Win Corduan & Bart Ehrman Agree, Objective Evidence is Problematic

Christian philosopher of religion Dr. Win Corduan shows why I focus on concrete examples like a virgin birthed son of a god, and have such a low view of the philosophy of religion by philosophers who want to rationally discuss the probabilities of these kinds of ancient myths. He wrote a brief summary essay answering the question, What is the difference between objective and subjective claims? He argues there's a point at which subjective and objective claims are the same: "Clearly, the fact that I am making a subjective claim about feeling pain is an objective claim. And that matter can be tested pretty easily; just ask me. But whether I actually have the feelings that I’m telling you about, only I can know."

This isn't the real issue though, even if he's right. For the real issue concerns concrete claims like a virgin birthed son of a god. Those kinds of claims require objective evidence for them, since they're extraordinary claims of the highest order concerning events that are impossible to occur on their own within the natural world, based on everything we know about how the world works. So it doesn't matter if there's a point at which objective and subjective claims converge, even though I doubt that they do. Sure, I would see no reason to doubt Win's claim of pain since it's not an extraordinary one. But I cannot objectively feel his pain either. So I would have no way to conclusively test whether he's lying, without some objective evidence coming from a heart monitor or brain scan.

The real reason Win is addressing such a question is because there's no objective evidence for any of the miracle assertions in the Bible. Sorry if that's the case Win, but that's the case. Sorry if it ends your philosophical discussion Win, but it ends it. It could have turned out differently if there was a god who had the foresight to provide objective evidence for biblical miracles, Win. But your god didn't do that.

How Do You Get to Live Forever with Jesus in the Sky?

The apostle Paul’s fully delusional scheme

I occasionally see this meme on Facebook, with attribution to Mark Twain:  “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” But this is probably wrong on three counts: (1) I have never been able to verify it as a Twain quote; (2) the first priests—those who stood out from the rest of their clans as possessing connections to the gods—probably were not con artists; (3) and the people who believed them sensed that the connection was genuine. Of course the time would come when con men took over—these days televangelists come to mind especially.

"God and Horrendous Suffering" Available November 15th!

LINK. Be the first to get this hardcover anthology.

The Atlantic: "The Evangelical Church is Breaking Up!"

If this continues they will lose their political influence in America! I welcome this even as I hate what Trump has done to our country. LINK. Thanks to Robert Conner.

Robert Conner's Interview with Mythvision!

This is excellent! Please check it out!

 

Does God Care as Much About the Bible as Christians Do?

Or was it incompetent divine oversight?

When did God stop caring about the Bible? No, it’s not a silly question. Many   Christians are so sure that God guided the thoughts—and the pens—of the Bible authors, especially those who wrote the gospels and epistles: they got God’s truth right. But what an embarrassment: we don’t have what they wrote. All of the original manuscripts of the New Testament books were lost. The earliest scrap of a gospel—a few verses of John 18—dates early-to-mid second century. There are scholars who devote their careers to comparing ancient manuscripts, trying to figure out the wording of the original texts. The sloppy, haphazard coping process—by hand—went on for centuries. The scribes made thousands of errors. God couldn’t be bothered to protect and preserve the original documents? That wasn’t within his power? Fundamentalist theologians insist that the original manuscripts were without error: God’s perfect word. Even for them there’s just no denying that so many mistakes were made in the copying process. But their claim that the originals were perfect cannot be sustained.

My Very Last Book is About to Drop! It's Over. It's Done. It is Finished!

Looks like it's a race to see which book of mine will be my very last one!

GCRR is set to release "God and Horrendous Suffering" early in November.

Hypatia Press says they're releasing "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism" early in December.

They can both lay claim to the title of last book, if this plays itself out. That's because "God and Horrendous Suffering" was the very last book I submitted for publication, no matter which one is released last!

I actually like that the mythicist book is to come out near Xmas, since people looking for books at that time might be drawn to its cover of an empty manger!

I also like it since the question of Jesus mythicism was one I avoided in order not to offend Christian believers in my early years. So it's good if it comes out last.

In my books I've said all I need to say on every important topic related to Christianity. That's all I can do. It should be enough for one person, even though the debate will continue. I must now live life to its fullest, love, laugh, sing, and dance.

Why Did A Good God Create Gunpowder & Allow Us to Discover It?

Justin Brierley, producer of the Unbelievable? program, just solved the problem of evil. Not really, but he tries unsuccessfully to make a point about it and free will: 

My comments to Justin Brierley:

Justin, anyone can turn a bullet into something good, and anyone can imagine on hindsight that some kind of suffering turns out for good. But an omniscient god is apparently incapable of imagining a world without suffering of the horrendous kind, when even a child can do so. What about a god who never allows humankind to discover gunpowder? What was so important to god that we needed it at all?

Additionally: 

Yes, gunpowder has been extremely helpful to modernized society. But was the bloodshed and mayhem worth it when all god wants is for us to believe in him? Think of the murders, the bombs, and the wars, especially the noncombatants like children. The carnage is massive!

If for some indefensible notion god wanted us to discover gunpower, he could have made it discoverable to people who would only use it constructively in building roads, bridges, buildings and the like. He could also keep it away from evil people intent on evil purposes. 

A perfectly loving god would do this. Does an omniscient all-powerful god not know how to do it?

Accidental Scripture, Inferior Preaching

The dubious choice of a crazy person as apostle

Come on now, be honest, if your neighbor announced that he is heading off on a business trip “because I had a revelation from God that I have to go”: would you be impressed by his direct line to God—or would you be tempted to ask if he’d skipped his meds?  Maybe the pope receives these kinds of messages—so the faithful hope—but your neighbor? Sometimes noisy televangelists boast that they’re passing on orders from God, but aside from their gullible followers, who believes them? Recently Lauren Boebert shouted to an enthusiastic crowd that God had told her to run for congress. We are alarmed by delusions in high places.

My New Book Cover!

Why is my anthology about horrendous suffering? Because this is the category of suffering every reasonable person agrees is needless, the kind of suffering that a perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing god worthy of worship would eliminate if s/he existed.

Christian “Truth” in Shreds: Epic Takedown 5

The weak, vulnerable Christian foundations  

In 1935, a professor of Christian history at the
Sorbonne, Charles Guignebert, published a book titled simply, Jesus. I still have the worn copy that I read in college. In it he summed up the problem that has plagued New Testament scholarship for generations: “It was not the essence of Jesus that interested the authors of our gospels, it was the essence of Christ, as their faith pictured him. They are exclusively interested, not in reporting what they know, but in proving what they believe.” He also observed: "The Gospels are propaganda writings, intended to organize and authenticate. . .the legend represented in the sacred drama of the sect and to match it to the customs of the mythology of the time." Wikipedia describes Guignebert as “...one of the first French historians who approached this subject in a scientific way and not confessional.”

Early Christianity According to Lucian

What Kind of People Were Earliest Christians?

As an avid reader of ancient Mediterranean literature, I have come to regard Lucian as one of my most cherished Greek writers. A penetrating satirist and cultural critic, Lucian left behind numerous works, most of which apparently composed in Samosata (Roman Northern Syria) in the latter half of the second century C.E. With Syria having served as the nascent cradle of primitive Christianity, Lucian will have had an up-close familiarity with the religion, its earliest peddlers, and cult leaders. Unlike his contemporary Celsus, Lucian never wrote any detailed treatise against the religion, despite his more general campaign to expose superstition and fraudulence. In that sense, his candid appraisal of eastern Mediterranean Christians and their leaders provides one of but a few truly unvarnished external looks at the movement. For your enrichment here, I offer my own translated excerpt taken from his Greek text De Morte Peregrini (Περὶ τῆς Περεγρίνου Τελευτῆς), that is, Concerning the Death of Peregrinus. While the work itself, an account of martyrdom-by-way-of-stunt, merits a subsequent article here at D.C., one that I have already begun to compose, the specific segment on the Christians deserves its own special showcase here.

Mission Impossible: Defending the Resurrection

“...Christian preaching is empty...”

Careful, thorough study of Christianity’s ancient context provides an “Ah ha!” or “Uh oh” moment, depending on your perspective. For those who don’t accept Christian claims about its holy origins, it’s the former; for the devout, it’s the latter. The problem, of course, is that reality-based thinking about Christian origins doesn’t commonly trickle down to the folks in the pews, so they haven’t caught up with the news: the idea that Easter morning proves Christianity has been fatally wounded. Richard Carrier’s comprehensive essay, Dying-and-Rising Gods: It’s Pagan Guys. Get Over It provides the “Ah ha!’ moment for skeptics: dying-and-rising gods were celebrated by other cults in the ancient world. As Carrier has said, “Jesus was late to the party.”

Real Atheology Wonders if Philosophy, Not Science, Is the Very Paradigm of Rationality

First off, it seems more than a bit arrogant to claim to be the real deal in atheist philosophy (Real Atheology, RA), but then there's nothing that can be done about that adopted name now. Nonetheless, on Twitter RA Tweeted this excerpt and asked, "Don't know where this is from, but thoughts on this?" If it were me I'd like to know where it came from, and I certainly wouldn't put something like this out there unless I thought it had some merit. Turns out it was written by Catholic apologist Edward Feser denouncing the boogyman "scientism" which we've written about before. About scientism I merely say that when it comes to the nature of nature, its regularities, and its origins, science is the only way to gain the truth. What other alternative is there?



It's disheartening that some thoughtful atheists think what Feser said is worthy of consideration. But this isn't the only time RA puts science and objective evidence in the back. They also highly recommended an essay where they agree with Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan that atheist Graham Oppy "repudiates evidentialism." They're reading and listening to the WRONG PEOPLE! I doubt very much that Graham Oppy "repudiates evidentialism" even if he may repudiate the verfification principle(s) whereby only propositions that have evidence for them are meaningful. Ask him. He should weigh in on this issue. Evidence, objective evidence, is paramount. Otherwise we are building ivory castles in the sky where the ONLY thing that matters in consistency.

When it come to philosophy almost everyone gets it wrong. Let me explain...