Heads I Win Tails You Lose, Another Christian Apologist's Trick

Vincent Torley over at William Dembski's Uncommon Descent Blog, criticized me for arguing we must choose between science or God. The flattering news is the company I'm in, for Torley also criticizes the views of scientists like Eugenie Scott, Sean Carrol, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and Michael Shermer, mostly by pitting them against each other. In a very long post titled Detecting the supernatural: Why science doesn’t presuppose methodological naturalism, after all, his conclusion is this:

A revolution, it seems, is afoot. Scientists are finally coming out and declaring that they can live with the supernatural, after all. What will we see next? Open discussion of the flaws in Darwinian evolution?

The "heads I win tails you lose" trick is obvious. If we say science is closed to the supernatural the apologist will say we are uninterested in the truth. If we say instead it is theoretically possible to detect the supernatural then he can say we should be open to a discussion of the flaws of Darwinian evolution. So when he finds apparent divergent views between us he can say both, pitting us against each other. So let me respond.

On the Scientific Evidence for Evolution

Charles Darwin spent more than twenty years of his life gathering evidence for the theory of evolution. He presented it in 1859 with the publication of On The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, which—drawing on observations of an incredible variety of animal and plant life from all over the world and integrating it with geology, geography, animal husbandry, and the available fossil record—proved the theory of evolution. This says nothing of the observations and experiments of later scientists, which bolstered and expanded the theory.

Faith in “God’s word” is not an intellectually defensible argument against a scientific theory. Isaac Newton, responding to criticisms of his theory of optics, indicated the kind of evidence required to properly dispute a scientific theory:

I could wish all objections were suspended . . . from any [grounds] other than these two: of showing the insufficiency of experiments to prove . . . any part of my theory, . . . or of producing other experiments which directly contradict me, if any such may seem to occur.

Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist in history and himself a religious man, would never have taken seriously faith-based arguments against a scientific theory—and neither should anyone else. Link.

Do You Only Have a Brain? On Thomas Nagel's Book "Mind and Cosmos"

This is a good review of his book in The Nation.

The Case for Atheism in One Very Powerful Song!

I don't know how I missed this performance. It brought tears to my eyes.

What Does it Take to Defend Christianity?

In order to make the Christian faith seem respectable Christians act like lawyers who must try to find any tiny loophole in a contract to get their clients out of it. They must drag down knowledge, reason, evidence and science to their own level of faith (which is always unjustified). They assert atheism is a religion, that atheists worship science, that we too have faith, all of which defy the facts as nothing more than pure semantic games. They poison the well against atheists as much as possible by character assassination. They miscaricaturize our arguments to the point of failing to even try to understand them, or feigning ignorance as to what they are, and/or being willingly ignorant of them. They have lied to defend their faith so much that it no longer has any credibility, if it ever did in the first place. When confronted about the human propensity for cognitive biases they fail to offer any reasonable way to avoid them. It's all a sham.

The Weird and Illogical World of Being a Bible Believing Christian

Hector Avalos and I have been dealing with a person who has totally put aside reality to keep the illogic metaphysical world of Christianity functioning: Meet Howard Mazzaferro

Yoram Hazony Says God is Imperfect

Yoram Hazony is an Orthodox Jew, the president of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and the author of The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.This is a book I have but have not read yet. Steven Pinker recommends it highly. Jerry Coyne just linked to an article in the NY Times where Hazony argues God is an imperfect being, which I quote from below. Until I read his book I can't comment much except to say that he is an Orthodox Jew which represents the ultra conservative branch of Judaism, so he's not an ally unless I misunderstand what he's doing. One thing he's got absolutely right though, is that Yahweh, as depicted in the Hebrew Bible, is most emphatically NOT a perfect being. Here's what he said about God:

Pat Robertson Admits He Was Wrong About the Election

God told him that Mitt Romney would win. So either God was wrong or he was. Guess what Robertson chooses to believe? No, really, guess. ;-)

Christians Are Not Credible Witnesses So Christianity is Not Credible Either

"'You are my witnesses,' says Yahweh" (Isaiah 43:10). Jesus even prayed that based on the Christian witness the world would know God sent him (John 17:20-23). I think it's demonstrably the case that his prayer has never been fulfilled. It's exceedingly probable it will never be fulfilled in the future either. Even if it will be answered in the future it doesn't change the fact that people all over the world have been sent to hell because it hasn't been answered yet. Christians are not credible witnesses. You'd think if the credibility of what they believe is on the line their God would do something about this. But he doesn't do anything discernible at all. So let's rehearse some of the facts.

Four Blurbs Recommending the Book "God or Godless?"

Here are the four blurbs for the book by Michael Licona, Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier and David Marshall:

Either Choose Science or God, You Cannot Have Both

I think for a blog post I pretty much nailed it, arguing that science would not be possible if there were a miraculous intervening God. But since science does work then there isn't a miraculous intervening God. So choose ye this day: Either science isn't possible because there is a miraculous intervening God, or science works precisely because there isn't a miraculous intervening God.

Christian philosopher Victor Reppert objects of course, on two grounds as far as I can tell:

Why Science Has No Need of God and What This Implies

Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749 – 1827) is remembered as one of the greatest scientists of all time. He's referred to as the French Newton or the Newton of France. When Napoleon had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his discourse on the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, he is quoted as saying: "I had no need of that hypothesis." That best describes science. It doesn't need that hypothesis. That's how science should work too, for if science is to work at all it shouldn't depend on the God-hypothesis. More importantly, if there is a God who intervenes in our world then science cannot work at all. We can see this quite easily by contrasting sectarian pseudoscience with science itself. The implications should be obvious.

How Many Religious People Are Really Mentally Ill?

God Told Her To Drive 100 Mph and Blow Horn, Spirit Guide

"God told one woman, Melissa Miller, the permission to drive 100 mph according to the police report. She told the Fort Pierce, Florida cops that the Lord was her spirit guide.

Miller was also banging on the car horn long and hard because of “the Lord telling me to do it.”

Are the New Atheists Suffering From the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

That's the question Philip Jensen asks. Jensen opines regarding Richard Dawkins:

[T]he less competent you are the more confident you are likely to be. To launch out on a world-wide campaign on subjects over which you know little and have researched less – to say nothing of intentionally not studying because you do not believe – is less than acceptable as genuine public debate or academic discussion, to say nothing of failing in the art of war.

Victor Reppert links to this and said, "Oh, I forgot. It's just believers who suffer from cognitive pathologies." Sarcasm with a point, right? Well then, what does Vic say about the real impact of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

The Evolution of Apologetics and Concepts of God

The Disappearing Atheist Who Holds a Degree in Religion

“The average total cost of attendance in 2010–11 for first-time, full-time students living on campus and paying in-state tuition was $20,100 at public 4-year institutions and $39,800 at private nonprofit 4-year institutions.”

Never Take "No" For An Answer!

There are certainly times when "no" means "no" so don't misunderstand what I'm about to say. That being said, never take no for an answer when the truth is on your side, or when there is hope you can get what you want if you hold firm and are persistent. Knowing the difference makes all the difference. Some people persist when they are not in the right and/or when there is no glimmer of hope at success. But I regularly get what most others give up trying for. No force is used. I'm never obnoxious. I don't even raise my voice. I just hold firm and am persistent, if needed. The more I'm in the right and the more I want something then the more often I get what I want. Actually, I succeed so many times I cannot remember one single failure when these conditions are met. This is one of the keys to who I am, so let me explain by recounting a trip to a store today on Black Friday.

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

I'm thankful for my freedom, health, family and friends, especially that my wife and I reunited in January after breaking up in 2011. I'm thankful to live long enough to see technological advances like the computer, the internet, smartphones and tablets. In my day we had party lines that had to first connect to an operator using rotary dial corded phones. To see what life was like the year I was born check this out. I'm also pleased to see the advancements in science with regard to neurology, cosmology, evolution, and so forth. I'm especially thankful that in this era I am not a Christian apologist. ;-)

Two Scenarios From Dr. Matt McCormick and His Conclusions

Scenario A: God isn’t real and we fail to find good evidence for supernatural beings.

Belief in situation A: irrational.
Agnosticism in situation A: irrational.
Disbelief in situation A: reasonable/rational.

Scenario B: God is Real, but Hiding.

Belief in situation B: irrational.
Agnosticism in situation B: not an epistemically responsible position.
Disbelief in situation B: reasonable/rational. Enjoy.

The Bible: Morally Bankrupt or Totally Reliable?

Dr. Hector Avalos is mentioned in an online article for The Chronicle of Higher Education with this as the title.

You Can’t Judge an Argument By Its Conclusion

Barbara A. Drescher taught courses in quantitative/experimental research methods and topics in cognitive psychology at California State University, Northridge. She wrote a provocative post where she argues as follows:

The tendency to judge conclusions based on current beliefs is a product of how our brains evolved and developed – a side-effect of what makes us successful organisms. It is human nature, it is wrong and must be overcome if one is to be consistently rational. This problem pops up in a host of cognitive tasks and is a manifestation of the most influential of human frailties: the confirmation bias. This makes it extremely resistant to correction, especially in real-world contexts.

Reason is about the validity of arguments, so judging a conclusion as valid or invalid without examining the argument is itself an irrational act. Without the argument, your only yardstick is your own belief about the truth of that conclusion. Link.

I am convinced that confirmation bias runs amuck in the minds of most all believers. They judge the merits of any argument based on whether they agree with the conclusion. I am also convinced that apologists who defend Christianity start with their conclusions and then construct arguments to support them. So I am convinced that to embrace and defend the Christian faith is irrational. I cannot even hope to convince most Christians of this, since they aren't usually reasoned into their faith in the first place. But let me beat my head against the wall one more time:

Do You Want Some Fun? More From Robert Ingersoll

The Reverend De Witt Talmage, head of the Presbyterian Church in America, was so incensed by Ingersoll, that he devoted six sermons denouncing him as "The Great Blasphemer". Ingersoll answered these seriously, and then followed up by satirizing the teachings of the Reverend in what he called The Talmagian Catechism. Here is Part 1 of 3, as selected by Julian Haydon.

Atheists Want Banner Over Nativity Scene

Controversy Surrounds Religious Display in Texas

Quote of the Day, by articulett

No matter the horror, all religious folks seem fine with the fact that their supposedly omnipotent deity acts like he doesn't exist at all. On occasion though, he appears to step in and help them find car keys or help their sports teams to win games.

Does Morality Come From God Or Are We Born With Morality?

It's a question people have asked for as long as there have been people: are human beings inherently good? Are we born with a sense of morality or do we arrive blank slates, waiting for the world to teach us right from wrong? Or could it be worse: do we start out nasty, selfish devils, who need our parents, teachers, and religions to whip us into shape?

Babies help unlock the origins of morality on CBS’s 60 Minutes.

Frans de Waal on Monkey Morality

Final Installment of "Some Reasons Why" by Robert Ingersoll

This piece contains a masterful evisceration of the fundamentals of Christianity. Here are samples from Julian Haydon:

An Atheist Sermon by Jerry DeWitt

Jerry DeWitt is a former Pentecostal minister turned atheist and now the director the organization “Recovering From Religion."

Do We Need Religious Faith to be Happy?

The evidence says no. Evidence, that's what's important.

Science, It Works Bitches, by Matt McCormick

Link.

Mark Twain Quote

Remembering and Honoring Professor Stuart C. Hackett

Stuart was born on November 2, 1925 and passed away on October 17, 2012. Paul Copan, a former student of his and President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, wrote a very deserving tribute to him which can be read here. Stu was my professor as well, a sometimes flamboyant individual with the taste for speaking very long sentences filled with tough words to chew on.

Just like Paul Copan, my first class at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School was taken with Stu, and it was the same one, Religious Epistemology. I had taken that class in the Fall of 1982 three years before Copan, only I argued against Hackett's dualistic rational-empiricism epistemology and decided afterward to take as many classes with William Lane Craig as I could (which ended up being half of the hours required for my Th.M. degree in the Philosophy of Religion). My own recollections of Stu, written almost five years ago, can be read here.

In Copan's tribute he lists several Christian scholars/educators who also studied under Hackett besides himself: William Lane Craig, Stephen Evans, Jay Wood, Mark McLeod-Harrison, Chad Meister, Mark Linville, Mark Mittelberg, and Nicholas Merriwether. So I'm in good company. While at Trinity I also studied under the late Kenneth Kantzer, the former editor of Christianity Today known as the Dean of Evangelicalism, and the late Paul Feinberg, a somewhat towering figure among evangelicals at the time, although he didn't write that much. Stu will be missed, just like Kantzer and Feinberg before him. It's too bad they will never know they were wrong. They will never know they were on the wrong side of history.

In any case, there is one thing you should know about me. You may think I'm wrong, but I am clearly not ignorant. That option is not available to you. I have studied with the best and the brightest, including the amazing James D. Strauss, whom I credit with my anti-apologetics. I just take his apologetics and reverse it. Former students of his include James F. Sennett, Terry Miethe, John D. Castelein, Richard Knopp, Dan Cameron, and Robert Kurka, so I'm in good company there as well.

Pictures of Me in Colorado

You want pictures, you got 'em.

DC Blog Stats

In just the last month according to Google Analytics, DC had 21 thousand visitors who visited 34 thousand times with 56 thousand pageviews. Blogger reports instead that DC had 154 thousand pageviews, so I suppose Blogger knows best. Of these visitors 55% of them were new to DC. The new visitors mostly come here from one of over 4000 posts in the archives. According to Feedburner DC is approaching close to 3000 subscribers. The graphics can be seen below. This encourages me to keep beating my head against the wall. I am very honored and thankful for my readers, I think. ;-)

Got Any Funny Stories? Here's One.

An atheist friend of mine told me of a time when some guy asked if she was born again. She said "no." So they proceeded to argue back and forth. Then her atheist husband showed up. The proselytizer asked him if he was born again. He said "yes" just to get him off his back. She was upset at the time but had a good laugh over it later.

God May Own the Cattle on a Thousand Hills, But What He Really Wants is that Dollar In Your Wallet

("For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.” Psalms 50: 10)

Ironically, there are far more verses in the Bible about giving God your money than giving God your soul!

The Cover for My New Book On the Outsider Test

The production process is moving forward. Now there's a book cover:

Dr. Hector Avalos, on the New Holocaust Deniers

There is a new movement of holocaust denialists, and the prime architects of this movement are biblical scholars. I am speaking not of the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazi regime, but of the Canaanite holocaust reported in biblical texts. These Canaanite holocaust denialists argue that the Canaanite holocaust did not really happen. And if it did happen, then it was justified and not analogous to the Nazi holocaust. Link.

Christian, Why Not Just Shoot Yourself?

[Warning: For the cognitively ill what I'm about to suggest is something only a highly trained professional should attempt, if it should be done at all. Do not try this at home. ;-)]

Christian philosophers and apologists love to speak about several bizarre scenarios when it comes to the limits of knowledge. Is there really a material universe? What if we're dreaming right now? Maybe the real world lies behind a Matrix? What if we're nothing but brains in a mad scientist's vat? Who knows, right? Maybe. So they conclude we all have faith in the same sense as Christians have faith. We believe we are not in an illusory world, dreaming, in a Matrix, or brains in the vat they say, because there is no evidence that can discount these possibilities granting the various scenarios proposed. So therefore, we all believe unevidenced claims in the same way and in the same sense.

However, these scenarios are mere possibilities. Probabilities are all that matter. Faith is unnecessary and superfluous. Let me show this with one simple question. Why not buy a gun and shoot yourself? Why not? Think about this and you know it is much more probable that none of these hypothetical scenarios have the slightest degree of probability to them. So you do abide by the probabilities after all. You know all of these hypotheticals are improbable. Faith is not involved to see this. The improbabilities themselves do. Or, you could test them by shooting yourself. The problem with such a test is that if your aim is good you'll die and never know the result. Others will though.

Dr. Peter Boghossian on "How to Talk Others Out of Their Faith"

Check it out. You can skip through the fluff here to get to the substance.

If Christianity Were True Compared With If Christianity Were False

One of the things Bayesian thinking requires from us, aside from thinking exclusively in terms of the probabilities, is that we must compare the probabilities of alternative hypotheses. I don't do the math though, since I have a hard time assigning numbers to the probabilities. For instance, is it 1 in 100,000 that Jesus was raised from the dead, 1 in a million, 1 in a billion, or is it 1 in 60 billion (the number of homo sapiens that have ever walked the earth)? It's probably the later. Nonetheless, I can get along just fine without stating these numbers. It communicates better to the non-technical person, the educated person in the pew, the university student. So, let's compare these two hypotheses: 1) If Christianity were true what would we expect to find? 2) If Christianity were false what would we expect to find? Then let's see how each hypothesis fares. Join in with me.

Bible Inconsistencies

[First posted 9/20/07] Evangelicals will typically quote from the Bible to settle any question it speaks directly about, since they believe it’s God’s word. Some fundamentalists will repeat the phrase, “God said it, that settles it.” Using proof texts like those found in II Peter 1:21 where it’s said the prophets of old “spoke the words of God,” and II Timothy 3:16 which says Scripture is “God breathed,” they claim the very words in the Bible are from God (see also Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 17:17; Romans 3:2; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 15:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 4:15; I Timothy 5:18; Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 3:2). However, there are several serious problems with this view:

Confused? How to Decide Which Religion is True.

I'm writing a tract with the intention of it being something secular student groups can hand out on their campuses. I only have a limited number of words and was wondering if I should add something to it. See what you think of this draft below:

An Interview with Richard Carrier

See below:

An Interview with Robert Price

See below:

The Top 10 (and Worst) Educated States, and How They Voted

Two Original Thought Experiments Related to the Outsider Test for Faith

A professor of mathematics has come up with two original thought experiments related to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) that are akin to the Veil of Ignorance of John Rawls. I like them. Let's look at the first one below.

Quote of the Day, Concerning My Book

Well, you know an author can't help but like this quote from an email sent to me while I was on a speaking tour of four Colorado universities, even if it's quite an exaggeration: ;-)

"Why I Became An Atheist" is a book that can end Christianity on its own, and is to Christianity what the Iceberg was to the Titanic.

Al Stefanelli's Review of My Book "Why I Became an Atheist"

Al and I were writers at Freethought Blogs. Since then we've kept in touch. He now stays on his own blog where wrote a very nice (and humbling) review of my book. He calls it "exhaustive" and says:

At first glance, John’s book seems daunting. I’ve written a couple, myself, and when you look at a five-hundred-plus page book, it can be off-putting. Don’t let this sway you, because when you pick it up and start reading, and begin to understand the detail and clarity that John uses, you will soon realize that this book could have been written no other way. It’s exhaustive in content because it has to be. Everything in it is important, and the range of topics covered offer the reader a collective of information that I have not been able to find in one volume, anywhere.

Concerning the subjects in the first part of my book, Al writes:

John goes into such great detail on these subjects, tearing them apart, laying them out on a literary operating table, and surgically examining them with such a precision that this book has earned a spot on my shelf with the reference books.

Concerning the second part, Al writes:

The wealth of information here is astounding, and the way it is presented offers the reader one of the most detailed breakdowns of the problems with apologetics, and the cognitive dissonance that comes with religious belief.

He concludes: "To a theologian, he is a worthy adversary. To an armchair apologist, he is positively lethal."

Thanks so much Al! I appreciate all you do as well. Link. It's a shame that William Lane Craig, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and many others who comment here have not read it, or won't. Maybe this might change their minds. I'd like to have an honest review by one or more of them. But no, they've heard it all before they'll say. ;-)

Obama and Atheists

I am glad to see President Barack Obama re-elected.  He certainly has sought to include open atheists, such as myself, in his campaign from the beginning. I served on his Iowa Latino outreach committee in 2007, when this photo was taken in Des Moines, Iowa.  But he still has much more work to do to ensure that open atheists can feel more accepted in political office.

Mary at the Census? Er, no.

Here is my latest video offering to the world of You Tube. Let me know what you think.

President Obama Did It. Four More Years!

Woooooo Hoooooo! I'm happy for him and for our country. I voted before leaving for my Colorado speaking tour--I LOVE COLORADO! After he was projected to be the winner some lady in the hotel bar went on about how she and her kids have no hope for the future, blah, blah, blah. Wow, she might as well leave the country, or end her life. What pure poppcock. People on opposing sides of most presidential elections have said the same things. And yet, here we are, alive and doing fine. How someone can put that much faith into an election is beyond me. The processes of democracy grind slowly, sometimes very slowly. The US has checks and balances in place that help to keep it that way, like a written Constitution, the three branches of our government and a free press. I'm so glad the right wingers don't dominate the political landscape as they did in the 80's. Looks like we've learned some good lessons and are being more reasonable to me. But it's taken time. Anyway, here's your chance to weigh in on this historic occasion.

Robert M. Price exposes William Lane Craig

Writer and New Testament scholar Robert M. Price exposes some of the flawed reasoning of Christian apologist William Lane Craig.

William Lane Craig is Shamelessly Taking the Low Road

I've heard three interviews where Bill Craig says I didn't leave the Christian faith because of intellectual reasons but because of moral failures, like an addiction to pornography and adultery. I've seriously considered filing a lawsuit against him for defamation of character, and I might do it. When I spoke to him after he debated Sam Harris he acknowledged not having read my book. I suspect he still hasn't. So to falsely and slanderously describe my deconversion while not having read my book is reprehensible ignorance at best and criminal at worst. While I'm no prude I have never said I had a pornography problem. Such a suggestion conjurers up a pervert to Christians, even though many of them ARE perverts by his own understandings who watch porn and then later publicly condemn it, or who have gay lovers then publicly condemn homosexuality. Is Bill projecting his own porn addiction on to me, or is he knowingly lying about me? Believers have always spread lies about apostates. In a different era we were killed. There is no evidence for this porn accusation of his. But who needs evidence when one is constantly in debate mode in defense of a faith that cannot be defended.

Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (1921-2012): In My View

Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages Emeritus, Harvard University

The first time I heard Frank Cross was at the 1974 Society of Biblical Literature and American Academy of Religion meeting in Washington, DC where he delivered his SBL Presidential Address: A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration. His passing last month at age 91 will be felt throughout the world of Biblical studies especially by his students. For those of us who followed his influence and control over the Qumran Scrolls, his legacy will marked by how the Scrolls were subjectively denied access to the scholarly world especially in the United States to those who were not part of the Harvard community.

Some Reasons Why, by Robert Ingersoll

My friend Julian Haydon with another excerpt from the illustrious Ingersoll. He writes:

Ingersoll compares Biblical and Pagan morality: "If the Jehovah of the Jews had taken upon himself flesh, and dwelt as a man among the people had he endeavored to govern, had he followed his own teachings, he would have been a slaveholder, a buyer of babes, and a beater of women. He would have waged wars of extermination. He would have killed grey-haired and trembling age, and would have sheathed his sword, in prattling, dimpled babes. He would have been a polygamist, and would have butchered his wife for differing with him on the subject of religion."

God Hates Dogs And the People Who Love And Raise Them!

No other animal is as detested more in the Bible then the dog. Even when compared to swine, dogs fall at the bottom having the most contempt and disgust of all the animals ever created by God (though I do wonder why God created something He detested in the first place)! Even the Talking Snake in the Garden of Eden didn't do enough to hurt its own species to earn Gods eternal hatred as the dog.

Dr. McCormick's Lecture: "What's Wrong with Having Faith?"

Religious believers often appeal to faith to justify their beliefs. Believing by faith seems to mean believing a religious claim even though the evidence on the whole is contrary to, or at least inadequate to fully support, the claim. Having faith is widely thought to be virtuous, admirable, desirable, and at the risk of being technical, epistemically acceptable. While faith is widely employed as a defense of religious belief, this answer to questions and problems with the God hypothesis is riddled with problems. It robs the believer of an important ability: she can no longer claim that her belief is true. She opens the floodgates for other outlandish views to do the same. Link.

Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?

This is the title to the very last chapter in my forthcoming book, The Outsider Test for Faith, some blurbs of which can be found here. That chapter is about faith, which I define as "an irrational leap over the probabilities." Victor Reppert is claiming that if this is what faith is then he doesn't have it. Here's what he said and my response below. I think this exchange cuts to the heart of the issue:

What's Wrong With Other Religions?

What's wrong with Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Haitian Voodoo, Animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Scientology, Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, the Unification Church, and the many tribal and folk religions? Faith. You know it. I know it. We all know it. The adherents of these religions do not believe based on sufficient evidence because faith is a leap over the probabilities, an irrational leap over the probabilities. If they thought exclusively in terms of the probabilities they would not believe at all. Now that we've got that straight, what's wrong with Christianity? Faith. :-) You know it. I know it. We all should know it.