Which Authors Present the Best Case Against Christianity?

We have a current poll on this question. Dawkins is certainly the best known author so it's no surprise he will get the most votes. Any discussion of the poll itself? What do you think each author contributes to the debate? How many of these authors have you read? What other authors should be mentioned and why? Is the sum total of their cases good enough to debunk Christianity or will the arguments and counter arguments just keep getting better and better?

Here's the final tabulation:
Which Authors Present the Best Case Against Christianity
(choose more than one)

Richard Dawkins 399 (40%)

Sam Harris 315 (31%)

Christopher Hitchens 279 (28%)

Daniel Dennett 175 (17%)

Victor Stenger 79 (7%)

Bart D. Ehrman 205 (20%)

Michael Shermer 112 (11%)

Michael Martin 54 (5%)

Robert M. Price 118 (11%)

Richard Carrier 104 (10%)

Dan Barker 106 (10%)

David Mills 35 (3%)

Guy Harrison 29 (2%)

The Authors Here at DC 142 (14%)

Other (sorry the list can only be so long) 113 (11%)

None of them 65 (6%)

75 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let me apologize in advance to some authors who didn't make the list. My focus is on current authors out there who argue against Christianity, not the ones who argue against the existence of God. [Yes, I know that arguments against the existence of God are also arguments against Christianity.]

I personally think the arguments on both sides keep getting better and better. I commented on six major Christian arguments that have helped to save Christianity from refutation. A Christian commented in that link to some other ones.

And....*Ahem*...I cannot resist unashamedly plugging my own book, which is getting some wonderful recommendations.

AlexanderPaul said...

I've read books and articles and watched YouTube videos of many of these people, and I really do find Dawkins to be the best. He gets technical just enough to support his hypotheses but doesn't bog down the reader/listener with an onslaught of facts and figures.

Jon said...

Never having read a single book by Dawkins, but having watched him speak and debate, I have to say that there is no reason he should be #1 here. Take for instance his debate with Lennox, which you can hear at this link.

http://media.richarddawkins.net/audio/2008/Discussion%20between%20Richard%20Dawkins%20and%20John%20Lennox.mp3

He just obviously has not studied apologetics related to the Bible in much depth. For instance Lennox says "Look, the Bible says the universe had a beginning at Gen 1:1." That's highly dubious, relying on a very questionable translation of the Hebrew. Dawkins doesn't challenge the claim.

Lennox says "Look at the empty tomb. Why would the disciples lie about this? Even the Jews conceded the empty tomb by offering in rebuttal that the body was stolen.” This is all highly dubious, and Dawkins again lets this go unchallenged. The earliest biblical texts say nothing of an empty tomb. These are Paul’s letters. The earliest gospel does mention a tomb, but the text has all kinds of markers of being fictional throughout. Subsequent gospels are based on Mark’s fictional narrative, and they embellish upon it, which is a clear marker of legendary growth. They likewise improve on Mark’s story and change it whenever they come across something they’ve decided is embarrassing. These are the sources we rely on to know that the Jews claimed that the body was stolen. Dawkins certainly knows what the Biblical claims are, but he's not immersed in the study of it. If he was he would never let statements like this go without reply. Biblical knowledge is the key to rebuttal of Christianity.

I think he's great by the way. Always gracious, brilliant. On the existence of God issue I'd rank him high. Not on Christianity though. In my book it's Robert Price all the way. Nobody knows the Bible like he does. Richard Carrier is a close second. Not quite as knowledgeable as Price (though one day he may be), but not far off, and really great at expressing an argument in a way that gets through.

Tower said...

The key phrase here is "best case against christianity". The influence of these authors is based on what target? christians?

Most fundies I know wouldn't give Dawkins or Hitchens the time of day. Those authors aren't very knowledgeable in theology either. Because of this, I they have little or no influence on christians. Price, Ehrman, Barker and you John, are far more knowledgeable about christianity and theology and have a far better chance influencing a fundie christian.

If the target is "all the rest," then Dawkins or Hitchens is going to be the influence. They have much better mass media exposure.

Unknown said...

John, I voted for other Authors. The reason I did so is because after reading every word of the bible from the very beginning all the way through to the end for the 2nd time, I was no longer a believer.
So it was the bible authors that convinced me that Christianity is pure Bullshit. I have never read such an Asinine book in my life. The story’s of a psychotic god in the OT, and story’s of a lunatic jesus in the NT, convinced me that the bible is pure BS and that Religion is the biggest scam ever perpetuated on human kind.

Jim Turner said...

As a Christian, it is absolutely the ex-Christians that have the best arguments. After having many nagging doubts and questions answered with only pathetic answers, it has been very challenging to read the arguments of ex-Christians (from books, blogs, podcasts, etc.). Their deep insight into the religion and knowledge of the lingo is much more powerful than those from the outside. Also, the pain of losing one's God, traditions, and community must be a part of the conversation.

As one example, Evangelical Christianity can only be effectively challenged by someone who really understands the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. These are essentially two different religions with two different Gods, but with many shared traditions. Most outsiders and many insiders have no idea about this type of internal debate. Most critics only attack the Arminian type of Christianity, and are then dumbfounded when they run into a Calvinist.

In another sense, Christian apologists have some of the best arguments against their own religion, but they only apply it to others. I'm thankful to Stand to Reason for helping me become a more careful thinker and communicator. Such apologists have devastating critiques against other world views and even other Christian doctrines. But it only works as long as you follow one simple rule: never become a careful thinker and researcher about your own beliefs. I've recently become convinced that apologetics has nothing to do with the search for truth, but is mostly concerned with entertaining intellectual believers, soothing the doubts and overwhelming the minds of the average believer, and to provide weapons to use in fights with apologists from every other faith and doctrinal system. Finally seeing this has been deeply disappointing to me, as I always enjoyed apologetics.

For authors outside of the faith, I found Thomas Paine's Age of Reason to be quite interesting and challenging. The short section on the power of divine revelation and miracles being totally negated by quickly turning into hearsay has really altered my view on Christian faith. For me, it is now much clearer how Christians don't actually have faith in God, Jesus, the Bible, miracles, or revelation, but only in the stories of other men (which might or might not be accurate). There's no way around it, religious faith is always placed in the traditions and writings of men, often long dead. So the question becomes, why in the heck would God reward me or anyone else just because they put faith in the traditions and writings of ancient men? Seems to me the magnificient God that most religions want to claim is just not worthy of such deeply flawed means of communication.

Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible was very interesting and illuminating. The God in the Old Testament always seemed rather tribal in nature, schizophrenic, and evolving over time. This book shows clearly why this is the case. It all makes much more sense now.

PatrickMefford said...

Hitchens by far is the best speaker out of everyone. When it comes to issues of Faith and Culture, he's the most eloquent. Sadly, he lacks the expertise in any given area to give a deciding blow.

Dr. Martin I think is the best Philosopher since J.L Mackie to handle the more abstract claims of Theism, but his works are not for everybody. I don't know he'd appeal to those who don't read Philosophy books.

Dr. Ehrman is the best New Testament scholar as of right now, that engages in these sort of debates. I think he does a great job showing textual corruption but lacks something to bring the argument to a close in his favor. I really wish he had a few Philosophy grad students helping him in the areas where Dr. Craig can really trip him up.

Thats why I got excited about Mr. Loftus's book. I'm still reading it, but he is starting to pull these elements together in a coherent case that will actually appeal to a Christian, rather than insult them.

David B. Ellis said...

In my opinion, and I'm not being flippant, I mean this entirely seriously, the top christian apologists are the most successful people at aiding the deconversion of christians who've begun to question their beliefs.

The blatantly bad arguments that the best christian philosophers, theologians and popular apologists present did more to make it sink in for me that believing in christianity was irrational than any book by a skeptic ever could.

You want to deconvert an intelligent, questioning christian?

Give them a copy of THE CASE FOR CHRIST or MERE CHRISTIANITY and discuss the arguments presented with them. There's no need to even bring any skeptical authors into the discussion.

Joe E. Holman said...

Personally, I don't even know why Dawkins is on this list. He doesn't argue against Christianity, but against creationism. Yes, he's popular, but I think people are voting simply because of that and not because of his focus on what he actually does.

(JH)

Anonymous said...

Good Day to All,

I apologize that this comment is off topic to the specific subject under discussion, but as it is related to the blog as a whole, I thought it generally appropriate to post. (And since I could not find an e-mail for Mr. JW Loftus to send him this message, I had to post it in the comments section. I apologize if this is against this blog's policy.)

In celebration of the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species as well as the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin himself—and just in time for Darwin Day—I would like to invite all readers of this excellent blog to read The Evolutionary Wager: How the Ideas of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and Evolution Itself Negate Atheism and Point to Christianity at www.theevolutionarywager.blogspot.com.

Any comments, reviews or e-mails are greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

RD Miksa

Thos. Cochrane said...

One definition of 'best' might include 'reaches and persuades the most listeners/readers.'

On this account of best, Dawkins may well be the best.

Thos. Cochrane said...

Jon said: "Never having read a single book by Dawkins...there is no reason he should be #1 here. ...He just obviously has not studied apologetics related to the Bible in much depth."


In writing, Dawkins has accepted this criticism and explained why he thinks knowledge of a particular religious doctrine is irrelevant to debunking the God Hypothesis.

To paraphrase him: one doesn't need to know the detailed history of fairies and leprechauns to be reasonably certain that they don't exist.

T said...

I think Avalos should be listed.

Unknown said...

Greetings All: I hope all are well and prospering.

A fine book I found to be of interest in way of a case against Christianity is Disputing Christianity by the late Dr. Richard H. Popkin

Dr Popkin's last work prior to his passing was a scholarly tribute to the memory of Rabbi Ben Abraham of Troki author of the "Chizzuk Emunah" (1593, in Hebrew) translated to English as "Faith Strengthened" (1851), and George Bethune English author of "The Grounds of Christianity Examined", (1813).

Here is the Amazon.com snippet about the book.

Product Description
Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham was a little-known scholar from the heretical Jewish group, the Karaites, who lived during the late 16th century in Troki, a suburb of Vilna (Vilnius), which by turns was in Poland or Lithuania. In 1593, the last year of his life, he wrote an incisive, cogent polemic against Christianity, which over the centuries has had an impact in Christian and Jewish circles that far exceeds what might have been predicted based on its obscure origins. A kind of underground, samizdat classic of religious criticism, Rabbi Isaac's critique of Christianity has been translated into Spanish, German, Latin, Yiddish, Ladino, and English, among other languages, and has influenced English deism, reform Judaism, the beginnings of Higher Criticism and the quest for the historical Jesus, and even Christian evangelical outreach programs that exist to this day.

Now historian and philosopher Richard Popkin has edited a critique of Christianity, originally published in 1813 by a 19th-century Harvard graduate named George Bethune English, which includes the first publication in English of a central portion of Rabbi Isaac's text. The book was part of the discussion surrounding the founding of Unitarianism in New England. Popkin provides a fascinating commentary that notes many points of historical interest involving this unusual work.

For example, Voltaire on a visit to England in 1724 learned of the work from an associate of the Reverend Anthony Collins, an English deist. The work was also used in debates about the merits of Christianity between Unitarian minister Joseph Priestly and Anglo-Jewish theologian David Levi. German scholars Hermann Samuel Reimarus and Ephraim Gotthold Lessing referred to the work in their early publications initiating the Higher Criticism movement examining the historical origins of Christianity. And the work also had an influence on Abraham Geiger, the founder of Reform Judaism; on David Deutsch, the defender of Orthodox Judaism; and on Evangelical Christian leader Hermann Strack of Berlin, whose use of excerpts from Rabbi Isaac's work can still be found in Evangelical Christian literature today.

Anyone interested in philosophy of religion or the history of dialogue between Christians and Jews will find this work to be of great value.

About the Author
Richard H. Popkin (Los Angeles, CA) is professor emeritus of philosophy at Washington University, St. Louis; adjunct professor of history and philosophy at UCLA; and the author of many books including The History of Scepticism from Savonarola to Bayle, and Skeptical Philosophy for Everyone (with Avrum Stroll).


George Bethune English's books are available for free on Google books.

The Grounds of Christianity Examined

George Bethune English's other book is Five Pebbles from the Brook

English's destruction of the Christian faith is thorough and convincing. Bethune was a Christian minister trained at Harvard prior to his encounter with the "Chizzuk Emunah". After studying Rabbi Issac's arguments that Jesus was not and could not be the Jewish Messiah, English deconverted and penned "The Grounds of Christianity Examined".

Anonymous said...

I think most of these guys do interesting and valuable work, but the issue of audience is key, as one of the other commenters noticed. Liberal Christians will react to criticisms completely differently compared to evangelicals. I've been convinced by my colleagues that a multi-pronged approach is usually for the best--different messages for different audiences.

Overall, I think most of these guys will only appeal to intellectually-minded folks, and, sadly, few people are. For those who are not intellectuals--that is, most people--I think satire will work better. I'd rather teach Mark Twain's "Letters from the Earth" than Dennett or Dawkins.

I do think it is interesting (maybe revealing?) that everyone on the list is male--and probably white, straight, and bourgeois, although I'm not sure. To what extent is popular atheism attached to middle-class white privilege? This is a real question for me.

Having said all that, my vote was for Ehrman, primarily because his works are appropriate for college courses, and I'm a college professor. In the United States, people are more likely to be exposed to critical thought in college than anywhere else, and I think Ehrman best suits the college setting.

kiwi said...

David B. Ellis, I totally agree.

It's Christians "philosophers", theologians and apologists that are making the best case against Christianity. If even the most brilliant Christian minds can't present a rational case for Christianity, what does it say about the religion?

Honestly, I am not impressed with most of those atheist thinkers, especially Dawkins and Dennett, who know virtually nothing about apologetics and how believers defend their faith.

Anonymous said...

As a relatively new atheist, it's difficult to vote for any of the authors here. I would love to see a 'recommended reading' list which would equip me to debunk the arguments of the christians and other theists that I meet.

Jeffrey Amos said...

Mike, see the Debunking Christianity Challenge.

David Parker said...

Looks like a pretty representative list of current authors.

I vote for Dennett, Ehrman, and Martin because they operate directly from a specialized field with which they very acquainted. They then use that as a platform for debunking.

Sure others are specialists in their field as well, but many tend to tip toe over into philosophy when they are not equipped to do so (Dawkins, Hitchens).

Ehrman's arguments about reconstructing the original text, Martin's arguments against God's existence, and Dennett's assessment of the natural origins of religious belief...POWERHOUSE!!!

Seriously, these guys keep me up at night ;)

Prometheus said...

The best book I've read is Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ by D. M. Murdock. Her website is http://stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html This book examines all the evidence christians use in a CSI style investigation.

David B. Ellis said...


As a relatively new atheist, it's difficult to vote for any of the authors here. I would love to see a 'recommended reading' list which would equip me to debunk the arguments of the christians and other theists that I meet.


I'd start my recommended reading list with good articles and essays rather than a book.

For the layman, the Ebon Musings website has some great essays on the arguments for and against theism and christianity.

http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html

Another place to look is the secular web library.

http://www.infidels.org/library/

Anonymous said...

I voted for Dawkins because his argument is excellent against the God hypothesis as a whole. Debunking God negates the need to debunk all the minutiae of Christianity.

Why should he study all the junk in Christianity when he's got a perfectly cogent article at the center of the issue?

Besides, the poll was which author presents the best case against Christianity, not which one will convert more believers.

kiwi said...

Thos: "To paraphrase him: one doesn't need to know the detailed history of fairies and leprechauns to be reasonably certain that they don't exist."

Except that we're not talking about fairies and leprechauns, but Christianity. The skeptic (non) argument "I don't need any argument to make a case against X and Y, therefore I don't need any argument to make a case against Z" will not impress any rational person.

Jeffrey Amos said...

The effectiveness of the fairies analogy depends on who Dawkins is addressing.

The problem with his approach is that when people do believe in fairies, detailed knowledge of their stories about fairies, the problems in these stories, and all the rival interpretations of the nature of their wings is a much better debunking tool than pointing out how funny it is that they believe in fairies.

Thos. Cochrane said...

Kiwi: The skeptic (non) argument "I don't need any argument to make a case against X and Y, therefore I don't need any argument to make a case against Z" will not impress any rational person."

Naturally, if I had made an argument that took this form, you'd be justified in implying that I'm irrational. Luckily for me, I made no such argument.

The comment about faeries is an analogy, not an independent argument against the God hypothesis. The analogy shows why one does not need to rebut the conclusions (logical or not) that follow from flawed premises.

I'll draw out the analogy in case others were misled:
Fairyist: "There are fairies."
A-Fairyist: "There's no compelling evidence that there are fairies."
Fairyist: "You're ignoring the works of Sir Knortly-Plopington, who described the lost world of Faerie in exquisite detail. How can you possibly refute my claims unless you've read and understood this seminal text?"

kiwi said...

I'm not aware of anyone who believes in fairies, and I'm not aware of anyone who believes there is compelling evidence for fairies.
So what's the point of the analogy? It fails miserably.

If there would be millions of people who would believe in fairies, and if there would be millions of people who would claim there are compelling evidence for fairies, then yes, we would have no choice but to study their arguments, and see if they are right or wrong. As it is now, nobody is making an argument to support the existence of fairies, there is no serious litterature about fairies, that's why we don't waste time on that.

Christians DO think God exists and they generally DO think there is compelling evidence to support Christianity. Of course, they could be wrong, but how can we know if they are right or wrong, if we don't study their reasons?

Dennett was embarrassed in a debate against Dinesh D'Souza, because he had no good answer to standard Christian arguments. On another occasion, he was asked about the Kalam Cosmological Argument and he had no answer to it. That's what happen when you don't study what you wish to debunk.

Anonymous said...

How does it fail? Because people believe in God?

Last i checked, many pagan groups believe in the Fae of some sort, particularly paganism based on british celtic groups.

Why is the God fiction more important to learn about? Nobody would take me seriously if I said I bleive in fairies and talk to them or they visit me.

God should have no priviledged status in the battle of fictionary characters.

Thos. Cochrane said...

Kiwi: "I'm not aware of anyone who believes in fairies, and I'm not aware of anyone who believes there is compelling evidence for fairies. So what's the point of the analogy?"

Of course there are people who believe in fairies--but even if there weren't, one can imagine someone who does, which is all that's required to see the point.

Analogy always fails when it's taken literally, but perhaps I can help. Rather than fairies, feel free to substitute any supernatural claim that you think is obviously false, but that some other people sincerely believe.

Here's an example: Perhaps we can agree that the central claim of palm reading--that the lines on one's palms are predictive of one's future--is obviously false.

Are we justified in rejecting the central claims of palm readers without becoming familiar with which lines are said to predict which events? I say yes--their extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Kiwi: If there [were]... millions of people [who] claim[ed] ... compelling evidence for fairies, then yes, we would have no choice but to study their arguments.

The veracity of a claim has no necessary relationship to the number of people who believe it. There are millions of people who sincerely believe that star & planet positions predict or control earthly events. Do we need to debunk every particular claim made by every practitioner of astrology in order to know it's false?

Millions believed in Zeus at one time--how do we know Zeus doesn't exist unless we study every particular claim about him?

One need not demonstrate the internal inconsistencies of a supernatural claim in the absence of external reasons to accept the claim.

kiwi said...

"How does it fail?"

Read my previous post again. It's all explained.

"Because people believe in God?"

Yes, because a lot of people believe in God, and those people generally provide arguments as to why they believe in God. No one claim to have arguments or evidence to support the existence of fairies or leprauchans, so there is no need afairists and aleprauchans to waste time on arguments or evidence that do not even exist in the first place.

"Nobody would take me seriously if I said I bleive in fairies and talk to them or they visit me."

Nobody would take you seriously, because no one claims there are compelling evidence or arguments to support the existence of fairies.

"God should have no priviledged status in the battle of fictionary characters."

Obviously, for theists, God is not a fictional character. For those people, God is real. And they provide arguments to support their belief that God is real. You have to consider their arguments if you want to debunk their faith.

David B. Ellis said...


I'm not aware of anyone who believes in fairies, and I'm not aware of anyone who believes there is compelling evidence for fairies.
So what's the point of the analogy? It fails miserably.


You may not personally know anyone who believes in fairies but the belief is actually still common in some places. I recently read that slightly over 50% of Icelanders believe in fairies, trolls, and other "little folk".

But really, that's irrelevent to the perfectly valid point Cochrane was making: that one does not need to know in enormous detail the writings of apologists for a clearly unfounded claim in order to be able to argue effectively against that claim.

Any sensible unbiased person knows you can't build a credible case for a miraculous resurrection from the dead from a handful of ancient documents of mostly uncertain authorship written unknown decades after the event supposedly happened.

That's all the christian apologists have to rest their claims of historical evidence of the resurrection on and that's all we need to know about the issue to dismiss the belief as utterly unfounded.

kiwi said...

"Are we justified in rejecting the central claims of palm readers without becoming familiar with which lines are said to predict which events?"

But you're talking about details, here. No, I would not expect you to know every details about palm reading (just like I don't expect Dawkins to read every medieval theologian), but at the very least, I would expect you to familiarize yourself with arguments of palm readers (if they have any), if you want to debunk palm reading.

"There are millions of people who sincerely believe that star & planet positions predict or control earthly events."

And do they provide arguments to support their belief? If they do, then certainly we should consider what they say, if we want to debunk what they believe.

"Millions believed in Zeus at one time--how do we know Zeus doesn't exist unless we study every particular claim about him?"

If there would be arguments to support the existence of Zeus, then we would have to consider them. But there aren't any, that's why we don't waste any time on Zeus. Or fairies. Or leprechauns.

"One need not demonstrate the internal inconsistencies of a supernatural claim in the absence of external reasons to accept the claim."

Theists claim to have reasons to believe God exists. Who claims to have reasons to believe fairies, or leprechauns?

kiwi said...

"But really, that's irrelevent to the perfectly valid point Cochrane was making: that one does not need to know in enormous detail the writings of apologists for a clearly unfounded claim in order to be able to argue effectively against that claim."

Just to be clear, like I said, I don't expect people to study Christian theology for decades.

But at the very least, they should know the most common or persuasive arguments Christians use!

I think it was Craig who talked about the Kalam Cosmological Argument to Dennett. Dennett agreed with both premises of the argument, but when he realized he didn't like the conclusion (that the universe had a supernatural cause), he said something like "well then, hum, one of the 2 premises must be wrong afterall". Sigh. The anecdote clearly demonstrates the need for skeptics to study Christian arguments, if they don't want to embarrass themselves.

Thos. Cochrane said...

Kiwi: If there [were] arguments to support the existence of Zeus, then we would have to consider them. But there aren't any, that's why we don't waste any time on Zeus.

*sigh* Literal to the last, I see. I'm trying my best. As I said, analogic reasoning is difficult. Forget fairies, leprechauns, and Zeus. Let me change the analogy one more time.

Muslim: I believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.
Christian: What evidence can you produce for this amazing claim? I've never seen or heard evidence of a horse with wings!
Muslim My holy texts--which were written more recently than yours, by the way, and are thus more reliable--describe the event in transcendent detail! I, and millions like me, are quite convinced of its literal truth.
Christian: You can't expect me to accept this as evidence of an incredible claim like a flying horse! Why would you even entertain such a claim?
Muslim: Of course you are not equipped to understand or refute my claim, since you are ignorant of the writings of Ibn al Hamjid al Rajni al Akbar.

David B. Ellis said...


But at the very least, they should know the most common or persuasive arguments Christians use!


Agreed. But there's nothing about the statement of Cochrane's:

"one doesn't need to know the detailed history of fairies and leprechauns to be reasonably certain that they don't exist."

which would imply otherwise.


but when he realized he didn't like the conclusion (that the universe had a supernatural cause)


Actually, the Kalam argument, in its bare 2 premises and a conclusion form, does not conclude that the universe has a supernatural cause. Only that it has a cause. It takes further premises and argument to reach the, very shaky, conclusion that the cause must have been supernatural, much less a personal God.

Premise 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2. The universe began to exist.

Conclusion. Therefore the universe has a cause.

There are all sorts of naturalistic hypotheses consistent with that conclusion.

Indeed, if Dennett entered a debate on the arguments for the existence of God and was unaware of that well-known argument he was woefully unprepared. No argument there.

But, again, Cochrane's statement doesn't imply that a debater should go into a debate unprepared. You're drawing more from his bare, quite sensible, statement than it can be reasonably thought to imply.

David B. Ellis said...


Muslim: Of course you are not equipped to understand or refute my claim, since you are ignorant of the writings of Ibn al Hamjid al Rajni al Akbar.


And, of course, lets not forget the following continuation of that discussion:

(2 months later)

Christian: Alright, I've now read the complete writings of Ibn al Hamjid al Rajni al Akbar several times over and carefully thought through his claims. Would you like to hear my criticisms?

Muslim: Did you read it in the original Arabic?

Christian: "sigh", no.

Muslim: Useless, the intricacies of his writings cannot be understood in translation.

Anonymous said...

I just posted a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens. Does anyone here think Hitchens knows enough to debate Turek? Does anyone not think that while Hitchens did in fact make some great arguments that he skirted several key issues?

Watch it and see for yourselves. If we want to debunk Christianity we must know Christian arguments and be able to answer them head on. Hitchens does not know them enough to answer them head on, and I think Tureks's arguments could be answered much much better.

TJH said...

It was actually reading the Bible for myself that caused me to begin doubt what I had been taught from a young age, so I chose other authors. Everyone else I've read has only deepened and confirmed that doubt. Jesus will have to appear to me personally, and even then, I wouldn't expect that to convince anyone else.

The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvka said...

I don't know which atheist authors present the best case against Christianity, but I know at least one who presents a good case for it:

youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM

Matt said...

I noticed that Dawkins is winning in your poll and I find that a little disconcerting for the side of atheism. I've only read The God Delusion, but I've seen Dawkins on youtube plenty of times in debates and other random videos and I really have to say that his arguments are by far the worst I have ever seen. Compared to men like Robin Le Poidevin, Dawkins is an intellectual lightweight to say the least. I think Alvin Plantinga said it best when he said to call The God Delusion sophomoric would be an insult to sophomores.

royorbs3 said...

Sadly I have not read alot of these authors, now I can look em up. Dead or alive, I think u gotta put Nietzsche in there. See, "Pity as conductor for misery" argument (genealogy?) and of course, "the Antichrist."

exapologist said...

I picked Ehrman, but for reasons different from those others have mentioned. First, although his work on textual criticism is important (btw, I'd point to his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, and not the popular sound-bite version of it (Misquoting Jesus), his popularization of the case for the mainstream view of Jesus as a (failed) apocalyptic prophet is the death-knell to Christianity. There's just no plausible way around that case that leaves anything like conservative christianity intact. Dale Allison's book on the same topic (Jesus of Nazareth: MIllenarian Prophet) is more rigorous in its presentation of the case, but that's not what will reach ordinary people.

Anonymous said...

Robert Bumbalough recommended The Grounds for Christianity Examined by English. Although John here evidently meant for us to rate contemporary books, I read the English book (from 1813) and was impressed. A more readable text is available via the online books site.

As I mention often, The Origins of Christianity and the Bible by Andrew Benson is very good, but perhaps a bit scholarly for those who want an easier read (same with John's book). To revert to older materials as Robert did, it is hard to see how anyone's faith can emerge unscathed after reading Wheless and Remsberg (at internet infidels).

Anonymous said...

I think it would be hard to top Walter Kaufmann (1921-1980) for a devastating critique of Christianity in his books: Critique of Religion and Philosophy (~1958)and The Faith of a Heretic (~1961); the latter is a bit more accessible to the general public. It's a shame that he gets overlooked (presumably) because he's not contemporary.

David B. Ellis said...


think Alvin Plantinga said it best when he said to call The God Delusion sophomoric would be an insult to sophomores.


I haven't read Dawkins book so I can't comment on it. I HAVE read quite a bit of Plantinga though I can say confidently that he's in no position to criticize. His evolutionary argument against naturalism is utter nonsense.

JoshSN said...

I have heard many of these people speak, but read none of their books. I am a devout, fundamentalist, orthodox born-again atheist.

I find Hitchens inexcusably bad, and was embarrassed for Dawkins, Dennet and ??? to have sat next to him.

I've discussed this with some people, and it is clear that even archaeology can not debunk Christianity... EVEN if they pull out signed confessions from all 12 apostles saying "Sorry, we made up all the magic-y bits, and, yes, we admit there is no god."

And, as commenter #2 says, you should be able to outquote the Bible-thumpers. For example, Exodus 21:15-17 + Matthew 5:17 + Matthew 15:1-9 _proves_ Jesus thought it was required that parents kill their children (unless he was being sarcastic, which is your response to the Bible-ridden "So, you think Jesus was being sarcastic, then?" )

Look at it another way, John W. Did Xianity get its start by telling everyone that Greek philosophy and Judean theology was bogus, or did he offer an alternative?

Just because there is no god does not mean there is neither ethics nor morality.

Victor Reppert said...

What happened to Keith Parsons?

Anonymous said...

A glaring oversight Vic. My bad.

FrodoSaves said...

or will the arguments and counter arguments just keep getting better and better?

The counter-arguments have remained the same for decades. The Christians just stopped listening.

M. Tully said...

kiwi,

I know you wrote the following concerning fairies (you really should get out more, you'd be surprised what people believe), but let's say for the purpose of argument that there is no fairy belief in the world.

"I'm not aware of anyone who believes in fairies, and I'm not aware of anyone who believes there is compelling evidence for fairies."

What about, "The Secret?"

Ever read it? Do you find its arguments compelling? Why or why not? Can you apply those same rules of logic and evidence you used and apply them to Christianity?

I'd be interested to hear.

By the way, the argument that a large percentage of people in a society believe something, isn't compelling. In ancient Sumaria, Marduk was the real deal. How about topping Zeus. My goodness, the most advanced civilization's God and even after that civilization fell, the Romans even adopted him. I would definitely call that consensus. Better than what we have today.

So, why again, should I accept the Christian God more than fairies?

Unknown said...

M Tully wrote: why again, should I accept the Christian God more than fairies?

With greetings and hopeful expectations for your success and prosperity, I request permission to chime in from the peanut gallery and acceptance of the following comment.

All religions are internally self-consistent given their own presuppositions and from an intellectual stance within their particular worldview. For example, the Mormon story seems silly to a non-Mormon but is taken for granted as true by a person reared from childhood within the "faith". Similar statements can be constructed from all other religions. Thus the value of Loftus' Outsider Test is manifest. If the religious mind is capable of recognizing that they employ a double epistemic standard in evaluating religious claims when they give the nod to their "faith" while dismissing all other religious stories, then it may be the case that they are not quite so delusional as to not question their own cherished premises.

How such intellectually honest questioning is conducted then becomes an issue. If the truth seeker employs methods that hobble their cognition and ability to reason, then they may appear to themselves and their coreligionists as intellectually rigorous, but they would misidentify the facts of existence validly necessary to form sound comparisons from which to make accurate judgment.

Before attempting to answer the question why again, should I accept the Christian God more than fairies?, I think a method of properly identifying and integrating the facts of reality should be established to prevent self-delusion. (To that end, I've found Rand's Objectivist Epistemology useful because it rejects the analytic-synthetic dichotomy used to dismiss human cognition and reasoning.) Kiwi should start with the Outsider Test rather than explain why one set of religious myths is superior to another.

Anonymous said...

"His evolutionary argument against naturalism is utter nonsense."

Hello David

That's a strong charge. It's one thing to say that an argument isn't persuasive, or that it's flawed, and another thing entirely to say that it's 'utter nonsense.' What specifically is it about Plantinga's argument that renders it incoherent? Or are you using the term 'nonsense' more loosely? If so, then what specifically is it about Plantinga's argument that you object to?

David B. Ellis said...

By utter nonsense what I mean is quite simply that its an obviously bad argument.

Do you disagree? If so, what do you consider its strengths?

David B. Ellis said...


All religions are internally self-consistent given their own presuppositions and from an intellectual stance within their particular worldview.


Not a difficult achievement when among their presuppositions are to be found such things as "any apparent contradictions in the scriptures of my religion, no matter how compelling, are ONLY apparent and not real contradictions."

Anonymous said...

David, I think it would help us to focus the discussion more sharply if you first lay out what you think is so 'obviously bad' about Plantinga's argument.

I do disagree that the argument is 'obviously bad,' but I certainly wouldn't say that it's unassailable; indeed, nearly all philosophic arguments have weaknesses. I would like to see what you think the specific weaknesses of Plantinga's argument are.

Russ said...

Which Authors Present the Best Case Against Christianity?

Of the named authors in the poll I've read them all, and, from "The Authors Here at DC," I've read your book, Mr. Loftus, and a great many of the postings by Debunking Christianity's contributors.

My position concerning Christianity is simple. Christianity had ample opportunity to demonstrate its meritworthiness during its thousand or so years of complete control of Western society, but it failed completely. Christians are not, and never have been, better people than non-Christians, which includes atheists. This is especially true of its clergy. Despite its many haughty claims, Christians are not smarter, wealthier, heathier, more compassionate, more generous, more loving, more moral, or more kind than atheists and other non-Christians. Christianity has had a total of almost two thousand years of influencing people's lives, yet those under its influence lead the same lives as everyone else, including atheists. The failure of Christianity to better individuals or mankind in general is a rock-solid conclusion based on nearly twenty centuries of observation.

Christianity is completely self-debunking, so when I read any author claiming to have concluded that they have debunked Christianity, I know that their conclusion holds without considering their argument. Their arguments do not need to be clean or pretty or philosophically fulfilling or logically flawless. No critic of Christianity bears any obligation to waste his life dredging through the many trillions of words that have been written in defense of the less than two hundred thousand words of the New Testament. To debunk any defense of some Christian notion, its critic needs no new argument, he needs only to borrow the refutation from some other Christian group who disagree with it. Concerning every point of Christian doctrine, there are always separate Christian groups that are diametrically opposed. Christianity is self-debunking.

I think each of the poll's authors presents an acceptable case given his target audience. Some are clearly better writers than others, but I think that each of their books that I've read is well-tailored to its intended readers. But, frankly, most Christians seem to be far too stupid to absorb either too sophisticated a criticism of or too profound a defense of the religion in which they find themselves immersed. Most Christians read almost nothing, including their own holy books.

But, as for which authors present the best case against Christianity, I have to say I think that Mr. Loftus does in his "why i became an ATHEIST." By "best" here I mean most thorough. He outlines why Christians should consider their faith from the standpoint of an outsider. He argues for his approach to evaluating evidence. Then, he provides many lines of evidence and argumentation all converging to the same conclusion that rejecting Christianity is justified.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Russ. I appreciate it very much. If this is true then I have to find a way to get Christians to read my book, and I have to find a way for skeptics to do likewise. But as yet I am still an unknown person in comparison to the four horsemen.

I have gotten the attention of Daniel Dennett. While he recommends my book to people he didn't want to write a blurb for it. I've sent him some of the glowing reviews and asked him to take another look at it. If he thinks my perspective is a needed one in this debate he will recommend it to Dawkins and Harris to see if they would get on board publicly about it! This could be huge. He received a hard copy of it earlier this week. He emailed me this morning and said he's on a trip and is halfway through it. So here's hoping.

Unknown said...

Russ wrote: But, frankly, most Christians seem to be far too stupid to absorb either too sophisticated a criticism of or too profound a defense of the religion in which they find themselves immersed. Most Christians read almost nothing, including their own holy books.

Oh, Russ. This seems to me to be just piling on. A bunch of people on this blog have made points about maintaining civil dialog. As a former Christian, I remember that one of the main reasons for having faith is to alleviate the need to think. Christians aren't dumb or mentally deficient. They are, however, duped by a pernicious cult that tempts them to substitute reasoning and thoughtful learning with uncritical acceptance of religious propositions that make them feel good. Your point about "Why I Became an Atheist" that He outlines why Christians should consider their faith from the standpoint of an outsider. He argues for his approach to evaluating evidence. drives home my criticism. The reason religious people employ a double epistemic standard to protect their faith's story is to ensure they can continue to feel good. Having to reason and learn confronts the sentient sapient mind with the fact that the Universe screams I don't give a shit about you! This is very scary. I don't blame religious people for seeking to escape into a comforting fantasy anymore than I blame drug addicts for seeking escape into chemically induced euphoria. The thought that Sky-Daddy loves me and will make it all Ok is a strong temptation that is ultimately and completely as false as the notion that one more eight-ball will make me right.

The people who post here have convinced me that I have to help the religious to find their way out of the delusion, so they can live as happily, productively, objectively, and passionately as they can given reality is better than fantasy. To that end I pledge to myself never to insult a religious person again. (In the past I've bad mouthed religious people. For those incidents, I apologize.)

Your a good person Russ and quite intelligent. Humanity needs your innovation and creativity as it needs that of the religious minded applied to problems facing our civilization in actual reality. I'm confident that maintaining civil discourse will prove productive in freeing a greater number of minds from the tyranny of religion than doing as I, regrettably, have done in past.

All the Best, Robert Bumbalough

O'Brien said...

"In my book it's Robert Price all the way. Nobody knows the Bible like he does. Richard Carrier is a close second. Not quite as knowledgeable as Price (though one day he may be), but not far off, and really great at expressing an argument in a way that gets through."

Please. I've debated Bob Price. He was a nice guy during the debate but his positions have no basis in reality. And Carrier is a dimbulb.

O'Brien said...

"I think Avalos should be listed."

For his ability to make claims that are transparently false (as when he claims the NRSV uses inclusive language that is not supported by the underlying Greek) or for pretending to be an authority on subjects for which he lacks even a pretense of knowledge (such as cosmology and astronomy)?

Russ said...

Robert Bumbalough,

You are of course quite right about the need for civility, but my use of the word "stupid" is appropriate. I consciously chose "stupid" because it was semantically appropriate and, frankly, it just felt right: more like a whack upside the head than a chidingly pinched brow. I guess I was thinking that drawing blood might be somewhat uncivil, but a couple bite marks might not be too bad.

Let me clear about what I mean by stupid. Browsing to "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid" we find these defintions. 1 a: slow of mind : obtuse b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c: lacking intelligence or reason : brutish2: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid [still stupid from the sedative]3: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless [a stupid decision]4 a: lacking interest or point [a stupid event] b: vexatious , exasperating [he stupid car won't start]

Some or all of these meanings apply to some or all Christianities.

There are nigh onto forty thousand Christianities today, Robert, and, if I were so inclined, I could heap up a nice steaming pile of stupid for each of them. Christian Science parents often let their children or other loved ones die, hundreds die thus every year, while they blurt out prayers instead of accessing modern medical science with its proven therapies. That surely fits at least one of the definitions of "stupid." Some Pentacostal parents in Nigeria convinced by their clergy that their children are witches pound nails into their own child's head, cut off their own child's limbs, burn them, or stab them to death. I'm quite certain that that fits one of the "stupid" definitions. Roman Catholicism...too much to say. Stupid, blatantly stupid.

Robert, I doubt I'm saying anything you are not aware of, but the stupid is endless, and it has always been there. If it is your contention that typical random generic Christians "aren't dumb or mentally deficient," then they should have the capacity to recognize that they are being duped and, then, act to protect themselves and their children. As John Loftus and many others have pointed out, Christians of nearly all stripes are quick to identify what they see as defects in versions of Christianity different from their own and in non-Christians, so, clearly, they are not, in general, blind to the existence of other ways of approaching the foundations of their faith, including rejecting it. Sadly, they do, in fact, not see that they are being duped, and they do not act to defend themselves and their children from their beloved "pernicious cult." This, too, is befitting of stupid, maybe Merriam-Webster's "acting in an unintelligent or careless manner," for example.

Beyond this, Robert, here in the US, higher levels of religiosity correlate very strongly with lower levels of education and having generally less knowledge and understanding of the world. Again, a synonym for stupid.

As Susan Jacoby points out in "The Age of American Unreason," defense of religious faith in modern America involves active intentional suppression of knowledge about entire academic disciplines. This is stupid for stupid's sake.

Charles Templeton in "Farewell to God" notes that only a small fraction of Christian clergy(less than 5%) have actually read the entire Bible, and for laymen the fraction is far less yet. They do not even strive to comprehend the Bible, their so-called sacred text, a misunderstanding of which could land them and their descendants in eternal fire. What can one say about a group which elects not to take full account of the word of their loving, yet eternally-damning, father? This is ultrapurified pharmaceutical grade stupid.

I could continue in this vein for a long, long time. There is a vast mother lode of Christian stupid waiting to be blasted, strip mined, smelted and forged into articles, essays, blog posts, videos, films and books.

So, Robert, you can object to my use of the word "stupid," as uncivil, but I say that it is not uncivil, it is quite appropriate to civil discourse as I used it. Christians are professionals at taking offense, so I doubt that your criticism will be unapplauded. One can hardly breathe but what one or more Christianities practice taking offense. Dance, and some Christianity is offended. Have a beer, and some Christianity is offended. Gamble, and some Christianity is offended. Say there's no god, and some Christianity is offended, not all, mind you, just some. To me, tens of thousands Christianties mean I probably won't live long enough to enumerate stupids enough to offend them all.

Know this: as long as Christians show themselves to be emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually incapable of escaping religious circumstances known to be harmful to themselves, their children, their friends and everything else they contact, I will continue to call them stupid in the correct context.

Anonymous said...

R O'Brien, how many of the authors listed have you actually read, or should I say, which ones have you not read?

Anonymous said...

BTW everyone, Hector Avalos is one of the authors here at DC.

Anonymous said...

I always find it completely laughable that Christians respond to the poll question by saying "none of them."

In fairness, if asked I could name which books I consider to make the best case for Christianity, even if I disagree with them. To respond with "none of them" reveals a blind faith, one that cannot even be fair with the arguments against it. And I find that completely laughable.

See what we're up against here at DC?

David B. Ellis said...


I do disagree that the argument is 'obviously bad,' but I certainly wouldn't say that it's unassailable; indeed, nearly all philosophic arguments have weaknesses. I would like to see what you think the specific weaknesses of Plantinga's argument are.



The problem with the argument is the the conclusion is OBVIOUSLY TRUE but also obviously not a problem for naturalism.

Yes, our minds don't naturally operate in such a way as to NECESSARILY produce true beliefs. The whole history of human intellectual culture has involved a slow gradual effort to improve our ways of thinking and forming beliefs.

It is, indeed, imperfect.

But nothing in his argument justifies his exaggerated conclusion that if naturalism is true we have no reason to think we have the ability to form true beliefs and make reasonable judgements.

O'Brien said...

Mr. Loftus,

I've not read Michael Martin, David Mills, or Guy Harrison. The others I have read to a greater or lesser extent.

Anonymous said...

R O'Brien, then I take it you've read my book and it's not particularly good, right?

Care to say why?

O'Brien said...

Mr. Loftus,

When you asked me who all I've read on that list, I took that to include articles and blog posts, as well as books. So, to answer your question, no, I have not read your book.

I know you put a lot of stock in the argument from evil, but I've not read anything from you (here) or anyone else who advances that argument I find compelling.

However, I will see about obtaining your book from the library (if they carry it) sometime.

Anonymous said...

R O'Brien, okay. My book has gained some astounding recommendations, if you've looked at the link in my first comment here. It's being used in five college classes on atheism and apologetics in both Christian and secular colleges.

I actually think you'll want a copy for your library as it contains the best arguments against your faith along with references to other works. It's an sustained argument, of course, but it's also a reference guide to many other good works.

See what you think if and when you see it in a library.

Goggle "World Cat" and you can find the nearest library that has it. If you live near Harvard University, they have a copy! ;-) Also don't forget to use "inter-library loan" programs if one isn't located near you.

Cheers.

David B. Ellis said...


I know you put a lot of stock in the argument from evil, but I've not read anything from you (here) or anyone else who advances that argument I find compelling.


Care to present your theodicy then?

Janet Greene said...

I am an ex-christian and now happy atheist, and my "deconversion" was recent enough that I still remember what books helped me on my journey.

Celia Murray Dunn - Religion that Harms, Religion that Heals (this is a wonderful book about the harmful psychology of christianity; how it is the basis for mental illness and other problems)

Bishop John Shelby Spong (any of his books) - Spong writes from a place of love and connection with others, which is a great place to start for a christian. He still calls himself a christian (I really don't know why because his belief system mirrors mine, and I'm an atheist) but he tears about christian interpretations of the bible. Powerful stuff.

Sam Harris - any of his books.

David B. Ellis said...

I just read Sam Harris' LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION and it was a frank, lucid but quite civil work of anti-apologetics.

Reading it after hearing how sneering his writings (and that of other "new" atheists) is supposed to be only confirms in my mind that the call for "civility" is nothing of the sort---its simply an expression of the desire to return to the days when a frank criticism of religion was more taboo.

Anonymous said...

"But nothing in his argument justifies his exaggerated conclusion that if naturalism is true we have *no reason* to think we have the ability to form true beliefs and make reasonable judgements."

Hello David

This isn't the conclusion of Plantinga's argument at all. His argument actually has three related conclusions (note, this isn't a summary of Plantinga's argument, but of his conclusions and of how they're related to one another):

(1) The probability (understood in terms of conditional probability, not objective or epistemic probability) that our cognitive faculties are reliable (i.e. produce true beliefs) is *low* (or inscrutable) if both metaphysical naturalism and evolution obtain.

(2) Given (1), we have a defeater for the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable.

(3) Given (2), we have a defeater for any of the truth values we ascribe to any of our beliefs; hence, we have a defeater for the proposition 'Naturalism is true'; hence, the belief that naturalism is true is self defeating given a commitment to both naturalism and evolution.

Plantinga doesn't say that we have no reason to think that our cognitive faculties are reliable, but that given naturalism and evolution, the conditional probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is low (i.e. below .5).

"The problem with the argument is the the conclusion is OBVIOUSLY TRUE but also obviously not a problem for naturalism."

This is most obviously a problem for naturalism! A defeater that cannot be defeated (why it can't be defeated is another part of the argument, i.e. that if 1, 2 and 3 obtain, you can't bring independent evidence in to support your case without vicious circularity) is about as bad as it gets in philosophy!

David B. Ellis said...


The probability (understood in terms of conditional probability, not objective or epistemic probability) that our cognitive faculties are reliable (i.e. produce true beliefs) is *low* (or inscrutable) if both metaphysical naturalism and evolution obtain.



The central problem with the argument is that this claim is pretty clearly implausible given a bit of thought.

Plantinga makes much of the supposed divide between mental faculties having evolved for survival and their ability to produce true belief (and of epiphenomenalism---an utter irrelevency).

But is there, in actual fact, a real divide between the two in our modern world where our very survival is utterly dependent, at almost every turn, on the working of those faculties in their efforts to more and more accurately model the world?

Even assuming our brains and basic mental potential is evolved rather than created is it reasonable to say our ability, for example, to do math accurately is "low or inscrutable". Inaccurate math in the programming of the computer on an airliner can send it crashing into the sea---that's true however our faculties came to be.

We have every reason to be confident that we are able to produce true beliefs consistently on a great variety of things requiring enormous mental sophistication----we know because our survival and the functioning of our complex, technological society depend on it at every turn and because we can and do empirically verify that so many of our beliefs are true.

And whether my mental faculties were evolved (biologically and culturally) or simply created makes no difference. Those faculties are what they are, however they came to be that way, and we can verify the accuracy of their truth claims (many of them at least) in a massive variety of ways.

None of Plantinga's admitted skill at sophistry can overcome that rather glaringly obvious fact.

A final comment: his reference to the CONDITIONAL probability is irrelevent. The probability of our faculties being able to reliably produce true beliefs (to the degree that they do) is what it is AS THEY NOW STAND however those faculties came to be what they are. The probability is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT no matter what their origin. We can test them as they stand and be confident of their reliability (within limits) and how they originated has no bearing on that fact---we don't even need to have any idea what that origin is.

Anonymous said...

Hello David

You wrote:
"The central problem with the argument is that this claim is pretty clearly implausible given a bit of thought."

The plausibility or implausibility of a *claim* may be relevant, but the plausibility or implausibility of a *conclusion* is irrelevant. Plantinga has presented an argument, so we're dealing with a conclusion; hence, what matters is the argument. The conclusion that light can be understood as both a wave and a particle is implausible, but mere 'implausibility' does no work whatsoever as far as the arguments for wave particle duality go.

"Plantinga makes much of the supposed divide between mental faculties having evolved for survival and their ability to produce true belief (and of epiphenomenalism---an utter irrelevency)."

First, epiphenomenalism is not irrelevant: it's one of the possible ways, given naturalism, that we can understand the relationship between our beliefs and our behaviors. Plantinga's argument doesn't rest on epiphenomenalism, of course; it's just one of four possible relationships Plantinga focuses on (the others being semiotic or semantic epiphenomenalism; maladaptivity; and adaptivity).

Second, the notion that evolution acts directly on our behavior and not on our beliefs is pretty obvious. Imagine two people, one who believes that if a tiger gets near him, it will eat him, but who never acts on that belief; and a second person who believes that tigers are not themselves harmful and love to play tag, but that if you lose a game of tag with a tiger, you'll immediately drop dead. The fact that the first person has a true belief won't stop him from being eaten by a tiger, and the fact that the second person has a false belief won't affect the effectiveness of his behavior when it comes to avoiding being eaten by tigers.

"But is there, in actual fact, a real divide between the two in our modern world where our very survival is utterly dependent, at almost every turn, on the working of those faculties in their efforts to more and more accurately model the world?"

Absolutely.

First, I'll go back to the point I made above: our survival is ultimately dependent on our behavior, not on our conceptual models: a perfectly accurate model that yields no (or the 'wrong') behavior would be much worse than a completely wrong model that yields the 'right' behavior.

Second, any number of inaccurate models that are self-consistent and equally *effective* (with respect to behavior) yet (logically) mutually inconsistent could be devised with a possible world semantics. Imagine, as Plantinga does, a possible world in which intelligent beings think that everything is a witch, in which there are no witches, but in which they ascribe the correct properties to every entity (suppose that their world is otherwise identical to ours). The propositional content of all of their beliefs will be in the form of, "This witch is so-and-so or such-and-such," and thus all their beliefs will be false (remember, there are no witches), *yet their behavior will be exactly the same as ours, so their results will be the same*. They'll have the same science we do, the same technology, and so on. With a little imagination, one could come up with a number of similar worlds.

You might object that their beliefs work in this case because they ascribe the right properties to each entity, and that therefore your initial point stands; however, this would be precisely to miss the point Plantinga is trying to make. Imagine a world in which our intelligent beings ascribe the wrong properties to each 'witch,' *but still always act as they would have if they ascribed the correct properties to them* (e.g. this could be the case if either epiphenomenalism or semantic epiphenomenalism obtain, i.e. where either our beliefs themselves or the semiotic content of our beliefs have no influence upon our behavior, but our physical brain states do).

"We have every reason to be confident that we are able to produce true beliefs consistently on a great variety of things requiring enormous mental sophistication----we know because our survival and the functioning of our complex, technological society depend on it at every turn and because we can and do empirically verify that so many of our beliefs are true."

You can't simply appeal to these factors without begging the question.

"A final comment: his reference to the CONDITIONAL probability is irrelevant. The probability of our faculties being able to reliably produce true beliefs (to the degree that they do) is what it is AS THEY NOW STAND however those faculties came to be what they are."

I can only conclude that you've not understood Plantinga's argument. We speak of conditional probability whenever we consider the probability of x given y. So, what's the probability that my car will be running next week? Well, if it's new, has fewer than a thousand miles on it, comes from a company that is known for making outstanding cars, and if I only drive it fifty miles a week, there's a very good chance it'll be running next week. However, if it has five hundred thousand miles on it, if I never take care of it, if it's running three quarts low on oil, and if I drive it five thousand miles a week, then it's probably not going to be running next week. Plantinga isn't asking, "What are the chances that our cognitive faculties are reliable?" (objective probability), but "If both metaphysical naturalism and evolution are true, then what are the chances that our cognitive faculties are reliable?" So, far from being irrelevant, conditional probability is at the heart of Plantinga's argument.

David B. Ellis said...


Plantinga isn't asking, "What are the chances that our cognitive faculties are reliable?" (objective probability), but "If both metaphysical naturalism and evolution are true, then what are the chances that our cognitive faculties are reliable?" So, far from being irrelevant, conditional probability is at the heart of Plantinga's argument.


I know he's asking about the conditional rather than objective probability.

My point is that in the only ways that our faculties can reasonably be thought reliable the conditional probability on N and E is not different from the objective probability. Plantinga is simply mistaken in thinking otherwise.


"This witch is so-and-so or such-and-such," and thus all their beliefs will be false (remember, there are no witches), *yet their behavior will be exactly the same as ours, so their results will be the same*. They'll have the same science we do, the same technology, and so on. With a little imagination, one could come up with a number of similar worlds.


Perfect example, because in that world their cognitive faculties are HIGHLY AND DEMONSTRABLY RELIABLE at doing an enormous number of things. They know at exactly what angle for what speed their astronauts must come into the atmosphere for a safe landing to be possible.

Their faculties, no matter how they came into existence, are demonstrably reliable at reaching true conclusions on such matters.

So, what can be said is NOT, as Plantinga claims, that our faculties have low or inscrutable reliability if naturalism and evolution are true. Simply that they have low or inscrutable reliability at reaching true conclusions about things where the claim isn't testable (reality is made up of witches, for example, is not a testable claim, the astronauts will be able to land safely only if they come in at angle X for their speed is).

In other words, where our faculties can be demonstrated to be reliable (in regard to testable, verifiable claims) they are reliable whatever their origin. There is simply no difference between the conditional and objective probability here.

And its only on such matters that we skeptics tend to think our cognitive faculties should be thought particularly reliable anyway.