I’m interviewing Ray Comfort
Ray Comfort, the person who wrote You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But you Can't Make Him Think and who recently published a 150th anniversary edition of Origin of Species with a special 50 page introduction, has agreed to do an email interview with me on this blog.
You might remember that we analyzed all (and I mean all) of Ray Comfort's You Can Lead… and so getting to correspond with Comfort after all of that blog fodder is an interesting prospect. Obviously, Comfort and I disagree on a great many things, but we can certainly still have a civil conversation with each other.
Comfort actually answers a lot of questions in interviews that are challenging to his viewpoint, but I'd like to ask some out of the box questions – something he might not hear everyday. Here are some I am thinking of asking:
You might remember that we analyzed all (and I mean all) of Ray Comfort's You Can Lead… and so getting to correspond with Comfort after all of that blog fodder is an interesting prospect. Obviously, Comfort and I disagree on a great many things, but we can certainly still have a civil conversation with each other.
Comfort actually answers a lot of questions in interviews that are challenging to his viewpoint, but I'd like to ask some out of the box questions – something he might not hear everyday. Here are some I am thinking of asking:
A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this apologist named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you're more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?
If you take a gander at statistics, you'll see that the rate of crime has fallen since 1990. There are lots of different theories floating around as to why this is. What's your take?
You're voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why?
Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?
What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?
Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?
Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?Do you guys have anything you're just dying to ask him?
posted by Ziztur
at
8:00 AM
18 Comments:
I'd like to know his definition of a "real Christian".
Also think the local election question would be more interesting asked frankly "which is more important: Christian values or being any type of Christian". That is mainly because I have a pet dislike for hypothetical questions that try to mask a clearer question.
Ziztur,
Good luck with the interview. I would like to hear his response to the question, "What is the gospel?"
Keith
I think the rate of crime question is a rather vague question. I think I know what you are trying to get at, but it might be better to ask a more pointed question, unless my assumption is wrong.
If you take a gander at statistics, you'll see that the rate of crime has fallen since 1990. There are lots of different theories floating around as to why this is. What's your take?
In the book FREAKONOMICS its argued that the primary reason for the drop in the crime rate was the legalization of abortion. I'd never heard that before but he makes a pretty good case for it.
Linden,
I'm not sure what your question is getting at . . .
"which is more important: Christian values or being any type of Christian"
The obvious point of our question, of course, is that if the situation were reversed (atheist candidate who was stupid and corrupt vs. a Christian candidate who was intelligent and ethical) no atheist I know would even seriously consider voting for such an atheist candidate over the Christian. On the other hand, many, many Christians will tell you straight out that they absolutely would never vote for the atheist candidate that was perfect for office in every other way. Christians have said this to Ziztur and I before, without any comprehension of how discriminatory that is.
Obviously, if you plugged any other minority into that equation, it would be immediately obvious how discriminatory it is.
I'm thinking that the second question is rather "out there". I know what Freakonomics says, but that's still rather out of most people's league to comment on withhout breaking out a lot of textbooks and getting down and dirty in social theory.
Your first question interest me more than the others. Ray Comfort is interesting to me in that I think he purposefully puts up a straw man so that atheist will attack him. He puts up such an extreme view of Christianity that many atheist feel compelled to destroy it. I don't actually think he believes the crap he's peddling. I think he's a rodeo clown who, while getting a small following of actually crazy extremists, thrives more on the people who attack him and thus make him known (Much like Glenn Beck). I'd be interested if you could somehow manage to get him to make admission to something of that effect.
Well I really hope that goes well for you Ziztur. This should be quite entertaining, given the fact that you will be engaging in discourse with a man who used a banana to try to prove intelligent design.
I’m with Thumper on this one. I have long held the belief that no one can possibly be as publically and naïvely wrong as Ray Comfort. The only explanation for how he can peddle such wretched strawman nonsense, after being repeatedly and patiently corrected by all manner of scientists, is that he doesn’t give a shit about the real science—he’s lying, in other words.
I don’t think he’s necessarily indifferent to the belivers’ plight, though. On the contrary, by teaching uneducated believers that “This, this nonsense, is what evolution is about”, those people are less likely to show curiosity and more likely to shrug evolution off as a bizarre edifice of God-hating beliefs.
In other words, I think Ray is not a crazy hate addict like, say, Phelps, but rather a cynical man who deliberately deceives those who believe him in order to inoculate them against learning real science.
Ziztur,
Another interesting question (I'm sure you could improve the wording) would be, "In what ways is your technique of engaging the conscience through utilizing the Old Testament Law different than the technique of a smoke alarm salesman who engages the conscience of a potential customer by saying something to the effect of 'If you don't buy my product, your children's blood will be on your own hands if your current smoke alarms fail.' If engaging the conscience is a simple salesman's technique, how do you know if your conversions are actually Spirit-led or simply products of this proven sales technique?"
Additionally, Comfort claims to evangelize people the way Jesus did (hence "the way of the Master"). I would simply ask him to identify a few places in Scripture where Jesus evangelized the way Ray Comfort does.
Finally, I would ask Comfort about what kind of follow-up and discipleship process occurs with the people he helps convert on the street. If the encounters produce significant life change, how do he and his partners pastor those people after their street encounter. I'm interested to know more about this as well. Thanks!
How would you define a "kind" of creatures?
How much micro-evolution will you think a kind creature needs before it split off to become it's own kind?
In your opinion or under any creation scientist's research: are penguins in it's own "kind"? Even though it is obviously a bird.
Have you met, chat with or otherwise communicated with an Old Earth Creationist named Adnan Oktar (pen name of Harun Yahya)?
His argument for creation is that despite Millions of years of existence, the fossil record shows that all kind of creatures does not display any form of change at all. A fossil of a fish seems to be the same as a modern fish, a fossil of a bird seems to be the same as a modern bird, etc.
He says that this clearly shows that creative genius of his Creator, Allah.
What fossil evidence can you point out to him that he is clearly mistaken, that micro-evolution does happen and that an ancient fish is very dissimilar to a modern fish. An ancient bird is very dissimilar to a modern bird, etc.?
What physical evidence can you show him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the creative force behind all of these micro-evolution? Evidence that is so compelling that nothing in the Koran can dispute to it's truth?
I second the call for a definition of "kind"...
My own questions would be these:
"Is there a significant difference between your message being anti-atheism/evolution and pro-Christian/creationism?"
"You have talked to a huge number of people about their beliefs over the years, atheists and Christians alike. According to your understanding of Christianity, broadly speaking how many would go to Heaven if the world ended tomorrow?"
I don't know if these are worthwhile questions or even interesting ones, but that's my two cents.
-EdW
I wonder what he would say, now, about that preposterous notion of males and females having to evolve in parallel but separately. Would he admit that one of his more frequently parroted arguments is a quicksand foundation for his rhetoric, or would he still pretend to think it’s a good argument?
Man, you guys had so many good comments here that I don't know where to start!
Mainly, my goal is not to ask him "gotcha!" questions. All of the ones you guys had were good though, so I will probably ask some version of most of them. Thanks!
He's defined Kind as species on the blog, and he's also mentioned there are millions of transitional fossils, and accepted speciation.
He just won't accept evolution for religious reasons.
I was sincere about my questions on facebook.
Ask him why the nazi's banned Darwin's work since they were apparently so in love with it.
Ask him if he really thinks $120,000 a year plus benefits is an 'average wage'.
Did he hide the link to the pdf for his version of origins because of the plagiarism claim?
Oh and of course, 'why does every time someone who never wanted to debate you in the first place turn you down that deserves a press release while you deliberately ignore and even lie about the fact that you can't get people to debate you. For a specific example Abbie Smith was ready to debate you in OK, but in your press release about how you couldn't get SANE to debate you you specifically said no one in OK would debate you either. And of course all the other people waiting for a response for a debate. Aron Ra, Matt Dillahunty, et al.
You could always ask the cancer question he's hates so much over at the swamp. He wrote a book where he said you should seek medical assistance if God chastises you with Cancer. He deletes peoples comments when they quote it.
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
<< Home