JUNE 1998
People get very testy when they find themselves backed into
a corner during a debate. They become even more irritable when
they realize that they have painted themselves into that
corner. Very irritable indeed. In fact that is usually a good
indication of who is losing a debate. Whoever is the surliest
is probably taking a thrashing.
This was apparent in a series of email exchanges I had with
a gentleman who took issue with my last month's column, Holy
Cow! In that satirical article, based on actual newspaper
stories, I poked fun at the zookeepers in Jerusalem who fed the
animals kosher food during Passover; the intense Messianic speculations
surrounding the birth of a red heifer in the Holy Land; and the
excitement over a pet tiger fish that purportedly had Allah
emblazoned clearly on its flank—kind of like a Goodyear blimp.
My email correspondent fired off an opening salvo, chastising
me for my ignorance, arrogance and overall wrong-headedness. He
had never contacted me before, and I think now he wishes he never
had.
He began by chiding me for criticizing practices such as observing
kosher laws. He informed me that those practices were based on
ancient traditions that were based on . . . . you guessed it.
The One True Faith. Judaism. He accused me of making judgments
about a religion without first "examining the evidence"
for it. I responded by asking for that evidence, which I would
then be happy to examine. The debate was on.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who begin such
discussions by assuming the very facts they are trying to prove.
I have been approached by Christians, Jews, Muslims and one strange
case trying to show me the way to Truth and Light through some
being known as El Rante. But one thing they all have in common.
As they try to show me the error of my ways, they begin by quoting
their Holy Books. Why can't they see the futility of this? You
may not quote the Bible to prove the Bible is correct. Shouldn't
that be obvious to everyone?
So it can be a tiresome, tedious waste of time to respond to
these irrational arguments. Usually I decline politely to enter
into what I know will be fruitless dialogues. But this particular
Email Enthusiast was highly offended by my satire and was earnestly
intent on "educating" me. And since he was so condescendingly
certain that he could provide me with "evidence," I
asked him to provide it.
My challenger, whom I shall call David, had obviously read
some of my previous columns, and even complimented me on the finesse
with which I approached so many topics. Hence his dismay that
I should muck up so badly in my May column. Finesse? Hmmm. Well,
I recently wrote about the absurdity of the Pope finally admitting
that evolution is a fact, and then proceeded to lampoon him mercilessly
in a hypothetical scenario wherein he finally admits that gravity
exists. I also wrote about the Virgin Mary appearing on a waffle
at an IHOP. Finesse? And, referring to a possible reinstatement
of meatless Fridays for Catholics, I titled one article, Faithful
Flock Favors Friday Flounder. Apparently it's OK to slam the
Catholics but Judaism is off limits.
Of course in Holy Cow! I did indeed challenge Judaism
and Islam. David took no offense, naturally, at my challenging
Islam. He simply informed me that my article was "ill-researched."
When I asked him, early on, if I should have "researched"
the cichlid fish bearing the stamp of Allah, he did not respond.
Nor did I ask again, because straying off into peripheral issues
is another favorite tactic for True Believers when their adversaries
prove to be more of a challenge than expected. And peripheral
issues were pounced on with a verbose vengeance. A couple of David's
emails were over a thousand words long. He wanted to discuss everything
and anything related to Judaism, religious belief in general,
his personal feelings about my Christian upbringing, and, if I
recall correctly, the heights and times of the high and low waters
on the Sacramento River at the "I" Street Bridge. What
David did not want to do was answer my simple question, "What
evidence?"
Summing up David's offers of evidence as best I can, since
if I went into detail this article would be book length, I was
presented with the following: If religious rituals are consistent
with the religious premise, this shows internal consistency which
in turn shows validity. By "evidence" David meant "evidence
presented by various theories as proof of their validity. In the
case of God such evidence is by definition indirect, which is
why atheists say it's not evidence; but that is subject to interpretation
and highly debatable." (Now there's a mouthful.) Mohammed
also claimed a Divine revelation, as did St. Paul, Joseph Smith
and others, but those were meaningless because it took so long
for those religions to gain adherents. Moses' revelation, by contrast,
was of an "awesome magnitude to the whole nation of
3 million people." The Divine revelation at Mt. Sinai is
a documented, historical event. How do we know this? Because the
Bible tells us that it is.
Oh, where to begin.
Of course David brought up many, many other topics. He asserted
that there is no difference between the ritual of honoring your
dead, as we do on Memorial Day, and the arcane religious rituals
that include praying to an invisible God, chanting, reverence
for holy relics, dietary restrictions and so on. I see a tremendous
difference. But I refused to spend time on these side issues,
which were simply designed to distract, and instead asked repeatedly,
"What evidence?"
Over and over again I refused to get bogged down in peripheral
issues and had to keep dragging David back on topic. This is another
clue that you're getting the best of someone in a debate. If you
must continually drag your reluctant opponent back to the original
issue, this is a sure sign that he knows he's losing the argument.
Otherwise, he would simply make his devastating, irrefutable points
and then demand your capitulation. He would not keep trying to
change the subject.
But I just patiently kept asking for the evidence I was accused
of not examining and I know this rattled David. One of his responses
to that simple question was a very nasty, name-calling tirade
which was immediately followed by an apology. My response to that
was simply to say no hard feelings. But what evidence? And the
calmer I was, the more frustrated David was.
I pointed out that just because rituals are consistent with
a religious premise does not mean the premise is valid. I have
no idea what is meant by "evidence presented by various theories
as proof of their validity." But it sounds very much like
saying that by offering a theory you are proving it. And I see
no difference whatever between St. Paul's revelation, Moses' revelation
and Mohammed's revelation. I expressed bewilderment at his statement,
"In the case of God such evidence is by definition indirect,
which is why atheists say it's not evidence; but that is subject
to interpretation and highly debatable." No, it is not highly
debatable. A claim of revelation proves nothing. It is not evidence
of any kind, indirect or otherwise. That is why atheists say it's
not evidence. Because it isn't.
I got kind of lost in the area of which religions took hold
the fastest, mainly because I see no significance in the speed
of conversions. Jim Jones and his flock obviously experienced
a lightning quick "mass revelation," but that certainly
doesn't prove that their trip to Guyana was divinely inspired.
Further, no one can even say for sure when the Pentateuch (first
five books of the Bible) was authored, but all agree it occurred
many thousands of years ago. Christianity can at least date itself
much more precisely, with a maximum of two millennia to bring
us right up to today, and with the result that there are now around
two billion Christians in the world. So David's description
of Moses' revelation as possessing an "awesome magnitude
to the whole nation of 3 million people" pales by
comparison.
But his main thrust was that the Mt. Sinai revelation was so
unlikely that it must have been true to convince so many
people. Using that reasoning, you could "prove" that
there really have been flying saucers on Earth.
Towards the end of our lengthy correspondence David became
so frustrated by my simple, repeated question, "What evidence?"
that he finally resorted to ad hominem attacks. Apparently trying
to cower me into submission with his rapier-like wit, he pointed
out that since I am a writer I should be able to read, but he
saw no evidence that I was capable of that task. Later he said
he could not present his evidence any more clearly than he already
had unless he lowered it to something beneath the 5th-grade
level. More rapier stuff.
And finally he demanded to know why I kept insisting that he
was trying to convert me. He said he was not trying to
convert me, but merely trying to get me to understand why Judaism
was the One True Faith of the One True God. This comment was baffling
since I had never even hinted that I thought he was trying to
convert me. However, on reflection, if there is a difference between
trying to convince someone of the truth of The One True Faith,
and trying to convert someone to that One True Faith, I fail to
see it. If I believed his "evidence" I'd be converted.
Wouldn't I?
Anyway, since I don't believe in eternal life, I finally had
to put an end to this seemingly endless exchange of emails. It
was almost interesting for a while, but there is life beyond
a computer console. Like all the other previous claims of proof
of a religion's authenticity, David's "evidence" evaporated
into mystical wishful thinking. His attempts were no more convincing
that the many attempts made by others of various beliefs. There
are a lot of people determined to show me the error of
my ways and the truth of their beliefs. I take this as a definite
compliment. I must be doing something right for so many people
to take my words seriously enough to feel the need to refute them.
But once, just once, I wish someone would offer an original,
interesting argument. I also wish I had a dollar for every time
someone told me, "I just know it in my heart."
That's their supposedly convincing evidence, you see. It makes
me fear that critical thinking is truly disappearing from the
face of this Earth. It also reminds me of a dog food commercial
many years ago that featured a sing-song verse: "My dog's
better than your dog; my dog's better than yours; my dog's better 'cuz he eats Ken-L-Ration, my dog's better than yours!"
With apologies to Ken-L-Ration, "My God's better than
your God; my God's better than yours; my God's better 'cuz [fill
in anything here], my God's better than yours!" As the world
gets smaller, and we are fast becoming a real global village,
we seem to be shouting this at each other instead of opening our
eyes to the human qualities we all share. Sigh.
When the chips are down, though, my God really is better
than yours. My heart will always belong to Bob. Bob the Rain God.
© 1998 Judith Hayes
Back to Main Page Back to Previous Columns