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.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #456420 in Books
• Published on: 2008-12-07
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 300 pages

From the Author
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.

From the Back Cover
CHRIS PROSELMAN: Good morning sir! Please take this pamphlet, and read it carefully. For Judgment Day is coming soon, and you must choose between accepting Jesus as your savior or suffering eternal damnation.
SCOTT CRATES: I see that your pamphlet says this--but although I mean no offense, why do you believe that this pamphlet is accurate?
CHRIS: Because its text comes directly from the Bible: the Holy Word of God, as recorded by the writers He inspired.
SCOTT: And why do you believe those writers had any sort of divine connection?

This book is a dialogue between a Christian proselytizer and a skeptic--a skeptic who does not argue with the proselytizer, but seeks only to clarify why the Christian believes he knows what "God's Word" is. The proselytizer identifies his knowledge of the Divine as coming from three sources: faith, the Scriptures, and the evidence of God in our physical surroundings. The Christian and skeptic then discuss each of these sources and reach tentative agreements in the following three areas:
- the "design" argument for the existence of a Master Designer, and the subsequent assumption that such a Designer would have been likely to make some sort of communication effort with the one species given a genuine language;
- that in trying to make sense of all the multiple and conflicting versions of Divine Directions that we may choose from, a reasonable conclusion is that only one came from God, whereas the rest must have just been made up by man;
- all the reasons that non-Christian religions fall into the "Made by Man" category: they're pieced together from pre-existing religions, their holy laws include those based on irrational prejudices and erroneous conclusions about cause and effect, and their stories contain inaccurate and earth-bound descriptions of the universe (stars that are tiny, a moon that shines its own light, a sun that orbits a flat and stationary earth, etc.).

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.

Customer Reviews

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.

Brilliant
Wow. I am really impressed. It's even taken me a few days to collect my thoughts on all of the things I found in the book in order to write an adequate review of it.

I attempted to find out something about the author himself and was surprised to find that there is very little available other than that he is a musician. I had expected a classicist, sociologist, anthropologist, historian, philosophy or biblical scholar. I would have believed almost any academic title, but Mr. Todd has no such credentials on his vita. From what I learned about him by reading his book, however, I would say his interests are centered on classics, history, philosophy, logic and archaeology. He is extremely well read in the fields that interest him and has an incredible mind for organization and for collating facts from diverse sources.

The book itself is an amazing example of the use of the Socratic Method as presented in Plato's Dialogues, a book that purports to be about the relationship between the Greek philosopher Socrates and his disciples. Hence here the author adopts as his character's nomen Scott Ocretes at the opening of the book.

Socrates taught by assuming the position that he actually knew nothing. He simply wanted to "learn" and asked for information from his students, usually about some social or other issue about which the student might feel confident of knowledge. Usually these were topics of "obvious" truth, but by asking more and more questions in a logical order and by giving examples that the student might agree to or refute, Socrates was able to reveal to the student just how unobvious and straight forward many of these issues actually were.

It was for his questioning of issues like social order, religion, civil authority, tyranny, justice, and other moorings of society that Socrates was brought to trial for leading the youth of Athens astray and was finally put to death for impiety. The real problem was not just that he lead any and all young men astray but those of some of the leading families in Athenian society and its political hierarchy, most notably Alcibiades a member of the very influential Alcmaeonidae clan. This was during the Peloponnesian War, one that would prove ultimate disaster for the Athenians, and these were the future leaders of the city. So far as the city fathers were concerned Socrates was a threat of the highest order.

Although Socrates did not survive the hemlock he was ordered to drink, thanks to Plato his dialectical style of teaching and thinking did. Alan Todd's book, Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer, is a wonderful example. The reader will benefit from just following the argument for its style, if nothing else. I found the periodic summations very instructive, because you could see the wheels turning behind the process.

The average Christian will be given a great deal to think about with respect to God, Christianity, Christ, and world religions. The information on these subjects is staggering, and it is wonderful to see it so comprehensively provided and in so compact and organized a manner. The more rigid religious extremist will find the book at least "acceptable," will probably even see the character Chris as "winning" the situation. Certainly the discussion is less argumentative or threatening than many confrontations between the doubter and the believer. In short, there is nothing that will put anyone's "back up."

The book is actually in two parts, the dialogue itself and a group of end notes. If the reader is inclined to skip this type of material, I would suggest that he/she not do so in this case, since much of the material presents in more economical form what is discussed in the book at various points. They are in fact elucidation of the text, footnotes that do not interrupt the flow of the argument.

The author's citations are culled from a diverse set of resources. Although I have read many of the classical, historical and archaeological sources, including some of the journal articles, I was amazed at how vast the literature on the Christian religion is. I have not really done any reading on the subject until recently. I was also impressed with the author's knowledge of many of the world's religions; to the extent of actually using the data in the context of his argument. The student of religion would definitely benefit from following up some of the author's bibliography, as would the student of history.

In the end I don't think that either doubter or believer will have changed their positions very much. The author rightly points this out at the end. Certainly although there is no concrete data that suggests God does not exist, neither is there any that suggests that he does. It really does come down to personal choice. Probably the clearest indication of how far apart the two are is that while Scott refers to definite information--whether from Biblical or extra-Biblical sources--Chris, when all else fails, falls back on faith, inspiration, belief, the Holy Sprit, in short a suspension of disbelief. This is almost like a left-brain vs right-brain approach to the subject. A PET scan of the participants might even prove it! Neither can persuade the other, because neither is speaking in the Koine of the other; they are simply not talking about the same thing.

One might be inclined to see that capacity to suspend disbelief as the product of a "weak" or "illogical" mind, but in fact it capitalizes on one of mankind's strongest features, its ability to think creatively by imagination alone. Almost every modern person is able to do so and does it frequently: watching TV, at the cinema, playing computer games. Probably the most obvious to the participant is the suspension of disbelief at live theater. The effort it requires--and therefore the amount of audience participation required in the play--is determined by the degree to which set, lighting and costume appear to be "real." For a play in a modern setting, no problem. For a period piece, like Shakespeare's Hamlet, a little more difficult. For a play like Our Town by Thornton Wilder, which uses a ladder for a house and high backed chairs for tombstones, the audience has a lot to do. And for the most part, they are quite capable of doing it, enjoying a striking play and understanding its message quite well.

The human advantage of imagining things as they would like them to be or as they might be with certain effort, has gotten us to the moon, may plant our feet on Mars, has solved some of mankind's health problems, etc., etc. If Chris wants to believe in God "just because," more power to him.

A brilliant book.

Another Candle in the Demon-Haunted World
Todd Gates' DIALOGUE WITH A CHRISTIAN PROSELYTIZER is the latest of several books that I've read recently dealing in one way or another with the topic of religious conviction. I'm sure that I did not purposely set out on a literary journey of religious exploration, and I'm somewhat bemused by the number of books that I've encountered lately that involve religion. On the other hand, perhaps that should not be surprising, for religious conviction has played a major role in the conduct of human affairs from, probably, pre-history to the present day, so it is hardly surprising to find it explored and analyzed by a great number of writers. Depending on one's purposes in reading such literature, the choice of material is indeed broad. To touch on only a few such purposes, I might offer these suggestions:

MISQUOTING JESUS: THE STORY BEHIND WHO CHANGED THE BIBLE AND WHY by Bart D. Ehrman is an excellent explanation of why we can scarcely trust any modern-day Bible to represent the original thought of either the Hebraic Old Testament or the Greek New Testament; too many translators have been at work over the ages, particularly the centuries before invention of printing when oral tradition and hand copying were the rule. WIDE AS THE WATERS: THE STORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE AND THE REVOLUTION IT INSPIRED by Benson Bobrick and GOD'S SECRET AGENTS: QUEEN ELIZABETH'S FORBIDDEN PRIESTS AND THE HATCHING OF THE GUNPOWDER PLOT by Alice Hogge offer intriguing insights into the continued molding of Christianity by social and political pressure. The damaging and destructive power of religious conviction is fervently denounced by Sam Harris in THE END OF FAITH. Richard Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION does a superb job of demonstrating that religion is not necessary for providing humankind with a sense of wonder, and THE ANCESTOR'S TALE explains evolutionary progression so clearly that the concept of creationism seems a ludicrous simplicity by comparison.

But all of these works have something in common--they are the result of rational and critical thinking, of meticulous historical research, and of objective scientific experimentation, all of which may be rejected out of hand by the fervent religionist who substitutes unquestioning belief in the supernatural for intellectual inquiry. Enter DIALOGUE WITH A CHRISTIAN PROSELYTIZER.

In DIALOGUE, Gates' character of "Scott Crates" accepts "for the sake of argument" that a "Higher Power" exists, but he is troubled by the lack of proof thereof, and he questions "Chris Proselman" to explain his belief based on the accuracy of Christian writings, primarily the Bible but also including some of the tracts that Chris is handing out. Gates is essentially having Scott and Chris discuss whether the Bible is in fact the inerrant word of God. Scott frequently points out biblical stories which have their sources in pre-Christian myths and is very adept at pointing out biblical inconsistencies and contradictions. His point is not to disparage Chris' faith in the existence of a deity but to show that such ragged edges in biblical stories result from their being "ad-hoc collections of history, legend, and morality tales that have been gathered from regional folklore" (191) and that the "Scriptures did not come from One Divine Author, but from many different human authors--humans who didn't check one another's work for philosophical compatibility...." (197) Scott also points to many biblical "revelations" that are distinctly earth-based, revealing no more than is evident to mortal human senses and even perpetuating mistaken beliefs prevalent at the time they were written, a further indication of purely human authorship.

Chris comes off more as a foil for Scott's logic than as an erudite Christian apologist. About the best he can usually do is retort with phrases such as "the majesty of God's Story," the "beauty of God's Word," and the necessity of allowing the "Holy Spirit" to work within one. His replies are weak and devoid of substance. While a reader may be tempted to find fault with Gates for not developing his two characters more equally, it has been my experience that most street-corner proselytizers are in fact as devoid of substantive reasoning as is Chris, so perhaps his character is as fully developed as reality permits.

In brief, DIALOGUE takes the Bible as it exists today and asks the "true believer" to explain how it could be the inerrant word of God given the vast number of derivative stories, evidence of human limitations in the writings, and internal inconsistencies. The book is not written as an attack on the Christian god or any other deity but as a detailed and well-supported question as to the authorship and reliability of the Bible when it comes to explaining the nature of that deity and the requirements that he or she lays on humankind.

The use of an extended discussion between the characters of Scott and Chris (with their cutely symbolic names) is a rather novel approach to presenting the arguments against accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God, although, as I've noted, the discussion is anything but equal since all of the factual data come from Scott. I find the use of Roman numerals for footnoting a peculiar practice, most likely because I'm accustomed to either MLA or APA methods of source citations, but that's a minor point. My only serious complaint about the book is its physical presentation. This edition is printed on rather large pages, and its size, combined with its soft covers, makes holding the book in one's lap quite awkward; its design makes reading at the desk or table almost a necessity. I would much prefer that the page size be reduced and that it have the rigidity afforded by a hard binding. The quality of the content deserves a richer physical presentation.

Its somewhat awkward size notwithstanding, DIALOGUE offers thought-provoking content and is yet another challenge to readers who are willing to allow thought and rationality to contend with uncritical faith in the supernatural as revealed in the Christian Bible. Unfortunately, those who stand to benefit the most from DIALOGUE, such as a military medical doctor recently quoted in the local newspaper as avowing the earth to be all of 6,000 years old--and not a day more, are the most unlikely to read it.