‘Kirkbride Preacher’ claims should be challenged
Published: Monday, April 23, 2012
Updated: Monday, April 23, 2012 17:04
I mentioned I was attending the university on the GI Bill. I fought in Iraq, over two tours, for a total of 26 months. I saw young women explode in front of me, the name of their god the last word they will ever say. I saw piles of bodies, horribly tortured, mutilated and eventually executed, left to bake in the sun by the Tigris River because the people belonged to a different sect. I watched good men destroyed, beheaded by roadside bombs, cut down by rifle fire. I watched a dear friend be struck in the chest by a rocket-propelled grenade. I watched Arab fighters charge armored vehicles with AK-47s and prayer beads. I have seen what a religious state looks like, and it’s awful.
The most devout Christian is almost as much an atheist as I am. We agree on the non-existence of 99.9 percent of the thousands of deities, demigods, genies, dragons, wizards and mystical creatures dreamed up by men over the past 50,000 years or so. I just went one further.
He has every right to be wrong, loudly, on a city street. And those of us who believe he is wrong have a right to challenge him.
Daniel Crimmins is a guest columnist for The Review. His viewpoints do not necessarily represent those of the Review staff. Please send comments to crimmins@udel.edu.
43 comments
Anonymous
It seems to me you overestimate how much people ignore or tolerate the preacher because he's preaching Christianity vs. Mormonism. I remember being a student here in the 80s when Hare Krishnas visited campus and they probably got about the same general reaction, Also there have been famous intellectuals who have moved from atheism to Christianity, such as C.S. Lewis, Oxford U professor (best known as the author of the Narnia series). Also if you're going to point out religious people "often brutally, violently, murderously upset, over the past 3,000 years or so" toward those who question faith, I trust you realize in the last 100 yrs. their have been millions of religious people imprisoned, tortured or killed by atheistic states such as China, N. Korea, the former Soviet Union, for refusing to renounce their faith.
Preston Page
Well said Daniel. Thank you for your service to the United States of America. Would it not be fun, to one day to set up a reply to the speaker? Have some rational stuff going on, hand out some cookies. A nice rational person, perhaps sitting in a chair and softly talking about what the other guys are yelling, I know I would love to see that.Preston Page
FM Bandit
Without challenging the idea that both of you have free speech, nor that irrational fundamentalism is annoying, I have a few brief comments about the faith-based rationalism you're preaching here. Keep in mind that, though you may be averse to the term "faith," I'm not using it pejoratively. My major objection is with the notion you've shared, that "given enough time, we will find all the answers, but that's simply optimism."It's actually not optimism; it's dogma, unequivocally. Asimov speaks of "refinement," a progressive and exponential truth towards knowledge. However, believing that "all" the answers will be discovered rationally is itself irrational, and has been discussed at length by other rationalists--scientists, philosophers, etc. To believe this is a way of tolerating the unknown, of which religion is another way. You state you're aware of not being able to provide evidence for a negative claim, but you're trying quite hard to do just that--and abusing scientific thinking in the process. Another point to keep in mind is that when I'm speaking of religion as a mode of tolerating doubt and uncertainty, I am probably not describing the extrinsic actions of someone who is obnoxiously spouting off their religious beliefs. I don't defend that, rationally, but it doesn't differ from your behavior here except in its language. I think, should you defend your actions, it should be on the grounds of social norms and not intellectual superiority, however. I smiled when you mentioned the world being on the back of turtles, hoping you were getting at the Feynman/Hawking point that it's turtles all the way down whether it's mythology or critical rationalism. To discredit those myths using rationalism is sophistic and misleading, and I think, in general, anti-theism reflects poorly on other atheists; it strikes me as a reaction formation against the anxiety of confronting the unknown, which science does only through the faith that its methods will converge upon a one true reality. You state that your aim was "not to silence Mr. Johnson, but to encourage other students to think about why they believe what they do," which is noble if true. My goals to you are the same, specifically with the advice that not-knowing is a mode of thinking that enhances, rather than threatens, rationalism. It may seem ridiculous to you when peopleFor example, the belief that the "majority" of religious people are extrinsically religious and use myth as a way of avoiding critical thinking is not well-reasoned--even if it can feel true when annoyed by this pattern in some. Frankly, you're not Christopher Hitchens, or anywhere close; if your atheism manifests as polemic superiority, you're no better than the most rationally-imperiled fundamentalist. Finally, you say: "Regardless, 'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable, and honest, answer."This is true in a grand sense, but you don't consistently embody this belief. You may correctly describe the ethics and practice of science, wherein theories are tested and evidence is gathered and information is validated; however, your personal science-as-ideology does not actually leave room for not-knowing. If it did, you would discuss religion with far less bias and science/rationalism with far less teleology.Either one of you, fundamentalist preacher or irate rationalist, can relate to this pattern if you're honest with yourself: You're afraid of what you don't know, and so you dig deeper into what you think you do know. When confronted with opposition, the flaw in the other's thinking is very clear--but no communication actually occurs. When the opportunity to reconsider your own position arises, you appeal to a compassionate desire to help the other think as you do--but the other's view is distorted by a cognitive bias of illusory certainty.
Jason
My problem is this: Why can't Christians and Atheists just get off of each other's backs and just care about each other as people, instead of their beliefs? Atheists shouldn't be going around trying to change people - Christians shouldn't be going around trying to change people.Atheists - Science is your mantra. Let it speak for itself. Science, when done right, cannot be proven wrong. What is irrational to you, is simply faith in something bigger to someone else. There is no sense in arguing, as it's futile for both sides.Christians - Do as Christ commanded and LOVE. You have entire chapters in the Bible devoted to it, and instead of just showing people LOVE, you rant at them and try to get them to become Christians BY YOUR WORDS. Why not try doing it with LOVE, so that you're not able to take credit for what you're doing? THAT is how Christ would have wanted it. Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27, & John 13:34-35. Those are the main commandments given by Christ in the 4 Gospels. Do you see a pattern here?This "Kirkbride Jesus" - is he really showing love? Is he showing love to his fellow man, no matter what religion they are? No. He's telling them they are condemned to hellfire and damnation. That is not how Christ went about gathering followers...As a former Christian, now agnostic... I can appreciate both sides. This article is well written, and well thought out. Atheists, you all know our Country is great because of the religious freedom we have. Respect theists, even though you feel they're wrong. You don't have to agree to respect someone. Christians, you shouldn't even utter one syllable to tell him how wrong he is... show him instead...
Klaus
A very well written article and example of what everyone as an atheist goes through.If I had one wish, it would be to expose people to a fact. One that you said best, " I have seen what a religious state looks like, and it's awful." We live in a beautiful country where people of all colors and sexual orientations are wiling to sacrifice their bodies and minds for one common goal, that common goal is called freedom. Freedom to think and say what we want. I'll die for that religious person or the atheists out there, just so they have the *freedom* to speak his mind, just so their children can walk down the street. Funny, I wonder what people would say if cafes, supermarkets, and elementary schools were being blown up every single day by a extremely devout religious person...oh yeah...we call them Jihadist/Terrorists here, over there they're called patriots.Oh, and if you're not on board with that, don't take our advice for it; by all means go over there and try to shove your bible down the barrel of an AK. Above all else, thank you for your service to this country sir.
Anonymous
@ Jimmy - You know you why you're going to win this battle? Because when you die, you will never know how completely wrong you were. Enjoy your delusion while it lasts.
Tom
When the cult of religion ends in the eventual evolution of faithlessness of it's followers I'm sure us Atheists will be invigorated and engorged at the prospect of having a religionless society and ascend to the true height of humanity. Through love without a concept of a God and peace through real tangible means. Thanks!
Jimmy
@ Anonymous, you said, "Jimmy, you're wrong on so many levels, but let me point out just one. You said, "The claims "God exists" and God does not exist" both incur the burden of proof because both are existential claims."I'll use your logic and say that Unicorns exists. You have to prove there are no Unicorns, if you can't, then there are Unicorns. Let's use your logic in place of the rule of law. If you are arrested, then the defendant must prove that he is innocent, instead of the prosecutor proving he is guilty."It's nice to know that you think I am wrong on so many levels, but you've done very little to show how I am wrong. The one issue that you did address I will respond to since you have misconstrued my original points. My "logic" did not say that if you can't prove that God does not exist, that he therefore exists. That would be an informal fallacy known as Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, or, Appeal to Ignorance. What I *did* say was that both the claim that "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both positive existential claims and therefore incur the burden of proof. So no, I don't have to prove that unicorns don't exist, *unless I claim that unicorns don't exist* I have several options available to me: I can be agnostic toward the existence of unicorns; I can simply deny your claims and lack belief in unicorns, or I can claim that unicorns don't exist and offer various proofs or evidences that support my claim. Some such proof would be showing that the conceptual nature of unicorns is inherently contradictory. I could also attempt to show that, epistemically, belief in unicorns is not justified. At any rate, your rebuttal isn't much of one since it conflates what I actually said with what you have misconstrued regarding what I claimed.
Zug
"First amendment, does this mean he is not entitled just as much as you. Well he without sin cast the first stone I say. You mad bro?"
What are you talking about? Telling someone to shut up does not violate the First Amendment unless you're Congress (and even then, there are exceptions).
What are you talking about? Telling someone to shut up does not violate the First Amendment unless you're Congress (and even then, there are exceptions).
tidweezy
"Please stop spreading your opinions. "
First amendment, does this mean he is not entitled just as much as you. Well he without sin cast the first stone I say. You mad bro?
First amendment, does this mean he is not entitled just as much as you. Well he without sin cast the first stone I say. You mad bro?
Friendly Neighborhood Atheist
People's ignorance in these comments make my head want to explode. Very nice artile, Daniel. Thank you.
Anonymous
Well spoken, i am sorry for you and your fellow students that these street preachers are allowed to speak in the open.
Anonymous
Jimmy, you're wrong on so many levels, but let me point out just one. You said, "The claims "God exists" and God does not exist" both incur the burden of proof because both are existential claims." I'll use your logic and say that Unicorns exists. You have to prove there are no Unicorns, if you can't, then there are Unicorns. Let's use your logic in place of the rule of law. If you are arrested, then the defendant must prove that he is innocent, instead of the prosecutor proving he is guilty.Please stop spreading your opinions.
Anonymous
Verbose and overly complex re-explanations adds no validity to your argument, Jimmy. Using buzzwords and circular logic will only get you pats on the back from people who cannot have meaningful discussions about this topic anyways. Your paraphrasing of the author proves nothing except your inability to intelligently discuss this topic. You're your own grand champion of your one person debate club - congratulations! I do apologize for that last snarky comment, but this ridiculousness cannot be allowed to pass for a rebuttal, as much as most theists reading it will surely and inappropriately think, "Gosh, God sure showed Jimmy how to handle that evil atheist!" I doubt Jimmy or any other theists will/have even read the entirety of this short article - after all, rationality is poison to the irrational. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go pray some food into the stomachs of the starving.
Jimmy
This letter, as far as I can tell, is just typical atheist rhetoric which has effective poisoned the well before the debate has begun by diametrically opposing fundamentalism Christianity with atheism and then preceding to place reason and rationality on the side of atheism and faith and irrationality on the side of theism. First, the author confuses fundamentalism with Christianity and Christianity with theism in general without so much as fleshing out the differences or acknowledging the distinctions between, for example, a fundamentalist Christian who is a young earth creationist and a progressive Christian who is a theistic evolutionist. The author then precedes to claim to have scholarship, facts, and logic on his side while the theist is stuck in the mud and mire of faith. He has in essence claimed that theism has no rational support without so much as showing why it has not rational support. His "scapegoat" is that atheism incurs no burden of proof and sites as his source, Christopher Hitchens, who is not a philosopher. Burden of proof claims are tricky things, they are not always clear cut and easy to distinguish just who has the burden of proof. In the case of the existence of God, the burden of proof falls on whoever is making a claim. The claims "God exists" and God does not exist" both incur the burden of proof because both are existential claims. As far as scholarship goes, it's again a two-way battle. I can name my scholars who are on my side and you can name your scholars who are on your side. Whatever the case may be, your claim that your beliefs are supported by scholarship is at best rhetoric, but more accurately, debatable. I can numerous philosophers, scientists, historians, etc who are theists and at the the top of their fields of study. One such example of a non-traditional theist/scholar would be Paul Davies. Another is Bernard d'Espagnat. It's hard to take this letter as anything serious when the author asks us to examine our own beliefs and then turns around and paints a black and white picture of theism and faith vs. atheism and science and then takes a few specific verses out the Bible and points out that theists say the answer is God based on ancient writings. He sells theism short while upholding atheism as having some type of integrity in line with science. The author may be surprised to find that science does not equal atheism and that there are both theists and atheists who maintain the basic tenets of current scientific endeavors. But I'm not surprised to find another atheist who is just as fundamental and compartmentalized in their thinking as are the fundamentalist views of Christianity that they attack are.
Anonymous
I love this rebuttal. I go to San Diego State University and we often have born again Christians (at least that's what they tell me they are) preaching damnation to all. They are usually accompanied withgiants signs that if read, pretty much include everyone that sets foot on that campus and tells them they are going to burn in hell. I've seen other Christians, Jews, and Muslims all argue with them but, you sir, have done better in type than any of them have in speech, bravo.
Anonymous
Well written, Dan. Freedom of speech is something I fully support, and in that respect I accommodate what Kirkbride Jesus Guy is doing. But the garbage he is spewing from his mouth is just plain wrong. It's tough to believe that someone in this modern era is so severely misinformed about some of the basic tenets of science. Maybe instead of standing on the sidewalk in front of Kirkbride Hall, he should actually attend some of these college classes with an open mind. You made good points about how in any other context, his messages of torture, homophobia, and general hate, would not be tolerated. But when you stamp religion, in particular Christianity, to the subject, nobody challenges it. I've for a long while been interested in having a little chat with Mr. Johnson but haven't had the chance yet because of my schedule. By the end of this semester, I will definitely let him know that we are not all in agreement with his radical and misguided beliefs. And I won't do this by yelling and screaming, but with a calm, tolerant voice. He needs to know that we atheists, as well as a very high majority of Muslims, Jews, and even Christians would completely disagree with his outdated and unscientific beliefs. Thanks again Dan for writing this, I hope a lot of people will read this and think twice about what they believe and have the confidence to challenge people like Mr. Johnson.
Anonymous
I retired from teaching at UD six years ago. For many years I put up with that filth-spewing jerk because I, frankly, didn't care enough to get into the controversy it would have cause had I seriously challenged him (Although, over the years I did ridicule him a few times). I so wish I were there to hear your challenge. Your essay, by the way, was very well done. Sounds like you enjoyed reading "Hitch" as much as I. I miss him..
Anonymous
Well said.
Anonymous
The Great A'Tuin!
is a member of the 
