My (not so) great debate

A recent debate of mine was not a good example of how something of this sort should be conducted.

James Kunz of Modern Day Debate invited me recently to an online back-and-forth with Mike Jones of Inspiring Philosophy on the topic: “Christianity or Secular Humanism, which is best for society?” It turned out to be a lively discussion, but as debates go, it was way out of whack.

Mike went first. He was meticulously prepared, and quite articulate. His presentation software was professional, and his ideas were intriguing. He is a smart guy, and apparently intensely motivated.

But I could tell from the first 30 seconds that something was very wrong. I had prepared for a “Christianity or Secular Humanism” debate (as the host had indicated) while Mike had apparently prepared for a “Christianity or Secularism” debate. Those are not the same. I don’t remember Mike mentioning humanism once during his opening statement.

I had prepared for a philosophical discussion — his podcast is called “Inspiring Philosophy,” after all — while he prepared for a sociological discussion. If I had known that was the direction the debate was supposed to go, I would have quite certainly prepared differently. I might have brought in the work of sociologists like Ryan Cragun, Isabella Kasselstrand, Phil Zuckerman and others, including Christian sociologists such as George Barna and Ryan Burge, who honestly report on the studies.

I appealed to James, the host and moderator, to clarify what our topic was. He confirmed it was “Christianity or Secular Humanism, which is best for society?” Mike apparently misunderstood (or ignored) the topic and pressed ahead with his own agenda.

Mike’s thesis is worthy of debate. In fact, he told us that he had debated sociologist Phil Zuckerman using basically the same slides he used with me.

However, I tried to point out that secularism is not equal to Secular Humanism. Many Christians call themselves humanists, and some secular societies have not been humanistic. Nobody would call Stalin a humanist.

I detected a look of chagrin — or perhaps confusion — on Mike’s face when I tried to bring the debate back to the topic. He must have thought I was off-topic, trying to derail the discussion he was trying to control. But who gave him permission to control the conversation in the first place?

At the end of the day, we both failed. I was not as prepared as I could have been (had I known) to rebut his points, and he was not as prepared as he might have been to rebut some of my moral criticisms of the bible. He completely misread, for example, the stories of Jephthah and Phinehas, and glossed over Paul’s admonition that slaves should obey their masters. Mike seemed to think that bible criticism was off-topic, but how could it be? Our topic involved “Christianity,” which is nothing without the bible.

Even if Christianity were better for society, that would not make it true. Some dictators have been “good” for some societies, but that does not mean we should celebrate dictatorship. Although most Christians today have embraced humanistic values, the Christianity of the bible is authoritarian, non-humanistic and undemocratic. I complimented Mike by telling him he is nicer than God and smarter than Jesus — as are most good Christians.

Besides disagreeing — this was a debate, after all — I took umbrage at something Mike said. He claimed it followed from his argument that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is harming society, and that I should stop doing what I am doing. Really? Should we stop working to protect the constitutional principle of state/church separation and religious freedom in the First Amendment? Should we not be suing the states of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas when they pass laws to force students in every classroom to read the religious mandates of one religion, mandates that contradict the First Amendment? Not all students are Christian — about 44 percent today have no religious affiliation — and not even all Christian families think it is right for the government to force religious instruction on everyone. FFRF is often joined by Christians, Jews and other believers who support our work. They know that a secular government is good for both religion and nonreligion. When religion and government mix, they both get dirty. How would it be good for society to lose the separation between religion and government?

Other than that, I liked Mike because I like smart people. Even if I disagree with them, I admire people who care about creating a world with less violence and more understanding.