What do you think?
Rate this book
Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer
This book is a Socratic dialogue between a Christian proselytizer and a skeptic. The skeptic gets the proselytizer to spell out all the reasons he rejects non-Christian religions, and the discussion then turns to examining Christianity by the same light.
294 pages, Paperback
First published December 7, 2006
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 21, 2008
If you are interested in religion, this is an important work. The book is comprised of a dialog between Scott (the skeptic) and Chris (the fundamentalist Christian) which takes us on a fascinating banter between the two on the origins of everything (first cause questions), the scriptures (both Christian and non-Christian), and faith. Ultimately, the big question presented is "how do we distinguish The One religion from God from among the many created by man"?
For those without a religious background, Chris' perspective will educate you on the workings of the religious view on issues of ultimate truth. For religious people, Scott may provide some perspective on the secular position on morality without faith and the secularists confusion when confronted with the competing tenets of a range of religions all claiming to be true. Either way, both sides will be forced to evaluate these issues from each others perspectives - perhaps leading to much more constructive dialog.
One example of their dialog covers the issue of why religions often address the same ground and why there are sacred rules that are similar from religion to religion. For example, we commonly attribute the "do unto thy neighbor" ethical precept to Jesus, yet the sacred texts of other religions long preceding Christianity teach us the same tenet (Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism). Sacred texts also commonly address hierarchies of people, slavery, women, and homosexuality. Why is that? Chris and Scott discuss these issues and many more.
I especially found fascinating the endnote discussions on a diverse range of topics, such as Western vs. Eastern notions of religion, the roots of morality (did you know that apes display advanced notions of what we consider "ethics" such as empathy, altruism, conflict resolution, and notions of fairness)? Other topics include the Trinity, salvation on deeds vs. faith, Hellenistic Greek influences on Christianity, and the broad sweeping archetypal notions common between ancient and contemporary religious and non-religious heroes (hint: humanity likes its heroes to have non-sexual origins).
Very well written and thought provoking. Highly recommended!
For those without a religious background, Chris' perspective will educate you on the workings of the religious view on issues of ultimate truth. For religious people, Scott may provide some perspective on the secular position on morality without faith and the secularists confusion when confronted with the competing tenets of a range of religions all claiming to be true. Either way, both sides will be forced to evaluate these issues from each others perspectives - perhaps leading to much more constructive dialog.
One example of their dialog covers the issue of why religions often address the same ground and why there are sacred rules that are similar from religion to religion. For example, we commonly attribute the "do unto thy neighbor" ethical precept to Jesus, yet the sacred texts of other religions long preceding Christianity teach us the same tenet (Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism). Sacred texts also commonly address hierarchies of people, slavery, women, and homosexuality. Why is that? Chris and Scott discuss these issues and many more.
I especially found fascinating the endnote discussions on a diverse range of topics, such as Western vs. Eastern notions of religion, the roots of morality (did you know that apes display advanced notions of what we consider "ethics" such as empathy, altruism, conflict resolution, and notions of fairness)? Other topics include the Trinity, salvation on deeds vs. faith, Hellenistic Greek influences on Christianity, and the broad sweeping archetypal notions common between ancient and contemporary religious and non-religious heroes (hint: humanity likes its heroes to have non-sexual origins).
Very well written and thought provoking. Highly recommended!
July 29, 2019
Applying the Socratic method
Todd Allen Gates uses the Socratic method here in an attempt to reconcile the ways of Christian proselytizers with the evidence of our senses and the conclusions of our rational minds. "Chris" speaks for Christianity and "Scott" speaks for the skeptic in our soul. Because Gates is a most thorough researcher and an incredibly patient man who has put his heart and soul into this project, the result is a slam dunk for...
Both sides!
Or so it might seem, depending upon your preconceptions and discernment. The thing that amazed me is how absolutely fair Gates is with both sides of the dialogue. Never before have I read the Christian position presented so well and so completely. Gates goes to extraordinary lengths to give the best arguments for both sides. He has read widely in the literature and he has interviewed a wide variety of people and incorporated their ideas into the arguments. His references include an eclectic selection of authorities from David Hume and Richard Dawkins to the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Encyclopedia in addition to numerous Web sites. The book is beautifully and scrupulously edited by Kathleen D. Gallagher.
I have only one small fault to find with Mr. Gates and that is in allowing Scott to however tentatively accept the hoary "argument from design" that purports to prove the existence of God. I think it would have been better to just put that argument aside since it has been so thoroughly demolished.
Scott's strategy is to show that the contradictions that exist in all religions are similar to the contradictions that exist in Christianity. He gets Chris to assert that the contradictions in all other religions make it clear that such religions cannot be true. But when it comes to Christianity Chris will not admit the same. When cornered his final argument is that the word of God in the Bible must be read as guided by the Holy Spirit. When this is done all contradictions fade away; all inconsistencies are seen as aspects of a larger truth.
Chris argues that we must realize that "God is communicating in a way that draws the reader into the process of discovery for himself: a process that results in an instruction that's much more powerful than one in which everything is spelled out literally." (p. 194) He adds, "A proper contemplation means allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you, to dwell within as you immerse yourself in the beauty of God's Word." (p. 195)
Scott dryly replies, "I guess the Holy Spirit part is the element I'm missing..."
He goes on to point out that even within the Christian community (presumably possessed with the Holy Spirit) there is a great variance of interpretation. But of course Chris has no trouble countering that problem. Theologians have argued for centuries that humans are fallible and that misunderstandings (or even crimes committed) by Christians have nothing to do with Christianity per se, but only with wayward members of the flock.
I am reminded in this that Muslims contend that the Koran cannot be fully understood unless it is read in the original Arabic. I am also reminded of spoon-benders and other charlatans who have been exposed by scientists (and magicians) in rigorous settings. Their answer: the experiment failed because of the negative energy caused by the presence of unbelievers!
Occasionally Chris stumbles without knowing it. For example when Scott points out that it would seem a bit unfair of a just and righteous God to punish those people who did not follow the one true religion because they were never exposed to that religion, Chris replies: "True, but I imagine that God must be somewhat liberal in His judgment of all those who were unable to hear His word through no fault of their own." He then quotes Luke 12:48, "Anyone who is not aware that he is doing wrong will be punished only lightly."
Neither Chris nor Scott seems to notice that ANY punishment for something that cannot be helped is morally repugnant and unworthy of a just God. Scott does note elsewhere that God seems to be playing an unfair game by using "middlemen" like the writers of the Bible to spread his word when He could, with all His omnipotence, play fair and give everybody the Word in any number of ways, most directly by simply telling each and every person on earth what He expects of them. Instead we are reduced to interpreting a confusing and contradictory text augmented by arguments and interpretations from fallible mortals. Would God act in such an arbitrary and unconscionable way? Chris's final argument amounts to that old saw about not being able to fully explain the ways of God to man.
For anyone who has dialogued with Christians of an evangelical or fundamentalist stripe, it becomes clear after awhile that in the final analysis it is faith and faith alone that sustains their belief because belief in the literal expression of the Bible requires a repudiation of history, science and common sense.
Emily Dickinson wrote nearly 150 years ago: "Faith is a fine invention/When Gentlemen can see--/But Microscopes are prudent/In an Emergency." I want to add that there is a place for faith in this world. For many it is psychologically necessary to have faith in some sort of purpose in our lives even though all of science and most of philosophy point to a vast indifferent universe beyond our comprehension
Faith is also okay when we have no evidence one way or the other. So it is surely okay to believe or not believe in God since there is no evidence one way or the other. As to the Christian God who brings mischief into this world and who sends people to eternal damnation just because they can't see their way to follow John 3:16, that God is easily dismissed as a demonic projection of the malevolent side of human nature.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
Todd Allen Gates uses the Socratic method here in an attempt to reconcile the ways of Christian proselytizers with the evidence of our senses and the conclusions of our rational minds. "Chris" speaks for Christianity and "Scott" speaks for the skeptic in our soul. Because Gates is a most thorough researcher and an incredibly patient man who has put his heart and soul into this project, the result is a slam dunk for...
Both sides!
Or so it might seem, depending upon your preconceptions and discernment. The thing that amazed me is how absolutely fair Gates is with both sides of the dialogue. Never before have I read the Christian position presented so well and so completely. Gates goes to extraordinary lengths to give the best arguments for both sides. He has read widely in the literature and he has interviewed a wide variety of people and incorporated their ideas into the arguments. His references include an eclectic selection of authorities from David Hume and Richard Dawkins to the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Encyclopedia in addition to numerous Web sites. The book is beautifully and scrupulously edited by Kathleen D. Gallagher.
I have only one small fault to find with Mr. Gates and that is in allowing Scott to however tentatively accept the hoary "argument from design" that purports to prove the existence of God. I think it would have been better to just put that argument aside since it has been so thoroughly demolished.
Scott's strategy is to show that the contradictions that exist in all religions are similar to the contradictions that exist in Christianity. He gets Chris to assert that the contradictions in all other religions make it clear that such religions cannot be true. But when it comes to Christianity Chris will not admit the same. When cornered his final argument is that the word of God in the Bible must be read as guided by the Holy Spirit. When this is done all contradictions fade away; all inconsistencies are seen as aspects of a larger truth.
Chris argues that we must realize that "God is communicating in a way that draws the reader into the process of discovery for himself: a process that results in an instruction that's much more powerful than one in which everything is spelled out literally." (p. 194) He adds, "A proper contemplation means allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you, to dwell within as you immerse yourself in the beauty of God's Word." (p. 195)
Scott dryly replies, "I guess the Holy Spirit part is the element I'm missing..."
He goes on to point out that even within the Christian community (presumably possessed with the Holy Spirit) there is a great variance of interpretation. But of course Chris has no trouble countering that problem. Theologians have argued for centuries that humans are fallible and that misunderstandings (or even crimes committed) by Christians have nothing to do with Christianity per se, but only with wayward members of the flock.
I am reminded in this that Muslims contend that the Koran cannot be fully understood unless it is read in the original Arabic. I am also reminded of spoon-benders and other charlatans who have been exposed by scientists (and magicians) in rigorous settings. Their answer: the experiment failed because of the negative energy caused by the presence of unbelievers!
Occasionally Chris stumbles without knowing it. For example when Scott points out that it would seem a bit unfair of a just and righteous God to punish those people who did not follow the one true religion because they were never exposed to that religion, Chris replies: "True, but I imagine that God must be somewhat liberal in His judgment of all those who were unable to hear His word through no fault of their own." He then quotes Luke 12:48, "Anyone who is not aware that he is doing wrong will be punished only lightly."
Neither Chris nor Scott seems to notice that ANY punishment for something that cannot be helped is morally repugnant and unworthy of a just God. Scott does note elsewhere that God seems to be playing an unfair game by using "middlemen" like the writers of the Bible to spread his word when He could, with all His omnipotence, play fair and give everybody the Word in any number of ways, most directly by simply telling each and every person on earth what He expects of them. Instead we are reduced to interpreting a confusing and contradictory text augmented by arguments and interpretations from fallible mortals. Would God act in such an arbitrary and unconscionable way? Chris's final argument amounts to that old saw about not being able to fully explain the ways of God to man.
For anyone who has dialogued with Christians of an evangelical or fundamentalist stripe, it becomes clear after awhile that in the final analysis it is faith and faith alone that sustains their belief because belief in the literal expression of the Bible requires a repudiation of history, science and common sense.
Emily Dickinson wrote nearly 150 years ago: "Faith is a fine invention/When Gentlemen can see--/But Microscopes are prudent/In an Emergency." I want to add that there is a place for faith in this world. For many it is psychologically necessary to have faith in some sort of purpose in our lives even though all of science and most of philosophy point to a vast indifferent universe beyond our comprehension
Faith is also okay when we have no evidence one way or the other. So it is surely okay to believe or not believe in God since there is no evidence one way or the other. As to the Christian God who brings mischief into this world and who sends people to eternal damnation just because they can't see their way to follow John 3:16, that God is easily dismissed as a demonic projection of the malevolent side of human nature.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
December 16, 2009
So you want to debate a christian? This is a rational heavy book to achive that
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews