Triple play on atheism in Spokane

I haven’t yet reported on the pair of atheist speakers who spoke to secular groups here last month: Pete Boghossian (a philosopher professor at Portland State University) publicizing his new book “A Manual for Creating Atheists,” and Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president Dan Barker, former evangelical Christian preacher and inveterate debate lover who spoke all over the region during the Darwin Day period (once in Spokane for the local FFRF chapter, the Inland Northwest Freethought Society, and again over in Coeur D’Alene for a North Idaho College philosophy club.

Boghossian had planned to come up in person but the gods of snow weighed in, paralyzing hilly shovel challenged Portland and shutting down flights out, so a last minute arrangement brought him in via Skype.  It would have been of interest had there been some religious people in the audience, but if there were any none ventured any questions afterward so it there was a “preaching to the choir” flavor to it as a result (Boghossian was actually disappointed that there were no people of faith in the Q&A).

He resides among a branch of atheistic philosophy that holds that in principle anyone can be coaxed out of religious beliefs if you only approach things in the right way (avoid adversarial confrontation, build rapport, and encourage their own growth stages as they move from precontemplative doubt to contemplative investigation and finally to the overt action of abandoning a faith to which they no longer can profess).  I have my doubts about that (involving my Tortucan model of cognitive strategies, topic for another time) but it means that Boghossian takes the idea of expanding the atheist community seriously.

This is still a far cry from being an “evangelical” atheist—not proactive in the sense of knocking on doors with pamphlets in hand.  To the contrary, Boghossian sees this more as being prepared as a culture to welcome and nourish people who find they are at the place where the atheist door exists for them now but haven’t yet worked up the courage to give the knob a twist and peek outside the faith chamber.  In this process no Damascus moments are expected, involving less a “conversion” than a process of letting go of unsustainable beliefs.

Time will tell how successfully the Boghossian manual will prove as it is applied.  But for the Old Time Non-Religion, it’s hard to beat the scrappy theater of Dan Barker.  His appearance in Idaho was a solo effort, and most of the questioners there were theists (chiefly Christians)—no angry exchanges, but definitely spirited.  The INFS event was an actual debate, with Gonzaga philosophy professor Eric Cunningham on a topic of his choosing: “Christianity is the ONLY Truth: Divine Love in the Digital Game Space.”

That signified it was not going to be a typical discussion.  In fact, I doubt Barker ever ran into anyone who was fielding arguments quite like Cunningham, that the universe might be just a Matric-style simulation by God whereby successive iterations result in greater Love, and whereby he slipped in Christianity is that ONLY Truth by sleight of hand, the underlying problem with his speculation being that if we’re only a simulation then nothing about its content could be thought any more or less real than anything else, be they “physical” objects like planets and even less so for ideas like Truth or any religious doctrine (not just Christianity).

How much of this Cunningham actually believed was hard to say (he sounded all too serious about it).  At this stage his view sounded more akin to squishy New Age beliefs (the sort that might have got him burned at the stake for heresy not that many centuries ago) than conventional Jesuit university Catholic, mixed with a gloomy populist despair about the future of humanity that would have made Henry Adams sound like Polyanna.  Barker, as upbeat a character as they come (he writes droll atheist themed songs on the side that he often performs when a piano is handy), did a fairly yeoman job of trying to relate his honed talking points on atheist philosophy (how non-religious people get by in the way of personal ethics and purpose) to what Cunningham brought to the table.

Matters took on a more confrontational edge during the Q&A when Cunningham showed that underneath what seemed to be layers of marshmallow there was a doctrinal spine after all, as Cunningham brought some incredulous gasps from women in the audience (this was an admittedly tough house, of course, composed entirely of our secular club members and visitors) when he mentioned natural birth control methods as opposed to contraception, prompting Barker to contrast the typical atheist stance on women’s reproductive rights (none of a church or government’s business) with that of the Catholic church’s official policy (honored more in the breach by workaday Catholics) on contraception and abortion.

With that Cunningham literally stopped short and started grabbing his hat and coat to go, as abruptly as if an anvil had been dropped on his toe.  It took us all aback, since there had been no voices raised.  In any case it ranks as one of the more surreal exchanges I have ever witnessed.

Which only serves to remind me of the old saying, that it takes all kinds.  And it raised the peculiar image of the even cooler Boghossian trying to engage Cunningham, a matchup that would be worthy of another Skype session.  Popcorn optional.