Left to right: Yours truly, David Goicoeecha, Grant Lafleche

Wednesday evening I moderated my first debate.  It took place in the small town of Fonthill (near St. Catharines), Ontario, between atheist and journalist Grant Lafleche and catholic Brock University professor David Goicoeecha on the existence, nature and meaning of the afterlife.  As the debate moderator I was not able to inject my comments into the mix, but as an independent blogger here we go.  I wasn’t surprised to find Grant cogent, fast thinking and eloquent, nor was I surprised to find Dr. Goicoeecha hard to understand, easily moved off topic, and making irrelevant and factually wrong statements.  What was surprising was just how poor a debater Goicoeecha actually was.

In essence his argument, if it deserves that descriptor, was that it is fine to rely on “emotional cognition” to answer questions related to the afterlife.  He described Grant as reductionistic for his repeated call for facts.  At least 3 questioners described Grant as simply denying everything, and insisted that Grant’s denial had no more proof than religious assertions.  They asked him to give evidence for the non-existence of god or heaven.  Dr. Goicoeecha would then proceed to endorse those comments, explaining how much nicer is a universe where we can endorse, or say “yea and Amen” (something to do with Nietzsche?) to feel good things like heaven and salvation.

Grant’s response was that accepting everything was a way to avoid debate, and in any case, why not then accept Mormonism (at least we know Joseph Smith lived), Scientology, and anything else we’re told.  This nicely backed Goicoeecha into a corner, and he came out with the ridiculous statement that he could easily accept all those beliefs - even atheism!  What he could possibly mean by that I can’t fathom.

A few other highlights:

1.  Grant pointing out that Pascal’s wager (believing in god and being wrong is far better than not believing and being wrong so why not believe?) is like the used car salesman of version of theology.  It’s like asking “how can i get you into this heaven today?”

2.  Goicoeecha’s statements to the effect that

- St. Theresa of Avila (well known for her mysticism and commentaries on love) would probably have loved Hitler more than Jesus (with no preamble or explanation to make this sound anything but horrific).

- All flesh will be saved literally means that our pets are off to heaven (apparently also mice, fish and lizards, since the definition of flesh is “the soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate)

- Copernicus started astronomy (no explanation from me necessary)

3.  Best of all, a questioner who said that if Jesus ascended into heaven at the speed of light he’d be at Pluto by now.  Ludicrous and astronomically wrong too.