Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer | 
 enlarge | Author: Todd Allen Gates
Publisher: Booklocker.com, Inc.
Category: Book
List Price: $16.95
Buy New: $15.25
You Save: $1.70 (10%)
New (9) Used (2) from $15.25
Rating:  12 reviews
Sales Rank: 216930
Media: Paperback
Pages: 300
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.6
Dimensions (in): 10.9 x 8.2 x 0.9
ISBN: 1601450893
Dewey Decimal Number: 291
EAN: 9781601450890
ASIN: 1601450893
Publication Date: December 7, 2008 (In 6 Days)
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer is a Socratic dialogue between a skeptic and a Christian apologist. The skeptic does not address atheism, but accepts the premises--for argument's sake--that there IS a Creator of sorts, that this said-Creator has made some sort of communication effort with mankind, and that the fundamentalists are correct in their assessment that "one religion is from God, the rest are man-made." The two characters then discuss non-Christian religions, and reach agreements on specific reasons why such faiths fall into the "made-by-man" category: (a) they're pieced together from pre-existing religions, (b) their holy laws are often based on irrational prejudices and erroneous conclusions about cause and effect, and (c) their stories contain inaccurate and earth-bound descriptions of the universe. The discussion then turns to examining the Christian religion in the same light as the non-Christian. Their conversation remains a respectful exchange of ideas, but is no longer harmonious. The book's two themes: (1) "If you understand why you reject all the other religions, you'll understand why I reject yours." (2) A marveling at humans' handiwork in the creation of the world's religions: the stunning range of creativity, cruelty, compassion, ingenuity, and absurdity. Included are scriptural passages from Bahaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism; as well as mythology and folklore from the Aztecs, the Babylonians, Egypt, Greece, Japan, Kenya, the Native Americans, Nigeria, the Pygmies, the Sumerians, the Vikings, and more.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 7 more reviews...
 Fascinating and Important... November 21, 2008
MotoGPTech (San Antonio, TX United States)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
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!
 No doubt--this is an OK book. March 18, 2008
Greg Peterson (Minneapolis, MN)
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
DWACP is a good effort, and I liked the format--including the oversized book itself, which made it easier to follow the "dialogue." It is a worthy read, and digests a good deal of material (fairly) that could be a burden for busy laypeople to grapple with. BUT. Parts of it a little tedious, it could have used a touch of humor (nothing goofy or overbearing--I hate that, too--but just enough to give the academic rustiness of the prose a shot of WD-40), and I was a little surprised to see the author complimented for being widely or deeply read. He definitely has exposed himself to some excellent resources on both sides of the debate, but an overreliance on, for example, Joseph Campbell and Norman Giesler could have been avoided by mixing it up a little. Not just variety for its own sake, but to broaden the perspective a little.
On the other hand, it is probably true that most of us argue from a rather limited set of experiences, facts, and expert opinions, and maybe the book was merely attempting to mirror this tendency to achieve greater realism. After all, two people meeting on consecutive Sundays to have a free-form conversation are unlikely to have all the resources of the Internet and Library of Congress at their disposal. Even so, I think a little more diversity would have made this a stronger book.
And a final point. Some Christian apologists have complained that the "New Atheists" have only gone after soft targets, like jihadists, Jim Jones, child-raping priests, Rev. Hagee, and the like. This book is respectful of intelligent believers and addresses the arguments of luminaries such as Giesler, Plantinga, Craig, C.S. Lewis, and so forth. That makes the book far more valuable for the average, intelligent reader. And it does not in any way game the fact that the religious position is shown to be very weak.
O.K. for what it is. February 14, 2008
Joseph L. Brady (Lancaster, CA United States)
0 out of 7 found this review helpful
This book could have been so much better. It was far too redundant and drawn out. Some of the best parts were in the lengthy appendix section. Most of the conversational interchange between "Scott" amd "Chris" got to be tiresome. If you have ever read anything about bible errancy before, you won't learn too much new here.
Impressive Treatise on the Merits of Rational Thought December 24, 2007
Cas Knies (Salt Lake City, Utah)
10 out of 11 found this review helpful
Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary evidences. -This is one of the central tenets of Todd Gates' book. While reading Todd's Dialogue, I came to respect the "Scott" character's objective and methodical study of all things religious. Time and time again, his systematic approach impressed me thanks to the application of logic deductions and lucidity. In contrast with Scott, the "Chris" character appeared lamely apologetic and offered in my opinion no satisfactory rebuttals to Scott's scrutinies and challenges. By the way, Chris was in my opinion an accurate representation of your average well-meaning religious apologist. Chris' polemics were rather inapt in offering reasonable and logic persuasions to convince me why his particular brand of religious road map to God was the One and Only to follow. Remember the principle of "Occam's Razor"? Indeed, my plea to all who may read this is to keep in mind that: "the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct" -or: "all other things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the most plausible." Of course, it does take considerable courage to consider the possibility that one's belief in supernatural or metaphysical stories could be as probable as believing in Poseidon, the Unicorn or in the Tooth Fairy...
As a recovering person of irrationality, I was blissfully unaware of the foundational and historical skeletons Christianity hides in its dogmatic closets. Examples such as the doctrines of the Virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection are examined with a refreshing dispassion. I thought that these events were unique to Christianity. However, Gates points out that prior to Christianity, various supernatural virgin births had already been described and that beings conceived in such manner had been worshiped by various pagan religions long before the advent of Christianity. Resurrection stories of assorted (demi)gods were also rather plentiful in ancient lores. Again, I am embarrassed to admit that I was not aware of these facts. You see, the Keepers of the Faiths are not inclined to teach these minor details in Sunday School -probably because objectivity does not tend to encourage winning or keeping souls in the flock... Well, the similarities between ancient myths and Christian traditions are truly remarkable and appear not to be coincidental when considered from a nonprejudicial mindset. Yes, Gates makes a strong case that the Judeo-Christian religions are human constructs and are thus not divinely inspired.
Gates explains that the fledgling Jesus movement was hijacked by an unholy hierarchy which purged the Faith from competing Christian theologies. Significant numbers of early Christians did not believe, for example, that Jesus was literally the Son of God or accepted his literal resurrection. A ruling body of clergymen decided in those formative years which doctrines were to "define" Christianity, often through bloody and violent means... Gates discusses these issues with great clarity and logic -in contrast to the befuddled and strained obfuscations commonly reserved to an average religion class.
The scope of Gates' exploration of comparative religious attempts to make sense of the insensible and to try to define the unknowns is truly fascinating and a real eye opener. However, it also reveals a rather sobering image of mankind's preponderance for superstitious beliefs especially in light of our modern scientific understanding of cause and effect. Looking back, I am amazed how, as a rational person, I could accept all sorts of fantastic metaphysical stories without requiring a shred of proof or objective substantiation. -Perhaps there is no angry God causing devastating earthquakes or pandemics? Could it be just that plate tectonics move inexorably without conscience or passion, and could it be that random mutations in microorganisms cause pathogenic super bugs? It took many years of formative academic training and graduate studies in the sciences to encourage me to 'break the spell' from delusional Bronze Age metaphysical beliefs.
It occurred to me that many humans are astonishingly gullible. By this I mean to say that our religious beliefs more often than not have very little to do with objective reality, but more to do with fuzzy emotions: "this feels good and comfortable, therefore God is telling me that it is true". From my observation, the Believer conveniently screens out the negative and elevates perceived faith-promoting events as living evidence that their particular faith-system "works." In addition, the Believer is often part of a fellow shipping community which further consolidates and rewards a particular belief structure. The Believer is actively encouraged to focus solely on church approved sources, deviation from which is frowned upon. Indeed, objective and critical study takes a mandatory back seat. Gates points out that one should, after all, not try to offend God or His Middle-men with troubling questions about His revealed Truths... Does it matter that our holy books are packed with glaring contradictions and logical improbabilities? And where, for instance, is that scriptural chapter on mathematics or cosmology which is so sublime that it has passed the test of ages? Instead, our (well, mine at least) intelligence is assaulted to the breaking point when we are asked to believe that the Earth (indeed, the entire observable universe) is less than six thousand years old and that the whole Earth was flooded a mere four thousand years ago... (The Great Flood myth, by the way, was pickpocketed by the ancient Hebrews from the Legend of Gilgamesh.) In any regard, I cannot think of any chapter in any of the books of scripture I am familiar with that could not have been authored by a human being. As Gates suggests, imagine how sublime our holy book(s) could have been if the Creator of the Universe was indeed the actual author... Instead, the scriptural narratives unmistakably belie their human origin by conveying cruel, naive and racist world views and faulty cosmologies, among other pearls of ancient wisdom.
As a person of faith, I have struggled for many years how to reconcile the prehistoric record of early lifeforms and hominids with religious doctrines. It dawned on me some decades ago that the immense age of the Earth and the fossil record -including newly discovered transition life forms- does matter because it stubbornly and blatantly contradicts the Creation Story and "the Fall" of mankind, among other Judeo-Christian myths. Where, for example, do the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals fit in? Gates has a lot to say about these and other related issues as well.
I am now more so than ever before, convinced that religion and religious claims can -and should- be objectively scrutinized: let's see whether the facts validates these claims -or not! Many religious truths claims can and ought to be subjected to the principle of applying workable scientific hypotheses. For example, if a particular religious text happens to claim multiple Hebrew migrations from the Middle East to the America's, this claim should be treated as a valid scientific hypothesis. If true, one would expect ample empirical evidences to collaborate its truth claims, such as by archeological, linguistic, anthropological and genetic validations. However, many are closed minded when it comes to objectively scrutinizing their prized religious convictions. What would it take to persuade someone that their particular belief system is perhaps flawed and logically implausible?
In my experience, the True Believer -regardless of the absence of collaborating facts- or even when clear and compelling preponderance of facts contradict particular beliefs, stubbornly chooses to continue to accept the implausible... As a matter of fact, many Believers have accepted the twisted notion that to believe in something improbable is somehow even more deserving of praise and accolade... Because of these myopic and illusory mental gymnastics, it is pretty obvious in my opinion that many religious beliefs are far removed from objective 'factuality' and are demonstrably out of skew with observable, empirical scientific realities. I am amazed that many reasonable and intelligent people continue to choose delusional fabrications over pure reason and unprejudiced facts.
Yes, I heartily recommend Gates' book. It is a well-balanced, fair, and objective masterpiece. Of course, this doesn't really matter to the fundamentalist True Believer. Any deviation or detraction from Scripture and Gospel or other 'authorized' sources is considered blasphemy. Believe me, I have been there myself -regrettably so.
However, one could always hope that perhaps the illuminating light of reason and logic may eventually overcome ignorance, stupidity and the stupefying fog of indoctrination.
Happy Holidays,
Cas
What you would be able to teach an amnesiac about religion and God? Get him a copy of Gates' book. August 28, 2007
Karen B. Alaniz
5 out of 6 found this review helpful
Suppose that it was your task to teach an intelligent man or woman suffering amnesia all about religion, and you had to start from scratch, as well as teach him or her about the nature of "your" Christian faith, perhaps even persuade this person about the righteousness of your faith in your Christian god. Author Todd Gates captures how such a dialogue might go in a very readable and enjoyable way.
In one dialogue the Christian, Chris, states to Scott, the amnesiac, that, "Faith, my friend, is the way we make our choices. It honestly takes faith to believe anything--it even takes a certain measure of faith to believe that Abraham Lincoln existed, and did what people say he did." Scott, grappling with the concepts of faith and God then asks Chris a series of questions concerning the use of reason over faith. Before spending our twenty bucks on a book, for example, we read a few book reviews. And we most certainly check out a house before we buy it, even paying for an independent inspection typically. In fact, Scott goes on, the more serious the matter is, the more research we do. Shouldn't we then research, he asks, which of the thousands of religions, all of which purport to be THE ONE true religion, before accepting a particular version? To this end using reason, Scott cites Proverbs 18:13, 4:5-6; 3:13-18, and 1 John 4:1. Chris gives in to a point. When it comes to secular matters, he admits, reason is more useful than faith, but when it comes to God, Chris insists, there are profound mysteries about God beyond the reaches of our five senses.
The conversation moves to asking if reason can be used as a tool to eliminate false religions. Scott cites the connection between the seasons and the Greek goddess Demeter, goddess of agriculture. When Persephone, Demeter's daughter, would spend part of her time in the world of the dead visiting her ex-husband, Demeter would get depressed and winter would set in killing off Earth's plants--winter. When Persephone would return, spring would arrive. This is nutty to be sure, especially given that when it's winter in the northern hemisphere, it's summer in the southern hemisphere. This leads to a discussion about defining truth. For a belief system to be "true", it must a) accurately describe a large class of observations, and b) make predictions that agree with future, as yet unobserved facts--this is the scientific method that is. The Demeter system fails because it is inconsistent with the facts. It is the same with the Greek theory that the sun and planets orbit the earth. On the other hand, the Renaissance theory that earth and the planets orbit the sun didn't fail when, using telescopes, we discovered many centuries later a collection of planets each orbiting the sun. So it would seem that reason can be used to falsify religions. Once we discover that an allegedly divine message contains "facts" which contradict a wide set of observations, the message must be inaccurate. Goodbye Zeus, Thor, Blogorg,..., an many others.
In yet another delightful dialogue, Chris and Scott discuss the variations of the relatively modern theory that all religions are true. A lake has several bathing places. At one the Hindus take water and call it jal, at another place the Muslims call it pani, and at yet another place the Christians call it water. By analogy, God is one, only under different names, with attributes attributable to different climates, temperaments and so forth. Chris and Scott discuss whether it is logical to conclude that there are different religions for different needs, or whether there was one true religion which got corrupted by mankind with the passage of time, or whether there should be lots of alternative religions, each of which captures a different portion of God's message so that we may learn something from each religion. Each theory, is, in turn, found lacking for various reasons by both Chris and Scott.
The bottom line to me is that it's too easy to be sloppy, or give offense when discussing religion and faith with others. Whatever belief system you have, you should expect good, hard, honest questions from genuinely interested peoples of other faiths and/or religions, and you should also be able to give these people a reasonable accounting of your belief system. It's arguably better than getting into an "Is so," "Is not," argument which may lead to a lost opportunity to possibly persuade a person to your point of view, if not actually declaring holy war or perpetrating acts of terror. If you care about your belief system, then Gates' book is a must read.
Sincerely,
Alex Alaniz, Ph.D.
|
|
|
