John, "You Need to Deal With the Heavy Weights"

Here's an email I received and my response:

Macroevolution & Microcreationism: Another Flaw in Intelligent Design Creationism by David Eller

A STANDARD TACTIC USED by creationists to attack evolution is to contrast microevolution (i.e., within species evolution, which they accept) with macroevolution (i.e., between species evolution, which they adamantly reject). Microevolution, they grant, may or does occur. But they assert that macroevolution either has never been observed or is theoretically impossible. They argue that while microevolution may be true, it is trivial, and the major claim of evolution — the evolution and emergence of species — is either unsubstantiated or false.

I argue in this article that creationism faces its own micro/macro distinction and challenge, and that ID has so far only focused on and made claims about microprocesses. Finally, I posit that whatever achievements microcreation may have made or may have imagined it made, these achievements neither strengthen the case for macrocreation nor weaken the case for macroevolution. Link

Dr. Craig: All Other Religious Claims to the Witness of the Spirit are False

I wonder if the question Bill attempts to answer was prompted by what I wrote in the introduction to The Christian Delusion, which can be read here. A perceptive Christian asks him:

Skepticism of Religion: An Informal Bibliography

Nelson Brooke of Think Atheist put together a nice list of skeptical books that "will enable the reader to mount a full-fledged intellectual defense of skepticism." It's good. Check it out.

What Have I Been Doing Lately? Discussing the OTF.

I've been discussing the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) over at Christian philosopher Victor Reppert's Blog with Steve Lovell, a person I'm told is a C.S. Lewis scholar. It's not looking too good for Steve though.

What Does it Mean to Take and Pass The OTF?

Believers are scrambling to find a way of escape from the Outsider Test for Faith(OTF), which calls upon them to test what they were led to believe from an outsider's perspective with the same level of skepticism used to reject all other religions. All that believers need to do is consider how they evaluate the other religions they reject. Once they do they'll see quite plainly what is required of them. They merely assume these other religions are false. That's all it takes. Just assume they are false.

Stephen Law on "Playing the Mystery Card"

Critics point out that [you believers] have little in the way of argument for what you believe, there also seems to be powerful evidence against it. If you want, nevertheless, to convince both yourself and others that your beliefs are not nearly as ridiculous as your critics suggest, what can you do? Play the mystery card...” Read his lengthy response.

What Would Convince Victor Reppert to Give Up Christianity?

Vic responded to this question recently and I think it's a fair answer:

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

25) That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God.

My Next Book: The Outsider Test for Faith

Hey, why not? I'll start work on it before too long. I have plenty of material. I'll combine into one book everything I've written about it. I would tell how I first came up with it, why it is objective and fair, why it's needed, who should take it and what it requires of people. I'll also provide some examples of how Christian apologists critique the religions they reject. Then I'll decisively answer every objection to it in some detail, and end the book showing what it does to the Christian faith. While I'd like to have it titled: The Outsider Test for Faith, and I may do so, I was wondering if there is a more catchy title that would better tell the reader what the book is about. Any suggestions?

Do Near-Death Experiences Prove the Soul Exists?

Daylight Atheism examines the research of Sam Parnia, who "carried out a study in which he interviewed all survivors of cardiac arrest at his hospital over one year," and concludes:

Parnia's study...doesn't prove anything about the timing of NDEs or demonstrate that they occur while the brain is nonfunctional. The only conclusive way to prove that they result from the soul leaving the body would be for people in such a state to gain information they couldn't have accessed through ordinary methods - but as I said earlier, aside from unverifiable hearsay and anecdotes, this never happens. Every careful, controlled experiment set up to prove this has turned up empty.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.

Should Atheists Take the Outsider Test for Faith?

[Written by John Loftus]
I've written a lot about this question already, but let me add a few things.

Ronald Hendel Protests Recognizing Fundamentalist Groups in the SBL

He writes:

“The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.” This famous line from Pascal’s Pensées draws a wise distinction between religious faith and intellectual inquiry. The two have different motivations and pertain to different domains of experience. They are like oil and water, things that do not mix and should not be confused...

Christianity is At Best Only Possibly True

Yep, that's what I think and I can demonstrate this.

Yahweh is Dead!

Christians do not believe in God, you see. The God they're supposed to believe in, Yahweh, is dead. He was a mean tribal cultural god who died a long time ago.

Professor David Eller Responds to Randal Rauser

Below is Eller's response to what Professor Rauser said in this post about chapter one in The Christian Delusion

Answering Dr. Randal Rauser's Objections to the OTF (Part 2)

Randal Rauser adequately sums up his objections to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) in a recent comment at DC. Since this is my baby I'm gonna respond:

God vs Jesus 2010

Last night the Touchdown Jesus figure on I-75 in Ohio was destroyed by fire from heaven (i.e. a lightning bolt). Here's my friend and funny man Matt Hensley's take on it. Enjoy.

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

23) That although there can be no moral justification for the sufferings of animals in this created world, a perfectly good God created this world anyway. We don't even see God's care for the lower animals in his supposed revealed word, which is described in Psalm 119 as his "perfect will." Think otherwise? Then read what I wrote here.

Answering Dr. Randal Rauser's Objections to the OTF (Part 1)

Dr. Randal Rauser has recently criticized my Outsider Test for Faith. I appreciate him doing so even if I disagree.

Step Outside the Box and See it for What it is

How evangelical Christians defend their faith is annoying to me for the most part. They don't realize how inconsistent their approach is and how that same approach is used by people of other faiths. They don't connect the dots.

Am I Truly Ignorant About Christianity?

Many believers have said I'm ignorant, not only here at DC but on other Blogs I visit, and via email. It's a common complaint against former believers who leave the fold who then argue against it. Since apostates are seen as such a big threat against Christian theism believers must try to find a way to discredit the force of our testimonies. If they can do this it makes them feel better about staying inside the fold. After all, surely God would not allow us to walk away once he's gathered us up under his wings like a mother hen does to her chicks; surely if we just properly understood the Christian faith we wouldn't want to do so; and surely if there are good reasons to believe we couldn't turn around and subsequently reject our faith. Right? There must therefore be something wrong with us. What could that be? Perhaps we never had a personal relationship with God in the first place? Perhaps all we did is have some sort of mental assent without a heartfelt faith? Perhaps we never properly understood the Christian faith? Let me answer such nonsense...

People Justify What They Prefer To Be True

My wife took two of our grandchildren to see the newly released kids movie, "How to Train Your Dragon." The movie is in 3-D at select theaters but this one did not have 3-D technology. One grandchild asked the owner in the lobby if the movie is in 3-D and he went off for ten minutes telling them that watching movies in 3-D is bad for their eyes. This is a case in point for how people can justify whatever brings them money, power, or sex. Of course he thinks that. Why? Because his movie theater does not have that technology. Get it? Just imagine what he would think if he had that technology! Then he would change his tune. My contention is that Christians feel empowered by their faith. After all, they actually think God is their helper in times of need, and that they will see him and their loved ones when they die. So of course they'll defend their beliefs just like this theater owner does. One would think that precisely because believers prefer their faith to be true they should be skeptical of it, but no, they don't see this. Maybe they can learn something as outsiders listening in to that theater owner and get the point. But then probably not.

New Books I Just Bought

Thanks to some generous donors I was able to buy some needed books. I've asked for donations because I'm preparing to co-write a book with a Christian scholar soon to be revealed. Anything you can do is appreciated. Below are some of the books I've bought. I plan to get several others.