Carter's nihlism
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:45:49 -0600 (00918773149, 4.1.19990211104127.00b2fbf0@pop.truman.edu)
At 01:17 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Farrell Till wrote:
>At 11:37 PM 2/8/99 -0500, Jason Carter wrote:
>>>GLORIA
>>>Your comment, "You have no meaning to give to your friend, so why try to
>>>steal hers?", I quote from my second letter to her: "And so, it is past
>>>time to say goodnight. It has taken me a lifetime to discover, better
>>>late than never, a principle of commitment to awareness, the will to
>>>understand. I have made a commitment to rationality, consciousness,
>>>respect for reality as a way of life. To live responsibly and with
>>>integrity. I have a sense that this principle is appropriate to life,
>>>it feels natural, the choice to think, and I judged from your letter
>>>that you too have chosen to use your mind. It has been fun to exchange
>>>thoughts with you and I do hope that I in no way offended your beliefs.
>>>You are a valued friend and I would hope that we could stay friends
>>>regardless of the God question."
>>>
>>>And from her follow-up letter I take the liberty of quoting: "Thank you
>>>so much for your letter! I am excited that you want to discuss such
>>>important issues and challenged by what you write! This is a side of
>>>you I never knew, and I'm pleased that you took the bold step of
>>>expressing your own philosophy, religious knowledge, and the results of
>>>your research. I look forward to a continuing dialogue."
>>>
>>>My good friend is not one who would let me or anyone else "steal her
>>>meaning" as you so eloquently put it and your suggestion is demeaning to
>>>both of us. You know next to nothing about me Jason and so I take your
>>>incorrect critique of me as coming from a very young person who with
>>>time will learn what I have, tolerance and patience for those who do not
>>>share my opinions and the value of gentle persuasion. Gloria
>>
>>CARTER
>>Thanks for writing Gloria, however, let me explain myself. I personally
>>have a deep disgust for atheistic "evangelism" toward un-educated
>>Christians. Christ expressed this same concern when He spoke of millstones
>>around the neck of those who attempted such actions.
>>
>
>TILL
>But do you have a deep disgust for Christian evangelism of the uneducated?
>Most people in our society grow up hearing that the Bible is "God's inspired
>word," but few of them ever hear the other side. So do you have a disgust
>of Christians who try to evangelize without presenting the other side? How
>many times have you tried to present the other side in your evangelistic
>efforts? Since Gloria's correspondence is with a friend who is enrolled in
>a Bible college and married to someone who is a dedicated fundamentalist,
>she could hardly be accused of taking advantage of the uneducated.
>
>In my own career, I have purposefully sought out debating opponents such as
>Norman Geisler and Michael Horner, who are supposed to be informed
>apologists, so may I assume that your disgust doesn't extend to me?
>
>There is also an aspect of Christianity that I suspect you have no disgust
>at all for. That is the tendency of Christians to seek out those who are in
>miserable or unfortunate circumstances and shower them with displays of
>concern, which will often result in some of them being converted to
>Christianity for probably no other reason than to express gratitude.
>
>CARTER
>>Secondly, it is my personal experience that those who do attempt such
>>evangelism are intensely lonely/angry, which is why I asked you the
>>question. I did not mean to chide you, I asked only to encourage you to
>>examine your own motivations.
>>
>
>TILL
>That's strange. I have been right in the center of this kind of
>"evangelism," and my opinion has been the exact opposite. The skeptics are
>very satisfied with their lives. I might add here another person opinion.
>My experience has been that almost all Christians who maintain a
>fundamentalist, inerrantist view of the Bible are uneducated, because they
>have limited their reading to the Josh McDowellian types of books and
>therefore never get a balanced picture of the Bible.
>
>CARTER
>>I very much value gentle persuasion, however, I do not value gentle
>>persuasion to a philosophy of meaninglessness. If your friend is strong in
>>the faith, and educated enough to defend herself, then please enjoy
>>yourself. My letter was aimed at the deeper meaning of your endeavours,
>>which seemed from you letter to be not a "dialogue of religion", but an
>>effort to unconvince someone of their deepest belief and joy.
>>
>>I am not offended at your beliefs Gloria, (though I know them to be wrong
>>in the area of God), I am only offended if you are seriously going into
>>such a discussion with a friend with the rather immoral objective of
>>deconverting her. I cannot fathom how such an act can be done out of pure
>>love.
>>
>
>TILL
>This is typical Christian nonsense. What Carter is saying is that
>Christians should be entitle to evangelize whenever and wherever they wish
>but that those who have opposing views shouldn't. He has yet to give us any
>good reason why a skeptic should not be entitled to speak to Christians,
>Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, or anyone else about the rationality of their
>religious views. The real problem is that Carter has enough sense to know
>that when his religion is discussed in open forums, it isn't going to fare
>well at all, and so he would like to see restrictions put on the forensic
>activities of skeptics.
>
Ed
Carter's rhetoric on this point is telling. It appears that he wants to
prohibit skeptics from exercising their 1st Amendment rights to free
speech. For instance, he says:
"Philosophies and beliefs which are immoral (i.e.. cultic satanism) or
degrade meaning in life (atheism) should not be spread through evangelism."
I wonder what mechanisms he wants to install to prevent this "evangelism"?