The Folly of Fools
by Eric Rauch

“One of the curious things about a secularized society is this: the less it believes in God, the more it believes in miracles.” --William Kilpatrick

“Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.” --G.K. Chesterton

Somewhere in California a village is missing its idiot. The current patron saint (self-appointed as best I can tell) of atheism and the “Christ-myth” has finally hung himself with his own stolen rope of “rationality.” We have long pointed out on this website that atheists/skeptics cannot reason within the assumptions of their own worldview, i.e. chance, random processes. They must hijack (thieve) the assumptions of an ordered world from the Christian worldview, in order to argue against the existence of the God of order. Brian Flemming, director of the pathetically one-sided documentary, The God Who Wasn’t There (he can’t even think of a title without stealing from Francis Schaeffer), has made it plain that he has no time for narrow-minded Christians who won’t listen to “reason.” In order to avoid getting his clock cleaned in a public internet debate on TheologyWeb, he decided to issue a Statement of Belief (not once, but twice) that would-be debaters must sign and have notarized before he will give them the honor of challenging his intellectually-superior gray matter.

Flemming initially posted this version of his Statement of Faith, which is what it is. He may “believe” his faith position to be true, but he can’t “prove” it (sound familiar?). Six days later, he posted this version. What a difference six days make. Notice, for example, the difference between the “old” point three and the “new.” Old: “I believe there are no written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ.” New: “I acknowledge that there is no known evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the period of his alleged life.” Perhaps during his six-day retooling of the Statement, Flemming actually opened a Bible and found that Paul, John, Peter, James and Luke (to name only five writers) claimed to be eyewitnesses. His revised Statement says this at the top (as well as including a ludicrous 2-page “explanation” that was absent from the first version):

By agreeing to the following statements, you are not agreeing that they settle any additional questions. You are only acknowledging that you understand the difference between evidence and faith. If you cannot sign this statement, you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

Talk about ignorance. He won’t talk to you about his beliefs until you “acknowledge” these eight points. In other words, Flemming is so insecure in his own core beliefs (faith commitment) that he won’t put them on the line? Isn’t this the very thing that he is accusing the small-minded Christians of doing? If I want to debate him as a Christian, I must “acknowledge” up front that he is right and I am wrong in order to get him to “take me seriously”? Is he really this arrogant, or did he have an insatiable craving for lead-based paint chips as a kid? Flemming is completely missing the point that a debate is FOR THE AUDIENCE, not the intellectual pride/insecurities of the debaters themselves. A debate purposely pits two views against each other so those reading, listening, watching, etc. can consider themselves better informed about the WHOLE topic, not just getting one insecure little man’s pet views on the topic. Flemming himself doesn’t understand the difference between evidence and faith. He believes that since he reads books written by people who are alive right now, that this somehow constitutes evidence, while books written by people two thousand years ago who claimed to have been there requires “faith.” He somehow conveniently overlooks the fact that ANY event in the past, either yesterday or six thousand years ago, requires faith if I wasn’t actually present. Some events are better documented than others, but it all comes down to my willingness to believe it actually happened. This is Philosophy 101, yet Flemming thinks he has found a way around this by redefining “evidence” to his own liking.

Proverbs 26:5 tells us: “Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Well, here goes. Brian Flemming finds the historical and manuscript evidence for the physical existence of Jesus Christ to be something less than compelling. OK then, using his own brand of pseudo-logic, I refuse to believe that Brian Flemming exists. After all, I have never seen him in person. I have seen a documentary with a man that claims to be Brian Flemming, but I thought that the real Brian would be taller, so the video-Brian must be an imposter. I have also read web postings by a man that claims to be Brian Flemming, but I thought that the real Brian would be more willing to debate tough issues, so the web-Brian must be an imposter too. I have read articles by others that claim to be eyewitnesses and friends of Brian Flemming, but they must be too ashamed to admit that they have been hanging out with the imposter-Brian and they are continuing this “Brian-myth” for their own benefit. But, I know better. I have learned how to think and operate in the “real” world by the “real” Brian Flemming (wherever he may be) and I will not fall for such silly and unreasonable notions such as “Brian Flemming exists.” I’m much too smart for that…Brian has taught me well.