A thorough study of the history of gods reveals a pattern we’d expect if gods are not real. The farther we move back in time (and the farther we move away from science) we see more and bigger claims of divine intervention. Gods have been responsible for thunder, lightning, rain, comets, and holding up the very earth itself. The Christian god in particular has been finding himself with less and less to do these days...It’s almost enough to make a person think gods — and the Christian god, too — have simply been the human explanation for that which was not understood. Link.
Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.
This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.
Does all this disprove God? Of course not. Science speaks only to the improbable, not the impossible. If philosophy rules the day, God can never be ruled out entirely, because one could argue that human cognitive evolution was directly and intentionally inspired by God, so we alone, of all species, can perceive Him (and reality in general) using our naturally evolved theory of mind. But if scientific parsimony prevails, and I think it should, such philosophical positioning becomes embarrassingly like grasping at straws. (The Belief Instinct, p. 195-6).
I'm quite aware of the differences between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I have not misinterpreted John's view of science. Rather, I have questioned why he would state that science assumes natural explanations for all phenomena on the one hand, then ask believers to corroborate supernatural explanations through science. -clI must admit this is a great question. The objection is that if I demand that supernatural explanations must abide by the rules of science which only admit natural explanations, then supernatural explanations by definition don't have a chance. This is definitely a quandary of sorts. Let me respond.
Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. LinkWhy do I keep writing about this? Because we know humans are prone to these biases. We know this. So we should all become skeptics. We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true. We should adopt a science-based reasoning rather than a faith-based reasoning. Dr. James Alcock defined faith-based reasoning as "belief in search of data." Given the cognitive biases this is simply a wrong-headed approach if we want to know the truth.
Yep, after I spoke for CFI’s Extraordinary Claims Panel in Canada this former Mormon Bishop came up to me and introduced himself. Afterward we talked over a Foster’s Beer. Someone overheard us talking who said to me, “Mormon’s have some really weird beliefs, don’t they?” Yes they do. But then I see no difference between their beliefs and my former Christian beliefs. I learned to think this way because of my wife. She grounds me. I used to say the same thing about other religions and every time she would tell me they are no different than Christianity. It finally sunk in. She’s right. Then it stuck me. There are people who have never been religious at all. When I tell them I am a former evangelical they must shake their heads and wonder how in the world I could ever have believed what I did. I too am stunned at times. Do natural born atheists think about me the way former evangelicals-turned-skeptics think about Mormonism? Do they shake their heads and wonder how stupid I must be to have believed what I did? Some of them probably do. If so, I hope to show that children are taught to believe in their respective cultures because of indoctrination, brainwashing and enculturation. It could have been them too, ya see.
The bottom line is that the odds of a resurrection from my experience are at 0%. No Bayesian analysis can multiply 0 with any other number and get any more than 0. That's what the probabilities are. So I am skeptical of the extraordinary claim that Jesus resurrected since I cannot dismiss my present experience. I must judge the past from my present. I cannot do otherwise! Coupled with the fact that when I read the NT it provides its own demise there is no reason to believe such a claim EVEN IF IT IS TRUE!
The true critical thinker accepts what few people ever accept — that one cannot routinely trust perceptions and memories. Figments of our imagination and reflections of our emotional needs can often interfere with or supplant the perception of truth and reality. Experience is often a poor guide to reality. Skepticism helps us to question our experience and to avoid being too readily led to believe what is not so.
For the most part, atheists have presumed that the most reasonable conclusions are the ones that have the best evidential support. And they have argued that the evidence in favor of God’s existence is too weak, or the arguments in favor of concluding there is no God are more compelling. Link.
more and more forceful. See also my online essay The Bible and the Treatment of Animals.I am suggesting on principled grounds that a careful reflection on the nature of mind and matter will invariably reveal that there is a logical gap between them that in principle cannot be bridged without fudging categories.My responses so far:
Anything can be explained and therein lies a problem of huge dimension. There is nothing so implausible, improbable, morally repugnant, intellectually confounding or absurdly contraditory but that it can be explained. It is not the fool or dunce who does this best but the clever, the imaginative, the articulate, the intellecually creative, the ingenious: think Platinga, Hick, Gutting or indeed anyone's favorite theistic apologist. So what option have we? Perhaps a greater appreciation for demonstration as opposed to explanation might give us a start in the right direction.
...the fact that it is logically possible that something is false does not mean a compelling case for it has not been made, or that the contrary view is remotely plausible. And it’s especially difficult to see how Plantinga did anything to touch versions of the problem of evil based on specific evils like the Holocaust. For reasons I’ve explained...when the problem of evil is put that way, I think it’s a very powerful argument, even though I’m “familiar with Plantinga’s free will defense” and can’t see that I’ve been “misled.”
Come on now. Think about this. Like the Mormons you were raised to believe and you now defend what you were raised to believe in a Christian culture despite the evidence just like they do because they were raised in a Mormon culture. Or, at least consider this a real possibility.
:“To imagine that one can have historical objectivity without a perspective is an illusion. One perspective, however, can be better than another, [but] the only perspective open to us is the one given to us by the historical situation in which we find ourselves. If we cannot achieve an unobstructed view of Jesus from the vantage point of our present circumstances, then we cannot achieve an unobstructed view of him at all.” (p. 4)In my world miracles do not happen, folks. What world are YOU living in?
In what is being called a first of its kind study, researchers...have discovered that about half of all people have a gene that makes them more vulnerable to promiscuity and cheating.While it isn't a forgone conclusion that people with this gene will cheat on their mates, the presence of that gene makes such a temptation harder to overcome. Imagine that, some people (half of us) have a harder time overcoming such a temptation and yet God supposedly judges us all equally. That doesn't seem fair now does it? I wonder if the incarnate Jesus gave himself that gene since he was "tempted in every way, just as we are.” (Hebrews 4:15) ;-)
Either the natural world is all there is-- or an infinity of possible supernatural beings, forces, and realms are possible with no way to tell the real from the imaginary-- and yet every believer in the supernatural imagines they have figured out a way to do so!
So if I've witnessed/experienced a miracle do I have to take the OTF?...I'm not interested in arguing that I have experienced a miracle. I am interested in whether you believe a person should take the OTF if they have experienced a miracle. Does such a person get a "free pass" so to speak?...For the sake of my question assume no natural explanation can be found and no materialistic explanation seems plausible even in principle.I have said that it would take a personal miracle for me to believe. I didn't say what kind of miracle nor did I comment on the other things that would have to accompany that miracle. Let me do so now.
Christianity is so stupid that mere words do not posses the power to fully express it. Every single year, historians, ex-Christians, scientists, skeptics, scholars, Jewish scholars & historians drive more and more coffin nails into the coffin lid of Christianity; and Christians are too asinine, vacuous, and brainwashed to admit or even face this fact. If they could just mind their business and keep their shit to themselves, they wouldn't be so noxious and intolerable. As it stands now, we'll have to break the back(and neck) of the Fundamentalist movement in order to ensure our nation's future. Link
: When Christians ask if I have taken the outsider test for my own “belief system,” I simply say “yes I have, that’s why I’m a non-believer.”
