Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | Comments |

Document Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

by Eileen E. Flynn, American-Statesman

Thanks to Richard Prins for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/18/18atheist.html

Sunday, March 18, 2007

This is the call Matt Dillahunty has been waiting for. He's been preaching on the air for almost 90 minutes, and so far, there has been no robust debate with his viewers. No real challenge.

Then a viewer named Cory calls, wanting to know how someone can reject the idea of a divine creator. Cory has a 1-year-old baby. "If not God, who do I thank for the gift of my son?" he asks. "For this creation?"

Matt
Matt Dillahunty leads the Atheist Community of Austin and hosts the 'Atheist Experience' on TV. He keeps a Bible nearby to ensure that callers quote it correctly.

What's this? Dillahunty's eyes flicker. After a few uneventful calls, he's struck gold.

Tall, bald and broad-chested, Dillahunty is the public face of non-belief in Austin. He is president of the Atheist Community of Austin, a prolific blogger and writer, and host of the weekly television show the "Atheist Experience" and an Internet radio show called "The Non-Prophets."

Dillahunty's vocation is shocking for his parents, who raised him in a devout Southern Baptist home and had once expected him to enter ministry.

Dillahunty's pursuit for biblical truth took him on an unexpected journey. Instead of trying to win souls for God, the 37-year-old preaches the gospel of science and provable reality in the hope of keeping someone else from spending years on religion.

On this Sunday afternoon, he's in a narrow room with cinder block walls in a public-access TV studio trying to liberate believers from what he considers the shackles of religion.

Dillahunty may have been destined for this. If you believe in destiny. Which he doesn't anymore.

His faith led him to accept Jesus twice. Once when he was 5 at a revival in Kansas City and again as a teenager. He was worried that the first time didn't count. He believed in the Bible, believed it could save people.

He still wants to save people. And in a way, he's become a preacher, using TV and the Internet to get his message out.

His vestments this Sunday are a brown-and-white Guayabera shirt and slacks. His altar is a folding table. The Atheist Community logo hangs on the wall. A worn Bible with pages edged in gold leaf is at the ready.

Dillahunty has no idea how many people will be watching. He has faithful followers around the world who catch the show online. Local viewers often stumble upon the show while channel surfing. Some will call to argue. Some to agree. Others will babble nonsensically.

But Cory, who's still on the line, wants to have a real discussion. Dillahunty's co-host, Ashley Perrien, jumps in first, suggesting that Cory should take credit for creating his child.

But Cory says he wants to give glory to God, that having faith is comforting.

"You're basically saying you believe things because they make you feel good instead of believing things because there's a good reason to," Dillahunty says.

Then Cory reveals his past as an alcoholic, a result of his "sinful nature," he says. God delivered him, he insists.

Dillahunty asks for evidence.

"It's belief, and it's faith," Cory says. "I can't give you evidence."

"I'd much rather that you take credit for what you accomplished," Dillahunty says. Then he leans forward and looks directly into the camera, "When I talk about evidence, I'm talking about ev-i-dence," he says, stressing each syllable. "Not anecdotes. Not gut feelings."

His voice is calm, patient. But this is where the conversations start spinning in circles, and he wants to force the question: How do you know?


Losing his faith

For most of his life, faith came naturally. Dillahunty felt a shiver of goose bumps in church and was sure it was the Holy Spirit. He prayed and listened for God to guide him.

At age 18, Dillahunty wasn't positive that God was calling him to the ministry. In 1987, he began an eight-year stint in the U.S. Navy, after which he moved to Austin to pursue a career in software. He still considered himself a believer, but he had drifted from church life.

In 2001, after the tech bubble burst and he lost his job, he began to worry that God was punishing him for not entering ministry. With a sizable severance package, he put the job search on hold and threw himself into reconnecting with his faith. He reread the Bible, consumed volumes on religion and philosophy, debated with atheists on the Internet and began thinking about going to seminary.

Then it all fell apart. Not in one fell swoop, but in stages. Dillahunty remembers arguing in an online discussion forum about a biblical passage in which God sends two bears to kill 42 children who were taunting a prophet.

That's just immoral, he remembers thinking. Why had he never noticed it before? At first, he was angry with himself. "You really should have investigated this earlier," he thought. "You've believed things that aren't justified for so long."

He started talking to members of the Atheist Community after seeing the cable show. In 2005, he began doing a guest spot on the program. In January 2006, he took over as host. By May, members had elected him president of the group of about 100.

People are pleased with Dillahunty's leadership, longtime member Keith Berka said. "Matt is superb," he said. "He knows more theology than most Christians."


Finding his calling

The work consumes Dillahunty. He spent five hours on a recent Monday deconstructing Jesus' Sermon on the Mount for an e-mail debate he was having with a Christian. He also speaks out on issues of church-and-state separation — a key priority for the community — and bigotry against atheists. A recent University of Minnesota survey showed that atheists are the least-trusted group in the country.

Last year, after a relative discovered Dillahunty's work on the Web and confronted him, Dillahunty realized that he would have to tell his parents. His father was stunned. He sent Dillahunty an apologetic letter saying he had failed him as a father and a spiritual leader. He said he regretted that his son would never be able to love anyone because atheism is a selfish belief.

His mother gave him books on Christianity and vowed to keep trying to return him to the fold.

He doesn't expect to convince them that their beliefs are wrong. But it's hard to shake his frustration with the labels they've given him: selfish, immoral, lost.

"You can build a moral code rationally from a few philosophical precepts," Dillahunty said. His basic principle of ethics is "do the most good and the least harm possible."

Even when dealing with shrill, dogmatic callers on his TV show. He tries to hold his caustic tongue, although he doesn't always succeed. But Cory is polite and hesitant and, most importantly, sincere.

"But how do you explain us?" Cory persists.

With a mischievous grin, Dillahunty begins to lecture about the sperm and the egg. Then he grows serious. He wants the caller to understand. It's more important, in Dillahunty's mind, to have understanding than knowledge. "Even if we don't have an answer . . . that's still not a good reason to say we have a God."

"What do you think is going to happen after you die, bro?" Cory asks.

"I think I'm going to be dead."

The conversation starts to build. What does it mean to have faith? Why should someone follow the Bible? But Cory's call came too late. Dillahunty's clock ticks down the final seconds of the show. "The show's going to cut off in . . ." he tries to tell Cory. Then they're off the air. "Now."

There's no caller ID. Technicians say the station can't track Cory down.

Dillahunty wants to stay engaged, to keep the discussion going. There's always the hope that Cory or other viewers will show up at the restaurant where the atheist crew gathers after the show (the public is invited to join members for dinner). Dillahunty packs up his Bible and laptop and heads for the door.

eflynn@statesman.com; 445-3812


On the Web: For more information on the Atheist Community of Austin, go to www.atheist-community.org.

Comments 1 - 27 of 27 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #26654 by drive1 on March 21, 2007 at 1:58 am

 avatarOoo .. the bear story is a corker! I'd forgotten it: 2 Kings 2:23-24:

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them".

Nice one, god!

Other Comments by drive1

2. Comment #26664 by GBile on March 21, 2007 at 3:00 am

 avatarCory, whom to thank when you have just become a father ?

First, thank your wife, who has accepted you to be the father of her child and who has courageously endured her pregnancy and the birth of your son.

Then thank all the doctors, nurses and others, who professionally helped your wife to let it all happen in the best way possible. And thank those who devoted their lifes to gaining knowlegde about the field of childbirth.

Then thank all the people who stood by you, encouraged you and your wife in this important period of your lifes.

And, finally, thank yourself for your determination to be a good husband and a good father for your son.

Other Comments by GBile

3. Comment #26665 by DavidMarsh on March 21, 2007 at 3:09 am

 avatarGood on him for kicking the religous and god meme, it can be a tough one to crack, especially considering his background. Maybe there's hope yet :)

Other Comments by DavidMarsh

4. Comment #26667 by keith on March 21, 2007 at 3:31 am

 avatarCory,
Why does the word 'gift' in this context make me squirm with embarrassment? (You can almost hear the falsely-gentle voice in which it is uttered). A baby isn't a gift, it's a baby. A gift is something you receive from your family at Christmas or on your birthday. And why would you want to thank someone for a baby, even your wife? If she was doing you a favour in having it, then maybe there's something not quite right about your relationship. Shake the doctor briskly by the hand, thank the midwife and leave it at that.

Other Comments by keith

5. Comment #26668 by BaronOchs on March 21, 2007 at 3:39 am

 avatarOf course the Tech bubble burst because God was punishing someone who didn't go into the ministry it seems so obvious now . . .

If God exists then God help economics!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

6. Comment #26680 by tieInterceptor on March 21, 2007 at 5:08 am

 avatarthe tech bubble bit was quite funny I've got to say,... gives me the impression that religion uses the anything and everything to link events to god, if it shits on you is because you needed a slap on the wrist to come back to his bossom...
Hurricane catrina must be a lesson for some lazy church goer in new Orlans.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

7. Comment #26690 by AtheistJunkie on March 21, 2007 at 7:12 am

 avatarIt's never completely dark. There are always lights that shine out there that tell us don't feel down and don't despair.
Matt is one of them.

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

8. Comment #26691 by Insomniac on March 21, 2007 at 7:12 am

It's nice to see a fellow de-convert arguing for rational though and against faith in Texas (where I live). All of you people in Europe have it easy, you don't know what it's like to be surrounded by all these people waiting to "tell you about Jesus" at any chance they get, let alone what happens when you open your mouth to disagree with them. Granted that Austin is the only liberal city in the state, but much credit is still due to this man for going on television every week to argue against religion.

Other Comments by Insomniac

9. Comment #26696 by TranshumanAtheist on March 21, 2007 at 7:38 am

Dillahunty's father reportedly said,

he regretted that his son would never be able to love anyone because atheism is a selfish belief.


Oh, yes, of course! People stop believing in god because they don't want the burden of having to love others. Why didn't I think of that?

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

10. Comment #26700 by freestateofmind on March 21, 2007 at 7:52 am

 avatarHey guys. I have downloaded and listened to the NON PROPHETS podcast for about 6 months now. It is always interesting. Check them out at http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/

Other Comments by freestateofmind

11. Comment #26701 by freestateofmind on March 21, 2007 at 7:54 am

 avatarAlso they have created a counter apologetics "wiki" at http://wiki.ironchariots.org/ I am sure they would like more input and content.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

12. Comment #26705 by Jack Rawlinson on March 21, 2007 at 8:07 am

 avatarWhy does the word 'gift' in this context make me squirm with embarrassment?

keith: probably because it unjustifiably assumes that someone or something gave the baby. This is something religious believers do almost unconsciously: they build the a priori assumption of the existence of God into their most mundane utterances. So a piece of good fortune is a "blessing" (unspoken assumption: from God). When you escape danger, have good health or sit down for a good meal you should be "thankful" (unspoken assumption: to God). A baby is a "gift" (unspoken assumption: from God).

It really is a virus of the mind. And an extremely pernicious one.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

13. Comment #26717 by severalspeciesof on March 21, 2007 at 9:36 am

 avatarThis reminds me, in an odd sort of way, of what Robert Price says in his book "The Reason Driven Life" (written to respond to Warren's "A Purpose Driven Life). I'll paraphase mightily here:
To the fundamentalist Christian, God is EVERYWHERE, or, Satan is EVERYWHERE. Take your pick.

"What God wants, God gets, God help us all" R. Waters

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

14. Comment #26723 by ghostbuster on March 21, 2007 at 10:54 am

A good site is www.jesusneverexisted.com. I always thought the best way to discuss religion is to analyze the sacred writings; while it is almost futile to argue the non-existence of god (and Dawkins/Harris do their best) showing how scriptures are in error scientifically, historically, and even psychologically with the liberal addition of say, biblical inconsistencies, should rattle the sensibilities of anyone, at least anyone NOT involved in cults which pretty much includes all fundys.
But, we're not after fundys--we're after the fence-sitters who still have active parts of their brains intact.
It is, however, important to be at least modestly familiar with what sacred writings say; when "they" pop you with one, it is nice to "pop" them with another--often one they haven't heard of because most churches stick to the mild parts in their boring sermons. Fortunately, the majority of people are in the same boat and are aghast when they find out, for example, that the mythological Jesus was not really a nice guy.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

15. Comment #26761 by Ixodes on March 21, 2007 at 2:21 pm

ghostbuster

I agree with you that the key to any debate with a christian is to degrade the credibility of the Bible (which is delightfully easy!) There have been several people with whom I've been engaged in ongoing discussions about God and Christianity. In each of them, I buy them a copy of "Misquoting Jesus." This really helps when their argument moves to the "But the Bible says..." because I can quickly dismiss their "facts." Without their book, their concept of god starts to fall very flat.

But the belief in an immutable, irreproachable text is a very stubborn meme to break. One person I'm debating simply refuses to believe the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is human book written by cruel men from a benighted time that has undergone so many revisions it is impossible to know what the original texts said. Not that that even matters!

Other Comments by Ixodes

16. Comment #26763 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Another similar website breaking down the myth of a historical Jesus:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

This is by Earl Doherty, and you can buy "The Jesus Puzzle" as a book now as well.

Other Comments by kkant

17. Comment #26764 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 2:37 pm

And, on a side note... :) Great to see the non-prophets making the news!! For those who haven't listened to them, it's a great atheist show. Lots of irreverent blasphemous fun. They have mp3/podcast archives at http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/

Looks like their website is slow at the moment. Maybe they're getting farked from this thread. :)

Other Comments by kkant

18. Comment #26766 by TranshumanAtheist on March 21, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Thinking more about Dillahunty's dad's claim that atheists have to renounce love, I wonder if the old man has confused atheism with the Rhine Gold or something.

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

19. Comment #26773 by Corylus on March 21, 2007 at 3:28 pm

 avatarQ: Bizarro in a few years??

Yep! I'm a glass half-full type!

Other Comments by Corylus

20. Comment #26806 by cassdenata on March 21, 2007 at 6:56 pm

Caveat - below are some ideas for discussion. I bring up these comments because I am seriously interested in this issue. I am open to your comments and I haven't made up my mind. Isn't an open-mind great.

In thinking about the case of Cory who was an alcoholic but has turned his life around and now has a family, it reminds me of a dilemma that I have been grappling with. In this specific case I think it is much more...healthy, for Cory to acknowledge the sacrifice of his wife, the doctors, etc. What I do find difficult is if I were in a situation where I was giving advice to the old lady across the street whose health is failing, a person finding god in the midst of a drug addiction, etc, do I have the right to press them on this issue of god versus reality. At what point do I look the frail old lady across the street in the eye when she asks me what church I go to. Do I just say some slightly dishonest answer, "my wife and I aren't really in to church" or do I answer, "I don't believe in god". I know this sounds kind of elitist but it is easy for me to cope and even invigorating to acknowledge the non-existence of god but for others I'm not so sure. I had a very easy childhood, great parents, a good support group and a thorough scientific education. My wife reminds me of this frequently when she reminisces about her father who passed away in her teenage development years. I know that at this age if something like that happened to me, I wouldn't turn to god but still I've had a quite easy life.

Other Comments by cassdenata

21. Comment #26816 by Shuggy on March 21, 2007 at 8:14 pm

 avatarJack Rawlinson said:

"When you escape danger, have good health or sit down for a good meal you should be "thankful" (unspoken assumption: to God). A baby is a "gift" (unspoken assumption: from God)."

And when you feel thankful - even to someone who isn't there - you feel GOOD. You feel things have come together as they should in the world, and you are a good person for feeling thankful, not one of those ungrateful SOBs your parents warned you about.

Yes, cassdenata, there is a dilemma when someone gets real tangible benefits from a false belief, such as god saving them from alcoholism. The fact is that if they had the inner strength with "god" they'd have it without him, but there's no telling them that.

Other Comments by Shuggy

22. Comment #26836 by MelM on March 21, 2007 at 10:34 pm

"Saving" wingnuts? When someone completely rejects reason, he can't be reached. Believers erect mechanisms that lock them out of reality. Re this from AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/canada/newsletters/0303lead.asp#f1
"Time and time again, we have insisted that it is essential to understand that all evidence is interpreted on the basis of 'pre-suppositions.' As Christians, we must recognize that all of our thinking—in every area—should be built upon the history revealed in God's Word. By doing this, you then have the correct 'big picture' way of understanding the universe so that the evidence of the present can be interpreted correctly.

Sadly, many Christians often succumb to the non-Christian's challenge to provide evidence for the existence of God, creation and the Christian faith, etc., without using the Bible. When you agree to these terms of the debate, however, then you are answering a person 'according to [i.e. within the terms of] his folly.'

In other words, the Christian has accepted the non-Christian's presuppositions (that thinking is not to be built on the Bible), and thus, by default, he has only the non-Christian's way of thinking to interpret the evidence. Such a person cannot 'win' the argument because he has no true foundation (God's Word) on which to correctly (and differently) interpret the evidence. The Christian might try to use a different interpretation of the evidence (consistent with a Biblical foundation), but without acknowledging the foundation, the argument will likely fail."


If someone maintains at least a little respect for reality and reason, maybe he can be saved but I really doubt that many can be reached at all. If one rationalization (intellectual hack) wears out, they'll invent a new one.

Other Comments by MelM

23. Comment #26956 by Riley on March 22, 2007 at 3:06 pm

 avatarMelM,

Actually, I think I have gained some traction arguing with believers and here's a list of a few things that I have learned:



1) The problem that I think most atheists run into is that they don't realize (or accept) that there is a language barrier that needs to be crossed before a believer can be reasoned with. The language of faith is a language of feelings. Certain words and phrases just feel like they mean something. So I suggest learning to speak the language.

2) Also, related to communicating in the laguage of feelings, I have learned that many believers must (it seems) at all times be full of good postive feelings - you can't expect to get them to give up their good feelings without giving them a replacement something to feel good about. As such, you wont get much traction by simply arguing against something, you need to also argue at the same time for something else.

3) I have come to accept that "god" can mean all things to all people, so I don't even argue "god". Instead, in fact, I like to use "God" as a powerful metephore (meaning whaever I want it to mean) to add feeling to my arguments . . . in much the same way that preachers do, or Einstein did.

4) I try to limit my attacks to religious claims that wholly venture out into the magisteria of science and reason - where they can be slayed, not just wounded.

-----

Here is an example of an argument I use that focuses on attacking the claim that The Bible is the "Word of God":

"The Bible is a parochial message, limited by language, and geography, and time, and in a medium vulnerable to counterfit and misinterpretation. God on the other hand, through His Creation, has provided direct access to all people, of all times, and of all places, in a medium impossible to counterfit and which reveals its truths in an unmistakable manner. What an affront to God, and an act of extreme hubris it is to suggest that the authority of God's Creation, universal and timeless, should be usurped by your personally selected book. "

And I might follow this up with:

"Ironically, when we put aside our personal hubris that we know God and know what God wants and simply observe and learn from God's Creation itself, we learn a lot: we learn how to feed the hungry, cure the sick, bring the dead back to life, and even more ironic still - when we humbly submit our prideful claims to that same processes that has proven itself unparralled in its ability to substantially reveal the truths of God's Creation, we find that we also have a universally applicable tool-set with which to resolve conflicts and potentially as such (to the extent that this tool-set is adopted) enjoy peace on earth."

yes, I'm an optimist.

---

Other Comments by Riley

24. Comment #26996 by MelM on March 22, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Riley,thanks for your response.

Yes, a critical issue is the cognitive priority believers (and others) give to feelings above thought and respect for reality. My approach is to take such "feeling" statements and convert them into statements about real things, thus trying to give people the chance to see what being in focus is like.

I absolutely agree that something positive is necessary. That's why an answer to the ethics challenge is so important.

As to using God in my discussions, I don't think I'm capable of doing that; but, thanks for your example.

Part of my thinking is that a religious herd is a way of trying to escape the fear of using our own minds when faced with the fact that we are all fundamentally cognitively alone in the world. Belief in a revealed religion gives people the "benefit" of not having to think--it gives them "knowledge" that they feel themselves completely inadequate to discover; indeed, thinking becomes dangerous because it threatens salvation. If this is the foundation of religion, it should provide a base for designing attacks. Anyway, this is one approach I'm giving some thought to.

Other Comments by MelM

25. Comment #27177 by Riley on March 23, 2007 at 11:17 am

 avatarDaniel Dennet has given some thought about what makes some religions more successful than others and to identifying which of the strategies of successful religions can be appropriated in the cause of spreading a culture of rational thought.

--

Other Comments by Riley

26. Comment #29960 by imperatoromnium on April 5, 2007 at 6:35 pm

 avatarAs a Christian, who has seen the bear argument before, I find it sad that he got converted to atheism because the translators of the Bible he used translated "na`ar" as children, instead of young men, as it most likely was meant to be.

Other Comments by imperatoromnium

27. Comment #29964 by chrisrkline on April 5, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Imperatoromnium,

And it is significantly more loving (or just)for God to send a bear to kill 42 young men than children?

What, did God make a big change from when he killed every man, women and *child* on the planet (other than the Noah clan) during the flood?

Other Comments by chrisrkline
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: