Adams cannot understand why any academic institution would not support his debate on “Which worldview requires more faith; a) Christianity or b) Atheism?” May I provide three such reasons?

The first reason is that Atheism and the belief in God (not just belief in the Christian God) should be the focus of the debate because Atheism is the denial of God, not the denial of Christ. Either/or debates make sense only if the alternatives are complete (cover the domain of possible perspectives).

The second reason is that debate excludes the point of view that belief in God (or Christianity) and Atheism require the same amount of faith. The assumption that A> B or B > A without allowing for A = B is just sloppy thinking.

The third reason is that there is no reasonable way to quantify faith, and even assuming their faith could be quantified, there still would be no known way to relate a faith metric to a Christian or Atheist faith requirement. Adam’s proposed debate makes no more sense that debating how many abstractions can fit on the head of a pin.

If Adams wants open academic discourse on Atheism, he ought to propose one that has real academic merit.

Adams then goes on to propose “a simple list of things I think Christians at UNCW are entitled to expect”.

First on his list is “In courses raising the controversial topic of religion the professor has every right to assign readings arguing that Christians and religious folks in general are stupid. But the professor should also make some effort to assign readings that reflect a contrary view”. I am not familiar with the course offerings at UNCW, but where I was on faculty (Seattle University) there were extensive course offerings on religion. Could I interpret Adams’ first item on his list to imply he thinks that Seattle University should require consideration of anti-Christian views of non-Christian religions and Atheism (and perhaps agnosticism as well) in all those courses?

Second on his list is “When professors are either unwilling or unable to abide by #1, they should be willing to defend their views in a debate or on a panel – especially one that equally represents both sides”. Does Adams really think that professors of other disciplines should waste their time defending their course content from everyone who takes exception to it. Should biologists spend huge amounts of time defending evolution from creationalists or physicists spend time defending quantum mechanics from those who believe “God does not play craps”? Just what does Adams think academic freedom means? And if Adams wishes academic debate, why isn’t he satisfied doing it in the traditional academic way, with well-researched scholarly articles published in academic journals.

Third on his list is ”When professors are unwilling or unable to abide by #1 or #2, the university should not compound the problem by engaging in violations of the requirement that they exercise viewpoint neutrality in the management of public forums”. While I understand Adam’s frustration, a university has certain academic goals, and that it is within the authority (and the duty) of the university to manage public forms in a way that supports (and does not hinder) the success in meeting those goals. Academic viewpoint neutrality has meaning within the constraint of academic mission satisfaction. I’m not sure why UNCW believed a debate on “The issue of faith in Religion and Atheism” might not fit the university’s academic mission, but if the university feels the debate is of no academic value, it is certainly within the rights and responsibilities of the university not to support the debate.

As a one-time (long ago) Atheist myself, I can assert that I was never “very angry at the God [I claimed did] not exist”, but I was at times very angry at those who tried to stuff their God down my throat. Especially annoying were ascertains that those who do not believe in Christianity (or any other religion) cannot lead a moral life because the Christian God (or any other God) is the source of all morality so no matter what their lifestyle, non-Christians (or people who believe in any other God) must be immoral --- something Adams implies when he projects his own pre-Christian moral weaknesses onto all Atheists.

Perhaps Adam’s misconstrued visions of Atheists is the real reason Atheists have no interest in participating in (and the university has no interest in sponsoring) his proposed debate.