Douglas Groothuis on "Who Designed the Designer?"

Tell me what you think of his answer, Link.

While I'm at it, and not exactly unrelated, let me also throw in a link to the recent SEED Magazine's article on the Multiverse Problem.

Guest Post by Dr. Douglas Groothuis: "The Straw God: Understanding the New Atheism"

Douglas Groothuis is a Christian Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and co-editor with James F. Sennett of the book, In Defense of Natural Theology. [Sennett has recently explained that while he has doubts he still believes, seen here]. Groothuis is presently writing an apologetics book which I think will be the best of the lot and perhaps the standard text for years to come. Here is his submitted essay unedited and without comment:

Brian the Family Guy Dog is an Atheist

Do you think this is good exposure for atheists in general?

Rev. Philip Brown's Criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith

Anybody want to help me out with this one? I can't always respond. Does anyone, and I mean anyone, think his criticisms are on target and applicable?

He writes:

Mr. Loftus does not even tackle the Bibles very prediction of this phenomenon in Romans 10:14-17. The apostle Paul states that faith comes from hearing, and hearing from preaching. Consequently one would suspect little Christian faith in a country where it is illegal to preach Christianity. Such is what we find at the moment giving rise to geographically placed Christianity specifically.

Mr. Loftus argues from the general to the particular. However there is no discussion about comparative religion and cultural heritage....For Mr Loftus’ argument to carry the weight he will need to define what one considers as part of the culture and what ones considers as a legitimate religion. Of course this will only weaken Mr Loftus’ case as it will become evidently clear that many of the examples given under the guise or religion are actually just cultural throw backs to antiquity,

if Mr Loftus wants the Christian to take ‘The Outside Test of Faith’ then surely he must ask the Christian to take the 'Insider Test of Atheism', or ITA. Meaning, showing why atheism makes sense and why people should not adopt skepticism towards atheism as appose to Christianity. Such a test would include proving miracles do not exists, beyond a shadow of a doubt; a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, and the undeniable reasons why all religions (not just Christianity) should be disregarded. Indeed ITA would prove rather interesting placed alongside OTF, something Mr. Loftus fails to do in his book and on his blog.

An edited version of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) can be found here, and my additional defense of it can be found here.

Still a Believer: James F. Sennett Responds to Questions About His Faith

I've written about my friend Dr. Sennett's struggles of faith in my book and also here, where in the comments section he replied. The rumor has it that "he's really struggling with his faith." Sennett is the author of a book on Alvin Plantinga, and along with Douglas Groothuis edited the book, In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-humean Assessment. You can find his books on Amazon.com.

Here is his unedited response to this rumor:

The Outsider Test in Action: "Studying Islam Has Made Me An Atheist" by Douglas Murray

Link

Gradually, scepticism of the claims made by one religion was joined by scepticism of all such claims. Incredulity that anybody thought an archangel dictated a book to Mohammed produced a strange contradiction. I found myself still clinging to belief in Christianity. I was trying to believe — though rarely arguing — ‘Well, your guy didn’t hear voices: but I know a man who did.’ This last, shortest and sharpest, phase pulled down the whole thing. In the end Mohammed made me an atheist.

...the idea that there is any book ‘wherein is no doubt’ is insulting as well demonstrably untrue.

HT Agnosis.

More on The Outsider Test for Faith

Daniel Florin said: "If more people were willing to honestly submit themselves to the outsider test, I think our debates and conversations would be far more intelligent and productive." Jeffery Amos said something stronger, that the Christian faith fails The Insider Test for Faith. He wrote: "One criticism that many have of Christianity is that it fails the outsider test: when viewed from the outside, it doesn't make sense. I was an evangelical Christian until April 2008, when I discovered that Christianity fails the insider test as well."

"I encourage every Christian to take the Outsider Test for Faith"

That's what Joe Staub, a Christian minister says on his Blog. He wrote: "I am an OTF graduate." Well, bully for him. Any others? Does anyone think he has really done so? An edited version of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) can be found here, and my additional defense of it can be found here.

Staub also wrote:

Mr. Loftus’ book is a thorough and comprehensive critical look at Christianity. It’s better than the books by the Atheist Four Horsemen, because he deals with what Christians actually believe, having been one himself. It’s hard core and will force you to justify your belief system.

I'll add that to the other recommendations of my book, so thanks.

Was Jesus a Witch?

Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'
Bowl dated between late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D.

A bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., is engraved with what may be the world's first known reference to Christ. The engraving reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.

If the word "Christ" refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.

The full engraving on the bowl reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted by the excavation team to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."

"It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, in that he was once the primary exponent of white magic," Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology, said.

He and his colleagues found the object during an excavation of the underwater ruins of Alexandria's ancient great harbor. The Egyptian site also includes the now submerged island of Antirhodos, where Cleopatra's palace may have been located.

Both Goddio and Egyptologist David Fabre, a member of the European Institute of Submarine Archaeology, think a "magus" could have practiced fortune telling rituals using the bowl. The Book of Matthew refers to "wisemen," or Magi, believed to have been prevalent in the ancient world.

According to Fabre, the bowl is also very similar to one depicted in two early Egyptian earthenware statuettes that are thought to show a soothsaying ritual.

"It has been known in Mesopotamia probably since the 3rd millennium B.C.," Fabre said. "The soothsayer interprets the forms taken by the oil poured into a cup of water in an interpretation guided by manuals."

He added that the individual, or "medium," then goes into a hallucinatory trance when studying the oil in the cup.

"They therefore see the divinities, or supernatural beings appear that they call to answer their questions with regard to the future," he said.

The magus might then have used the engraving on the bowl to legitimize his supernatural powers by invoking the name of Christ, the scientists theorize.

Goddio said, "It is very probable that in Alexandria they were aware of the existence of Jesus" and of his associated legendary miracles, such as transforming water into wine, multiplying loaves of bread, conducting miraculous health cures, and the story of the resurrection itself.

While not discounting the Jesus Christ interpretation, other researchers have offered different possible interpretations for the engraving, which was made on the thin-walled ceramic bowl after it was fired, since slip was removed during the process.

Bert Smith, a professor of classical archaeology and art at Oxford University, suggests the engraving might be a dedication, or present, made by a certain "Chrestos" belonging to a possible religious association called Ogoistais.

Klaus Hallof, director of the Institute of Greek inscriptions at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, added that if Smith's interpretation proves valid, the word "Ogoistais" could then be connected to known religious groups that worshipped early Greek and Egyptian gods and goddesses, such as Hermes, Athena and Isis.

Hallof additionally pointed out that historians working at around, or just after, the time of the bowl, such as Strabon and Pausanias, refer to the god "Osogo" or "Ogoa," so a variation of this might be what's on the bowl. It is even possible that the bowl refers to both Jesus Christ and Osogo.

Fabre concluded, "It should be remembered that in Alexandria, paganism, Judaism and Christianity never evolved in isolation. All of these forms of religion (evolved) magical practices that seduced both the humble members of the population and the most well-off classes."

"It was in Alexandria where new religious constructions were made to propose solutions to the problem of man, of God's world," he added. "Cults of Isis, mysteries of Mithra, and early Christianity bear witness to this."

The bowl is currently on public display in the exhibit "Egypt's Sunken Treasures" at the Matadero Cultural Center in Madrid, Spain, until November 15.
© 2009 Discovery Channel

My Prediction: William Lane Craig Will Trounce Christopher Hitchens in their Upcoming Debate

Kevin Harris and Zachary Moore did a podcast from the Christian Book Expo after a panel discussion which included both Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. Both men stopped in to be interviewed by Harris and Moore about their upcoming debate: Special - Live at the Christian Book Expo (Click the link and scroll down a bit). These two men will debate “Does God Exist?” April 4th, at Biola University. In this interview you'll hear Dr. Craig claiming Hitchens is "incapable" of responding to his arguments. I wouldn't go that far but given Craig's experience as a debater and the fact that he's a professional philosopher, my prediction is that Craig will trounce Hitchens. I wish this wasn't the case, but this is my prediction. [In the poll at the right you can vote a Craig/Loftus match-up, if you want].

Atheist Billboards Coming To North Texas

Believers in God have their billboards and now those who don't believe in God have their own message.

"We're not trying to attract people who believe in God. We're not trying to change their minds," said Terry McDonald with Metroplex Atheists.


At the weekly gathering of the Metroplex Atheists, the talk was about Monday's unveiling of two billboards with the message, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

"It's to let those people who don't believe know that they're not alone and that there are a lot of groups that they can become involved in," said McDonald.

The billboards will stand along I-35 near Loop 12 in Northwest Dallas and I-35 at Braswell in North Fort Worth.

The message encourages atheists and other non-believers to log onto www.dfwcor.org. The C.O.R stands for "Coalition of Reason." The website will be up and running Monday to coincide with the unveiling of both billboards.

Dr. Darrell Bock of the Dallas Theological Seminary welcomes the debate.

"They (non-believers) represent a significant minority in our culture. They're becoming more verbal and the thing to do is to have a conversation with them about that," he said.

Dr. Bock says the billboards may enrage some Christians at first, but he doesn't expect that anger to last.

"People pretty much have their minds made up on these kinds of matters. They're either going to be for or against," he said. "A lot of people will drive by and it will be the topic of conversation for a few days perhaps, but I don't think it's going to change very much."

Identical billboards are already up in Philadelphia and Denver. Non-believers have been gathering momentum as of late. HBO comic Bill Maher questioned God's existence in his 2008 documentary, "Religulous."

A recent study found that more than 15 percent of Americans no longer affiliate with a religion.

Video

Does Satan Exist?: A Nightline Face-Off

Link. Ohhhh, the ignorance, the ignorance, the ignorance. Just look at the confident disposition of Pastor Driscoll and Annie, the former hooker. I don't see any doubt on their faces at all. I can imagine such confident people running the Inquisition or owning slaves, or believing in the ancient Delphic Oracles. Sheesh. As I've said, skepticism is a virtue.

Answering Dr. Reppert's Criticisms of The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)

Victor Reppert offers some criticisms of the OTF, which I plan on answering here.Victor said:

First, it would be good if the argument could be formulated with premises and a conclusion. Exactly what is he arguing for, and what is the basis for his argument.

Okay, here it 'tis:

1. Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and cultural heritage. This is the religious diversity thesis.

2. Consequently, it seems highly likely that adopting one’s religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree. This is the religious dependency thesis.

3. Hence the odds are highly likely that any given adopted religious faith is false.

4. So the best way to test one’s adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths. This ex-presses the OTF.

People in distinct geographical locations around the globe adopt and defend the religion of their upbringing and culture. This is an undeniable sociological fact. Anthropology shows us that human beings are locked inside their own cultures and cannot, without the greatest of difficulty, transcend their culturally adopted beliefs. Psychology shows us that human beings do not examine their beliefs dispassionately but rather seek to confirm that which they already believe. And unlike scientific, political and moral beliefs there are no mutually agreed upon tests to determine which religious faith is true. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that the religion a person adopts and defends is overwhelmingly dependent upon the “accidents of birth” rather than on a rational assessment of the case based upon the available evidence. Since this is so we should be just as skeptical of our own religious upbringing as we are with the other religious faiths we reject. The odds are that we’re wrong. We should be skeptical of our religiously inherited faih with the same amount of skepticism as we use to judge the other religious faiths that we reject. Here we have the notion of being “outsiders” to the religious faith in question, and as such it’s called “The Outsider Test for Faith.”

Victor said:

Second, it would be cheating to have a test and just mark our religious beliefs as the beliefs to be tested. Keith Parsons once asked, "Tell me, do you really think that, had you been born Vijay instead of Victor, and if you were from Bangalore rather than Phoenix, AZ, that you would not now be as devoted to Brahma as you are to God?" And the answer is I don't know. If Keith had grown up in the United Methodist church that I did, and had he discovered Plantinga or Lewis before leaving the fold, as opposed to converting briefly to West Rome Baptist Church and hearing weekly hellfire threats as an undergraduate, would he now be a Christian philosopher instead of an atheist? The "what if" game is far harder than it looks to play.

I don’t mean to single out religious beliefs here, although that is indeed my focus. They are just more assuredly determined by one’s cultural upbringing than anything else we can predict. Some things would surely be hard to predict if events had turned out differently. I admit that we are all strongly influenced by the people and circumstances around us. This is what psychological studies show us. With different influences Keith Parsons could've ended up as a Christian philosopher, yes. That’s indeed how malleable the human mind is, his, mine, and Reppert's too. With different influences Reppert could've been an atheist philosopher! This is who we are as human beings. What we think and believe is molded and shaped by all of our experiences and influences, including everyone we talk to or study with, and everything we have ever read or witnessed. We know this even if we may not be able to predict what would’ve happened had something different taken place in someone’s life. I do know that had something different taken place then a particular person would be different in some ways, depending on the event and the impact that event had on him or her. But there are some things that are easier to predict, and one thing seems clearly to be the case that if we were born in different culture and with a different upbringing we would adopt the faith of our upbringing.

Victor said:

But I happen to know something about Vijay. Keith and I agree that there is an independently existing physical world. Vijay does not. If either of us had been born Vijay, we would think of the world of experience as maya, or illusion, and we would not see it as ultimately real. So it looks as if external world realism fails the outsider test. Yet I see no reason to be accept external world skepticism because if I had been born in India, I might have been brought up to reject external world realism.

In this case Vijay would have to subject his own religious upbringing to the same kind of skepticism he uses to evaluate Christianity, the most materialistic of religions, as C.S. Lewis claimed. I think if Vijay did this he would end up being a skeptic about his prior held belief that the world is an illusion, or maya, which is a belief of his that goes against all the available evidence. Again, Vijay needs to subject that culturally adopted religious belief to skepticism. And in this regard Reppert is missing the point. Vijay’s views would not represent skepticism at all. His Eastern views are based in his religious faith, and as such I’m asking him to be skeptical of them. With regard to Reppert I'm not asking him to subject his knowledge that there is a real world with the religious faith of a Vijay that the world is an illusion. If Reppert wants to instead talk about some kind of extreme type of Cartesian skepticism which might lead someone to solipsism then he’s attributing to me a kind of skepticism of which I do not embrace at all, which no one can be that skeptical anyway. The OTF does not ask for complete and utter skepticism. It merely asks us to be as skeptical of our own culturally adopted religious faith as we are of the others we reject.

Victor said:

What about moral beliefs? I think that rape is wrong. If I had been brought up in a certain culture, I'm told, I would believe that rape is OK if you do it in the evening, because a woman's place is at home under her husband's protection, and if she is gone she's asking for it. So my belief that rape is wrong flunks the outsider test. This gives me no basis whatsoever for doubting that rape is wrong.

There is a difference between moral and religious beliefs, although they are indeed intertwined in many religions. The OTF is a test to examine religious faiths, not moral or political beliefs. When I refer to religious faith, I’m referring to beliefs that are essential for a member to be accepted in a particular religious community of faith who worship together and/or accept the same divinely inspired prophetic/revelations and/or those beliefs whereby one’s position in the afterlife depends. The reason for this definition is clear, since the outsider test is primarily a challenge about the religious faith of communities of people. It also applies secondarily in lesser degrees to individual philosophers espousing metaphysical, political, and/or ethical viewpoints who are not guided primarily by communal religious experiences but who are still influenced by the cultural milieu in which they live. Hence the OTF will have a much greater degree of force against religious faiths of religious communities than on individual philosophers not involved in a religious community.

So can we apply this same skepticism to moral beliefs? Should I be as skeptical that rape is wrong as I am that rape is morally acceptable? No. Absolutely not. Again, look at the specific criteria I provided. I said:

The amount of skepticism warranted depends on the number of rational people who disagree, whether the people who disagree are separated into distinct geographical locations, the nature of those beliefs, how they originated, how they were personally adopted in the first place, and the kinds of evidence that can possibly be used to decide between them. My claim is that when it comes to religious beliefs a high degree of skepticism is warranted because of these factors.

That’s what I said, and so in this instance as with many other moral beliefs they do not suffer the same consequences from applying the OTF. Beliefs like the acceptability of rape are based on religious beliefs anyway, so they are subject to the outsider test precisely because of the nature and origin of those beliefs, as I said. I know of no non-believer who would ever want to defend the morality of rape, for instance, unlike believers in the past and present who do because of some so-called inspired text. We know rape is wrong, and we also know that this kind of behavior is sanctioned by religious beliefs, as is honor killing. The religious person who thinks rape is morally acceptable should subject that belief to skepticism as an outsider. And when he does this he will begin to doubt his previously held religious/moral beliefs, as I’ve argued. When it comes to Reppert, I think his moral belief that rape is wrong will survive his own skepticism, for there is evidence that as a father of a daughter he would want to help maintain a free society where she can go about her business free from being accosted. If Reppert wants to provide an argument where he can defend the morality of rape I’d like to see this. I would find it very strange if in order to escape the OTF Reppert must defend the morality of rape. That seems too high of a price to pay, but if that’s what he wants to do, then I’m all ears. [Speaking of morality, let me remind the reader that I’ve argued elsewhere that morality has evolved].

Victor said:

What about political beliefs? I think that representative democracy is a better form of government than monarchy. If I lived in 16th Century Europe, or in other parts of the globe, I probably would not believe that. So my belief in democratic government flunks the outsider test. However, this gives me no reason to have the least doubt that democracy is better than monarchy.

The same things can be said about political beliefs as I said about moral beliefs. Listen, there are a great many political and moral beliefs which we think are essential to a human society but which are not necessary at all. Democracy is one of them. People have done fine without democracy from the beginning when a dominant male lion or ape ruled the others and had free reign with a harem of females. That being said I think there is evidence that supports the fact that as rational animals we are happier when we have a say in how a country is run. And we have also found ways to include minority thinking too, with some proper checks and balances. And when people around the world vote with their feet they sail, fly and run to a democratic government. Further evidence for this is the crumbling of dictatorial socialist communist governments. But once again, I would find it very strange if in order to escape the OTF Reppert must deny that democracy is a better form of government than a monarchy or dictatorship. That seems too high of a price to pay, but if that’s what he wants to do, then I’m all ears.

Victor said:

What about scientific beliefs? If I had been born in the Islamic world, or in some Christian churches, I would have been taught to reject the theory of evolution in its entirety. So it looks like the theory of evolution fails the outsider test. Nevertheless, this in itself is insufficient grounds for the slightest doubt about evolution.

Here it becomes obvious that Reppert does not know what the OTF is about. Scientific thinking is in a different category altogether from religious faiths (see the specific criteria mentioned above). We do not learn about science merely from our parents, although hopefully we do. We can personally do the experiments ourselves. So scientific testing is independent of what someone tells us to believe and so it does not require the same level of skepticism about its conclusions. There are mathematical and experimental results that are independently verified time and again. But when it comes to religious faiths there are no mutually agreed upon reliable tests to decide between them, and this makes all of the difference in the world. With regard to Reppert’s example, the OTF requires religious believers to subject their creationist theories to the skepticism of the scientist, theories which were learned on their Mama’s knee and tenaciously defended because some ancient superstitious pre-scientific set of writings say so. Science and scientific thinking is the best and probably only antidote to these creationist religious myths, myths which other religions differ about.

Victor said:

Finally, a certain natural conservatism with respect to changing our minds about matters of world-view, or any other issue for that matter, is both natural and rational. I thought the lesson of things like Cartesian foundationalism is that if you throw out all sort of beliefs as unjustified and load the burden of proof onto those beliefs, it's hard to stop and have anything left. Most people thought that Descartes had to cheat to get his world back. If we have to be skeptics about all of our sociologically conditioned beliefs, I am afraid we are going to be skeptics about a lot more than just religion.

Well, it’s certainly the case that conservatism is natural with respect to people not wanting to change their beliefs. It’s so natural to us that we as human beings will go to some extreme lengths to defend what we want to believe. So I see nothing about this conservatism which is justified, otherwise, at some extreme level we’d still believe in Santa Claus, or that our fathers can do anything, or patriots would still defend America “whether right or wrong” in their later years. This also undercuts the whole notion that such conservatism is rational as well. The rational thing to do, which we humans are not too good at, is to grow and learn and think and investigate and follow the arguments and evidence wherever they lead. That's the rational thing to do despite wanting to hold on to beliefs which cannot be reasonably justified.

Besides, I see no reason at all for thinking the OTF should lead us to complete and utter skepticism. None. It’s merely a test to critically evaluate one’s culturally adopted religious faith with the same type of skepticism s/he uses to evaluate other religious faiths. As I have argued, the kind of skepticism involved here is a reasonable one and something we should all adopt about religious faith, especially one’s own. The more outlandish and extraordinary the claim is then the more evidence we should require to support such a claim. This is very reasonable and I see no reason to think otherwise at all.

When it comes to skepticism in general though, it should be thought of as resting on a continuum, anyway. Some claims we should be extremely skeptical about (“I saw a pink elephant;” “the CIA is dogging my steps”), while others on the opposite side will not require much skepticism at all (“there is a material world;” “if you drop a book it will fall to the ground;” “George Washington was the first President of America”). I do indeed think we should have a healthy amount of skepticism toward all of our beliefs on this continuum. Skepticism is virtue. What's wrong with that?

Might I Share Great News With You?

I will be left five-million dollars in a Will by a multi-billionaire friend who loves me and thinks the world of me. (Can your believe this. Totally free love backed up with five-million dollars! I never thought I was worth that to anybody. Especially by an old man worth hundreds of billions who is facing death soon (Sorry, I did not mean it the way it came out.)

I have not met this wonderful man, but I personally do know he has on file very reliable legal documents and that he has put the five-million dollar fund in twenty-five different banks to make sure the principle is FDIC insured. And, at the time of his death, all the principle and interest are all mine to use as I see fit.

This is a totally free gift of love by a person I’ve never met (Can you believe it!). The ONLY thing that he asks is that I show my love to him in return for this wonderful gift by doing simple 3 things which will cost me nothing:

A. He will want me to keep his reputation highly respected and defend it from anyone putting him down or being disrespectful of him. Trust is a major factor and part of his reputation, thus questioning this trust will reflect poorly on him and me. (I can do a lot of trusting for five-million dollars and who would not?! Buddy, I’m not stupid!)

B. Since he wants to remain highly respected; it only follows that he will want me to live a life that reflects his own morals and ethics. (Hey, after all it takes one to know one! Want proof: How about five–million dollars worth of proof! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!)

C. He will want me to tell other people that they too can have this free gift of love and money if they simply will likewise do A and B above and help share his reputation and this good news of personal love and wealth with anyone else who will accept it.

I do know the money is in the bank. I personally do know this man that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars loves me. (I don’t have to prove this to you or anyone else for that matter.)

You want to know something else: I’m sure I love him too. Listen, why would I not since he has proven this just by offering me the five-million dollars as proof that he loves me even more than my own family has or anyone I’ve ever met in my life.

What to know one more thing? I’ve thought about this wonderful offer and love. I’ve decide to accept it.

Fact is, just this consolation of love and money has already taken so much pressure and the burden of life off my back; even more than I can began to tell you about it! Talk about reality, man I’m now experiencing it!

I am now inviting you to have a real loving dad on this earth and five-million dollars too simply by doing something in life that will cost you nothing. (You ready know deep down in your heart you are unhappy with how life has treated you.) Please let me tell him you have found the truth in this life by just letting me tell him you will do A, B, and C above.

I hope you accept this great humanitarian’s gift of love backed up with money. Both he and I would love the see more millionaires with smiles on their faces, moral and ethics guiding their lives and love in their hearts.

Please, won’t you throw off this burdensome world and aimless life for a real dad that not only loves you, but proves it with millions of dollars?

I hope you and I hope everyone can be a happy multi-millionaire like me!

People, trust is free. Won’t you try it!

A man who now has a REAL DAD and your next multi-millionaire to be:

$Harry$

Struggling to leave your religion?

Join us for a powerful weekend with others who can understand and support you.

“RELEASE AND RECLAIM” Recovery Retreat
May 1-3, 2009; Oakham, Massachusetts (near Worcester)
Friday at 7pm until Sunday at 3pm,
at a beautiful lakeside home on six acres with hot tub, canoes, and more.

This program is for you if you want to let go of toxic, authoritarian beliefs and reclaim your ability to trust your own feelings and think for yourself.

Leaving your faith can be a very difficult process, but you don’t have to go it alone.
At a Release and Reclaim Recovery Retreat participants can:

• Share personal stories
• Examine key issues
• Learn coping strategies
• Meet others and build a support system
• Enjoy meals, relaxation,and fun

These retreats are led by Marlene Winell, Ph.D., psychologist and author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. Dr. Winell has a private practice in Berkeley, CA and also consults by telephone.

COST: Sliding scale: $220 - $320 for workshop, $125 for room and board (all meals included). Other financial help available.

TO REGISTER: Write to recoveryfromreligion@gmail.com (subject line “retreat registration”) or call Dr. Winell directly at 510.292.0509. Retreat space is limited so contact us as soon as possible.

WANT TO TALK? If you are unsure if this is for you, please feel welcome to call and chat. Just call Marlene at 510-292-0509. You can also talk with someone who has been to a retreat (we have had six so far).

FOR MORE INFORMATION, testimonials, and videos, please visit www.marlenewinell.net

MORE RETREATS in Denver : June 5-7 & June 12-14

Have They Found Lot's Wife?

From the Biblical Archaeological Review...

This might be the cover of BAR's next issue if we all vote for it.Do you think they know something? I doubt very much that they do, but if they do then let's give it a simple DNA test to see if there are traces of female DNA in it! LOL Why do we have to put up with this shit? Why does this stuff persist? Christians claim to have heard the howls of hell down through oil digs, too. What a sham this all is, and waste of time, space, effort, and intelligence. I think Hector Avalos is right. Biblical studies as we know it should end.

Ronald S. Hendel: "Giants at Jericho." What a Story Indeed!

When I say there is no archaeological evidence for the Israelite Exodus, wilderness wanderings, or Canaanite conquest, I mean exactly what I say. Listen to what Ronald S. Hendel said about Jericho. He's a Professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

This is what he said matter-of-factly:

According to the best interpretations of the archaeological evidence, Jericho was destroyed around 1550 B.C.E. and was not settled again until after 1000 B.C.E. But the emergence of Israel dates to around 1200 B.C.E., right in the middle of this 500-year gap. If Joshua and his troops had surrounded Jericho, there would have been nobody home.

Then Hendel goes on to try to salvage some kind of historicity to the story itself involving mythical giants in the land, whom it was believed were sired from the sons of god mating with women (Genesis 6). But one myth cannot be used to lend credibility to another one. He may be correct about what the Israelites believed, but I see no reason to accept any of this as historical at all. Apparently there were a number of these giants in the land--even Goliath was one of them. Where are the archaeological digs revealing any of the skeletal remains of even one of these giants? Again, there are none.

Christian, does this not trouble you? It should. Such a lack of evidence as this is the same thing we find when it comes to the Mormon claims of people living in America that form the basis of the Book of Mormon. You don't believe the Mormons precisely because of this lack of archaeological evidence. Why then do you not apply this same kind of evidential test when it comes to your own beliefs? This is what it means to take The Outsider Test for Faith. Come on, you can do it.

Atheism, Christianity and Morality

Okay, there are several arguments I am damned tired of having to argue over and over and over. The issue of atheist morality is one of them. If you have not yet read an atheist response to this question, or if you are truly interested in how an atheist responds to it then check out the following links.

I believe morality is a social construct, and yet I'm a still a good person.

Scroll down on our FAQ sheet to Atheism, Christianity and Morality, and take special note of this link.

Please read these posts before commenting on morality any more...please.

Am I Omniscient Enough to Know There Isn't a God?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett recently asked me this question:

How much knowledge of the natural universe do you have? What is the percentage? Give me an estimate. I would like to know.

The import of such a question is reflected in the title to this post. Some believers think, perhaps Harvey does too, that in order for me to claim a god doesn't exist I need to know all things. Really? This is so laughable I hardly know where to start, but here we go...

Do I need to have omniscience before I can claim the following things?

1) That there are no unicorns, elves, trolls, or hobbits.
2) That there is no Santa Claus or Easter bunny.
3) That there is no Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Juno, Janus, Hermes, Aphrodite, Baal, Asherah, Molech, Ra, Hathor, Osirus, Seth, Horus, Thor, or one of the 2,500 deities of the world? Logic alone tells me they cannot all exist! Atheism Blog informs us that at least 500 of these deities are dead. Based on this J.L. Schellenberg argues that the odds are always going to favor the conclusion that your view is wrong in this situation. There are just too many other gods out there that undermine the probability that you’ve got the right one.

While I merely mentioned a few things that directly relate to whether I can claim to know the Christian God exists, there are a host of other things I can claim to know without also claiming omniscience. This includes everything I claim to know, as in E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G, since Harvey likes to use capital letters to emphasize things. Even though I do not have omniscience I can still claim to know everything that I claim to know, all of it. And trust me on this, there are degrees of assuredness to the things I claim to know, so when I say I know George Washington was the first President of the United States my assuredness of that fact in the past is always going to be less than my claim that when I drop a book it will fall because of gravity. So along with any knowledge claim there is an implicit assuredness factor that is left unstated. But I could state them for you if you want me too, with some further reflection. This means there is always a probability factor involved in all knowledge claims, and I also have a good grasp of those claims of mine that have a higher level of assuredness to them than other things I claim to know that I am less sure about.

So when it comes to my denial that the Christian God of the Bible exists I am about as sure of this as I am that George Washington was our first president, since whether or not this God exists is also a historical conclusion regarding the claims that such a God revealed himself in the past--the ancient superstitious past, mind you.

So in answer to Harvey’s question I know enough to know I don't know that much about the universe, kinda like Socrates who said that the wise person is the one who claims not to know much at all.

But, what I do know tells me there is no creator God, no Holy Spirit, no Trinity, no fall into sin in the Garden of Eden, no universal flood, no Exodus or Canaanite conquest, no prophecy about Jesus that specifically points to him as the Messiah, no virgin birth, no incarnation, no atonement, no resurrection, no ascension into the sky, no future coming of the Son of Man, no great white throne judgment, no Satan, no heaven above nor hell below, and no inspired writings from God.

I could be wrong about these things though, as Harvey will be quick to say since I've just admitted I don't know much about the universe. Yes, I could be wrong. I admit this. I could be wrong about George Washington too. But I consider what I do know to virtually eliminate that possibility. You cannot drive a truckload of silly hypotheses and ignorant conjectures based upon non-veridical religious experiences through that small hole of a possibility.

Now I have a question to ask you Harvey. How much do YOU know about the universe (and I’ll throw in the history of theology, the history of the Bible, the history of the church, apologetics, anthropology, psychology, and philosophy)? ;-) My claim is you don’t know what I do.

The Reality of Easter (Passover)

In the Hebrew Bible, it was the Israelite priests that had themselves chosen by an ancient god of polytheism called Yahweh and set themselves up as his mouth piece leaving their final legacy in the editing of the Hebrew Bible known as “P“ for the Priestly School (This is confirmed by the fact that, with the passing of W.F. Albright (1891–1971) and the Albright School, the historicity of both the Patriarchs and Moses are now understood as pure religious myth.)

As a result of this edited legacy, the Israelite priests severed the Temple and whose control was nothing short of divine dynasty (After the reform of Josiah ended local shrines that posed competition for the Jerusalem Temple 2 Kings 22 - 23).

Here the grain, meat and drink offerings where served to the national god Yahweh only by this limited and tightly controlled priesthood. While whole offering sacrifices are discussed in the Hebrew text, the late and general procedure for offering a sacrifice, was (as in the case of meat) by taking only the best unblemished animals (“without blemish” is the requirement for sacrifice that runs throughout the entire book of Leviticus or a text constituting a major document of the Priestly school). Moreover, slaughtering it in the proper kosher method by bleeding it and then burning the fat, guts and bones to Yahweh while keeping the eatable portions for the priests themselves. What was not eaten by the priests was sold to the general Israelite population living in Jerusalem or the neighboring towns for money to maintain the Temple and spending money for these priests to support their families.

The Priestly Code is a complex religious document that demands sacrifice for sin offerings from everything from childbirth to a national Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) of an animal sacrifice by the High Priest to a yearly massive slaughter house event require of all Israelites called Passover. It is at such time as Passover that the strong stench of animal urine, dung and blood along with the bellowing cries of animals waiting for slaughter could be totally over powering when the streets around the Temple ran red with animal blood diluted with both urine and fecal matter. This, to such over lords as the Greeks (Seleucids such as Antiochus IV) and the Romans, Jewish sacrifice was totally repulsive.

Should this lunar event fall further into the heat of spring, the stench was multiplied along with pollution and disease. (We might note here that, just like a slaughtered Temple animal, the dying Jesus’ blood, as well as that of the other two criminals crucified on either side of him would have also been mixed with his own urine and fecal matter along with vomit which would most likely would have covered his chest due to a slow suffocating death.)

{In this respect, the Catholic crucifix (which depicts a loin cloth over the Jesus‘ private parts) is nothing but a pious depiction of the horrible reality of Roman crucifixion created not to offend its use in public churches above the altar. (The fact that medieval religious art depicts only Jesus nailed to the cross while the other two criminals are tied to their crosses is simply to help the pious religious mind think that ONLY Jesus alone shed his blood and clearly to teach a major Christian dogma in the doctrine of atonement and salvation.)}

With the Temple rededicated under the Hasmonaeans and the Jews now under Roman control, Judea was now given to Herod the Great to rule. To keep things civil, Herod's religious choices made sure the Temple affairs were run by secular priests or, what the New Testament calls Sadducees. (Josephus Antiques XV, XVI, XVII 1-8)

For the average religious Jew, secular life and religious law were meshed into one. Other than satisfying the tax burden of Rome, the life of a pious Jew as to satisfy the Torah requirements of their national religious life and heritage.

With no separation between religion and state, Temple corruption was rampart as noted by both Josephus and the Gospels. In short, what we find in the selling of animals in the Temple was none other than one of the first examples of a Capitalistic economy where profit is a motivating factor. Or better put, why travel to Jerusalem with an animal which one must feed and water on the journey and which may get blemished on the way; when one could simply take advantage of the “Buy Here; Sacrifice Here” convenient store Temple offerings. After all, money was a lot easier to carry up to Jerusalem for Passover than an animal.

Since the secular Sadducees control the Temple and the selling of sacrificial animals near the altar; for a price, one was guaranteed an animal without blemish would be guaranteed pass the test of the priest and leave everyone happy (whether it was in fact spotless could be certainly over looked for a good selling price).

The fact that Jesus is depicted in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 21: 12 - 14; Mark 11: 15 -18; Luke 19: 45 - 47) as objecting to the buying and selling in the Temple places his theology more in line with the Pharisees who were highly conservative in their theology, but who lack any control over the Temple.

This mixture of religion, state and Capitalism ended abruptly in 70 CE when the Romans burnt the last Temple ending both the secular sect of the Sadducees and over 2,000 years of sacrificial of offerings to Yahweh.

Against Presuppositional Apologetics

I was recently asked what I thought about Presuppositional apologetics. Here is my lengthy response in its entirety and unedited:

I don't bother with them much. They're in a world of their own. One simply cannot presuppose the truths of disputable historical events prior to investigating whether or not those events actually took place and keep a straight face.

Penn & Teller On the Placebo Effect

Look, we know most people will believe most any tale if it's told by a sincere person whom they respect. WE KNOW THIS! And we also know that once people believe something to be true they will seek to confirm it and they will discount contrary evidence. WE KNOW THIS! One example of this is the Placebo effect (see video below). So once again, what exactly is wrong with being skeptical about that which we were taught to believe? Christian, don't say that I must also be skeptical of that which I affirm, because I am. That's why I describe myself as an agnostic atheist. You need to deal with this question and not deflect it back to me. You need to be skeptical about that which you were taught to believe.

Great Posts at Common Sense Atheism

As I've said before, I like what I read over at Common Sense Atheism. Consider bookmarking this site like I have. Here's a sampling of what you can find there:

1) The Explosion of Early Christianity, Explained;

2) "Atheists are not generally more rational or careful than believers";

3) "Atheists should focus less on a believer’s intellectual needs and more on their human needs";

4) What William Lane Craig is Right About;

5) 400+ Atheist Debates

Richard Carrier v. William Lane Craig Debate the Resurrection of Jesus

The Outsider Test for Faith

[Written by John W. Loftus] Here's an edited version of my Outsider Test for Faith chapter, which I read to the Evangelical Philosophical Society. My book fleshes it out much better and responds to all known objections:

THE OUTSIDER TEST FOR FAITH
by John W. Loftus

The most important question of all when it comes to assessing the truth claims of Christian theism is whether we should approach the available evidence through the eyes of faith, or of skepticism. Complete neutrality, while desirable, seems to be practically impossible, since the worldview we use to evaluate the evidence is already there prior to looking at the evidence. So the question I’ll be addressing today is whether we should adopt a believing or a skeptical predisposition prior to examining the evidence for a religious set of beliefs. I’ll argue that a skeptical predisposition is the preferred one to adopt.

My Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is just one of several arguments I use to demonstrate that when examining the evidence for a religious set of beliefs the predisposition of skepticism is warranted. There is overwhelming, undeniable and non-controversial evidence for the test itself that can be found in the sociological, anthropological, and psychological data. I’ll start with some of this data that forms the basis for the test. Then I’ll describe the test, provide some examples of what it demands of the believer, and defend it from six major objections.

There is a great deal of discussion among Christian apologists over Bayesian “background factors,” which play a significant role in assessing the truth of Christianity in general, the likelihood of the resurrection of Jesus, the probability of miracles, and the problem of evil. But the most important background factor of all for cognitively assessing the truth claims of religious faith is one’s sociological and cultural background.

The basis for the outsider test has been stated adequately by liberal Christian philosopher John Hick: “It is evident that in some ninety-nine percent of the cases the religion which an individual professes and to which he or she adheres depends upon the accidents of birth.” That is to say, if we were born in Saudi Arabia, we would be Sunni Muslims right now. If we were born in Iran, we’d be Shi’a Muslims. If we were born in India, we’d be a Hindus. If we were born in Japan, we’d be Shintoists. If we were born in Mongolia, we’d be Buddhists. If we were born in the first century BCE in Israel, we’d adhere to the Jewish faith at that time, and if we were born in Europe in 1000 CE, we’d be Roman Catholics. For the first nine hundred years we would’ve believed in the ransom theory of Jesus’ atonement. As Christians during the later Middle Ages, we wouldn’t have seen anything wrong with killing witches, torturing heretics, and conquering Jerusalem from the “infidels” in the Crusades. These things are as close to being undeniable facts as we can get in the sociological world.

Had we lived in ancient Egypt or Babylon, we would’ve been very superstitious and polytheistic to the core. In the ancient world, we would’ve sought divine guidance through divination, tried to alter circumstances through magic, and believed in the dreaded evil eye.

There are a whole range of issues that admit of diversity in the moral and political areas as well, based to an overwhelming degree on the “accidents of birth.” Caucasian American men would’ve believed with President Andrew Jackson in manifest destiny, our God-given mandate to seize Native American territories in westward expansion. Up through the seventeenth century we would’ve believed that women were intellectually inferior to men, and consequently we wouldn’t have allowed them to become educated in the same subjects as men, much less to vote. Like Thomas Jefferson and most Americans, we would’ve thought this way about black people as well, that they were intellectually inferior to whites, while if we were born in the South, we would’ve justified slavery from the Bible. If in today’s world we were born in the Palestinian Gaza strip, we would hate the Jews and probably want to kill them all.

These kinds of moral, political, and religious beliefs, based upon cultural conditions, can be duplicated into a lengthy list of beliefs that we would’ve had if we were born in a different time and place. Voltaire was right: “Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time.”

Social conditions provide us with the initial control beliefs we use from that moment on to incorporate all known facts and experiences. That’s why they’re called control beliefs. They are somewhat like blinders. From the moment we put them on, we pretty much see only what our blinders will let us see, because reason is mostly used to serve them.

Michael Shermer, a former Christian turned atheist, has done an extensive study of why people believe in God and in “weird things.” He argues: “Most of us most of the time come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predispositions, parental predilections, sibling influences, peer pressures, educational experiences, and life impressions all shape the personality preferences and emotional inclinations that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to make certain belief choices. Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational belief, regardless of what we previously believed. Instead, the facts of the world come to us through the colored filters of the theories, hypotheses, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through our lifetime. We then sort through the body of data and select those most confirming what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that are disconfirming. All of us do this, of course, but smart people are better at it.”

Christian philosopher Robert McKim concurs in some respects. He wrote: “We seem to have a remarkable capacity to find arguments that support positions which we antecedently hold. Reason is, to a great extent, the slave of prior commitments.” Hence the whole notion of “an independent rational judgment” is suspect, he claims. This is not to deny that Christian apologists defend their faith with reasons. Of course they do. These apologists, if they’re good at what they do, will be smart people. But as Michael Shermer also reminds us, “smart people, because they are more intelligent and better educated, are able to give intellectual reasons justifying their beliefs that they arrived at for nonintelligent reasons.”

Psychiatrist Dr. Valerie Tarico describes the process of defending unintelligent beliefs by smart people. She claims, “it doesn’t take very many false assumptions to send us on a long goose chase.” To illustrate this she tells us about the mental world of a paranoid schizophrenic. To such a person the perceived persecution by the CIA sounds real. “You can sit, as a psychiatrist, with a diagnostic manual next to you, and think: as bizarre as it sounds, the CIA really is bugging this guy. The arguments are tight, the logic persuasive, the evidence organized into neat files. All that is needed to build such an impressive house of illusion is a clear, well-organized mind and a few false assumptions. Paranoid individuals can be very credible.” In her opinion this is what Christians do and best explains why it’s hard to shake the evangelical faith. Of course, I don’t expect Christians to agree with her that this is what they do, but then they cannot deny that people of religious faith do this. What else can best explain why there is still a Mormon church now that DNA evidence conclusively proves Native Americans did not come from the Middle East?

I’ve investigated my faith from the inside as an insider with the presumption that it was true. Even from an insider’s perspective with the Christian set of control beliefs, I couldn’t continue to believe. Now from the outside, it makes no sense at all. Christians are on the inside. I am now on the outside. Christians see things from the inside. I see things from the outside. From the inside, it seems true. From the outside, it seems almost bizarre. As Mark Twain wisely said, “The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.”

This whole inside/outside perspective is quite a dilemma and prompts me to propose and argue on behalf of the OTF, the result of which makes the presumption of skepticism the preferred stance when approaching any religious faith, especially one’s own. The outsider test is simply a challenge to test one’s own religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, as an outsider. It calls upon believers to "Test or examine your religious beliefs as if you were outsiders with the same presumption of skepticism you use to test or examine other religious beliefs." Its presumption is that when examining any set of religious beliefs skepticism is warranted, since the odds are good that the particular set of religious beliefs you have adopted is wrong.

The OTF is no different than the prince in the Cinderella story who must question forty-five thousand girls to see which one lost the glass slipper at the ball last night. They all claim to have done so. Therefore, skepticism is definitely warranted. This is especially the case when an empirical foot match cannot be had.

The amount of skepticism warranted depends on the number of rational people who disagree, whether the people who disagree are separated into distinct geographical locations, the nature of those beliefs, how they originated, how they were personally adopted in the first place, and the kinds of evidence that can possibly be used to decide between them. My claim is that when it comes to religious beliefs a high degree of skepticism is warranted because of these factors.

Surely someone will initially object that this is quite draconian in scope. Why take such an extreme stance? It’s because that’s how religious people approach all of the other religious faiths but their own. If someone claims she cannot do this because no one can test anything without assumptions of some kind, then this test challenges the believer to switch her assumptions. If she simply cannot do this, then let me suggest doing what René Descartes did with a methodological (or hypothetical) doubt, although I’m not suggesting his type of extreme doubt. Hypothetically consider your faith from the perspective of an outsider.

If she refuses to do this then she must justify having such a double standard. Why does she test other religious beliefs differently than her own? For someone to object that what I’m asking is unfair, she has the burden of proof to show why her inconsistent approach to religious faith is justified in the first place.

I’ll grant that what I’m asking is a tough thing to do. That’s because, as anthropologist Dr. David Eller argues, our culturally inherited beliefs are what we use to see with. We don’t see culture. We see with culture. Our culturally inherited beliefs are much like our very eyes themselves. We cannot easily pluck out our eyes to look at them. But we must attempt this if we truly want to examine that which we were taught to believe. Only the honest the consistent and the brave will ever do this.

To the Christian theist the challenge of the outsider test means there would be no more quoting the Bible to defend the claim that Jesus’ death on the cross saves us from sins. The Christian theist must now try to rationally explain it. No more quoting the Bible to show how it’s possible for Jesus to be 100% God and 100% man with nothing left over. The Christian theist must now try to make sense of this claim, coming as it does from an ancient superstitious people who didn’t have trouble believing Paul and Barnabas were “gods in human form” (Acts 14:11; 28:6). The Christian theist must not assume prior to examining the evidence that there is an answer to the problem of horrendous suffering in our world either. And she’d be initially skeptical of believing in any of the miracles in the Bible, just as she would be skeptical of any claims of the miraculous in today’s world supporting other religious faiths. Why? Because she cannot start out by first believing the Bible, nor can she trust the people close to her who are Christian theists to know the truth, nor can she trust her own anecdotal religious experiences, since such experiences are had by people of all religious faiths who differ about the cognitive content learned as the result of these experiences. She would want evidence and reasons for these beliefs.

The outsider test also challenges believers to examine the social and cultural conditions of how they came to adopt their particular religious faith in the first place. That is, believers must ask themselves who or what influenced them and what the actual reasons were for adopting their faith in its earliest stages. Christian, just ask yourself whether the initial reasons you had for adopting your faith were strong ones. Just think about the problems you’ve experienced in your churches along with the intellectual problems you wrestle with in meetings like these. If you could go back in time knowing what you know now about how Christians behave in the church would you still choose to believe? And those initial arguments that convinced you to believe would surely be thought of by you as simplistic and unworthy of your consideration today. Just ask yourself if you would’ve become a Mormon instead, had a joyous friendly Mormon group approached you at that same vulnerable time in your life. Most all of us, most all of the time, do not have good initial reasons to accept our religious faith, which from that time forward acts like a set of blinders with regard to how we see the evidence. We just end up believing what we were taught to believe by people we trust in a Christian dominated culture.

At the very minimum, a believer should be willing to subject her faith to rigorous scrutiny by reading many of the best-recognized critiques of her faith, most of which are written by other professing believers. Evangelical faith, for instance, can be thought of as a small branch out on a limb called Christianity which is attached to a huge tree called religion. The debate should start by settling the question of which Christianity represents true Christianity in our world today. Then too today’s Christian faith bears little resemblance to the theologies and the ethics of the Christianities in the past, and it will bear little resemblance to future Christianities because the Christian faith is like a chameleon, ever changing with the progression of knowledge. But once that debate between Christians is settled, if that’s even remotely possible, the next debate is between Christianity and all other religions on the planet. I claim evangelicals cannot win the first debate, much less the second one. Cultural anthropologist Dr. David Eller is right: “Nothing is more destructive to religion than other religions; it is like meeting one’s own anti-matter twin.” (p. 233).

Nonetheless, if after having investigated your religious faith with the presumption of skepticism it passes intellectual muster, then you can have your religious faith. It’s that simple. If not, abandon it like I did. I suspect that if someone is willing to take the challenge of the outsider test, then her religious faith will be found defective and she will abandon it along with all other religious faiths, like it has me.

Answering Six Major Objections:

One: Religious believers will all object that the OTF does not show their particular religion to be false simply because it’s an overwhelming sociological fact that we believe based upon when and where we were born. William Lane Craig asks, “How does the mere presence of religious worldviews incompatible with Christianity show that distinctively Christian claims are not true? Logically, the existence of multiple, incompatible truth claims only implies that all of them cannot be (objectively) true; but it would be obviously fallacious to infer that not one of them is (objectively) true.” He’s right about this, as are Muslims and Mormons who can say the same thing with regard to their respective faiths. After all, someone can be right if for no other reason than that she just got lucky to be born when and where she did.

But how do you rationally justify such luck? This is why I’ve developed the challenge of the outsider test in the first place, to test religious faiths against such luck. If the test between religious faiths is based entirely on luck, then what are the chances, based on luck alone, that the particular sect within Christian theism that one adheres to is correct?

Two. It’s objected that there are small minorities of people who choose to be Christian theists who were born and raised in Muslim countries and that people can escape their culturally adopted faith. This is true. But these are the exceptions. Christian theists respond by asking me to explain the exceptions. I’m asking them to explain the rule. Why do religious beliefs dominate in specific geographical areas? Why is that?

When it comes to these converts, my opinion is that most of them do not objectively weigh the evidence when making their initial religious commitments. They mainly change their minds due to the influence and believability of the evangelist and/or the wondrous nature of the religious story itself. They have no initial way of truly investigating the proffered faith. Which evangelist will objectively tell the ugly side of the Bible and of the Church while preaching the good news? None that I know of. Which evangelist will tell a prospect about the innumerable problems that Christian scholars like yourselves wrestle with in meetings like this? None that I know of. Which evangelist will give a prospect a copy of a book like mine along with a copy of a Christian apologetics book, and ask her to read them both before making a decision? Again, none that I know of.

Three. It’s objected that merely because rational people disagree about something does not justify skepticism about a particular claim. On the contrary, I think it can and it does. The amount of skepticism warranted depends on the criteria I mentioned earlier. Rational people don’t bet against gravity, for instance, because there is evidence for it that was learned apart from what she was taught to believe in a geographically distinct location. She can personally test it. I’m claiming religious beliefs are in a different category than the results of repeatable scientific experiments, and that this claim is both obvious and non-controversial. Skepticism is best expressed on a continuum, anyway. Some belief claims will warrant more skepticism than others. I’m claiming that religious beliefs warrant probably the highest skepticism given the sociological facts. At the risk of offending believers here, religious beliefs, like beliefs in the Elves of Iceland, the trolls of Norway, and the power of witches in Africa, must be subjected to the highest levels of skepticism given both the extraordinary nature of these claims and how some of these beliefs are adopted in the first place.

Four. Someone may object that my argument is self-defeating. They’ll ask: “Do my cultural conditions overwhelmingly ‘determine’ my presumption of skepticism? If so, then, as Alvin Plantinga questions, are my beliefs “produced by an unreliable belief-producing process” too? If not, then why do I think I can transcend culture but a Christian theist can’t transcend her culture?” In answer I think it’s extremely difficult to transcend our culture because, as I mentioned before, it provides us with the very eyes we use to see with. But precisely because we know from anthropological and psychological studies that this is what culture does to us, it’s possible to transcend the culture we were raised in.

[Example] We know that people do not truly see or hear reality as it is. What we see is filtered by our eyes. What we hear is filtered by our ears. We see and hear only a very limited amount of data in the world. But if we saw and heard the whole electromagnetic and sonic spectra we’d basically see and hear white noise. We know this even though we can’t actually see or hear the white noise for ourselves. We also know that the ground we walk on is moving like a swarm of bees on the microscopic level. So it’s this scientific knowledge about the world which leads us to be skeptical about that which we see and hear.

The same thing is can be said when it comes to anthropological and psychological studies that show we should be skeptical of that which we were led to believe, even though we can’t actually see anything about our beliefs to be skeptical about. And the OTF is as sure of a test as we can come up with to examine our culturally adopted beliefs.

The truth is that my argument is not self-defeating at all. It suggests we should doubt what we believe. It’s not self-defeating to say the odds are that we are wrong. After all, we’re talking about the odds here. Agnostic philosopher J. L. Schellenberg deals with this same type of criticism in these words: “Now this objection can be sound only if my arguments do indeed apply to themselves, and it will not take much to see that they do not.” For there is a huge difference between defending a religious set of beliefs as the one and only correct set, and denying that a set of religious beliefs is justified. His claim is that the adherents of any given religious set of beliefs “have not successfully made their case; it bides us to continue investigation . . . because skepticism is always a position of last resort in truth seeking contexts.”

Five. In arguing that one’s religious faith is overwhelmingly adopted by the “accidents of birth,” have I committed the informal genetic fallacy of irrelevance? This fallacy is committed whenever it’s argued that a belief is false because of the origination of the belief.

I don’t think the genetic fallacy is as much of a big deal as people think it is, especially in religious contexts. If someone has a paranoid belief about the CIA spying on him and we find that the genesis (or origin) of his belief comes from him taking a hallucinogenic drug like L.S.D., then we have some really good evidence to be skeptical of his paranoid belief, even though we have not actually shown his belief to be false in any other way, and even though by doing so someone could say we have committed the genetic fallacy. So in a like manner if we can determine that the origins of the earliest Christianities were created purely by ancient superstitious human beings, we have good grounds for skepticism. But even more to the point, if all of our beliefs are completely determined by our environment then that’s the case regardless of the fact that by arguing for this it commits the genetic fallacy.

Still, there is no genetic fallacy here unless by explaining how believers first adopt their faith I therefore conclude that such a faith is false. I’m not arguing that these faiths are false because of how believers originally adopted them. I’m merely arguing believers should be skeptical of their culturally adopted religious faith because of how they first adopted them.

Six. One final objection asks whether this is all circular. Have I merely chosen a different metaphysical belief system based upon different cultural factors? I deny this, for I have very good initial grounds for starting out with skepticism based upon the sociological, anthropological and psychological facts. Methodological procedures are those tests we use to investigate something. How we go about investigating something is a separate issue that must be justified on its own terms, and I have done so here. Someone cannot say of the outsider test that I ought to be just as skeptical of it as I am about the conclusions I arrive at when I apply the test, since I have justified this test from the facts. One must first dispute the outsider test on its own terms.

Isn't God's Creation Wonderful? Praise Jesus!

Predation in the wild. Poisonous creatures. Parasites. Such a perfectly good God you have there. NOT!







Parasites.

Christianity’s Living Core is Theological Argumentation and Not Miracles

This is how The Truth Once Delivered to the Saints was handled:

Jesus argues with his parents. (Luke 2: 44 - 50 & John 2: 1 - 4)

Jesus argues with the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Jesus argues with the common Jewish people he came to teach.

Jesus argues with the Apostles.

The Apostles argue among themselves.

The Jerusalem Jewish Jesus sect (under James and Peter) argue with the Hellenists.

Paul argues in his letters against Peter.

Paul argues with unnamed Judaizers and boasts that he only preaches the truth in his churches.

Paul argues with Barnabas and John Mark ending with their splits.

The Early Church Fathers argue amongst themselves over who is really orthodox and who is heretical.

The Western Christians argue with the Eastern Christians over dogmas and who is really the true Church; ending in a split forming the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox traditions.

Catholic Monastic Orders argue, fight (in some cases kill members of the other Orders) and split into new traditions under the Pope.

Luther argues with the Catholic Church labeling the Pope as the Anti-Christ and splits.

Calvin argues with the Catholic Church and with Luther and splits.

Henry VIII argues with the Pope ending in a split and starting the Church of England.

Puritans argue with both Catholics and Protestants and sail to the New World to get freedom of religious truth: But only as they themselves under stand Biblical truth.

Once the issue of freedom of religion was established in the United States, the “Made in American” new Christian religions argued their way into existence: Mormons, Seventh Day Adventist and Christian Science.

The five present day Book of Mormon sects attack and argue with each other. The Branch Davidians split off from and argue with the regular Adventist Church and the Christian Science argues with Unity Christianity.

Alexander Campbell travels the early 19th century United States and argues with the established Christian sects and churches over Biblical orthodox truth starting the Campbellites.

Christian Fundamentalist argue with Christian Liberals.

The King James 1611 Version (The Textus Receptus) group argue and debate with Westcott - Hort's eclectic Greek text.

For the last 2,000 years, Christianity has survived by argumentation and its so called debate to established the real orthodox Christian truth.

Based on its cantankerous tradition, it is little wonder that the Dark Ages commenced after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Rome Empire.

People such as JP Holding, Joe Hinman, Jason, District Super. Harvey Burnett and many Christians who stop by DC to challenge postings are simply only doing what the earliest New Testament traditions (The Pauline Corpus) demand that should be done: The argumentation of the illusive orthodox Christian truth.

In my next post, I’ll present a radical new thesis as to how Christianity was born and why, by its very nature, it is so argumentative.

What About the "Experience" of a Miracle?

I received an email that asked me what I thought about experiences of miracles. Can I explain them away? What do I think about these claims? Here's the email and my response:

Many people say they have experienced the supernatural - receiving a miracle, hearing God speak to them, etc. Pastors such as Mark Driscoll write about their experience with prophetic dreams, seeing demonic attacks, etc. (His book "Confessions of a Reformission Rev detail these things). I have a friend who goes to a Christian school, and tells of the time they prayed for a girl with a broken foot - the next day, it was healed. She didn't have to wear her cast anymore, she was walking fine, etc.

It would be easiest to say that they are lying, making these stories up - but I know my friend, and have no reason to think he would make up a story like that (He's not charismatic, and has never claimed to have seen any other "miracles"). Additionally, I have verified this story of the "healed foot" - everyone claims it really happened. Still, it's tough for me to fully trust this, as I have never personally seen this kind of supernatural event take place.

Obviously, people from other religions claim to experience this too - it doesn't seem to be limited to Christianity, although the large majority of miraculous stories/healings are found in the Christian faith. Would you tend to believe that most/all of these experiences are fictional?

Honestly, at this point in my journey, I just want to know the truth - which is what drew me to you, as I know you are after truth as well. I'm sure you have thought about the claims of supernatural experience, so if you could offer any insight into this area, I would greatly appreciate it.

In part here is my response:

I'm not an answer man. There are mysteries to life, true, and precisely because they exist there will always be room for faith. So I usually tell them that if I had the same experience they had then I would probably believe too. The question is why I don't? I do know that people count the hits and discount the misses, and that people of faith want to see a miracle, which might incline them to see one. I also tell people that even as a Pentecostal in my former years I never saw a miracle and that's all I can say about my personal experiences, for if God didn't supply one then, why should I expect him to now?

I also ask them why God does these miracles for some people and not for others who die miserable deaths. And then I ask why people of other faiths also report these kinds of things.

On religious experiences read this.

On faith healers you must see this documentary!

On the power of brain manipulation you must see this from Derren Brown (I recommend episodes 2-4 especially).

--------------
I hope this helps, and I hope others who are troubled by these kinds of unexplained phenomena look through each of the links provided above to decide for themselves.

I Get These Kinds of Emails at Least Once a Week Now:

Hi John, I wanted to thank you for your site. I have been a Christian for several years now, and stumbled upon your site. Quite honestly, it really rocked my world – I had thought the Christian apologetics that had been taught to me answered every question that non-believers could pose, and left no room for doubt. However, after spending hours on your site and then reading your book, it is extremely obvious to me that the case against Christianity is far stronger than the one that supports it.

Don't Visit DC Unless "You are Prepared for Serious Attacks on Your Faith"

So says Mike over at Ransomed Heart. He also said DC's arguments are presented in such a way "so as to actually shake my faith." But he still believes anyway because he has a relationship with his triune God, something rational argumentation apparently cannot touch.

Really? Come on now believers. Does this not remind you of a little girl who has an imaginary friend and believes her friend exists no matter what we say to her? It's like these Christian believers were raised in a cloistered monastery or something. Have they never ever met people who say the same things about Allah or the Jewish Yahweh, or the Mormon God, the Jehovah's Witnesses God, or Native American spiritual forces, or the Hindu God? Where do these Christian people live who reject arguments in favor of such a relationship? I'm serious. Do they actually have jobs where they must rub shoulders next to other people who say they have a relationship with a different god, one of over 2,500 deities of the world? Atheism Blog informs us that at least 500 of these deities are dead, where we also read:

J.L. Schellenberg argues that the odds are always going to favor the conclusion that your view is wrong in this situation. There are just too many other gods out there that undermine the probability that you’ve got the right one.

Now did he just present an argument?

You betcha he did.

David Wilkerson Predicts Mayhem Will Soon be in the Streets of NYC.

David Wilkerson is the author of The Cross and the Switchblade, one of the most popular books in evangelical history. (It's ranked #32 in Christianity Today's list of "Top 50 Books That Have Shaped Evangelicals.") On March 7, Wilkerson posted an "urgent message". It began:

AN EARTH-SHATTERING CALAMITY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IT IS GOING TO BE SO FRIGHTENING, WE ARE ALL GOING TO TREMBLE — EVEN THE GODLIEST AMONG US. For ten years I have been warning about a thousand fires coming to New York City. It will engulf the whole megaplex, including areas of New Jersey and Connecticut. Major cities all across America will experience riots and blazing fires — such as we saw in Watts, Los Angeles, years ago.

There will be riots and fires in cities worldwide. There will be looting — including Times Square, New York City. What we are experiencing now is not a recession, not even a depression. We are under God's wrath.

Then at the end he wrote:

Note: I do not know when these things will come to pass, but I know it is not far off. I have unburdened my soul to you. Do with the message as you choose.

Wait just a minute! Why pick on major cities here? Why not some small towns instead? And doesn't this already describe certain streets in NYC anyway? Besides, why are preachers like him so interested in a doom and gloom message? Is it that they are secretly upset at Americans and want them to suffer and die? Is it to raise money? Is there some correlation with a rise in gifts when the message is one of doom and gloom?

But how can we hold Wilkerson's face to the floor on this prediction? Is it too vague to do so? The subtitle says that "An Earth-Shattering Calamity Is About To Happen." Earth shattering? I'm sure we would all recognize this if it happened, right? Is the time limit for the prediction too vague? Why is this an "urgent" message if the events are not to happen for another year? What does the word "urgent" in "urgent message" mean? And if it does not happen in Wilkerson's lifetime will the Christian community rise up as one and denouce him as a false prophet?

Ha, ha. I know the answers. This would be sad if it weren't so damn funny. As far as I know if we just laugh hard enough at him we may find Wilkerson and some members of his church secretly trying to start these fires and looting themselves just to get the ball rolling!

The Relationship of the Bible to the Christian Faith: Indispensable?

There is no such thing as Christianity. There are only Christianities, local ones, which operate in local settings. Need I remind you how many branches there are around the world?

As I've said, I left my faith behind when I could no longer believe the Bible. It was a process that began with the recognition that the stories in Genesis 1-11 were nothing more nor less than mythic folktales.

My faith was an evangelical Christian faith, one that believes what the Bible says. So when I could no longer believe the Bible I could no longer believe. It was that simple to me.

The interesting thing about this is that liberal and Catholic Christians will hear my story and pretty much scoff at me, since their faith is not based upon the historical accuracy of the Bible. I find that strange, very strange. But they don't. They claim that if I started out with the correct faith to begin with I wouldn't have left the fold later when my faith in the Bible was shattered.

This is an interesting argument, one I completely reject, since I don't understand why I should believe the community of believers when the stories they preach are not founded on the historical truth. But I raise the issue here. Is the relationship of the Bible to the Christian faith, indispensable?

As an atheist I'm not in the business of settling "in-house" arguments between Christians, and this is one of those type of arguments, one of many. Although, I do think the conservatives have this right.

I'll Be Speaking at the Mid-West Regional Meeting of The Evangelical Philosophical Society

That's right! The EPS meets in conjunction with the ETS where I'll be presenting and defending my Outsider Test for Faith in the midst of these Christian scholars. They meet at Ashand Theological Seminary on March 20-21st (next weekend!), and I'll be speaking Friday at 11:40 AM. I'd love to meet readers of this blog. I'll be the first atheist invited to speak at such a meeting, so as you'd guess, I'm both excited and a bit nervous.

Could This Be True, That William Lane Craig "Would Not Jump at the Opportunity" to Debate Me?

Here's an email I received from an admirer of my work:

I would pay whatever the cover charge would be to see you and William Lane Craig have a two hour debate! I can readily see why he would NOT jump at the opportunity.

Could this be true? Naw, not for a second.

Churches Headed for Collapse

With recent reports that more Americans say they have no religion -- now comes this prediction: Evangelicalism on the outs, says author Jim Brown.


Also:
A Christian writer is predicting a "major collapse of evangelical Christianity" to occur within ten years.

Christian blogger Michael Spencer says evangelicalism as it is known in the West is "bloated and hyper-inflated" and will soon collapse because of its emphasis on the culture war and affiliation with the Republican Party. According to Spencer, many people who are identifying themselves as evangelicals are not at all sold on the evangelical version of personal discipleship and commitment to Jesus Christ.

He expects about half of evangelical churches will die off in the next 25 to 30 years due to generational reasons or because their members become more attracted to a secular version of life.
(OneNewsNow - 3/12/2009)

"We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity."

So says evangelical Michael Spencer. See Link. The new emerging Christianity, if this happens as predicted, is what I meant when I said Christianity simply reinvents itself in every generation.

HT Russ

Apostates and the Trust Factor

I've written about the fear factor earlier. Christians and atheists fear for the future if one side dominates the landscape. Now let me write about the trust factor. We don't trust each other to be truthful and objective with the evidence. Red flags go up whenever the other side makes an argument because we don't trust each other's research nor their authors. On each side of the fence we think the other side distorts its facts to fit their preconceived conclusions.

That’s why Ed Babinski has argued that if we do a great deal of reading we will eventually read an author just a little to the left of us, perhaps in college as part of a research project. While this author may be outside our comfort zone he’s not so far out there that we can't give him some kind of benefit of the doubt. Then if he convinces us we’ll read a book he recommends which might be to the left of him. This process takes place slowly if at all. That’s the process by which I learned to reject my Christian faith. It wasn’t because I read the atheist literature, although I read a few of their books, it was because I continued to read book after book by Christian authors who were more theologically liberal than the previous one. It was Christian scholarship that eventually caused the downfall of my faith. And their books were books that didn’t throw up the red flags because they were only a step to the left of me rather than being way over on the other side of the intellectual universe.

When it comes to the trust factor there is one type of person who stands in the gap between atheists and Christians. It's the apostate; whether it’s a former Christian who became an atheist, or a former atheist who became a Christian. The impact of their apostasy has more of an effect when we personally know them, but it does have a general impact on the other side anyway, especially the more well-known the person is.

These apostates are usually not liked by the side they left because they are an embarrassment to them. Since apostates have some kind of credibility the opposing side tries to discredit them. That’s probably one of the reasons why the team members here at DC are personally attacked so much. The attempt is to discredit us in one way or another so believers can write us off. It makes them feel better. It lets them sleep at night. It reassures them that the problem wasn’t with the faith at all, but rather that the problem was us.

Okay, I guess.

My view is that people just change their minds from time to time, that’s all. We do this about a myriad of issues throughout our lives. Why should it be different with regard to religious or non-religious beliefs? We don’t ever need to attack the apostate who leaves our side for the other side. I don't do this. People are people and they believe for different reasons, that’s all.