I’d hate being forced to evangelize Jesus to someone. I’m not a Christian, so I don’t anticipate having to do so anytime soon, but it’s a difficult kind of public speaking that I would find punishing.
Imagine a Christian preparing to go out to share the Good News in person. The first task is preparation. You’d need to know the arguments for and against Christianity well enough to hold your own in a discussion. Next, you must have at least a bit of debating skill so you can spot fallacies, not get flustered during the debate, remain polite, and so on. Finally, you prepare an organized agenda of the main topics you need to cover.
You think you’re ready, but Christianity is a difficult argument to make. You must anticipate the hard or awkward questions unique to this task like, how does the Trinity work? If the universe needed God as its creator, why doesn’t God need a creator? If the other thousands of religions throughout history were all manmade, why imagine that the one you believe in just happened to be the one correct one? How can you enjoy heaven if you know about the torments in hell?
You need to expect mocking questions—did the talking snake and the talking donkey ever get together to chat? Was it part of God’s perfect plan that Adam and Eve’s children had to make babies with each other? If God regulated lifelong slavery in the Old Testament, is he angry that we made it illegal? Why is God indistinguishable from nonexistent?
A recent podcast (“Why Are We so Afraid to Share the Gospel?”) adds another dimension to the challenge. Jim Wallace of Cold Case Christianity observed, “It’s one thing to bomb in front of a stranger; it’s another to look foolish in front of your friends.” Looking stupid or weird can have lasting consequences within your social group. This is especially true for young adults, the ones most often encouraged to evangelize. This visceral fear of looking foolish is perhaps the biggest obstacle.
Thought experiment #2
Compare that with a different kind of evangelism. Now you’re trying to convince an anti-vaxxer, in person, to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
This is like evangelizing the Jesus story in that you’re trying to avoid a calamity in both cases. In the Christian case, it’s going to hell. In the vaccination case, it’s dying from COVID, suffering from long COVID, or catching it and spreading it to a vulnerable loved one.
There are other similarities. In both cases:
your target has already heard your argument, at least approximately
the arguments could be intellectual or emotional (likely both)
your target has probably already considered and rejected your position
you might fall into a morass of tangents and waste hours. In an online argument, you could easily go at it for months. (I speak from experience.)
But there’s one big difference. When arguing for Christianity, the fear of looking stupid or foolish or gullible is always present or just below the surface. Not so when arguing for vaccination.
The reason? You’re with science when arguing for vaccination but against it when arguing for the virgin birth, and God’s odd fixation on this one planet out of 100 billion in our galaxy, and three gods who are actually one god, and failed guarantees of answered prayer, and a Second Coming that’s been just around the corner for 2000 years.
Replace “science” with “reality” and you see why evangelizing for Jesus feels so awkward. Your gut is trying to tell you something.
I’m continually amused that so many people have stepped forward to explain what God meant, because that clearly tells us how sincerely they understand that the all-knowing, all-wise one wasn’t up to the task himself. — commenter Richard S. Russell
Which is odder, the claim that the earth is a flat disk rather than a sphere or the claim that a god spoke our universe into existence? Given how many parallels there are, it looks like an even match.
Last time we found 8 parallels between flat earth (FE) thinking and either Christianity or Creationism (or both). This article will conclude the comparison by highlighting 7 more.
This series began with an imaginary argument from a flat earth proponent. I hope you observed that even if an argument is completely wrong, if someone has studied its intricacies and you haven’t, they will likely be able to outsmart you on a number of points.
Compare that with Christian thought, which has put infinitely more effort into shoring up its claims. Yes, those claims are from the Bronze Age, but unless you have put some effort in studying them from both sides, you should expect many Christian arguments to leave you scratching your head.
Let’s look for more parallels.
9. “God did it” resolves every problem
Flat earth thinkers and Christians rarely give a thought to the work of materials scientists, quantum physicists, or chemists. And they happily use the fruits of modern science like computers, electricity, and airplanes. They only lose sleep over those scientific fields that step on their theological toes such as geology which gives an old dating of the earth (and annoys young-earth Creationists), astronomy which gives round planets circling the sun (flat earthers), or biology which explains life through evolution (conservative Christians).
When faced with a tough problem, the scientist may admit, “I don’t know.” But flat earthers and Christians always have the God card that they can’t resist playing. They’ll point to science when they like its conclusions, and otherwise declare that God did it (or God is inscrutable, or God’s ways are not our ways, or some similar argument). It’s nice having a God that can be reshaped to fit any need, I guess.
Flat earthers demand, “What does it look like?” when they see a flat earth. And Creationists demand, “What does it look like?” when they see the God who must’ve made our world this complicated.
Creationists, next time you get the urge to impose your religion on all school children, ask yourself if you’d also allow in flat earth theory.
10. Indoctrination
In the FE argument, those of us who remain skeptical were called indoctrinated. Apparently we can’t see the clarity of the FE worldview because we’ve marinated too long in a round-earth environment. We’re too devoted to authority figures who tell us what to think.
But the lady doth protest too much. The difference is that those of us who get our reality about nature from the scientific consensus can point to a remarkable track record. By contrast, FE thinking and Christianity have taught us zero new things about reality, and their disciplines’ track records show only failure.
Naturalist laypeople can accept the scientific consensus as the provisional truth, but we have no authority figures whose declarations we must embrace or which we refuse to challenge.
To those who place themselves as science’s ultimate authority and reserve for themselves the right to pick and choose the science they’ll accept, I have a challenge. They must fill in the blank in this declaration: “I reject the scientific consensus of field X, even though I’m an outsider to that field, because ___.”
11. Science is hard
The flat-earth argument is correct when it points out that science is hard, and that’s a weakness for the round-earth position. To those of us who care about which worldview is correct and nothing more, it can be frustrating to realize that some might embrace a worldview despite its not being correct.
This is the problem with the science-based approach. We’re subjected to a Gish gallop of our own making. Yes, you can explain the science, but it’s a slog that demands patience from our audience.
Consider some of the topics that may come up in a debate over the flat vs. round earth models. Defending a round earth might involve the Coriolis force, mirages, the green flash, tidal lock, rainbows and glories, the Big Bang, stellar spectroscopy, auroras (polar lights), magnetic poles and why they move, precession in both gyroscopes and the earth, and more. Each model must explain these.
Why does the moon look bigger at horizon, and why is the sky blue? Why are there two tide cycles per day, and why is an eclipsed moon red? What causes the seasons, and why is it colder at the north pole? Why can’t we walk through walls if atoms are almost all space, and why do long-distance airplane routes follow a great circle? Science has answers, but science has no obligation to be simple.
The Webb telescope was recently placed at Lagrange point L2. What is L2, and why is it a good place for a telescope? Where are the other Lagrange points, and why?
Want some physics closer to home? Buoyancy is a commonplace concept, but it can be trickier than you expect. Try the cannonball in the rowboat puzzle. For a tougher challenge, solve the dreaded balls and beakers puzzle.
The science explanation makes clear that the earth is round, but FE thinking is simple and intuitive. Science won’t always win this contest.
The Christian connection is that Christians might also consider more than just which worldview is correct. For example, apologist Greg Koukl asked, “Wouldn’t it be more satisfying” for God to ground morality? Many would respond, “Who cares? I want to be in harmony with the truth.” But to some, Koukl’s appeal has force.
A similar argument with equally flawed reasoning is the claim that atheism is depressing, so therefore you should adopt Christianity.
But of course that won’t satisfy a FE zealot. If inconvenient facts get in the way, they might explain them as a conspiracy.
Creationists, which includes most conservative Christians, have their own inconvenient facts. Evolution convulses their world, so it must be wrong. Again, apologist Greg Koukl is our example. He says that not only is evolution flawed but those within the field know it’s flawed. In other words, it’s a conspiracy.
But here’s an odd problem. Apologist and fellow evolution denier Jim Wallace comes at the question of conspiracy theories from another angle. He says an invented resurrection of Jesus is an incredible conspiracy.
So these apologists tell us that it’s plausible that tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists are part of a conspiracy today but implausible that a small group of people would invent and support the Resurrection claim centuries ago. I’ll let them fight it out.
13. Playing the skeptic
The FE proponent was just being skeptical. Who can complain about that since science welcomes challenges, right? If it’s correct, it can tolerate a few friendly questions.
But “friendly questions” of this nature have consequences. Remember how anti-vax media asked whether hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin or even bleach could be effective treatments for COVID. They were just asking questions—where’s the problem?
The problem was that inventing a worldview based on fake news undercut the credibility of the worldview that was based on real science.
Creationism is a far bigger industry than the FE, with researchers busily undermining the credibility of evolution with pseudoscience. They’ve been fairly successful, and 66 percent of white evangelical Protestants in the U.S. accept Creationism over evolution. The problem here is false stories that encourage people to reject the truth.
Do you remember the Ken Ham (Creationist) vs. Bill Nye (scientist) debate? They were asked what would change their minds. Nye quickly gave a couple of examples of potential new data that would change his mind. But what would change Ken Ham’s mind? Nothing, he admitted.
And that’s the problem with FE proponents and Creationists. Remember point #5: Always attack. They ask questions, but these are only meant to sow doubt. They don’t actually want them answered. It’s not like they have any intention of changing their minds because of new information.
14. Sweeping, unfalsifiable claims
FE proponents are usually Christian, and they’ll point to the obvious flat earth models in the Bible. This means that if an argument isn’t going the way they’d hoped, they have the option to fall back on an omnipotent God. They’ll say that if God’s actions are surprising, you can take it up with him. God moves in mysterious ways, we’re in no position to judge God, blah blah blah.
But it’s not possible to falsify “God did X” since God is always a dozen steps ahead of us. And by being unfalsifiable, this claim is unscientific.
The Creationist or Christian is hoist by the same petard. Perhaps if they see parallels with FE thinking, they’ll be less likely to make the FE proponent’s claims.
Scientific claims are falsifiable, … while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false. Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not.
15. Teach it in schools?
I haven’t seen any FE proponent demand that their alternate reality be taught in schools. I’m sure the average Christian would be as outraged at the suggestion as any atheist. But if that’s the case, Christians should help keep all pseudoscience, including Creationism, out of schools.
In 2011, then Texas governor Rick Perry put it this way, “In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools, because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”
So which one is right, and how do you know? If you already know, why don’t we just teach that instead of wasting class time teaching both? Or is “figure out which one is right” a personal thing so that any answer is correct? That would certainly making grading tests in biology class easier if personal opinions count as correct answers.
We teach science in science class, not discarded theories like astrology, alchemy, or Creationism. Within biology, there is no controversy.
Creationists, next time you get the urge to impose your religion on all school children, ask yourself if you’d also allow in flat earth theory. Or is only your pseudoscience allowed in?
The science explanation makes clear that the earth is round, but flat earth thinking is simple and intuitive. Science won’t always win this contest.
Conclusion
Creationists and Christians have questions and arguments that the layperson can’t immediately answer, but the same is true for flat earthers. Assign a Christian apologist to develop a case for Bigfoot or alien visitors or that all world leaders are lizard people, and that would also take some effort to rebut. Christians have been working on their case for two thousand years. It’s not surprising that it initially sounds impressive.
Christian arguments are effective because they’re confusing, not because they’re sound. They’re weighty enough to convince someone who wants to be convinced, but the patient skeptic can eventually remove all the paint to see that there’s no wood underneath. Apologists raise a lot of dust, but at bottom all they have is, “Well, you haven’t proven there’s no God,” which counts for nothing since they have the burden of proof.
Christians, how can you accept Christianity but reject flat earth theory when these 15 parallels show how similar they are? Christianity is in present society only because it was in past society. It’s been grandfathered in. It didn’t earn its way in with evidence like science.
[The flat earth claim] is ultimately lazy, childish, and self-indulgent, resulting in a profound level of ignorance drowning in motivated reasoning. — Steven Novella
Is the earth a flat disk? I hope we can agree that it’s not, that the earth is a sphere, and that flat earth thinking is bullshit. My last article was a dialogue with an imaginary flat earther, and while I tried to give as strong an account as possible, I hope it was obvious that my feet are firmly planted on a round earth.
With few exceptions, atheists and Christians are on the same page with respect to flat earth thinking. It’s a nice change to be starting with a point of agreement. Sadly, this beautiful concord is not to last, because I think Christianity is little more than flat earth thinking with centuries of patina.
There are surprisingly many parallels between flat earth thinking and Christianity. As you analyzed the argument from our mythical flat earth (FE) proponent, I hope you regularly got the sense of, “Hmm—that feels familiar.” That feeling probably pointed you to either Creationism or Christianity, and often both. Let’s look for those parallels.
1. Sufficient evidence
Who is the audience for the argument? Not a scientist, if the argument is coming from a flat earther or a Creationist*. If Creationists were trying to do real science, they’d be going to conferences and writing papers for secular journals, like the real scientists.
If you donate to a Creationist organization, will that fund scientific research? Of course not—it will be used to convince lay Christians that they’ve backed the right horse and to appeal for more donations.
The standard of evidence for the FE proponent, Creationist, or Christian is low. They want the available evidence to be sufficient, and they’re convinced before the argument begins.
2. Misdirection by focusing on minutia
The FE proponent had lots of odd arguments. While they might have been confusing, which could have been their purpose, they were trivial. For example, our FE proponent was all over the literal map with questions about long-distance flight routes in the southern hemisphere.
The same is true for Christians and their complicated claims like the Fine Tuning argument or Ontological argument. This is what you lead with? If there were an omniscient and omnipotent god who wanted to be known, he’d be known! The very need for apologetics proves that such a god doesn’t exist.
In Christian parlance, they focus on the gnat but ignore the camel.
3. Gish gallop
The Gish gallop is a technique named after Creationist debater Duane Gish. His style was to pile many quick attacks onto his debating opponent while ignoring attacks to his own position. Even if his opponent were familiar with each attack and had a rebuttal, to thoroughly respond would mean descending into long, tedious explanations that would bore the audience and wouldn’t fit into a formal debate.
We see this in the FE argument. It contained rapid-fire arguments about the amount of sun in Arctic, why the moon doesn’t rotate, flat map projections, gyroscopes, and so on. This focus on quantity over quality takes advantage of the typical person’s scientific ignorance.
You see this in the Christian domain when they talk about a cumulative case. That is, any one argument may not be sufficient, but look how many there are! But consider this when applied to pseudo-sciences like astrology or Bigfoot. Crappy arguments don’t turn to gold just because you have a pile of them.
And, as with Gish, a debate or article with a pile-up of one terse argument after another is still popular among Creationists.
4. Errors and lies
My goal in writing the FE position was a compelling argument, not a factual one. For a few points, I tossed out a claim that either I didn’t know was true or knew was false. I suspect this approach is common within FE arguments. If not that, then I can only conclude careless scholarship is the cause of the many errors.
I wonder how many times the typical FE proponent has been corrected. And I wonder how many corrections lead to that flawed argument never being used by that person again. In my case it takes just one such correction.
In the Creationist camp, Ray Comfort (to take one well-known example) has been schooled many times how evolution doesn’t predict a crocoduck. My guess is that he values the useful argument more than he is repelled by the broken one.
5. Always attack
The FE argument is a stringing together of arguments of the form, “Didya ever wonder about natural feature X? A round earth model is supposed to explain that? That’s crazy!”
It’s easier to attack a scientific model than to defend one when the audience is poorly educated in science. FE (and Creationist) arguments try to keep the opponent off balance, always on the defensive.
If they throw ten punches, only two of which land with any impact, that’s two more than they started with. A layperson poorly educated in the material and predisposed to root for the anti-science argument might give the decision to the attacker.
With an argument that intends to be scientific, the opposite is true, and a new theory is explained, supported with evidence, and defended. Not only should it explain what the old theory explains well (and a round earth and evolution explain a lot), it must explain additional puzzles that tripped up the old theory.
The Creationist hopes that no one notices their Achilles’ heel. An attack on evolution does nothing to build up any competing theory of their own.
6. Burden of proof
The FE proponent explicitly rejected the burden of proof, saying that they had common sense on their side. But no one would accept this. They ignored the Sagan standard, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and rejecting centuries of scientific consensus is the extraordinary position.
It’s also in vogue for Christians to insist that both parties in its debates—the Christian and the atheist—are making claims, and so both must defend their positions. But while the atheist has the option to defend “There is no God” or “There is no supernatural,” that’s not necessary. Either of these could be the default position, leaving the burden of proof solely on the Christian.
I find it amazing that Christians will, without embarrassment, insist on this concession—aren’t they eager to share the Good News without prerequisite?—but here again, they know it’s easier for them to attack than defend.
If there were an omniscient and omnipotent god who wanted to be known, he’d be known!
7. Circular reasoning
The proponent of any theory could show how, starting with a set of widely accepted initial assumptions, an unbiased observer can follow the evidence and conclude with their theory. For example, think of a university course in physics where the professor starts with basic facts that everyone shares and uses evidence to gradually build from there.
FE believers and Christians often follow that approach backwards. They assume their theory and then show how their worldview is consistent with the facts of the world. The best they can do is show that their worldview isn’t falsified by reality and insist that the burden of proof is actually shouldered by their opponent. This is circular reasoning.
8. Appeal to common sense
The FE argument want you to use your eyes and trust your senses. Look at the horizon—it’s flat! Climb a mountain or look over the ocean, and the horizon is still flat. “If flat earth theory is wrong, it’s got to be the rightest wrong theory ever.”
The Creationist equivalent is to say that humans and worms and even bacteria are so complicated that they certain look designed. A Christian example is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, where the first premise has a twist on the common sense idea that everything must have a cause.
No, common sense isn’t reliable at the frontier of science. If it were simply a matter of following one’s common sense, someone like Isaac Newton would’ve resolved all of science’s loose ends centuries ago. Or even Aristotle, millennia ago. “Life is complicated—it must be designed” is common sensical but wrong. The same is likely true for the insistence that everything in nature had a cause.
