current cosmological science.

What books and authors do you recommend? Jennifer recommended C. S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. She mentioned C.S. Lewis’ Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument. Daniel first recommended the Bible, followed by authors Carl Sagan and Dan Barker. He liked Dan Barker’s harm principle and Carl Sagan’s logic and reason. Naqib first recommended the Torah, Psalms, the Gospel, and the Koran. His final recommendation was a book called Muhammed: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, by Martin Lings.

What led you to your beliefs? Tim said that he was a missionary child. However, he remarked that Christianity is set apart from other religions in that everyone has freedom to choose Christianity. And so he freely chose Christianity rather than just being brought up into it. Andrew explained that he came from a Christian family. When his family stopped going to church, he continued going with friends, but he eventually stopped. The concept of hell was one of the sticking points for him. So he explored many other religions (mentioning Alan Watts and Zen Buddhism), eventually deciding that the scientific is what’s most reliable. Nader explained that he is a Muslim because he wants to be. He explored other religions. He read the Koran and other books, and found the Koran to be the best.

What do you believe happens after death? Jennifer said that we have all sinned, and we are enslaved by sin. As sinners, we will experience hell after death, which is a separation from God. Daniel said that nothing happens after death. That’s why he must try to enjoy this life. He would like to help you enjoy your life too. Naqib said that when you die, you will be asked three questions: Who is God? Who is the prophet? What is your religion?

Do you try to convert other people? Tim explained that no one can be saved without Christ. So he’d have to be a monster not to try to help people. Andrew said that he wants everyone to have the freedom to choose. He wants the ideas to become well-known so that people can choose. Some atheists try to smash belief, but this isn’t very common. No one wants to force people to give up religion. However, he wants to counteract some of the negative forces from other religions. He commented that in the story of Abraham, the first question that should be asked is “Am I being deceived?” He noted that when the Jim Jones cult committed mass suicide, no angel came in to save them, as they saved Abraham’s son. We need to be more independent-minded. Nader said that Mohammed was the last prophet, and that we should share the message. But he does not convert, he only invites people to investigate. Nader also commented that Jim Jones was an atheist and communist, and was not guided by an angel.

Q&A session

The following questions were submitted by audience members.

To the Christians: What middle ground can you find with the atheists? Jennifer related an anecdote of a computer science guy to whom physics proved God. She agrees with the atheists that there is a lot of mystery in the universe to be satisfied by.

To the atheists: Could you comment on the statistics which show that atheists donate less to charities, and have higher rates of depression? Daniel thought that the relationship between atheism and depression might be going in the other direction. Depression can lead to questioning, among other things, God. He also said that there are very few explicitly atheist aid missions, and atheists often donate to religious charities too.

To the Muslims: Is it true that the Koran says that Jesus was not crucified? Naqib explained that the Koran is ambiguous about this. The Koran talks a lot about what did not happen, but does not say much about what did happen. There is a lot of controversy between traditions on Jesus. But Islamic tradition usually emphasizes the life of Jesus rather than the death.

To the Christians: Do you believe in the Rapture or the endtimes? Tim said he does not believe in the rapture, which was an idea developed in the middle ages. However, tribulations will occur. Jesus will return. Tim believes that we are in the endtimes, and that it has been the endtimes since the crucifixion.

To the atheists: Hitler destroyed millions of lives. How is this wrong? Daniel said that we decide it is wrong. We decide that destroying innocent lives is wrong.

To the Muslims: Do you believe in the endtimes? Nader said Mohammed left minor signs of the endtimes, but no one but God knows when it will occur. Since people only have free will up to their death, we can say that in a way, judgment starts at death.

When: Wednesday, April 29
Time: 7:00PM
Where: Humanities A51

We will be having a debate between Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and John Shook of the Center for Inquiry on whether Christianity or Secular Humanism is ethically superior.

Mr. Matt Slick
Mr. Matt Slick earned a Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary and is now the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM).

Dr. John Shook
Dr. John Shook is a professor of philosophy from the University of Buffalo, and a Vice President and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Inquiry Transnational (CFI).

Last Thursday, I attended the debate, “Away With All Gods! Possibility or Fantasy?” which was put on by UCLA’s Center for the Study of Religion.  The guest speaker, Sunsara Taylor, is a writer for the Revolution Newspaper, and sits on the advisory board of The World Can’t Wait (yes, that means she is a Communist, not to poison any wells).  She is on a speaking tour for Away With All Gods!, a book by Bob Avakian, the chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.  You can watch a sample of her talk, or watch her appearance on The O’Reilly Factor.  The respondent, Scott Bartchy, is the director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Religion.  I’ve previously had Bartchy as professor of History of Religion, and I can vouch that he’s a great speaker and intellectual.

Sunsara wished to convey three central points: that all religion is harmful, that religion wrongly takes human nature to be flawed, and that there is a much deeper basis for morality than religion.  To argue that religion was harmful, she had a variety of examples of modern violence that has been approved by religion.  She also argues that the Bible is not simply factually wrong, but morally wrong, even in the New Testament.  She is very eloquent, however, I thought she overused examples to the detriment of her point.  Bringing up lots of extreme examples does little to show that all religion is as bad as that.  I felt this played directly into Bartchy’s stance, which was that there is good religion, and bad religion.

Bartchy agreed that there is plenty of bad religion out there, but said that many of Sunsara’s and Avakian’s scriptural interpretations had factual errors.  He argued, in fact, that Jesus’ message had many socialist aspects.  Marx himself was inspired by some passages in the Bible.  Bartchy said that religions are founded on the power of myth.  Just as the Abrahamic religions use the myth of history, with a god that closely follows his people, Marxism is uses the myth of the class struggle and revolution.  He also drew parallels between Christians’ picking and choosing from the Bible with Sunsara’s picking and choosing from the history of Communism.  When Sunsara said that some things in Communist societies were good, some bad, Bartchy immediately compared it to his own point about good and bad religion.

These were some other intriguing moments from the debate.

• Bartchy played the “Stalin” card.  Normally, I would groan at this cliche, but I think it is a fair point against Communism.  Sunsara’s response?  She played the apologist for Stalin, saying many historical facts have been wrong or exaggerated.  As I tried to tell one of the Communists afterwards, I think it would have been more effective to simply admit that of course Stalin didn’t get everything right.
• An audience member asked Sunsara where morals come from.  One of Sunsara’s main points was that there is a more profound basis for morality than religion, but I don’t think she ever effectively supported that point.  She said that only through examining reality, can we know what steps to take to reach our goals.  But instead of explaining where those goals come from, she went off on long tangents as if she had misunderstood, or was avoiding the question.
• Another audience member asked how Bartchy could pick and choose from something that is divine.  Bartchy responded that everyone picks and chooses; it is neither unusual or bad.
• After the debate, we were going to ask Bartchy a question, but a woman cut in front of us.  I didn’t catch the whole thing, but I heard her say, “So you don’t really believe in God”.  Bartchy insisted that she didn’t know that.  But she kept on saying “He doesn’t really believe in God”, walking away satisfied.  Talk about presumptious.  Asking someone their personal views and then disbelieving their answer is not a move I would recommend.

Ground Rules for Polemicists
by Donald Lazere

(excerpts–with parts that seem especially useful in bold-face)

[Donald Lazere's "ground rules" were directed originally to scholarly writers engaged in heated debate with professional adversaries. I've found them to be helpful for anyone engaged in political dialogue with allies or adversaries. Adapt to your own uses as writers seeking to acknowledge your worthy opponents.]

1. …Apply the same standards to yourself and your allies that you do to your opponents, in all of the following ways.
2. Identify your own ideological viewpoint and how it might bias your arguments. Having done so, show that you approach opponents’ actions and writing with an open mind, not with malice aforethought. Concede the other side’s valid arguments–preferably toward the beginning of your critique, not tacked on grudgingly at the end or in inconspicuous subordinate clauses.
3. Summarize the other side’s case, fully and fairly, in an account they would accept, prior to refuting it. Present it through its most reputable spokespeople and strongest formulations (not through the most outlandish statements of its lunatic fringe), using direct quotes and footnoted sources, not your own undocumented paraphrases. Allow the most generous interpretation of their statements rather than putting the worst light on them; help them make their arguments stronger when possible.
4. When quoting selected phrases from the other side’s texts, accurately summarize the context and tone of the longer passages and full texts in which they appear.
5. When you are repeating a second-hand account of events, say so–do not leave the implication that you were there and are certain of its accuracy. Cite your source and take account of its author’s possible biases, especially if the author is your ally.
6. In any account that you use to illustrate the opponents’ misbehavior, grant that there may be another side to the story and take pains to find out what it is. If opponents claim they have been misrepresented, give them their say and benefit of the doubt.
7. Be willing to acknowledge misconduct, errors, and fallacious arguments by your own allies, and try scrupulously to establish an accurate proportion of sense and reciprocity between them and those you criticize in your opponents. Do no play up the other side’s forms of power while denying or downplaying your own side’s.
8. Respond forthrightly to opponents’ criticisms of your own or your side’s previous arguments, without evading key points. Admit it when they make criticisms you cannot refute.
9. Do not substitute derision for reasoned argument and substantive evidence.
   

Donald Lazere, “Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of Lynne Cheney’s Truths” (College English 59.6: 661-2)

We are pleased to announce that we are co-sponsoring, with Truthdig, a debate this month between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges, moderated by Robert Scheer. The event will take place at Royce Hall on Tuesday, May 22, starting at 8 pm.

The description of the event from Truthdig:

At a time of virulent religious fanaticism extending from Afghanistan to Washington, D.C., Truthdig presents two of the most courageous writers confronting this descent into modern irrationality. A nonbeliever and a believer—one who sees religion as a scourge and one who argues that the loss of the spiritual has plunged our society into violence and extremism—they have both written passionately and profoundly about this subject and will share their thoughts in what promises to be a fascinating evening of debate and dialogue.

The debate will be followed by a book-signing.

Unfortunately, you must pay for tickets to the debate (starting at $15), but the event is a fund-raiser for Truthdig, after all. Probably the easiest place for students to obtain tickets is from the Central Ticket Office near Pauley Pavilion.

Event Information

Religion and Politics: The End of the World? A Truthdig Debate
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
8 p.m.
Royce Hall, UCLA

Parking instructions: Enter Royce Drive off Sunset Boulevard.
View the parking map

Tickets

Limited Gold Circle: $35
Preferred: $20
Standard: $15

Tickets available at Royce Hall (Campus Ticket Office) or Ticketmaster.

CTO ticket orders and information: (310) 825-2101
(Mon-Fri 10 a.m.-4 p.m., Sat-Sun 10 a.m.-2 p.m.)

Ticketmaster ticket orders: (213) 365-3500
Ticketmaster website: www.ticketmaster.com

Check out the event main page for more details: www.truthdig.com/debate

Feel free to post any thoughts about the event in general or the content of the debate here.