Two weeks ago as of the publication of this article, a man named Dan came to our campus. Dan Barker, an advocate for the Freedom From Religion Foundation and other nationally recognized "Freethought" groups, spoke on his "deconversion" from Christianity to atheism.

First, I'd like to clear the record. I was not in attendance for the entire speech. I listened to Dan speak from approximately 7:40 pm until approximately 8:10 pm This, I realize, does not give me a full understanding of everything he said.

Secondly, and I feel the warning is merited, if redundant (see issue 3), I am a Christian. I had originally intended not to attend the Barker presentation due to scheduling conflicts and a general desire not to listen to someone talk about abandoning concepts which are near and dear to me. I went, in the end, because my conflicting appointment ended early. I also went because I had heard many things about Mr. Barker's impressive intellect, and I hoped to leave the evening with respect for that aspect of his presentation, if not the position he held.

I was unable to respect either.

As an English student, I've been taught a lot about rhetoric and the ways individuals use it to gain power over other people. Essentially, it is the words we choose, not necessarily the concepts we address, that give us an edge on our audience in a verbal presentation. Choosing words that are connotatively loaded can create a positive or negative spin on whatever it is we talk about.

This concept can be most easily viewed from a racial-issues perspective. Calling someone with dark skin a "nigger," especially if you happen to be of Caucasian ancestry, is probably going to assert that you have a very low opinion of them. Calling that same person "African-American" or even just "black" is going to put you on a totally different rhetorical footing.

It was after viewing Barker's presentation through this lens that I left early. Barker employed an increasingly reductionist rhetoric when addressing his crowd, especially after the question and answer portion began. While I believe that this may in part have been due to the forceful nature of some of the questions he was asked, I felt that, given his expressed desire for critical thinking and freethought, simplifying Christianity in the manner he did was unnecessary.

Barker essentially claimed that any good things done by the church were only the result of naturally good individuals, and that the church itself, through its adherence to the Bible, was responsible for nearly every bad thing that has happened in the history of the modern world. He also made unpleasant comparisons of Christians to al Qaeda terrorists, and leveled at least one accusation at Christians of blindly following President Bush because he is one. I personally resemble neither of those two remarks – I have blatantly and repeatedly attacked the Bush administration policy in public forums, and am vehemently opposed to mass violence as a solution to the world's problems. Christians, in my experience, are such a varied and diverse group outside of their common faith that Barker's reductionist view is patently unfair.

What does that mean? Does that mean I'm picky? Well, maybe. However, it also shows a distinct attempt to create a negative connotation around Christianity and around belief in God in general. Somehow, it seems to me that, given the vast amounts of intellectual work Barker has done in pursuit of his viewpoint, there should have been a way for him to make his point that did not employ such blatant rhetorical attacks. Comparing Christians to al Qaeda, and making the rhetorical assessment that nearly all Christians are conservative, even neo-conservative, in their ideology is a bad way to get any Christian to take you seriously.

Barker also made some logic errors. Barker stated at one point in the evening that he knew that there was no god. Barker claimed that Christian belief was errant because it held blind faith in things it could not ascertain directly. I ask you, the reader, this question: How does one ascertain directly the lack of existence of a deity? Is this possible in any practical context?

Barker was allowing himself to play the game by breaking his own rules. If we cannot ascertain directly that there is a god, i.e. saying "I know there is a god," then how can we ascertain the inverse any more directly, i.e. "I know there is no god?" Does Barker have an omniscient knowledge that we aren't aware of? I don't think he'd make that claim. So what was this evidence of? More empty rhetoric.

When you're doing fact checking, it should be incumbent upon you to find sources willing to acknowledge their use of rhetoric, that are able to enter into a discussion without creating immediate assumptions. That's free-thinking. I didn't see Barker as a representative of freethought. He was as ready to attack that which he disagreed with as any Falwell or Robertson.

From a Christian perspective, as well, I would disagree with Barker. Barker claims that the best Christians have "grown beyond their Bible" (that quote's probably not exact). Matthew 22:34-40 tells the following story:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (NIV).

How can I grow beyond that? The chief tenet of my faith requires me to commit every fiber of my being to loving God, including loving God with my whole mind, and then to turn around and love everyone I meet like crazy. I think that loving God with your whole mind requires a level of critical thinking that Barker did not credit Christians with. I also think that this passage requires more out of the daily lives of Christians than any of us can accomplish in just one short lifetime. We are called out to do this amazing task of loving unconditionally, beyond boundaries. I don't want to outgrow that task.

I found Barker's reductionism to be unsatisfactory matched to what I'd heard of his intellect, I found his rhetoric counter-productive, and I found his dismissal of the Christian population-at-large as incapable of true critical thought offensive. You want to know Christianity? Read the Bible. Read C.S. Lewis. Talk to the leaders of The Navigators or InterVarsity. Consider those sources. Don't settle for rhetoric. Think critically about what you read and the people you talk to. Then and only then, decide whether or not you actually agree with everything that Dan Barker said.