How To Avoid Definitional Apologetics

I see Ben Watkins joined Jeffery Lowder and Johno Pearce [The Tippling Philosopher] in calling himself a "Philosopher." I have resisted calling myself a philosopher because I have held to a higher standard. No more. I am a philosopher. You can call me that. If they are then I am. If my degreed educational credentials and years of college teaching and published books on philosophical issues doesn't call for it then something's wrong. I don't say this to demean them. I say this to join them, especially when it comes to any and all disagreements on the PoR that we may have between us [See Lowder Ignorance Tag below]. In fairness, a lot of philosophers disagree with me on the value of PoR and the use of Bayes Theorem, so I'm not asking for agreement, only a discussion between philosophers in addressing what I say. I think internet atheists who are addressing PoR questions should stop what they're doing until they read my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Full Stop. 

My case in point today concerns how to avoid Definitional Apologetics.

Over the last decade I have found that one bastion for Christian apologists has been philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion. The scholars have honed their definitional apologetics in such a fine-tuned manner that when engaging them in this discipline, it’s like trying to catch a greased pig. Or, to switch metaphors, trying to chase them down the rabbit’s hole in an endless and ultimately fruitless quest for definitions. What’s an extraordinary claim? What constitutes evidence? What’s the definition of supernatural? What’s the scientific method? What’s a miracle? What’s a basic belief? What’s a veridical religious experience? What’s evil? They do this just like others have done over questions like, “What is the definition of pornography?” And then they gerrymander around the plain simple facts of experience. I would rather deal in concrete examples like a virgin who supposedly had a baby and a man who supposedly was raised from the dead. [From Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, p. 28]

Read more »

Ravi Zacharias, Another Liar for Jesus Exposed

I've commented on the growing evidence against Ravi Zacharias before (see tag "Liars for Jesus"--which now has 24 posts). Now Steve Baughman, who was trained as a lawyer, presents his case in his book, Cover-Up in the Kingdom: Phone Sex, Lies, And God's Great Apologist, Ravi Zacharias. It's a self-published book. Prometheus Books didn't want it. Neither did the board of Secular Nation want an article on it. Lots of Christian media outlets and magazines rejected a story on it as well. Apparently Zacharias became too rich and powerful to expose, for fear of reprisals and lawsuits. 

So Baughman published the story himself. The book reads like what you'd expect from a legal mind, complete with all the tweets, legal documents, emails (from Zacharias) along with several appendices. All of this evidence provides a solid case against the well-known influential apologist Ravi Zacharias. He's a habitual liar and deceiver. He has lied about his credentials and accomplishments for decades. He had carried on an illicit relationship with a married woman named Lori Anne Thompson. He also tried to bully her into not coming clean about their relationship to her husband by threatening suicide if she did. There's more. If you wish to read a more detailed primer to the book, Randal Rauser wrote one up, called, The Lying Apologist: A Review of Cover-Up in the Kingdom.

Rauser explains why he wrote the story when others didn't:

Baughman notes that Zacharias’ defenders have tended to dismiss his allegations, chalking them up to Baughman’s own hatred of God (4). While this is unfortunate, it is hardly surprising given the tribalistic nature of many Christians....

Over the last few weeks, several Christians have asked me why I want to review Cover-Up in the Kingdom. The question seems to be based on that same tribalism that I referenced above. In other words, don’t criticize our guys.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but a habitual liar and fabulist is not my guy. And it doesn’t stop with Zacharias. Perhaps the most disturbing lesson of Cover-Up in the Kingdom is that Zacharias has been enabled by the silence and complicity of many other Christians including apologists like John Lennox and Os Guinness, megachurch pastor Mac Brunson, professor Jeremy Begbie, and countless functionaries at institutions like RZIM and the CMA denomination.

I like to say that in Christian apologetics, good arguments are important but a winsome presentation is even more important. I’d now like to add that one’s moral integrity is most important of all. And moral integrity requires Christians to speak out and denounce Ravi Zacharias and his enablers. If we claim to follow He who is the Truth (John 14:6), how could we do anything less?

Good on Rauser! When it comes to this issue I'm in his tribe.

Read more »

Jeffery Lowder Silences Disagreement at Secular Outpost

Two days ago Lowder said:

In order to maintain a high quality of discussion in the comments box, I have made the executive decision to moderate all comments on all posts. This decision is effective immediately.

The following policies are in effect....5) This blog has a philosophical focus; the editors and authors aren’t interested in debating with readers who think philosophy is worthless or cannot understand the value of clearly defined terms. Comments along those lines will be blocked. LINK

Not having been a part of the discussions he refers to, it looks like he's feeling the heat from my book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, which mirrors Dr. Hector Avalos's call to end biblical studies as we currently understand them.

Listen, I have blocked people for various reasons, but never because someone merely disagreed with my views. One issue I have debated over the years is the existence of an apocalyptic prophet who was the basis for the Jesus we read about in the gospels. I have never silenced this debate here at DC, yet Lowder just censored a debate over the value of philosophy of religion. Pity, to think he claims to be interested in "genuine inquiry." Hypocrite! This is to be taken as another example of his hypocrisy.

Vic Reppert On the Fundamental Divide Between Jeff Lowder and Me

I do think that there is a fundamental divide between people who think that atheists and theists have a common goal, a goal of understanding one another better, and those who think that the only legitimate goal is the partisan goal of advancing one's own viewpoints. I think that is the dividing line between people like Loftus and people like Lowder.

Whoah there! What a load of false propaganda crapola! Did he just say I don't want to understand theists? That is laughable and one of the reasons I think ridicule is an important response to such drivel. I don't care if Vic has a doctorate, either. Here's a clue Reppert, see chapter 3 in my seventh published book in seven years, How to Defend the Christian Faith, which highlights the honest search for truth as the priority for us all, and I mean it. Furthermore, the whole reason my writing gets such wide acclaim is precisely because I do understand Christianity. In fact, I have spent the better part of my waking hours doing so for years, and decades. And did Reppert just say I think the only worthy goal is a partisan one of advancing atheism? Again, refer to what I just wrote above. I'll go farther to state that I'm the last atheist on the planet to say atheists should all do this or that, that there is one one way to be an atheist, that all atheists should do it my way or get to the highway. Cookie cutter mentality is the last thing I have. Of course, since I stand against cookie cutter mentality then Jeff Lowder and I have problems because it's JEFF who seems to think all atheists should be like him, and THAT is our problem. It's also our problem when he calls himself a philosopher when he is not, because he uses that unearned accolade to gain credibility when criticizing me for not boot stepping in complete sync with him.

I don't think there's just one divide between us anyway. There are several of them, which I think are very instructive:

Read more »

On Lowder's Stupid Atheist Meme #4: “Let’s Put an End to the Philosophy of Religion!”

Jeff Lowder again, with another so-called "Stupid Atheist Meme." One of the reasons I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy is because he has successfully convinced people into thinking he's a philosopher when he is not, which I consider his biggest con. He has a college degree in computer science and is well-read in the area of philosophy of religion, okay. But I have found him to be ignorant many times. His biggest ignorances have to do with taking positions against those I have taken, so it does matter that people see who he really is. For if he's considered a full credentialed philosopher with a Ph.D., then what he says is taken more seriously than what I say. His all white male philosophy student cheerleaders defend him because he has successfully conned them. They say there have been many philosophers in the past who didn't have Ph.D.'s, like Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes and Aquinas, which I know all too well. That is irrelevant. I'm arguing Lowder lacks the depth and breadth necessary to have earned a Ph.D. in philosophy.

What I'm writing is helpful. One person wrote:

I have been using the Internet Infidels for about 15 years now. The essays therein has helped me in my philosophical path from "angry antitheism" to a more moderate nontheism. And in all those time I have thought JJ Lowder is a philosopher. I don't know why I had that impression, but I did. Maybe subtle hints in his online writings made me believe that he is one. If you had not exposed his actual academic background, I would still think he is a PhD-toting analytic philosopher. LINK.

Read more »

The Stupidity of Jeff Lowder: "Nontheists Should Stop Using 'Freethought' as an Umbrella Term"

Jeff Lowder again, with today's post: "Stupid Atheist Meme #3: Freethinker = Atheist." He may be baiting me so I won't continue dogging his every step, just a few of them as I see fit. Jeff Lowder smuggled his way into being known and respected as a philosopher without any relevant credentials. I aim to "out" him about this. Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. If you're looking for a more accurate analysis of philosophical arguments then I bid you turn elsewhere. I am banned from commenting at the Secular Outpost because I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy, so in order to comment on a post of his I must do so here. Okay.

First let me point out more of his hypocrisy. A while back Dan Fincke, a former Freethought Blogger, issued a pledge to civility. Jeff Lowder endorsed it with his full support. Afterwards Greta Christina published her book, Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless.Lowder has yet to state for the record that he disproves of the tone and/or substance of that book since she is definitely not being civil to religionists. So his supporting the civility pledge doesn't mean much. I consider this more of his hypocrisy, as I wrote earlier. Now why is he a hypocrite? For one reason. To please important people. He will, on occasion, say what needs to be said to please them, hoping no one notices his hypocrisy. People call that being two-faced. [For my part I reserve the right to piss people off and I can like Greta Christina's book because I never signed that unbalanced pledge].

But to the point of today's lesson. Lowder once again is spouting ignorances. He calls himself a philosopher but he lacks both the knowledge and thinking skills to be awarded that accolade. See for yourselves. He claimed it is stupid to think of a Freethinker as an atheist. Not just wrong, mind you. Stupid. Let's see who the stupid one is, shall we, and why.

Read more »

Another Example of Jeff Lowder's College Level Approach to the Philosophy of Religion

Jeff Lowder smuggled his way into being known and respected as a philosopher without any relevant credentials. I aim to "out" him about this. Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. If you're looking for a more accurate analysis of philosophical arguments then I bid you turn elsewhere. I am banned from commenting at the Secular Outpost because I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy, so in order to comment on a post of his I must do so here. Okay.

I first want readers to notice how he dishonestly presents the impression that he is a philosopher. In a recent post on morality he writes as follows:

The concept of “objective morality” is notorious for its ambiguity. You might even say that people–or, at least, philosophers–have a moral obligation not to use that expression unless and until they first give a very nuanced definition of what it means! Because the concept is often misunderstood, I’m going to try to offer a “layman’s guide to moral objectivity” in this post.

Let’s start with “morality.” The average person who is not a philosopher probably thinks there is just the one ‘thing,’ morality, and that’s the end of it. In fact, the topic is a little bit more complicated than that. Non-philosophers might be surprised to learn that philosophers make a distinction between the good (values) and the right (duties). LINK.

If you don't see this for what it is, or object to his use of language then you should. In a post sometime back, Lowder talked about having written "a paper", which real philosophers know is a technical term for something one reads at a philosophical conference (just think of a "call for papers"), or it refers to something that will be published in a peer reviewed journal. What he wrote was neither of these things, just the dishonest use of language.

Read more »

Jeffery Jay Lowder: "It's Self-Defeating to Ridicule Beliefs"

Jeff is once again disagreeing with me. That's okay as far as it goes and expected sometimes, but I truly find his ignorance surprising. [Edit, this type of exchange finally led me to the opinion that Jeffery Jay Lowder is a dishonest person, a hypocrite, seen right here. I have found he only has a B.S. college degree in computer science, yet goes around calling himself "a philosopher", even though he's so ignorant about this and so much more. [See tag below.]

On his Twitter account (@SecularOutpost) Jeff boasts of being "Paul Draper's Bulldog." I think Draper is the reason we disagree on the issues we do. Draper is wrong on those issues even though I too have a respect for him. I really do not understand Jeff's claim that it's self-defeating to ridicule beliefs, and he certainly failed to defend that claim. Recently I argued that ridicule has value in our cultural wars, right here. Jeff commented:

Read more »

In Defense of Peter Boghossian's Tweet About the Philosophy of Religion

Jeff Lowder has produced what he called a "reductio ad absurdum argument against Boghossian’s ridiculous tweet." A big brouhaha is taking place because of it. Me? I try to first understand what someone is saying before I criticize it. I try to state the argument better than the original if I can, something neither Justin Schieber nor Taylor Carr have done in addition to Lowder.

Here's Boghossian's tweet:

Being published in the philosophy of religion should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table. — Peter Boghossian (@peterboghossian) June 15, 2014.

Jeff quotes this tweet and proceeds to put together a very impressive list of atheist philosophers. It was a complete surprise to see my name in that list, by the way, for which I am very thankful. Jeff's point is that if published philosophers of religion should be disqualified to sit at the adult table then so should published atheist philosophers of religion. Since it's clear these atheist philosophers of religion are not to be disqualified as childish, therefore Boghossion's claim is absurd. Stay with me. I'm about to defend Boghossion. After all, I consider myself to be his bulldog.

Read more »

The Top Ten Worst Atheist Books

Okay, I've been prompted to write this post due to Jeff Lowder's lists of the worst atheist debaters . Up until this time I have never written such a post. See what you think:

Read more »

There is No Such Thing As Theism or Christian Theism or Mere Christianty

In an earlier post I had argued there is no such thing as "theism" or "Christianity" or "Mere Christianity." Link. In a post where Jeffery Jay Lowder says he doesn't know whether religion causes more harm than good I brought this up, saying religion like theism or Christan theism or mere Christianity does not exist in the abstract. Bradley Bowen, who writes for Lowder for the Secular Outpost responded. Here is what he wrote and my subsequent response:

Read more »

Does The Scale of the Universe Undercut the Belief in a Tribal Deity?

I have thought about the scale of the universe for some time and talked with other former Christians who said the scale of the universe was a factor in their deconversion. It was for me. I had bought poster photos of parts of the universe and placed them all over my office. Jeffrey Jay Lowder insists there isn't a good argument leading us to this conclusion. I have disagreed.

So let's revisit this using the title to this post. Does the scale of the universe undercut the belief in a tribal deity? Yes, most emphatically. First we have to show that a tribal deity is what we find in the Bible. After that the rest is easy. A god like that, who is only concerned with a small tribe in a very large planet, must not know about the planet. Get it? Such a tribal deity looks indistinguishable from one created by a given tribe. Tribal deities were to be found everywhere tribes could be found. Since all of the rest of these deities were created by tribal people then the odds are that the god of the Bible was created by the Israelite tribe too. What then about Anselm's omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God? What if this is the God who exists instead of a tribal deity? Does it change anything? No, I don't think so, not much anyway, although this is the point of contention.

Read more »

Pete Edwards of Durham University On The Scale of the Universe

Edwards says we cannot get our heads around how big the universe is. Matthew Cobb at Why Evolution is True corrects his numbers, which are out of date:

Here’s how astronomers breakout the visible universe within 14 billion light years:
Superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
Galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
Large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion
Dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 7 trillion
Stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion (3×10²²)

A new study suggests that 90% of the most distant (and therefore oldest) galaxies in the universe could be unseen, hidden by clouds of dust. That would mean that – assuming the same number of stars in each galaxy, and that older galaxies don’t deviate from this rule – that the number of stars in the visible universe would be 270 billion trillion or 2.7 x 10 to the power of 24).

With this as a backdrop I want to discuss Jeff Lowder's criticisms of my argument that the size of the universe leads to atheism. I have looked in vain to see if Lowder has any educational credentials at all, so I look forward to him sharing them with us if he responds.

Read more »

Five Ways To Know If You've Granted Too Much And Aren't A Threat

We all grant for the sake of argument a few things from time to time. The reason we do so is to reach across the great divide between Christians and ourselves. But we should not grant too much, depending on the argument. How do we know if we have? I have a five-fold answer.

Read more »

There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith, Part 2

Previously I argued there isn't a bad personal reason to reject the Christian faith. This argument is aimed at Christians who believe in the following Doctrinal Statement (DS): An omniscient, omnibenelovent, omnipotent God exists who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of all who believe in him and desires that everyone should be saved with no one lost (See 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Other believers need not apply. Other beliefs that people have are not specifically relevant to my argument except as they illustrate how bad human beings generally reason about things. In the next few posts I'm going to answer some criticisms of what I had written. Be sure to read my original post to understand what follows.

I've found that the more well-known an atheist becomes then the more often atheists criticize him or her for this, that, or the other. I don't like it but it comes with the territory. It's a sign of some kind of success, believe it or not. Atheists disagree with each other quite a bit anyway, but in my case I have put out thousands of words over the last seven years, so atheists who want to nitpick at this, that, or the other, can find plenty of nits to pick, especially since I like being a provocateur from time to time. One atheist critic of my argument is Jeff Lowder, who has recently been dogging my steps for reasons that totally baffle me.

Read more »