Gary Sloan. Skeptic. Volume 8, Issue 2, Spring 2000.
Thoughtful skeptics distrust stereotypes. Besides being superficial, they are often vicious. I had long assumed that the stereotype of Bible Belt Christians was remote from reality. As north Louisiana’s resident atheist, I changed my mind after publicly dueling with religious denizens of the region. I have concluded that the Bible Belt mentality is a provincial manifestation of the American mentality.
In 1996 I wrote a letter to a large newspaper in north Louisiana, the buckle (as the cliche has it) of the Bible Belt. In the letter I suggested that Jesus Christ might be a fabrication of late first-century minds, a theory espoused by scholar George A. Wells in such books as Did Jesus Exist?, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, and The Jesus Legend. The letter precipitated an avalanche of demurrals, to which I responded with further missives. My responses evoked responses, the battle escalated, the scope of my letters widened, and I was soon penning outright apologias for agnosticism, the letters now going to three newspapers—the Shreveport Times, the Monroe News-Star, and the Baton Rouge Advocate. The responses kept pouring in, about 300 in all.
On the basis of those letters, I have concluded that a Bible Belt mind does indeed exist. It is a mind resistant to evidence, logic, and scholarship that threaten religious belief with few exceptions, my respondents pertinaciously skirted the substantive issues I raised. Confronted with arguments against the existence of supernatural beings, the plenary inspiration of Scripture, or the historicity of Jesus Christ, the respondents habitually recurred to a predictable ensemble of evasionary tactics. Most of the diversionary maneuvers appeared in the responses to the following letter, one of my last:
To many atheists and agnostics, the Western conception of God is unintelligible. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnific being seems an impossible contradiction, like a square circle.
How can one be both omniscient and omnipotent? Since what an all-knowing being foresees must occur, God could not, even if “he” wished, alter the events he foresees. So his power would be limited. Conversely, an omnipotent being cannot be omniscient because omnipotence would enable him to surprise himself and do something other than what he foresaw.
For believers in free will or hell, divine omniscience raises additional problems. The will cannot be truly free if God foresees all future events. If God knows you will be asleep at noon tomorrow, you cannot at that time be awake. Your subjective sense that you can becomes an illusion.
If, as some believe, many go to hell, an omniscient God would be remarkably sadistic. He creates millions of people who he knows beforehand will eternally suffer.
How can an omnific being be wholly good? How could he make beings capable of evil deeds unless evil pre-existed in his own nature? If he is omnific, he must be the ultimate source of evil as well as good. If you say evil is necessary for good, then evil isn’t really evil.
Even if a supernatural Creator existed, he wouldn’t necessarily be interested in our little backwash orb. The universe, some 15 billion light years across, must have trillions of planets, many more engaging than ours.
Nor must a Creator be kind. As John Stuart Mill observed, whoever or whatever created the animal world must be fond of violence. If God has the whole world in his hands, they are saturated with blood.
Instead of addressing my comments about the attributes of God, free will, and evil, my respondents did the following:
Adduced the benefits of belief. “I wonder if Mr. Sloan has ever considered that belief in God instills morality and lack of religion results in a lack of morality. Maybe he should open his eyes and look around. I know God is real because he took a policeman (my husband) with a hardened heart and made him the most gentle and loving person I know.”
Stigmatized the intellect. “You, sir, shall never find God with your intellect and mind. You’ll find him with your heart and spirit, or you’ll never find him. Intellect and ignorance have more in common than their first letter. Atheists are like unto ships without anchors, drifting aimlessly on the stormy seas of self-delusion and imagined intellectual greatness. Their philosophy of believe nothing, hate everything makes a sorry navigation map indeed, and never leads to a safe landfall. No rational person would ever embark on that journey.”
Affirmed their adamantine conviction. “Sloan doesn’t understand that there is no argument he can make, no power he can bring to bear, that will make us change our mind. We’re going to see our loved ones, we’re going to see Jesus.”
Quoted Scripture. Psalms 14.1 topped the list: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.'” Proverbs 26:4 and First Corinthians 3:19 were other favorites.
Advised readers not to respond. “I wish Christians would stop sparring with Gary Sloan. Most Sloanian slogans merit no attention, although I confess that I have fallen into the trap of responding to his pseudo-intellectual treatises. I think everyone is wasting their time arguing with him. Why not just leave him alone to wallow in his own ignorance? If he has no one to argue with, he can’t argue.”
Described my future state. “I shudder to think of the fate that awaits the Enemy of God from Ruston [my hometown]. It looks like Sloan wants the whole enchilada—death, followed by the White Throne judgment, humiliation, condemnation, then thrown into the bottomless pit by an archangel with an attitude, to swim around in burning fire with his master, the Devil, for eternity.”
Reprimanded me. “I fail to understand why Mr. Sloan enjoys and is proud of condemning holy things. What is gained by converting a person to atheism? Is it just that misery loves company?”
Ridiculed my style. “In a verbose, rambling letter to the editor, Mr. Sloan mocks, blasphemes, ridicules, and scoffs at God and religious faith. Mr. Sloan, are you truly filled with hate and anger for all things right and moral, or are you simply motivated by a need to impress us with your ability to use the dictionary? If the latter, don’t feel ashamed. My 6-year-old son does the same thing.”
Demonized me. “There are people who enjoy doing evil things. Sloan seems to take delight in trying to destroy people’s belief in God. When I read his letters, I can just see an evil Satan sitting there writing the letter. He may be using Sloan’s body, but the evil comes from the master spirit of evil:’ Besides Satan, I was at various times colleagued with Attila the Hun, Nietzsche, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, “Madelyn O’Hara,” (sic) William F. Buckley, Jr. (my putative fondness for big words), and such diminutive rogues as minnows, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and chiggers.
Thanked me. “Christians owe a debt of sorts to Professor Sloan, for his oft-printed letters to the editor help to fulfill the very scriptures he continues to blaspheme. Centuries ago the apostle Paul wrote, “There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying where is the promise of his coming?’ Also, consider how many thousands of people are angered enough to examine their beliefs and become stronger by articulating them when they defend them.”
Threatened cancellation of subscription. “It seems that almost weekly Gary Sloan is in your letters expressing his non-Christian beliefs. If you share his beliefs and that is the reason for the continued support, then you can cancel my subscriptions. I will also pass this along to all my friends and you will probably hear from them also.”
Several other shifts were common. In response to any skeptical remark about Jesus Christ, I could expect personal testimonies and tutorials on Christian doctrine: “Jesus was holy when implanted in Mary’s womb and was holy when Mary delivered him. Jesus was never just man. He never gave up his holy nature. The fact that Jesus is God is proven by his resurrection from the dead.”
“To the atheist who writes to the Times, I want to say that the joy I have experienced as a Christian has been wonderful. Before I knew Christ as Lord of my life, I was a pretty miserable guy. Christians, please join with me and pray for this confused, troubled individual.”
I could also expect my words to be twisted: “Mr. Sloan made fun of the entire Bible, both old and new testaments. He says Jesus is a liar, a bum, a beggar, a thief, uses people, puts his foot in his mouth and in so many words says he likes to destroy people.” When I mentioned that I preferred Shakespeare to the Bible, a respondent averred that “Gary Sloan, an atheist professor at Louisiana Tech, has taken the position that students should not read the Bible, but rather would be advised to study Shakespeare.”
Occasionally, a reader would prophesy my salvation: “God has shown me that you, sir, hang in the balance. You will in time accept Jesus as your savior and He will silence your words of disgrace about him.” One enthusiast was grandiose: “Mr. Sloan, you are so much like Saul. I warn you, God saw all these qualities of Saul and knew He could use them for Jesus. I believe He sees He can do the same with you. I just can’t wait to see you proclaiming the gospel of Jesus.”
Several churches made me their project “Gary, next Sunday at 10 a.m. we will be praying that the Holy Spirit will reach out to Gary Sloan and that he will receive a sign by Wednesday, June 14th, at 6 p.m.” If the sign appeared, I failed to identify it. A large Protestant church (Six Flags Over Jesus, one wag called it) blazoned a pithy homily on a marquee that faces a thoroughfare: “Gary, God Is Real, And He Loves You Dearly.”
Sarcasm flourished: “Now Sloan aspires to be the village atheist first class, brandishing his BDIP degree (bombastic, doctrinaire, intolerant, and predictable).” “This gentleman Sloan is highly intellectual—which means he is given to speculation, that is, he thinks he knows all about a subject when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” “Without Gary Sloan’s letters, I don’t know how my son would have completed his English projects of collecting uncommonly used words like the ones Sloan uses, ‘incorporeal,’ ‘omnipotent,’ and ‘Omnipresent.”‘ One reader had a penchant for puns: “Unlike Gary Moan, when I graduated from college I was no magna or summa cum laude. I was just a grateful ‘thank you laude.”‘
My epistolary opponents included ministers (no surprise), lawyers, bankers, physicians, journalists, and professors. An editorial page editor refused to print my responses to criticism of me, though he printed critics’ responses to my criticism. When I pointed out the double standard, he wrote a column defending himself: “Sloan is right, you know. His turning upon those who criticized his deep emotional aversion to worship was prevented. It just seemed too, too sadistic on my part to do otherwise. I think of the Bible Belt as people who are proud to give their allegiance to a higher spiritual power rather than follow the unwashed rudiments of man.”
Eleven professors signed a letter assuring parents that not all faculty members shared my Weltanschauung: “If you or your children become university students, you will meet faculty who have Dr. Sloan’s perspective. You will also meet faculty who are committed to Christ at the same time. There are many Christian faculty at this university and at other universities in the area.” Another professor urged me to tout Scripture rather than impugn it: “Doesn’t the Bible give us, at the ultimate level, strength? Does the humanist really believe all strength comes only from puny human beings?”
A professor of economics spearheaded a movement to have my letters squelched: “Sloan’s real intent is to attack, to provoke, to ridicule, to incite, and to mock His letters reveal a mean-spirited self-absorption that is becoming dangerous. They are the moral equivalent of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. It is time for the News-Star to suspend publication of Sloan’s clever but ill-intentioned letters. They inflate his self-importance at considerable expense to the common good.” A lawyer elucidated the expense: “Sloan’s letters, ostensibly protected by freedom of expression, undermine the tolerance and moderation that make it possible for people with different beliefs to live peacefully and respectfully in one human community. There is more than enough religious hatred and human suffering in the world without Sloan stirring up more.”
In short, a consensus emerged that the vocal skeptic is a self-serving bigot and unscrupulous rabble rouser. Ironically, whatever public animus I roused was directed at me and what I was thought to represent. As one correspondent, with only slight hyperbole, candidly noted: “It is Gary Sloan against the rest of us.” My name became the local shibboleth for atheism, a pathogen implicated in a wide spectrum of personal and social ills. Hearing the war cry of godlessness, believers of every sect circled their wagons. My criticism intensified the tribal commitment to piety.
In its resolute attachment to supernatural agencies, the Bible Belt mentality may be a provincial manifestation of the American mind set. Americans are overwhelmingly, even promiscuously, theistic. According to the 1999 Time Almanac, only 0.3% (874,000) call themselves atheists (though the “nonreligious” 8.8% probably includes de facto atheists). Eighty-five percent classify themselves as Christians, in effect nationalizing the sweep of the Bible Belt ethos. Since most Americans prefer theism to non-theism, they tend to give short shrift to the application of logic, reason and science to religion since these modes of understanding are no longer the handmaids of theology.
While dabblers in science may invoke Big Bang quantum fluctuations or the complexities of living cells as evidence for theism, they customarily retreat to fideism or, like my respondents, redefine the terms of the debate when they realize science not only hasn’t found God, it isn’t even looking for Him. (The late Brian L Silver proffered this light-hearted hypothesis: “Personally, I am tempted to believe that if God did once exist, she created the Universe but died in childbirth.” [1] A recent poll of U.S. National Academy of Science members revealed that only 7% believe in a personal god. [2] Another indicator of the gap in belief between scientist and layperson is evident in the results of a 1997 Gallup poll. While over half of scientists believed that life originated and evolved through naturalistic processes unmediated by supernatural force or intelligence, only 10% of nonscientists held that view. Forty-four percent accepted the miraculous account(s) of creation given in Genesis. [3] For most cosmologis ts, a supernatural God is an unnecessary hypothesis. For most Americans, He is an unassailable fact. The American belief machine apparently has a fail-safe component. Nothing shuts it down.
From my protracted service in the epistle wars, I infer that religious conditioning still has a massive influence on American values. Ecclesiastical institutions, which thickly dot the American landscape, continue to implant powerful psychological deterrents to independent thought Despite the obligatory panegyrics to free speech, free thought in America remains heavily stigmatized. Across the Bible Belt, few non-theists are willing to advertise their unbelief When I began to do so, friends privately asked me whether I had a death wish or, as one put it, had gone off my rocker. At times, I suspected they might be right. The only published letter of support I ever received was an effervescent blurb from one of my wife’s undergraduates. The student was, I surmised, bucking for an A.
Though accused of demonic deeds and in some circles ostracized, I still believe that theism should be publicly challenged. Besides being intellectually dubious, it begets organized religion, whose moral history scarcely inspires confidence. While institutionalized religion performs some valuable functions, it has an enormous capacity for ill. As Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics, recently noted in a speech to the members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: “With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”
Unless my epistolary experiences were wildly aberrant—and I have no reason to think they were—those who believe that the good life has no need of supernatural sanctions might do well to sharpen their hoes. In the American Eden, the weeds of religiosity are as thick as ever.