John, "You Need to Deal With the Heavy Weights"

Here's an email I received and my response:

Macroevolution & Microcreationism: Another Flaw in Intelligent Design Creationism by David Eller

A STANDARD TACTIC USED by creationists to attack evolution is to contrast microevolution (i.e., within species evolution, which they accept) with macroevolution (i.e., between species evolution, which they adamantly reject). Microevolution, they grant, may or does occur. But they assert that macroevolution either has never been observed or is theoretically impossible. They argue that while microevolution may be true, it is trivial, and the major claim of evolution — the evolution and emergence of species — is either unsubstantiated or false.

I argue in this article that creationism faces its own micro/macro distinction and challenge, and that ID has so far only focused on and made claims about microprocesses. Finally, I posit that whatever achievements microcreation may have made or may have imagined it made, these achievements neither strengthen the case for macrocreation nor weaken the case for macroevolution. Link

Dr. Craig: All Other Religious Claims to the Witness of the Spirit are False

I wonder if the question Bill attempts to answer was prompted by what I wrote in the introduction to The Christian Delusion, which can be read here. A perceptive Christian asks him:

Skepticism of Religion: An Informal Bibliography

Nelson Brooke of Think Atheist put together a nice list of skeptical books that "will enable the reader to mount a full-fledged intellectual defense of skepticism." It's good. Check it out.

What Have I Been Doing Lately? Discussing the OTF.

I've been discussing the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) over at Christian philosopher Victor Reppert's Blog with Steve Lovell, a person I'm told is a C.S. Lewis scholar. It's not looking too good for Steve though.

What Does it Mean to Take and Pass The OTF?

Believers are scrambling to find a way of escape from the Outsider Test for Faith(OTF), which calls upon them to test what they were led to believe from an outsider's perspective with the same level of skepticism used to reject all other religions. All that believers need to do is consider how they evaluate the other religions they reject. Once they do they'll see quite plainly what is required of them. They merely assume these other religions are false. That's all it takes. Just assume they are false.

Stephen Law on "Playing the Mystery Card"

Critics point out that [you believers] have little in the way of argument for what you believe, there also seems to be powerful evidence against it. If you want, nevertheless, to convince both yourself and others that your beliefs are not nearly as ridiculous as your critics suggest, what can you do? Play the mystery card...” Read his lengthy response.

What Would Convince Victor Reppert to Give Up Christianity?

Vic responded to this question recently and I think it's a fair answer:

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

25) That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God.

My Next Book: The Outsider Test for Faith

Hey, why not? I'll start work on it before too long. I have plenty of material. I'll combine into one book everything I've written about it. I would tell how I first came up with it, why it is objective and fair, why it's needed, who should take it and what it requires of people. I'll also provide some examples of how Christian apologists critique the religions they reject. Then I'll decisively answer every objection to it in some detail, and end the book showing what it does to the Christian faith. While I'd like to have it titled: The Outsider Test for Faith, and I may do so, I was wondering if there is a more catchy title that would better tell the reader what the book is about. Any suggestions?

Do Near-Death Experiences Prove the Soul Exists?

Daylight Atheism examines the research of Sam Parnia, who "carried out a study in which he interviewed all survivors of cardiac arrest at his hospital over one year," and concludes:

Parnia's study...doesn't prove anything about the timing of NDEs or demonstrate that they occur while the brain is nonfunctional. The only conclusive way to prove that they result from the soul leaving the body would be for people in such a state to gain information they couldn't have accessed through ordinary methods - but as I said earlier, aside from unverifiable hearsay and anecdotes, this never happens. Every careful, controlled experiment set up to prove this has turned up empty.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.

Should Atheists Take the Outsider Test for Faith?

[Written by John Loftus]
I've written a lot about this question already, but let me add a few things.

Ronald Hendel Protests Recognizing Fundamentalist Groups in the SBL

He writes:

“The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.” This famous line from Pascal’s Pensées draws a wise distinction between religious faith and intellectual inquiry. The two have different motivations and pertain to different domains of experience. They are like oil and water, things that do not mix and should not be confused...

Christianity is At Best Only Possibly True

Yep, that's what I think and I can demonstrate this.

Yahweh is Dead!

Christians do not believe in God, you see. The God they're supposed to believe in, Yahweh, is dead. He was a mean tribal cultural god who died a long time ago.

Professor David Eller Responds to Randal Rauser

Below is Eller's response to what Professor Rauser said in this post about chapter one in The Christian Delusion

Answering Dr. Randal Rauser's Objections to the OTF (Part 2)

Randal Rauser adequately sums up his objections to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in a recent comment at DC. Since this is my baby I'm gonna respond:

God vs Jesus 2010

Last night the Touchdown Jesus figure on I-75 in Ohio was destroyed by fire from heaven (i.e. a lightning bolt). Here's my friend and funny man Matt Hensley's take on it. Enjoy.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

23) That although there can be no moral justification for the sufferings of animals in this created world, a perfectly good God created this world anyway. We don't even see God's care for the lower animals in his supposed revealed word, which is described in Psalm 119 as his "perfect will." Think otherwise? Then read what I wrote here.

Answering Dr. Randal Rauser's Objections to the OTF (Part 1)

Dr. Randal Rauser has recently criticized my Outsider Test for Faith. I appreciate him doing so even if I disagree.

Step Outside the Box and See it for What it is

How evangelical Christians defend their faith is annoying to me for the most part. They don't realize how inconsistent their approach is and how that same approach is used by people of other faiths. They don't connect the dots.

Am I Truly Ignorant About Christianity?

Many believers have said I'm ignorant, not only here at DC but on other Blogs I visit, and via email. It's a common complaint against former believers who leave the fold who then argue against it. Since apostates are seen as such a big threat against Christian theism believers must try to find a way to discredit the force of our testimonies. If they can do this it makes them feel better about staying inside the fold. After all, surely God would not allow us to walk away once he's gathered us up under his wings like a mother hen does to her chicks; surely if we just properly understood the Christian faith we wouldn't want to do so; and surely if there are good reasons to believe we couldn't turn around and subsequently reject our faith. Right? There must therefore be something wrong with us. What could that be? Perhaps we never had a personal relationship with God in the first place? Perhaps all we did is have some sort of mental assent without a heartfelt faith? Perhaps we never properly understood the Christian faith? Let me answer such nonsense...

People Justify What They Prefer To Be True

My wife took two of our grandchildren to see the newly released kids movie, "How to Train Your Dragon." The movie is in 3-D at select theaters but this one did not have 3-D technology. One grandchild asked the owner in the lobby if the movie is in 3-D and he went off for ten minutes telling them that watching movies in 3-D is bad for their eyes. This is a case in point for how people can justify whatever brings them money, power, or sex. Of course he thinks that. Why? Because his movie theater does not have that technology. Get it? Just imagine what he would think if he had that technology! Then he would change his tune. My contention is that Christians feel empowered by their faith. After all, they actually think God is their helper in times of need, and that they will see him and their loved ones when they die. So of course they'll defend their beliefs just like this theater owner does. One would think that precisely because believers prefer their faith to be true they should be skeptical of it, but no, they don't see this. Maybe they can learn something as outsiders listening in to that theater owner and get the point. But then probably not.

New Books I Just Bought

Thanks to some generous donors I was able to buy some needed books. I've asked for donations because I'm preparing to co-write a book with a Christian scholar soon to be revealed. Anything you can do is appreciated. Below are some of the books I've bought. I plan to get several others.

Daylight Atheism on Lust and Monogamy

The Problem: According to the commandments of the major religions, God expects humans to have only a single lifelong romantic partner and to remain sexually faithful to them: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14). Yet, as any given week of tabloid headlines will tell you, humans aren't naturally wired for monogamy. Even after we're married or in a monogamous relationship, the sex drive continues functioning, often producing strong feelings of attraction and lust for people other than one's chosen partner. Even celebrities and politicians in high-profile relationships, people who have by far the most to lose from being caught cheating, seem unable to resist the urgings of adulterous desire.

For his answer, which adds to what I previously suggested, read it here.

Our Efforts Here at DC Are Making a Difference

Here's an email I received from a man named Robert:

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

22) That Jesus is the Son of God even though the textual evidence in the New Testament conclusively shows that the founder of the Jesus cult was a failed apocalyptic prophet who prophesied that the eschaton would take place in his generation, which would involve a total cosmic catastrophe after which God inaugurates a literal kingdom on earth with the "Son of Man" reigning from Jerusalem over the nations.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

21) That even though Christianity shows evidence that it is nothing but a cultural by-product of human invention there is a divine mind behind it anyway.

Luke Interviews Richard Carrier

Check it out.

Christianity is a Cultural By-Product And That's All It Is

The history of human understanding shows us that human understanding evolves in each generation in a respective culture. Sometimes there are set backs but it continues to evolve. I cannot prove that this means Christianity in all of its forms is a delusion. I can only point out that theology parallels other disciplines of learning since it too has evolved down through the generations, and it has, making Christianity nothing more nor less than a cultural phenomena created by human beings for other human beings.

Is the Effort at DC Worth it?

Sometimes I wonder. Other times I'm encouraged. Recently cipher wrote:

John...As I told you recently - I can't understand why on earth you want to waste your time arguing with these imbeciles. The evidence now suggests strongly what I've suspected for decades; they're neurologically impaired and are incapable of change. They are, for all practical considerations, developmentally challenged (fundies, let there be no mistake - yes, I'm calling you mentally retarded), and giving them occasion to view themselves as being on equal footing with you is a fatal error. If you want to continue to waste your time - this is America, knock yourself out. I have better things to do. Even when I have nothing else to do, it's still more worthwhile than this.

I understand the sentiment.

I'm Co-Writing a Book With A Christian Scholar

Yep, that's right, well, at least we're going to be putting together some things to propose in hopes of publication. I'll let you know who it is later. It'll be a discussion/dialogue where we share why we disagree with each other. He's an expert on a few issues that I'll have to read up on, which means getting some expensive books. I don't even have any of his published books. That's why I recently put a "ChipIn" link in the sidebar for interested people to donate so I can get them. Thanks in advance for anything you can do. Co-writing this book helps introduce me to more Christian readers, and that can't be bad. They are my target audience.

Richard Carrier v. Mike Licona Debate the Resurrection

See what you think.

Do I Prefer to Live in a Godless Universe?

It's argued that I reject Christianity because I prefer to live my life apart from God. Balderdash! Do I really prefer to live in a universe that is cold and uncaring, having only blind indifference toward me as a human being in which I can count on no divine help from outside of it, and no hope of an eternal life with my loved ones? Not a chance. Do I really prefer to reject the dominant religion of my culture to be ostracized by believers and hated for what I believe? No, not at all. Given the idealized version of Christianity that believers accept and defend (minus the ugly and incoherent stuff in the Bible) I would prefer the fantasyland of belief to the hard realities of life if given that choice. The problem is that I must be honest with the evidence and the evidence is that I live in a universe that is cold and uncaring, having only blind indifference toward me as a human being in which I can count on no divine help from outside of it, and no hope of an eternal life with my loved ones.

I was once a believer like most believers today. I did not want to lose my faith just like they do not. The evidence forced me to leave the fold against my preferences.

The Problem with Intelligent Design

To be found at Leaving Christianity.

Another One Leaves the Fold: "Diary of a Beleaver"

This new Blog contains "The post-faith musings of a former Christian College professor and writer for Christianity Today. One of the most interesting Blog posts so far is this one:

A Critique of a Common Apologetic Strategy by Ex-Apologist

Ex-Apologist offers an excellent analysis of a common apologetic strategy against naturalism seen here! It seems he's expanding on what it means to apply Occam's Razor to the riddle of existence. Start with the simplest explanation and then allow for more complexity as problems arise with that conclusion. I'm trying to develop a scale for extraordinary claims seen here. His analysis helps to complete it.

On Being Ignorant of One's Ignorance and Unaware of Being Unskilled, by John Loftus

[Written by John W. Loftus] As a former Christian, especially soon after I first converted, I thought I knew the answers to the riddle of existence. The answers were all in the Bible. And I thought I could also understand the Bible well enough to know, especially before I had any advanced learning. Initially I was a Bible Thumper. My motto was: God said it. I believe it. That settles it. All of the answers were to be found in the Bible, and I thought I knew them--all of them. So without any education at all I soon had the confidence to speak to college professors I met and not be intimidated at all. And I did. I remember walking away from some conversations thinking to myself how ignorant that professor was. Yep. That's right. At that time I was what psychologists have dubbed "Unskilled and Unaware of it." And it appears to me many Christians who comment here are just as I was. They come here with the answers. Some of them do not even have a college education. And yet they offer nothing but ignorant comments. I can't convince them otherwise. They are like I once was.

Looking back on those initial years I could see clearly that I was not able to think through the issues of the Bible, especially hermeneutics, until after gaining a master's degree. I would have told you upon receiving my first master's degree that I was ignorant before then. But I kept on learning and studying. Age had a way of teaching me as well. It seems as though as every decade passed I would say I was more ignorant in the previous one. As every decade passed I see more and more wisdom in Socrates who claimed he was wise because he didn't know. According to him the wiser that a person is, then the less he claims to know. Awareness of our ignorance only comes with more knowledge.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

20) That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.

In Admiration of Paul Kurtz

Paul Kurtz has resigned from CFI. His letter of resignation can be read here. His hand picked board of officers wanted to take the organization that he started in a different direction than he wanted it to go. Apparently the board wanted to go in the direction of the new atheists with a more forceful attack against religion, whereas Paul wanted to include all secular-humanists in a vision for the future, many of which are liberals. Apparently this was a deal breaker with no room for an agreeable compromise between them.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

19) That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.

"The Christian Delusion" is Now A Kindle Book

Just click on this link: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

Dr. Hector Avalos Interviewed By Free Thought Radio

Check it out. Hector talks about his two chapters for The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.

R Joseph Hoffman's Conclusion with Regard to the Historicity of Jesus

You can read about him here. This is what he wrote:

I have come to the following conclusion: Scholarship devoted to the question of the historicity of Jesus, while not a total waste of time, could be better spent gardening....I admit to being a bit prickly on the subject, having finally concluded that the sources we possess do not establish the conditions for a verdict on the historicity of Jesus. Link.

"The only thing we can and should trust is the sciences"

That's one of my claims in chapter 4 of The Christian Delusion (p. 89). I had previously argued that Christians use the naturalistic scientific method when they debunk the religious faiths they reject (p. 86), and later on in that same chapter I argued that without a better alternative method this is all we have (p. 94). I mean, really, is there any comparison to accepting blindly what we learned on our mama's knees, or through an "inner witness of the Holy Spirit," or the poor evidence of historical evidence, or a the warming of the bosom? Come on. Let's get real.

The Outsider Test for Faith is the Antidote to Confirmation Bias

[Written by John Loftus]
First let's define confirmation bias from Wikipedia, which...

...is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. People tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and neglecting alternatives. This strategy is not necessarily a bias, but combined with other effects it can reinforce existing beliefs. The biases appear in particular for issues that are emotionally significant (including some personal and political topics) and for established beliefs that shape the individual's expectations.

Eric On Believing Despite Not Being Able to Explain the Atonement

I'm producing several posts called: "Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?" In a recent one I wrote: "17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins." From this a discussion ensued between Eric, who is a Christian Ph.D. student, and me. It's interesting to see where discussions lead and I want to highlight this one out of the many other issues that were raised in the comments.

My Interview on American Freethought

Enjoy. Just click on the "download" link to hear it.

We talked about The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

[First posted on 7/2/10]

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

18) That although historical reconstructions of the past are are notoriously difficult because they depend on the poor evidence of history, and even though historians must assess that evidence by assuming a natural explanation for it, and even though historical evidence can never establish how to view that evidence, the Christian faith can be established historically anyway. My argument is that when it comes to miraculous claims, yesterday’s evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence, I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for Christianity.