Books That Explain Why There is Religion

If you are seriously interested in knowing the real basis for belief you should read one of more of the following excellent books.

How Do You Know That Which You Claim to Know?

Anyone who understands the slightest bit of epistemology knows enough not to claim he or she knows too much with any degree of assuredness. Doubt about what we claim to know is a virtue. This is one of the reasons I doubt the Christian claims. Most Christians claim to know what they believe with complete assuredness. Just read their comments here at DC. I have repeatedly made the distinction between claiming to know something and doubting someone's claims. I simply doubt the Christian claims, and the following books could give Christians an insight into why this is reasonable to do...

The Problem of Miracles

[Written by John W. Loftus] I can think of at least seven problems with believing in the biblical claims of miracles.

Quote of the Day on the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)

There is an entry on the Outsiders Test at Iron Chariots. Here's the dilemma it presents for believers:

On the one hand, believers who object to the OTF look like a person who argues in a court room that he does not want a fair impartial judgment, but rather a biased one from a biased judge who operates on double standards.

On the other hand, believers who accept the rationale for the OTF have a great amount of difficulty in arguing that the raw uninterpreted historical data without any culturally adopted Bayesian "priors" leads the historian to the conclusion that Jesus bodily arose from the dead.

Vote For "The Christian Delusion" as the Best Atheist Book of 2010

My anthology, The Christian Delusion, has been nominated for the best atheist book in 2010. Please cast your vote right here. If you think it's deserving I'd really appreciate your vote.

Okay I Confess, I've Been Over at Victor Reppert's Blog Again *Slap*

Somehow I just can't seem to stay away ;-)

Another Failed Attempt to Disabuse Me of the Outsider Test for Faith

David Marshall's latest critique of the OTF confuses the success of a particular religion with passing the OTF, which, if correct, would make contradictory religions true by virtue of being successful. And he falsely assumes there is one brand of Christianity. Hence this is no critique of the test at all. He raises some issues that need to be addressed, but that's all. The issues he raises are addressed by Richard Carrier in chapter two of my forthcoming anthology, The End of Christianity, titled "Christianity's Success Was Not Incredible." And I've already explained why Secular Humanism (or atheism) can't win (or be successful).

Quote of the Day

For a religious faith to pass the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) it must be justified by the sciences. Period. If believers reject the sciences as a way to know the truth then let them propose a better alternative. So if the OTF is to be rejected, what do we put in its place? What’s the alternative?

My Cousin Pastor Jeff Stackhouse, a Calvinist, is Cornered on God Being the Author of Sin

Yep, this is him. Wow, such contorted logic knows no bounds:

Am I Crazy? Are You? A Review of Dr. Randal Rauser's New Book

Randal's new book You’re Not As Crazy As I Think: Dialogue in a World of Loud Voices and Hardened Opinions is refreshing in several ways as a reminder that we need more dialogue between opposing sides, rather than more vitriol.

Take College Classes Through the Online CFI Institute

You can read about the CFI Institute run by Dr. John Shook right here. Starting in March, Dr. Richard Carrier will be teaching a class on Naturalism. I'll be teaching one soon, perhaps in April. Other professors include Robert M. Price, Susan Jacoby, Nica Lalli, Dale McGowan, and others. Check it out.

I've Scheduled Some Posts While I'm Gone

I'll be back Thursday night from speaking on Darwin Day for two skeptical groups. Your group might consider having me speak, or for a debate. See ya Friday or so. Until then enjoy my scheduled posts.

Richard Carrier on "Are Christians Delusional?"

My Interview With Tuesday Afternoon

Part 1 can be found here. Part 2 can be found here The final third part can be found here.

Five Deceptive Apologetic Strategies

[Written by John W. Loftus] The social sciences (which broadly speaking includes psychology) have shown us that people hold to unrecognized contradictory beliefs and that they can deceive themselves to accept their conscious beliefs despite the evidence. People have asked me from time to time if Christian apologists lie to defend their faith and I have repeatedly said that even though there are some Christians who do so, most Christian apologists are sincere believers. I still think that. But what's really going on is that these Christian defenders have become experts at deceiving themselves first. They are therefore deceiving others because they are deceiving themselves.

My task is to show them this is what they're doing. It's very hard to convince the deceived that they are deceiving themselves though. They don’t take too kindly to my doing so. They use several deceptive apologetics strategies and they use them all really well. The following apologetic strategies are used by defenders of the Christian faith to deceive. They are used to convince themselves against the evidence. They are used to convince others to embrace Christianity. Don't buy into their spiel.

Calvinism is Bullshit, and God Wanted Me to Say This.

[Written by John W. Loftus] Okay, get ready for another round of verbal body slams and charges of ignorance, but it's time to revisit Calvinism. I hate that theology with a passion, but keep in mind I do not hate Calvinists themselves (kinda like, "love the sinner hate the sin").

The Gloves are Off Now! Slavery? NO, A Thousand Times NO!

I've had enough. I am sick and tired of Christian intellectuals, from Paul Copan (my friend), to Victor Reppert and a lot lower down the totem pole to David Wood, in their attempts to say that the slavery in the American South was different than what the Bible allows, and so it should never have been used to justify it. If you want to see me hot tempered, then just raise this asinine argument. I try to get along here at DC by being respectful of Christian beliefs, but on this issue I cannot bend for one nanosecond. Don't even suggest it, as Dr. Victor Reppert just did. Here's what I wrote in response:

Frederick Douglass, a Secularist?

Yep, as Dr. Hector Avalos informs us in his latest column for The Tribune.

Closer to the Truth Looks at the Big Questions

Navigate around at Closer to the Truth. There are some very interesting videos on a number of different topics by top notch philosophers, scientists and apologists, and they keep adding to it. You could spend hours and hours there. There are many hours of videos about the God question too. Let me know which ones you find interesting.

First posted on 10/18/08

Professor Matt McCormick Proposes "The Defeasibility Test"

So in the spirit of John Loftus’ Outside Test for Faith, I propose a test. Before I or any other doubter, atheist, skeptic, or non-believer engages in a discussion about the reasons for and against God, the believer must look deep into his heart and mind and ask this question: Are there any considerations, arguments, evidence, or reasons, even hypothetically that could possibly lead me to change my mind about God? Is it even a remotely possible outcome that in carefully and thoughtfully reflecting on the broadest and most even body of evidence that I can grasp, that I would come to think that my current view about God is mistaken? That is to say, is my belief defeasible?

If the answer is no, then we’re done. There is nothing informative, constructive, or interesting to be found in your contribution to dialogue. Anything you have to say amounts to sophistry. We can’t take your input any more seriously than the lawyer who is a master of casuistry and who can provide rhetorically masterful defenses of every side of an issue. She’s not interested in the truth, only is scoring debate points or the construction of elaborate rhetorical castles (that float on air). Read more.

Answering Once and For All The Christian Complaint That Skeptics Would Refuse to Believe No Matter What God Did

This objection comes in several different forms. Christians complain that skeptics demand that God should make his existence obvious to us with undeniable proof before we will believe, or that God should make all religious diversity disappear, or that we wouldn’t believe no matter what miracle God did before our eyes. Some atheists have even said as much, including PZ Myers, who recently said he would seriously consider that he had gone mad rather than believe a miracle had happened before his eyes.

The Christian then shoots his double barrel shotgun at us: 1) If we wouldn’t believe should God’s existence be obvious, then why would God bother providing more evidence in the first place? We simply have hardened hearts. If the present amount of evidence will not convince us then no amount of evidence will convince us at all. 2) If God’s existence was made to be obvious then it would eliminate the possibility of real choice, for it would equally be obvious what we ought to do. And if we would know what God requires of us and that we’d be punished if we disobey then “who but a complete fool would not do what is right?” Let me respond once and for all.

Such Idiocy: I Do Defend My Views Against the Opposition

There are several blog posts in criticism of what I've written that I have not attempted to answer. Because I choose not to do so the accusation is leveled at me that I don't interact with the opposition. This is such idiocy that no wonder these people believe. Let me explain.

BBC Program: What is Reality?

Quote of the Day

Christianity is not a worldview. A worldview is larger than one's religious beliefs. It encompasses everything a person accepts as true. So there are probably as many worldviews as there are people.

Faith Based Reasoning Ridiculed