The 2017 Debunking Christianity Challenge

This is the DC Challenge of 2015. I'm planning to update it. Do you know any books I should add? Which books would you replace with them, and why?
--------

Seven years ago I challenged Christians to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge and I've been doing so ever since. Just like previous years I'm proposing twelve reasonably priced college level books to read, one per month. You can read them in any order you like but read them!

My challenge is for Christians to read our books and test their faith to see if it can withstand our arguments. As I have argued most believers do not seriously question their faith. Do you want to be different than other believers? Do you want to do what most of them don't do? Then take the 2013 DC Challenge. I challenge you! Hey, what do you have to lose? If the books cause you to become stronger in your faith that's good, right? But if your faith cannot survive our assault then we've done you a favor. No more soundbites. No more reading one blog post at a time. Sit down for yourselves and read through whole books written by the skeptics.

Case Studies In What It Takes To Believe: Don Camp

Don Camp has roosted here at DC, making unsubstantiated faith-based claims. He tried making the case that faith is trust, then he provided an historical example by asking why we should not trust William Bradford's journal. Even if we're not familiar with his example, anyone can apprehend his point. He wrote:

My point about William Bradford was that we have reports of the history of Plymouth Plantation from only a few people, the primary one being William Bradford. Can we actually know anything without trusting Bradford's account - having faith in his report?

My second question is whether that is real knowledge since the basic evidence would be the journal of William Bradford.

Final question is how we might test the reliability of Bradford's account.

I ask my readers to answer his questions since they are so easy to do with reference to the Gospels and Camp's god. Have at it. I see he's respectful but there are major differences between these two cases, something he just cannot see because faith blinds him. School him but try being respectful if you can. For my part it's simply unbelievable that this is what it takes to believe in the gospels and/or in Camp's god.

"Faith is Pretending to Know Things You Don't Know" Just Like the Sophists in the Days of Socrates, Who Was Wise Because He Knew He Didn't Know.

I consider Peter Boghossian's stipulative definition of faith to be a sound one from all I know about how apologists defend their faith (above). I documented this in my somewhat sarcastic book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist. Check it out. It'll surely surprise most of you. Take a look at the blurbs.

The problem is faith. Faith is the mother of all cognitive biases. Faith leads believers to play the childish pretend game of religion. To have faith is to have a misplaced childish trust in non-existent deities. Faith is the entrance ticket to the fantasy-land of religion. Faith is a virus of the mind that stunts the growth of a person. It keeps people childish in their thinking.

In response, the brain of the believer will lie to its host. It will make shit up to hide the fact that its host believes in fairy tales. The host will be told lies that the overwhelming consensus of scientists is based on faith, that people need their particular parochial modern deity in order to live good moral lives, that atheism is a religion even though atheists do not believe in supernatural forces and/or beings, the list go on. Believer, you must bring your brain to heel by demanding objective evidence before concluding something, by proportioning your assent to the strength of the evidence, and by denying your brain the natural tendency to prefer wish-fulfillment over the cold hard truth. You say you really want to know the truth? Okay then. Force your brain to read this book: Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion. Check it out. It'll surely surprise most of you. Take a look at the blurbs.

Since faith is indeed pretending to know things you don't know, then faith does not deserve a whole sub-discipline known as Philosophy of Religion in our secular universities either, as I argued Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. For readers not studying or teaching philosophy of religion classes, the book is a manifesto against faith itself. I argue against pretending to know things we don't know. So I'm not only calling for the end of the philosophy of religion sub-discipline, but also an end to philosophy of religion itself, at least, how it's currently being practiced by almost everyone. I think the book could revolutionize what readers think of religion. In it you'll learn how to effectively deal with faith-based claims and how to spot them. Check it out. It'll surely surprise most of you. Take a look at the blurbs.

Agnotology and Christian Apologetics

In the following link we learn of agnotology:

The cigarette industry did not want consumers to know the harms of its product, and it spent billions obscuring the facts of the health effects of smoking. This search led Robert Proctor to create a word for the study of deliberate propagation of ignorance: agnotology.

It comes from agnosis, the neoclassical Greek word for ignorance or ‘not knowing’, and ontology, the branch of metaphysics which deals with the nature of being. Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour. LINK.

Let me put it to you, my readers. Are Christian apologists purveyors in agnotology? Are they deceivers or the deceived? How many of them aim to deceive, if so? How do we know they aim to deceive, if so? What kind of mental gymnastics do they use in justifying their deceit, if so? If instead they are merely deceived, who or what is deceiving them? Since they're deceived what are the best ways to convince the brainwashed, the deluded and the indoctrinated that they are in fact deceived? Can this be done at all? I'll be testing ideas for my next book/anthology in the coming month or so. Please chime in. Ask others to chime in. The assumption is that Christianity is false to the point of a delusion. Since this is the case what then of Christian apologists?

Maybe It’s Not the Worst Book in the Bible…

…But It’s a Contender

It would be such a relief—such a gift to the cause of compassionate religion—if Christians (especially of the paid-apologist variety, e.g., theologians, priests, ministers) could get over Paul’s Letter to the Romans. In my post on this blog 14 October 2016, I characterized this 16-chapter patch of scripture as a ‘toxic brew of bad theology,’ and stated my reasons for doing so. I also announced my plan to write analyses of each the 16 chapters, my atheist critique to be wrapped by January. I fell short of that goal: here I am starting in January. So, here goes, my take on Romans 1.

Scholars suspect that Paul’s opening paragraph was based on a liturgical formula current at the time (1:2-5), more or less summing up basic Christian thought, one key point being that Jesus Christ was a descendant of King David. So I begin with a digression: There is little doubt that Paul belonged to the school of thought that Jesus had been conceived/born the same way everyone else is. We search in vain throughout his letters for any mention of the virgin birth (which would have canceled “descended from David”). Matthew’s famous proof text, Isaiah 7:14, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son” was the furthest thing from his mind. He would have laughed it off.

Notice how explicit he is in 1:4: Jesus was declared son of God by his resurrection. That is Paul’s obsession; virgin birth would have diluted resurrection as the only credential that mattered. The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke (representing the minority school of thought in the New Testament) indulged this fantasy that seeped into Christian thought decades after Paul wrote; some of the pious assumed it would be cool to graft the pagan his-mother-was-a-virgin idea onto the Jesus story. Those who want to adore Mary will not find an ally in Paul—who never so much as mentions her.

Matthew, by the way, insults our intelligence in the first chapter of his gospel. He begins by tediously listing Jesus’ ancestors back to King David (gotta have that pedigree!) then drops the story of the virgin birth on us: Nope, Jesus didn’t have a father. How come the original readers didn’t catch this glaring non sequitur? And how come this is not the point that Christians today realize that Matthew was a fraud and toss the New Testament into the trash?

End of digression.

If I ever get around to writing a secular commentary on this dreadful epistle, I have the title ready: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: God Is Wrath. After his unctuous flattery of the Roman congregation (1:8-15), he gets down to business, to his flawed, ugly theology.

I want to mention four points.

No, God is not obvious by looking around at nature

In verse 20, Paul lays the groundwork for condemning unbelievers: “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.” So God’s power and nature can be “understood” through what he has made? Actually, precisely because God’s nature and power are invisible, they are not understood. Presumably Paul had the natural world in mind, but theologians with a couple thousand years of practice know that this is feeble: indifferent nature shows no mercy to humans. I suspect Paul didn’t give enough thought to this, because in his letters he explains endlessly what God expects and demands. So rules of conduct to convict sinners aren’t at all so obvious from the “things that God has made.”

God can’t wait to get even

Because people resorted to other gods, especially idol worship, God kicks them to the curb. In verses 24, 26 and 28 Paul states explicitly that God “gave them up”—and we get insights into Paul’s tormented personality by his list of things that God gave people up to: (1) the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies; (2) to degrading passions; (3) to a debased mind and things that should not be done. Hmmmm…obsessed about sex much? More about that on the next point. Suffice it to say here that Paul’s concept of God is weighted heavily toward revenge and punishment: God himself gives people up to sin. All this because people did not see fit to “acknowledge God.” No slack given here to folks who didn’t see eye-to-eye with Paul on religion, those who—and this was the big no-no for Paul—cheerfully embraced lust (we’d all be better off if Paul had given it a try). Paul doesn’t seem to have heard the stories about Jesus hanging out with sinners.

Knee-jerk disgust about women loving women, men loving me

Now, full disclosure before I get into this one: I am gay, so it’s no surprise that I have no patience with Paul’s rant against same-sex love. Sure, we can cut him some slack since his thinking was influenced by severe teaching in the Old Testament—and he lived centuries before human sexuality had been studied. What would we expect? But the folks who want to point to these verses in Romans 1 (vv. 26-27) as binding “word of God”—because “saint” Paul said them—are blind to their own hypocrisy: they don’t notice that Paul shuddered at heterosexuality as well! Everything in his writings about sexuality screams dysfunction! And we have the impulse to scream at Paul, “Get a life!”

Paul disdained men loving women: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:1-2) You read that right: marriage is okay because liability to immortality should drive you to it. Or how about this gem: “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24). And this: To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am” (I Corinthians 7:8). True enough, Paul’s delusions about Jesus returning soon warped his thinking: “…the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none” (I Corinthians. 7:29).

Outside of the most pathetic cults, you will never find a marriage counselor who urges couples to follow Paul’s advice. So please don’t quote him as an expert on love, marriage or sexuality—hetero or homo. And since he was so wrong about so many things (see my 14 October 2016 post), don’t credit him with being tuned into God’s thoughts—about anything. Yet Paul remains the default authority on homosexuality for so many today. No doubt with Romans 1 in mind, the Catholic Church cannot budge from its official position that gay people are “disordered.”

Paul’s long list of those who “deserve to die”

Full stop, Christians. How can anyone read the ending of Romans 1 and say, with a straight face, that Paul should be called a saint? Or that this text merits inclusion in “the good book”? Here he shows us his full venom: “… they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die…”

It’s a common Christian dodge that the nasty god of the Old Testament gave way to the loving God of the New Testament. But Paul does his best to keep the wrathful god alive and hovering over hapless humans. He includes gossips and rebellious children among those who deserve to die—according to God’s own decree. I guess it’s actually a good thing that—apart from obsessive scholars—the Letter to the Romans is pretty much ignored by the faithful, for whom The Man Upstairs is a benevolent figure, a cosmic buddy. Hildegard of Bingen is a saint with far more appeal than Paul: “”God hugs you. You are encircled by the arms of the mystery of God.”

One of those obsessive scholars was C. H. Dodd, who wrote in 1939 that The Letter to the Romans is “the first great work of Christian theology.” Please, say it ain’t so.


David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years. He has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, was published last year by Tellectual Press.

Why Have I Been Unusually Quiet Lately?

Three things happened in my life about the same time that explain why I've been unusually quiet these last few months. The first was Trump being elected as my President. Ugh! What a setback that was for the United States and world at large. All of our/my efforts as a liberal active Democrat in my state of Indiana were dashed for the foreseeable future (perhaps eight years?), with the potential rise of my former governor Mike Pence as the next President. Double Ugh! A certain amount of fatigue set in. Was the work worth it? Why bother?

The second was the publication of my book Unapologetic. This book is my tenth one. This meme to the right was made by Dr. David Madison from that book. I may write/edit other books, but I have no strong desire to do so right now, and to be frank, I don't think this will change anytime soon. For the first time in ten years I have no book in the works, and it feels good! Because of this I write less here at DC, since I used this blog as a way of testing ideas. I feel it's time to relax and enjoy life much more. I have a body of work out there, and it's pretty good. It has lasting value for which I am very happy.

The third thing is a person. Her name is Sheila. I am captivated by her, photos below. I'm not so superficial as to think looks are all that matter, but she's a good looking woman. She's also a witty smart successful professional and mother who loves me more than I deserve. I'm going to do everything I can to keep her, and I think I can. She's also a Christian (of sorts) who goes to an evangelical church. I've attended three times so far, where I hear pop-psychology as if it's something to be found in the Bible, which it isn't. So for anyone out there who thinks I treat Christians badly realize that the most significant person in my life is a Christian (of sorts). In fact, almost all of my friends are Christians.

Once a Christian, Always a Christian?

No. But there are many ties that bind….

Dennis R. Trumble Favorably Reviews "Christianity in the Light of Science"

LINK. Here is a link to something about Dr. Trumble. His review is below. Enjoy

Shallow Theology from the Cheerful Pope

Com’on, Your Holiness, You Sound Like a C – Student at a Second-Rate Bible College

In August 2016 an earthquake struck central Italy, killing 297 people and injuring more than 300. I’m sure at least some believers—especially those wandering in the rubble—were brought to the brink of cynicism in the face of such horrors: What can God be up to? In the Earthquake Control Department, isn’t now the time for almighty to mean something?

Mourners might not know of H. L. Mencken’s declaration, “The whole Christian system, like every other similar system, goes to pieces upon the problem of evil,” but looking at crushed babies, they might give Mencken a thumbs-up. If someone dared to pat me on the back at that moment and whisper, “God is here to comfort you”—my response would be an obscene version of get-out-of-my-face.

In fact Christian posturing about a benevolent Cosmos—engineered and supervised by a loving deity—is shown to be nonsense in the face of earthquakes and tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes (among many other things that nature throws at us).

Christian apologists have written endless streams of theobabble for centuries trying to square this theological circle. But Catholic theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann is candid: ““The question of the origin of evil, of what causes the tears and deviltries of the world, the question that no theologian has so far managed to answer, is one that humans have always posed.” (Putting Away Childish Things, p. 62).

But Popes are in charge of the brand—they’ve got a big business to protect and defend—so pushing theobabble that supposedly sounds good is what they do best. So Francis rushed in to play the comfort card. His meaningless words qualify superbly as diversionary fluff:

“I cannot fail to express my heartfelt sorrow and spiritual closeness to all those present in the zones afflicted. I ask you to join me in praying to the Lord Jesus, who is always moved by compassion before the reality of human suffering, that he may console the broken hearted, and through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, bring them peace.”

How pathetic. Especially for those who are skepical about long-dead heroes who supposedly live in the sky (or in our hearts?). Is that the best he can do? This is theology distilled into sentimentality, something I might expect from a mediocre Bible college graduate assigned to a backwoods pulpit. I suspect that many among the devout, through their tears, give a shrug to this theological white noise.

They want to know why. People in the deepest pain imaginable have looked their pastors in the eye, pleading for answers that make sense. The answers aren’t there. In Chris Chibnall’s superb BBC drama, Broadchurch, about the murder of an 11-year old boy in a small English coastal town, the parents sit with a young parish priest out of his depth trying to ease their anguish. The father stammers a few words: “Just need some answers, don’t we? We need some help. You have a line to the Big Man, why don’t you ask him? We’re drowning down here.”

Well, if there’s anyone with a line to the Big Man, isn’t it the Vicar of Christ on Earth? Who else might have the Red Phone on his desk? “Jesus will console and Mary will bring you peace” just doesn’t cut it. If that’s the best the Pope can do, he simply demonstrates, once again, that Mencken was right.


David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, was published by Tellectual Press in August 2016.