“They have a terrible need for tenderness. They’re like children.”

A review of In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, and Hypocrisy

A number of years ago, in a social setting, I fell into conversation with a top Italian TV journalist. After a while, I asked him point-blank: Can it possibly be true that those in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church really believe the dogmas they peddle? He shook his head. “No, at least half of them don’t. But it’s a business. They have a product to sell and need to see the business thrive.”

I get that. But just how good, after all, is the business model? There’s far too much that works against it. Fine: your product is eternal life/salvation through Jesus Christ, but nonessentials have been grafted onto that basic framework. Try this thought experiment: How smart would it be for General Motors to require celibacy of its employees? What if top GM executives came up with this idea?—convinced that job effectiveness would be enhanced if people could be persuaded to give up sex.

End Times Prophecies

Most people realize there have been many failed prophecies regarding the Second Coming and Armageddon. A few are particularly well-known, such as Jesus’ own prediction that the end would come within the lifetime of some of his followers. Here are a few others from among the hundreds of failed attempts to predict that momentous event:

Irenaeus (2nd century), one of the important early Church fathers, said the end would come in the year 500.

Martin of Tours, a well-known 4th century bishop, claimed it would occur before the year 400, and, at the time he wrote, had no doubt that the Antichrist had already been born.

Many, of course, predicted the year 1000 would be it, including Pope Sylvester II, who was undoubtedly surprised that he lived until 1003.

Quote of the Day: "Nobody likes to be lied to” is itself a lie!

Millions want to be lied to, want to be told what they want to believe is true. Many want to be assured by lies they are afraid not to believe. Many continue to believe a man who constantly proves he is a liar. It is their learned habit. When the fact-checkers provide evidence he is lying, they side with the liar. If his lies support their own beliefs, connected to their own self-esteem, he and the lies speak for them....Nobody wants to admit to accepting lies instead of truths. One reason is because no one wants to face the fact believing someone one highly respects, or loves, is related to, or has known intimately, could have deceived one, even for years! This also applies to traditions. It's just so incomprehensible one must be in denial! It's much easier to live with lies and betrayals for the sake of emotional security, to avoid making waves. This self-defense is in not dealing with reality. Without the liars suffering the consequences of their lying, lies become acceptable. Link to Ex-Christian.net.

The Story of Loop Quantum Gravity - From the Big Bounce to Black Holes

Given that William Lane Craig was recently interviewed along with Roger Penrose, here's a new film that may be of interest. It's the story of loop quantum gravity. It's the main rival to string theory for a quantum theory of gravity. Interviewed are many of the leaders in the field including bestselling author Carlo Rovelli, Sir Roger Penrose, Einstein Prize Winner Abhay Ashtekar, Lee Smolin and others.

Although the film is primarily focused on the science, there are some moments which will be of interest to those interested in atheist/theist debates. In particular many of the scientists in this film explain why they think fine tuning is not the problem theists claim it is. They also claim the big bang is not the beginning and the universe may be eternal into the past. Abhay Ashtekar, who last year won the American Physical Society’s Einstein Prize, addresses the claims of William Lane Craig with regards to past eternal universes and the BGV theorem. There is a lot of ammo atheist can use in future debates from some of the top theoretical physicists in the world.

God Almighty, and AWOL

The system “goes to pieces”

The Bible itself sets Christianity up for failure; there is no way that its concept(s) of God can be sustained. The intensive, invasive personal theism advanced by these ancient documents reflects a control-freak deity, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out:

“Religion is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life, before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true?”

This, indeed, is God as portrayed in the New Testament:

GREATER EVIL IS BEYOND THE IMAGINATION OF MAN

I have a friend, now long retired, who spent 45 years in the business of getting people in the mass market to buy, donate, subscribe, join or petition for a wide variety of clients who measured the cost-per-result down to the penny.

He has long argued that the atheist community is missing a bet by concentrating on such subjects as miracles, the resurrection and the virgin birth, where nothing definitive – especially to most believers -- is ever conceded, when there is a far easier and impossible-to-refute case to be made that the Christian God as defined by Christians is impossible. I'm going to leave this up on top for a few days. What do you think about it? He wants to know.

Recognizing the importance of brevity he has made that case in just 108 words. This is not meant to be poetry. The layout is designed to cause special attention to every word:

Two Quotes of the Day, And More...

An apologist tried in vain to explain why his god didn't just create people in heaven in the first place.

Answers to this question make no sense no matter which "solution" is offered. But then neither do answers to questions about the Trinity, or the incarnation, or Jesus' sufferings on the cross, or even how the Bible can be inerrant yet written by free-willed human beings, or why a god didn't reveal the true revelation in the Bible so Christians themselves could understand it, who slaughtered each other over doctrinal issues during the wars following the Reformation to the tune of 8 million Christians.

True belief must accept mystery.
Trying to reason it out creates nonbelievers.

Who Invented the Last Supper?

…maybe someone who wasn’t even there

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: This iconic lineup of ancient texts—bound together forever—has been venerated for centuries. But this gesture of homage to Jesus could very well be one of the biggest blunders of early Christian bureaucrats. The anonymous authors of these four texts could not have foreseen that this would happen, and, had they been around when the deed was done, would have vetoed it. Because, when we read the gospels side-by-side, the glaring contradictions—the theological differences—become obvious.

Why couldn’t these guys get the story straight? Because they were fantasy novelists, not historians. Thanks to centuries of positioning by the church, of course, an aura of holiness hangs over these books that supposedly tell the story of Jesus. Ordinary churchgoers, if they ever were so inclined, could dispel the aura by reading the gospels carefully, meticulously, critically. They are bound together: take advantage of that. Do the nitpicking, and don’t be surprised by so many WTF moments.

On the Naturalistic Fallacy

In addition to denying the is/ought gap (see my previous post), those who attempt to argue for the existence of a scientific morality often deny the so-called naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of defining moral concepts in non-moral terms, as Sam Harris does when he says that “good” just means “that which increases the overall well-being of conscious creatures.” Other examples of the fallacy include defining the good as happiness, or as what helps promote human flourishing, or (to use a supernaturalistic example) as what God commands. And the reason this is a fallacy is that, no matter what one picks as the definition of “good,” someone can ask whether that thing is actually good without thereby making any kind of mistake.

Will Your Child End Up in Hell?

I was raised to believe in the eternal punishment of a burning hell. Many times as a child, I worried about my latter end. Long before my brain was fully formed, it was traumatized by stories so extreme, so rife with torture, so grim that it's a wonder that I was able to recover from the internalized trauma. I'm really not sure that one can truly fully recover from such a horrendous message after  having it pounded into your head from the pulpit on a regular basis. When the preacher is your dad, it becomes even more convoluted in your brain. 

Many have said that this kind of treatment constitutes child abuse, and I wholeheartedly agree. Yet, if I am to be totally honest, children fall dead last on the list of those receiving protection in the world. There were 29,000 cases of child abuse in the state of Indiana alone in 2016. More than 7000 American children are killed every year by their parents and caretakers. More children are killed than American soldiers. And, more children are tortured behind closed doors in American homes than prisoners of war abroad. Clearly, we keep having children but often we shouldn't be parents.

Hermione Granger or the Apostle Paul? Take Your Pick

The enduring appeal of magical thinking

Young Harry Potter didn’t know that he was one of the most famous wizards in the world. He found out on his eleventh birthday, when he was rescued from his despicable uncle and aunt by the enormous, gentle Rubeus Hagrid. In the hours that followed, Harry learned from Hagrid there was a school called Hogwarts and that he belonged to the world of wizards. Everyone else in the world—the non-wizards, including his uncle and aunt—were Muggles.

The morning after his rescue, Hagrid mentioned the Ministry of Magic, and Harry wanted to know what the Ministry of Magic did.

Does God Drive a Mercedes Benz or Take the Bus?

[Written by Teresa Roberts] Throughout modern history humans have denounced materialism for a variety of reasons. Whether as a path to non attachment as part of the Buddhist philosophy or from a need to find fulfillment outside the confines of mainstream life, the drive to obtain material things has often been painted in an unflattering light.

I was a child of the 60s and can easily remember a time period in America when the hippie revolution flourished upon such notions as shared living, back-to-the-earth lifestyles and the glorious goal of breaking the chains of a greed-driven world. We see this theme recycling even today with the tiny house movement and community gardens. Redefining what makes life worthwhile has driven many to form alliances. Standing alongside these soul-searching-radical lifestyles is Christianity, at least in the western world.

Dr. William L. Vanderburgh's Book Now Available, "David Hume On Miracles, Evidence, and Probability"

Yay!! Just arrived!

A major scholarly defense of David Hume's arguments against miracles has just been published by atheist philosopher William Vanderburgh. It's especially needed since John Earman's objections.

It's expensive but important. Knowing what I already know about it, any serious discussion of miracles must deal with it. LINK.

Here is a summation on the back cover:

The Jesus Nobody Wants

Or do they?

Am I allowed to indulge my fantasy that there are normal Christians? By which I mean folks who love their families, go to work every day, plan their careers, save for retirement, look forward to vacations, mom and dad enjoy consenting-adult time alone together, and they show up at church. All of these pursuits—except for showing up for church—take a hit in the New Testament.

Love their families: Luke 14:26, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”

“Ought” and “Is” Revisited

It’s nearly as predictable as if it were a law of nature: Every few years, someone argues with me online that Hume’s Law (that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”) is wrong. And usually, the challenge comes from an atheist who is convinced that they must set this law aside in order to defend moral realism — and thus answer critics who say that atheism cannot justify morality.

There are two basic points such people should learn about this. First, that Hume’s Law is a simple matter of logic; in the sense Hume was talking about, an “ought” cannot be derived from an “is,” period. Second, that in itself this does not show there are no moral truths. It doesn’t even show that ethical naturalism (the view that there are “natural” — and thus in principle scientifically discoverable — moral truths) is false. Anyone who wishes to maintain that there are moral facts discoverable by science is therefore welcome to attempt to do so some other way, in spite of Hume’s Law.

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

I wish Christian apologists would get their stories straight on this question. Apologists who seek to soften the problem of religious diversity, and who want to explain why a diverse number of religious believers have their prayers answered, will say Yahweh and Allah are the same god by different names. So say Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and many others.

Christians who seek to be honest however, will say no they're not the same god! Interestingly enough, William Lane Craig says they are not the same god! Jack Cottrell agrees with Craig. Roger Olsen's answer is both yes and no! Olsen:

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? It’s not as simple a question as it appears and therefore no simple, straightforward answer should be given. The question itself begs analysis—before any answer can be given. I worry that people who jump to answer “yes” may be motivated more by political correctness and/or fear of persecution (of Muslims) than by clear thinking about the theological differences between Islam and Christianity. I also worry that people who jump to answer “no” may be motivated more by Christian fundamentalism and/or fear of terrorists than by clear thinking about the historical-theological roots of Islam in Jewish and Christian monotheism.

I've laid out what's at stake in several posts:

--Who Answers Prayers?
--The Empty Rhetoric of Christian Apologists.
--Do Christians Worship the Same God As Muslims and Jews Do? The Larycia Hawkins Test Case.
--It's Preposterous That Victor Reppert and David Marshall Believe in Allah.

Again, let me stress it's about being honest. Honesty has it's price though.