Here's the link to the YouTube video where Joe Schmid reveals he converted to Catholicism. It has 101 thousand views in just three days. [How much revenue does that get?] On Facebook John Hanby said this about Schmid's conversion: "Joe Schmid is proof that no one is safe. He's one of the most brilliant young philosophers in the world. He's written, what, 20? Philosophy of Religion papers. And has been a paradigm of rationality and critical thinking."
So today I want to offer a few general and applicable responses.
First off, this doesn't mean anyone else should become a Catholic just because Schmid did. The main reason is due to the brain's incapacity to come to correct conclusions when there are between 150-180 known cognitive biases, any one of which can affect our cogitations concerning the case for Catholicism. In other words, no one thinks with impeccably pure logic like we might imagine from Star Treck's character Spock. There is always room for doubt. Here's Why Doubt Is The Adult Attitude And How Science Helps Us. Science is going to answer our most important questions if they can be answered at all.
Secondly, let's look at some statistics: In 2009 David Chalmers of the Australian National University and David Bourget of London University, surveyed professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views. The survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students, which can be seen here. The question that interests me is what philosophers think about God.
So much for William Lane Craig's claim that there is a renaissance of Christian philosophy in today's world. *cough* Anthony Gottlieb concludes that among specialists in the philosophy of religion--as opposed to Political Philosophy, Social Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Language--"Philosophy of religion specialists are more likely to favor theism (72:19)." Link.
So today I want to offer a few general and applicable responses.
First off, this doesn't mean anyone else should become a Catholic just because Schmid did. The main reason is due to the brain's incapacity to come to correct conclusions when there are between 150-180 known cognitive biases, any one of which can affect our cogitations concerning the case for Catholicism. In other words, no one thinks with impeccably pure logic like we might imagine from Star Treck's character Spock. There is always room for doubt. Here's Why Doubt Is The Adult Attitude And How Science Helps Us. Science is going to answer our most important questions if they can be answered at all.
Secondly, let's look at some statistics: In 2009 David Chalmers of the Australian National University and David Bourget of London University, surveyed professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views. The survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students, which can be seen here. The question that interests me is what philosophers think about God.
God: theism or atheism?If we add in the "other" category, which would include New Age beliefs, Deism, and Agnosticism, then upwards to 86% of them are not theists. Among those philosophers who are theists I dare say most of them are probably not card carrying Evangelicals, since this includes Catholics, Muslims, Jews and those who merely accept the philosopher's god.
Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)
So much for William Lane Craig's claim that there is a renaissance of Christian philosophy in today's world. *cough* Anthony Gottlieb concludes that among specialists in the philosophy of religion--as opposed to Political Philosophy, Social Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Language--"Philosophy of religion specialists are more likely to favor theism (72:19)." Link.
In the third place, let's consider which side (religion or non-religion) has the epistemological advantage. LINK. This directly responds to Schmind's conversion. It comprehensively discusses the value of personal conversion/deconversion stories.
Fourth, we should be evaluating different religions as if we were outsiders. I wrote a book about how we can know which religion is true if there is one. It's called The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True. You can read the first few pages of that book right here.
5th, I'm not one to endorse the philosophy of religion to decide which religion is true, if there is one. As one who earned a Th.M. (a master of philosophy degree) in this disciple under William Lane Craig, I wrote a book on it, titled "Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End," LINK. In fact, I've written Three Books On How To Honestly Seek the Truth,
and none of them focus on philosophy. If you want to know which
religion is true, if there is one, philosophy is a distraction from that
goal.
6.0, When it comes to the big three theisms that rely on the Bible in various degrees, I advocate studying it at a greater depth than a merely superficial reading offers. Read this comprehensive introduction titled, Does God Exist: A Definitive Biblical Case. I began by saying:
To believe in a god who created the universe doesn’t automatically lead believers to their own specific religious sect. The truth is that there are an overwhelming number of non-Christian religionists who agree that a different creator god exists. So it’s quite apparent that philosophical and scientific god arguments are beside the point. None of those arguments, even if shown to be true, point to a specific religion, or religious sect, or gain anything at all in the debates between theistic religious faiths.
Philosophical god arguments are unnecessary, used to reinforce a faith that doesn’t actually need them, which are rejected by some key figures in the history of the Christian faith. This includes philosopher Immanuel Kant, who in the 18th century had to admit, “I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” [Critique of Pure Reason, p. bxxx], and Karl Barth, the greatest theologian of the last century, who rejected these god arguments with a big fat nein!
Seventhly, consider three specific cases for comparison purposes: 1) Keith Parsons. On September 1st 2010 he announced he was no longer going to teach in the area of the Philosophy of Religion. He wrote:
2) Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of philosophy at City College of New York, who holds Ph.D.s in both biology and philosophy, tweeted: “I’m sorry but I can’t any longer take seriously any essay or paper that itself takes talk of god seriously. It’s simply a non starter” [March 28, 2023]. In response, “The Real Atheology Podcast” tweeted “given the serious work done by many Theistic philosophers, I have to disagree with your comments here.” Pigliucci responded: “I don’t consider any theologian to be ‘serious.’ They may be, and often are, analytically rigorous. But so is the concept of p-zombies. And yet I think it’s a waste of time.” Pigliucci again tweeted: “Consider, for instance, the Medieval Scholastics. They were rigorous and did a lot of work. But it was, as David Hume famously put it, only a bunch of sophistry and illusions. Why? Because it was based on indefensible assumptions and lack of empirical evidence” [March 30, 2023].
3) Then there's that rascal John Loftus. See what he said in a debate, and read all his books. ;-)
Some Important Links.
Over the past ten years I have published, in one venue or another, about twenty things on the philosophy of religion. I have a book on the subject, God and Burden of ProofAfter a few years he reconsidered and taught these classes again, but his distain for the subject matter remains., and another criticizing Christian apologetics, Why I am not a Christian. During my academic career I have debated William Lane Craig twice and creationists twice. I have written one master’s thesis and one doctoral dissertation in the philosophy of religion, and I have taught courses on the subject numerous times. But no more. I’ve had it.
I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory. BTW, in saying that I now consider the case for theism to be a fraud, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest; I don’t think there is a Bernie Madoff in the bunch. I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it. I’ve turned the philosophy of religion courses over to a colleague. Link
2) Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of philosophy at City College of New York, who holds Ph.D.s in both biology and philosophy, tweeted: “I’m sorry but I can’t any longer take seriously any essay or paper that itself takes talk of god seriously. It’s simply a non starter” [March 28, 2023]. In response, “The Real Atheology Podcast” tweeted “given the serious work done by many Theistic philosophers, I have to disagree with your comments here.” Pigliucci responded: “I don’t consider any theologian to be ‘serious.’ They may be, and often are, analytically rigorous. But so is the concept of p-zombies. And yet I think it’s a waste of time.” Pigliucci again tweeted: “Consider, for instance, the Medieval Scholastics. They were rigorous and did a lot of work. But it was, as David Hume famously put it, only a bunch of sophistry and illusions. Why? Because it was based on indefensible assumptions and lack of empirical evidence” [March 30, 2023].
3) Then there's that rascal John Loftus. See what he said in a debate, and read all his books. ;-)
Some Important Links.
My conclusion is that Christianity is Unworthy of Thinking Adults.
The Five Most Powerful Reasons Not to Believe. Notice that the philosophy of religion is the dark pit where philosophers go to spar mainly for the sake of the fight. Theists favor such a distraction.
Here's an essay of mine titled, "How to Change the Minds of Believers." It received the Editor's Choice Award from The Secular Web: LINK. I didn't mention the philosophy of religion, or arguments for and against the existence of a theistic God.
What Happened to Me? <--- THIS!
Finally, let's consider satire, or ridicule. The following response to Schmid was said by DL Bennett, pictured (Philosopher of Religion, Grateful in Recovery, Ball State University):
The Five Most Powerful Reasons Not to Believe. Notice that the philosophy of religion is the dark pit where philosophers go to spar mainly for the sake of the fight. Theists favor such a distraction.
Here's an essay of mine titled, "How to Change the Minds of Believers." It received the Editor's Choice Award from The Secular Web: LINK. I didn't mention the philosophy of religion, or arguments for and against the existence of a theistic God.
What Happened to Me? <--- THIS!
Finally, let's consider satire, or ridicule. The following response to Schmid was said by DL Bennett, pictured (Philosopher of Religion, Grateful in Recovery, Ball State University):
I am converting to Catholicism, guys!In case it's needed, here's my response to the use of ridicule.
Former atheist philosopher Joe Schmid has recently converted to Catholicism, and I intend to join him! For exactly the same reasons!
For starters, the physical constants of the universe appear to fall within a remarkably narrow range compatible with complex life. If certain parameters were sufficiently different, the universe as we know it wouldn’t permit life. Clearly, God designed the universe for us! Well, for a little bit. Okay, I’m not gonna lie—the universe spent billions of years without us, almost all of it is instantly lethal to us, and on current cosmological models, eventually the cosmos will become incapable of supporting anything remotely like us at all. Apparently God fine-tuned the universe for life and then made almost the entire fucking thing uninhabitable across space and time. That sucks, I know. We’re barely a blip on the universe’s radar. But praise God anyway!
There are also astonishing miracles that point directly to Catholicism! Like Padre Pio, whom doctors examined and gave contradictory assessments concerning wounds on his hands, feet, and side that resembled Christ’s crucifixion wounds! How impressive were they? Depends on which doctor you ask! The fact that Pio also obtained carbolic acid (phenol) and veratrine—and that physicians at the time considered the possibility that such caustic substances could have produced or maintained the lesions—doesn’t bother me at all! Pio had explanations for that shit. Hallelujah!
I know I’ve said for years that the resurrection and exaltation of Christ strongly resembles stories about other divine men who were raised to eternal glory and appeared to witnesses, but I’ve finally decided that’s probably just a coincidence. I mean, what are the chances that people would tell such a story in a place and time where precisely those kinds of myths were already circulating? Okay, I admit, they’re pretty good. But that’s probably because the Devil wanted to trick future historians and shit! That wily cunt!
I will be getting formally baptized this Sunday at The Holy Rosary in downtown Paducah. I don’t like getting my clothes wet, so I will be asshole naked for the entire proceeding.
Come see me swing this thang and get dunked, bitches! 🤘✝️🤘
No comments:
Post a Comment