Theology Debate “Talking Points”

“Who would win a theological debate between a Christian and a Deist, if both had the same level of knowledge? What would be some of the ‘talking points’ from each side?”

I may come across as moody – the list of questions passed on and commentary not provided due to my potentially scathing perspectives are long, but I will try to be as emotionally flat and logical as possible with this answer…

Breaking down your question:

“…Win a theological debate…”

There is no victory in debates, these days – especially when religion comes into play. Sure, there may come a point where one side “wins” because the other storms off in a silent and furious huff, but that does not constitute winning.

“…If both had the same level of knowledge?”

Are we speaking common academic knowledge, or as close to absolute authority on creation, purpose, and what happens afterwards as a mortal can get? Going with common academic knowledge, I would be interested to see how that conversation went.

My ex-wife tried valiantly to be a Catholic, but what impressed me about her early on was how she could easily embrace Creationism as well as Evolution. “Marianist college,” was her answer, and not wanting to go down the rabbit hole of what that implied, I left it at that. So, if both sides of the debate had similar educational backgrounds and motivations, I would say that they would reach the “agree to disagree” and find something else to discuss.

“…Some of the ‘talking points.’”

The Christian would bring scripture to bear, while the Deist would just shrug and accept it as an extreme version of morality lessons written from long ago. The Christian would bring up the main cast and supporting actors of the Bible, and the Deist would shrug again and mutter something about the deities of the Romans and Greeks being relegated to “mythology” today. The Christian would introduce the fact that religious institutions and organizations provide a valuable service to the community, and the Deist would respond with something along the lines of doing what is right by their fellow man (while biting their tongue on the topic of corruption and impropriety committed by some vehicles of Faith).

Eventually, they would both realize they were getting nowhere, as Faith stands as a personal decision about a higher sense of self and/or purpose. Granted, I think the Deist may get there sooner (we tend to anticipate these discussions with wary reluctance), but in the end and with all other factors being equal – maturity, tone, participation level in the discussion – it would be a pleasant draw.

Have I had such conversations? Sure.

Do they always end up with the optimal result? Nope – in fact, I am usually the first one to disengage once the other person is either not listening/considering my points or is just becoming too pushy (this I blame on living in the South since 2011 and parrying the persistent question of what church I go to).

Will I become the “crotchety and faithless heathen who calls himself a ‘Deist,’ or whatever the hell that is”? I hope not. Faith is a constant throughout human history and it will remain so for a long time to come. I do not disparage anyone’s beliefs or ideas – as long as they do not directly infringe upon my own, my children, or our safety. Rather, I still choose to live by the analogies I have provided earlier – water and fireworks. To argue further is usually an exercise in frustration.