Definitional Apologetics, Excessive Skepticism, and the OTF

[Written by John W. Loftus] Philosophers love to define words. It's a good thing too, since Aristotle said something to the effect that "Many a dispute could be solved in a few sentences if the disputants merely defined their terms." Sometimes though, in the hands of Christian philosophers the goal is obfuscation. They try to define away a problem for their faith. I call this Definitional Apologetics, and they are quite good at it. They will feign ignorance about what an extraordinary event is in the face of a concrete example, like a virgin birth or a resurrection from the dead. They will also feign ignorance about what the scientific method is to the point of claiming there is no such thing, even though science continues to progress, purportedly without one. And using Orwellian doublespeak they claim to have a "full-blown skepticism" where they are skeptical of skepticism, thinking this allows for their faith but blind to the fact it also allows for anyone's faith. This is all pure sophistry.

Along these same lines let me respond to one major objection to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF), as stated in the comments of a recent post:

I think you’ll find that if you try to apply [the OTF] rigorously to every aspect of your life (not just the religious bits), you’ll soon discover what “analysis paralysis” is. You’ll be unable to entertain, even for a moment, any political, aesthetic or moral opinion or value, unless you can back it up by a complete chain of logical deduction from perfectly flawless axioms. Once you get addicted to the “test of skepticism”, *how will you know* where to draw the line and refrain from excessive skepticism? So my question about where to draw the line between healthy and excessive skepticism is a genuine one, not some sort of ploy by the christian-apologist-boogeyman ;) Skepticism is indeed a slippery slope – the question is where do you draw the line? Link.

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God

Answering My Critics, Two Reviews of TEC

vorjack, the managing editor of Daniel Florien's blog Unreasonable Faith, wrote a review where he said, "All told, there are fourteen strong articles here, plus Loftus’ OTF in the introduction and a brief closing from Robert Price. It’s a solid collection of essays that work well together...On balance, the book is a solid addition to the atheist library, and it makes an excellent companion to The Christian Delusion." That's cool, but I get the sense he's tired of me or something, for he also wrote: "No one has ever accused Loftus of being timid," and, "By this point Loftus can only muster a three paragraph introduction..." and, "Richard Carrier, who Loftus credits with doing the actual editing of the book..." and, "One of the advantages of these collections is always the chance to hear new voices, and that gets lost when you turn it over to the usual suspects...if Loftus et. al. wants to publish another book, it may be time to develop the field a little more and bring in some new blood."

Old Testament Scholar Michael Heiser and I Discuss OT Prophecy

He has been kind to discuss this issue with me even though it was an aside to a post of his on Bible study. It's hard to replicate the order of our comments since it was two different discussions, but I tried. See what you think:

Kris D. Komarnitsky Replies to William Lane Craig

"The Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Christian Origins," Link.

Want To Know What Blind Faith Is?

At my recent talk in Indy a Christian named Phil heard it and said that given how passionate I am I'll come back around to Christianity. He also said the atheist movement was from God, presumably God's judgment on America in the last days before Jesus comes back. Jerry Wilson was there and shouted, "How do you know that?" That's a great question! There is no evidence leading Phil to believe what he said, none. Which reminds me, Bill Craig said there is still hope for me too! Yep, and that's why I reject faith. It can and does lead people to believe almost anything. Who in their right mind would say such things? If I haven't committed the unforgivable sin then no one has.

Where Do Morals Come From?

They certainly do not come from the Bible, that's for sure. But Christians claim otherwise. In order to do this they must cherry-pick the Bible for minority voices and reject the majority voices since much of Biblical morality comes from a barbaric era. Let's take a different tack and say there was never a Bible and never a Christian religion at all, or any religion. Is it really plausible to say we needed the Bible to tell us anything about slavery such that without it we would still embrace slavery, or any other socially needed change? Where do social advancements come from? How about human creativity and need, just like the advancement of science? We noticed slaves were human beings. We noticed women were not inferior to men. We noticed people are not evil so much as they may be maladjusted. We noticed that democracy is a better way to solve our disputes. We noticed that medicine heals people and that science works. We noticed that animals feel pain. We noticed that the environment is important to sustain all life. Isn't that enough for social and ethical change? No, Christians did not get their morals from the Bible. They noticed the same things and simply picked the few good cherries out the Bible and rejected the overwhelming number of bad ones.

Dr. Jaco Gericke - Confessions of a Died-Again Christian

Jaco was interviewed on the Point of Inquiry program recently. Enjoy. Click on the tag below for more from him.

Quote of the Day on Hitler, by Richard Carrier

Even if Hitler had to pretend to be a Christian to get people behind his program against the Jews (and it was a public program, as Mein Kampf makes clear, and of course the fact that thousands of Germans happily carried it out), then the idea that atheism caused the holocaust is clearly refuted. [via email]

Quote of the Day

With over 30,000 different denominations and sects to choose from, Christianity bears no orthodoxy, no consistency and no authority whatsoever. It has hundreds of 'official' denominations who disagree, sometime violently on all foundational tenets of the religion. Given the general level of ignorance people have about the religion they adopt and their propensity for moulding it to be what they want it to be, one could argue that each Christian has their own denomination. We can state confidently, with evidence and reason that Christianity hasn't a clue what it believes or why. Until the Christianity’s can actually internally agree and harmonise what they believe and state why, they all remain a laughably absurd and unsubstantiated proposition to those who do not believe. Your argument is not with atheists, it's with the other 29,999 sects who view your Christianity as a joke. Link.

My Responses to "You Were Never a Christian"

As an ex-Christian you've heard the same spiel, "You were never a Christian." How do you respond? I respond in four ways: 1) That's just one of your delusions. There are many more; 2) Your God promised that if I believed he would save me. I believed, so why didn't he keep his promise?; 3) I don't care what you think. Deal with my arguments; 4) You're right, because there isn't any truth to Christianity. I was never saved because Jesus doesn't save anyone and that includes you.

My Talk for CFI Indiana

I enjoyed speaking for CFI Indiana last night. Reba Boyd Wooden is the executive director. I'm told it is the most active CFI group in America. This is got to be due to Reba, a retired teacher, who has a great group of people behind her. She kept saying things like "let's hope we have a good turnout" before the meeting. So I began wondering whether we would, especially 20 minutes before the program was to begin when we only had 6-7 people there. But they came and packed the small room we had with about 90 people. They paid $5 (members) to $10 (non-members) to come hear Lil Ole me speak. So far my experience from Los Angeles to Denver to Chicago to St. Paul to Cleveland to Buffalo to Grand Rapids to Madison (and elsewhere) has been that more people show up for my talks than was expected. That's cool. Thanks for your encouragement. Book me now! :-)

Win a Free Copy of The Christian Delusion

Hemant Mehta, The Friendly Atheist, announced how you can win a free copy of my book, which was very nice of him. As you can see, the Kindle version is doing very well right now:

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

[Written by John W. Loftus] Below I've put together all thirty theses (so far) that most Christians agree on and why they are all improbable:

1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.

2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.

A glimpse into the deranged mind of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik

Click here.

I'll Be Speaking In Indianapolis Tonight

Indy is a centralized place in the mid-west. Come out if you can. Here are the details.

"Anders Behring Breivik Doesn't Represent True Christianity"

So say various Christians about right-wing fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik, suspected of the bombings in Norway that killed more than 90 people. Naw, of course not. Your Christianity is the true one. You have evidence for your faith. He does not. And surely everyone knows there is no precedent for this in the Bible or in the history of the church. So Christians one and all, come here and tell us which Christianity is the true one. We're all ears. But you can't come to a consensus because you have no better evidence than he does for his type of Christianity. Faith is the problem, which can and does lead to fanaticism. Admit it you schmucks, or stay in denial. ;-)

A Review of "The Christian Delusion"

Since Richard Dawkins' landmark book, The God Delusion, was published in 2006, one frequent criticism that has been levied against it is that the treatment of Christianity is insufficient and too naive. Professor Dawkins has very little of a religious background, and I would agree that it shows in his book. The same may be said for Christopher Hitchens and god is not Great or Sam Harris and Letter to a Christian Nation. While there is still plenty to appreciate about each of those books, they have not offered a thorough refutation of Christianity. Although several other authors have produced wonderful works criticizing Christianity, this ex-Evangelical minister, John Loftus, has compiled an outstanding anthology of scholarly essays that strive to expose The Christian Delusion. [It] is the most comprehensive, well-written, and entertaining refutation of conservative Christian beliefs that I have come across yet. GodlessHaven.com

Quote of the Day, On The Ending of Christianity, by Jerry Rivard

I am an atheist. I believe that gods do not exist. I also believe the world would be a better place if all or most people didn't believe that gods exist, and in particular if children weren't taught to believe in something I consider to be a myth. And I would like to see a (peaceful) end to Christianity, and of all religious belief, within my lifetime. I have no illusions that is going to happen, of course, but I do believe that if we don't blow ourselves up in the next few hundred years or so that religion in general will become about as uncommon as, say, paganism is today. I believe that will happen because I believe that theism is false, and I believe that the power of truth is such that it will always emerge from the darkness, as I believe it always has – eventually. I believe that our increasing scientific knowledge will convince more and more people of that truth over time. For the same reason, I believe that this will be an improvement for mankind.

Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion With a Punch

[Written by John Loftus] Among other things atheism can probably best be defined as the view that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in any one or more proposed gods, such as Zeus or Hathor or Odin or Baal or Yahweh. Everyone can understand this definition quite easily since we all know what it's like not to believe something that doesn't have sufficient evidence for it. So how is atheism a religion? How is nonbelief a religion? By contrast a religion is probably best defined as the belief in one or more supernatural beings or forces. So again, how is atheism a religion? How is the nonbelief in one or more supernatural beings or forces a religion? I really want to know. Theists have developed a deeply flawed view of these things because they fail to make at least two simple but critical distinctions.

Michael Licona's Book is Delusional on a Grand Scale

When it comes to the evidence that Jesus rose up from the dead consider what we don't have, but would like to, things that Michael Licona admits in this book The Resurrection Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (pp . 275, 587-88). We do not have anything written directly by Jesus himself or any of his original disciples, nor do we have anything written by the Apostle Paul before he converted telling us about the church he was persecuting, nor anything written by the Jewish leaders of that time about Jesus or Paul, nor anything by the Romans that mentions Jesus, the content of his preaching, why he was killed, or what they thought about claims he had resurrected. This means we have no written responses to Jesus from the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, or teachers of the law. Nor do we have any testimonies from Ananias, Caiaphas, Herod or Pilate about the events we find in the gospels. Jesus always had the last word over his opponents in the gospel accounts--something I have never seen in any real religious debate. So we really need to know what his opponents said in response to these claims. We have no records that they were converted either. Licona says that "what we do have is good." I think not. The Jews of Jesus' day believed in Yahweh and that he does miracles, and they knew their Old Testament prophecies, and yet the overwhelming numbers of them did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead by Yahweh. So Christianity didn't take root in the Jewish homeland but had to reach out to the Greco-Roman world for converts. Why should we believe if they were there and didn't?

Ozzy's Powerful Line

There are no unbeatable odds;
There are no believable gods.

Apologist Josh McDowell: Internet the Greatest Threat to Christians

[Written by John W. Loftus] According to Josh McDowell,

The Internet has given atheists, agnostics, skeptics, the people who like to destroy everything that you and I believe, the almost equal access to your kids as your youth pastor and you have... whether you like it or not.

Now here is the problem, going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that's exactly what has happened. It's like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there... This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field. Link

About Randal Rauser's Blurb for "The End of Christianity"

Someone questioned why a Christian professor would blurb an atheist book. Here is his response. Listen up, if God does not want informed people then this is a very sad commentary on the state of Christian affairs. As I said before, you must actively seek out disconfirming evidence if you really want to know the truth. Disconfirming evidence is decisive. At least Dr. Rauser knows this, even if we still disagree.

It's Ignorant to Say "There is No Evidence for a Historical Jesus"

Okay, having watched James McGrath and Tommy Baker duke it out with the fanatical mythicists (not all are fanatical), I want to put to rest the ignorant claim that “There is no evidence for a historical Jesus.” There most definitely is. It's called "confirming evidence" or evidence of things we would expect to find if there was a historical Jesus, and it is Legion.