Doctors Fight to Save the Life of a Six-Legged Baby

Intelligent design anyone? Where is it? And what is your God doing about this situation and numerous others that don't get this kind of world attention? Even if your God couldn't get it right the first time then at least he could do something miraculous. Oh, that's right. You have a holy book written by pre-scientific ancient superstitious myth-makers that tells you babies deserve this kind of treatment, that it's their fault, or Adam and Eve's fault. Let's see, what do I choose? My brain which tells me any father would not treat babies this way, especially if that father is omnibenelovent and omnipotent, or believe an ancient superstitious myth. Choices. Choices. Link.

Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief

Scientific interest in the cognitive underpinnings of religious belief has grown in recent years. However, to date, little experimental research has focused on the cognitive processes that may promote religious disbelief. The present studies apply a dual-process model of cognitive processing to this problem, testing the hypothesis that analytic processing promotes religious disbelief. Individual differences in the tendency to analytically override initially flawed intuitions in reasoning were associated with increased religious disbelief. Four additional experiments provided evidence of causation, as subtle manipulations known to trigger analytic processing also encouraged religious disbelief. Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief. Although these findings do not speak directly to conversations about the inherent rationality, value, or truth of religious beliefs, they illuminate one cognitive factor that may influence such discussions. Link.

On the Existence of Jesus, Again and Again

Update: Jerry Coyne links to William Lane Craig's dismissal of Stephen Law, and Richard Carrier again responds to Bart Ehrman. Enjoy and discuss.

The Freethought Festival Was Fantastic!

I just returned from this wonderful model of a freethought convention. The speakers were lined up by Chris Calvey who did a wonderful job of getting top-notch speakers in a wide diversity of topics. If you go to the "schedule" link they will be putting up audio and video of the talks. For now let me recommend Veronica Drantz's talk, "The Gender Binary & LGBTI People - Myth and Medical Malpractice." I wonder how effective her talk will be without the video, since she used a number of very helpful charts. I was aghast at how doctors have treated Intersex people. Richard Carrier's talk on "The Historicity of Jesus" was superb. If he documents his arguments extensively, as I know he will, then I can easily endorse his next book on the topic. It will advance the discussion, I guarantee it. Sean Faircloth is traveling around the country promoting a Ten Point Plan for Secularizing America, which I am excited about. It was good meeting Valerie Tarico, JB Eberhard, PZ Myers (who is coming out with a book titled, "The Happy Atheist"), and DJ Grothe, for starters, people I hadn't met before. Annie Laurie Gaylor sent personal greetings from Dan Barker who was in Pennsylvania this past weekend. She said to me that Dan had asked her to say hello to everyone, especially to Richard Carrier and me, which I thought was nice. While I wasn't a speaker I was interviewed on a radio program where I was asked what I thought of the Festival. When that is made available I'll link to it.

I got back and received the good news that Prometheus Books has accepted my proposal for a book on "The Outsider Test for Faith." Yep, I'm excited. Now to finish up the manuscript.

The Christian Reaction to Jesus Mythicism

Evangelical Christian apologist David Marshall, who has written several books and comments here under fire, provides for us the typical reaction to the atheist claim that there is no man behind the Jesus we find in the four canonical gospels. Writing to me he said:

Biblical Scholar Thom Stark Weighs In On Richard Carrier

I do not enjoy this at all, but since it's a hot topic Thom Stark has joined the fray concerning Jesus Mythicism. One thing we should be thankful for is that the Ehrman/Carrier exchange has brought the issue to a head so we can see the arguments pro and con. Link. In the second paragraph Stark links to criticisms of Carrier by biblical scholar James McGrath.

Bart D. Ehrman Responds to Richard Carrier *Sigh*

Link. Damn, aren't there better issues to deal with? Hey, I know, let's take aim at believers. What a novel idea? That's what I do here at DC.

Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War Is Going On

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? weighed in by arguing along with me that Jesus existed, although I have not had the time to read his book yet. Actually, my argument is a bit more nuanced than that, as seen in chapter 12 of my anthology The Christian Delusion, that "at best Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet." Well, my friend Richard Carrier rips Ehrman a new one, and I mean he rips into him in a fashion that is unbecoming of the cool headed detached scholar that he is. Then PZ Myers, a scientist with no specialty in biblical studies, endorsed what Carrier had written. Jerry Coyne, another scientist, one who recognizes he's no expert in the matter also weighed in, saying something I think is important:

One Reason Why the Angry Atheist Approach Doesn't Work

Previously I argued the the angry atheist era is over. Now it's true that most believers will see angry atheists no matter what atheists say. But there are atheists who rant against religion, who refuse to treat it respectfully. There is room for venting. I understand that. Sometimes it can even be effective. But generally speaking if we want to reach out to believers we'll have to respect their beliefs to the extent that we can. Here is a recent review of my book WIBA from a doubting Christian who says it best:

*Sigh* There are Just Too Many Ways to Be Christian

Christians cannot agree with themselves. So why should I take any of them seriously? Believers have no method to settle their own disputes because faith has no method. Can you at least try to understand this? Here is an example. Evangelical Christians will bristle when they read what a liberal wrote about the resurrection, which I'll quote below. But this is the same type of reasoning skeptics see when we read of your own defenses of the resurrection.

The Era of The Angry Atheist is Over!

This post in July of 2010 by Steve Zara closes with:

I propose a new strident atheism. No playing the games of theists. No concessions. No talk of evidence that can change minds, when their beliefs are deliberately placed beyond logic, beyond evidence. Let's not get taken in by the fraud of religion. Let's not play their shell-game. Link

He carries on a tradition started by Richard Dawkins himself. In February 2002, four years before his book The God Delusion was released in 2006, Dawkins called atheists to arms in a TED talk. His talk wasn’t aired until April of 2007. He makes it clear he wants a campaign much like the gays used to gain acceptability in American society. His final sentence was, "let's all stop being so damned respectful."

Grief Best Explains The Resurrection Hypothesis

Gerd Lüdemann is a scholar many of us are familiar with, having written important books like: Resurrection of Jesus; The Resurrection Of Christ; and What Really Happened to Jesus? He argues in a recent piece:

By a bold if unconscious leap, Peter entered the world of his wishes. As a result he “saw” Jesus, concluded that his Lord had risen from the dead, and by witnessing to his vision made it possible for the other disciples to “see” Jesus in the same way. It would therefore seem all but certain that the Christian church is to some extent the historical result of the disciples’ grief. Link

My Counterpart, Ibn Warraq on Islam

I've met Ibn. He's doing to Islam what I'm attempting to do with Christianity. Check out his books: Why I Am Not a Muslim; Virgins? What Virgins?; Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out; What the Koran Really Says;The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. He has a much more dangerous task than I do since Christians have been tamed by the Enlightenment. He gets the same tired responses I do too, most notably, "You just hate Allah," or "You aren't dealing with my kind of Muslim faith." Hint Folks: That's because there are too many ways to be Muslim just as there are too many ways to be Christian. What I find funny is that Christians and Orthodox Jews can like Ibn's books, just like Muslims and Orthodox Jews can like mine. So, tell us once again how Natural Theology grants a Christian anything? It's all empty rhetoric from the emperor who has no clothes on.

Professor Victor Reppert on Natural Theology

Reppert is a good guy, but as a defender of Natural Theology he just doesn't get it.

Where Was God When the Titanic Sank 100 Years Ago?

Just think, God could have foreseen this tragedy and miraculously averted the iceberg hours before the Titanic came into its path. If he had done this no one would be the wiser! He could have remained hidden if that's his goal. For believers to say God does this from time to time then his so-called "interventions" look indistinguishable from chance. In other words, there is no evidence that he intervenes at all. So having faith that God intervenes even once is exceedingly improbable.

Dr. Hector Avalos vs Keith Darrel: "Is The Bible the Source of Absolute Moral Rules for Today?"

The debate was held on April 12, 2012, at Iowa State University. Q & A below:

How To Destroy Natural Theology in One Fell Swoop

A wide diversity of theists such as found in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all argue to the existence of God using the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments. But these arguments are mistakenly thought by them all to show their own particular God exists. For instance, I once skimmed through a massive intelligent design book that argued for Allah’s existence.

One Difference Between Science and Faith

The difference: Scientists eventually come to a consensus whereas religionists can only agree about what they've always agreed to, that supernatural beings and/or forces exist. Look at what science has accumulated by contrast:

The "Christian" God Hypothesis Vs Others

Christian, let's recap what you need to do and see if you can do it based on faith:

Is This Faith, Really?

Christians are saying I have faith because "faith is assenting to a proposition that could conceivably be false." So let's compare ordinary scientific claims to extraordinary religious claims. [Click on the chart] If I have faith then there is a gigantic difference between scientific "faith" and religious faith. At best, miracle claims are extremely improbable rare non-repeatable non-testable ones. At worst, scientific claims are extremely probable regular repeatable testable ones. Q.E.D.

Christian Apologists Are Just Plain Dumb

Dr. Michael Licona argues against the claim that accepting the resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith in this short video. What is dumb, absolutely dumb about his explanation? It's that he automatically contrasts what he thinks with metaphysical naturalism, that's what. He doesn't contrast what he thinks with the liberal Jesus who arose spiritually, or the Jewish or Muslim denials. Scientologists deny the resurrection as do spiritualists, deists, and process theologians. But no, he thinks accepting the resurrection doesn't involve faith because he thinks science is based on faith. Such utter nonsense this is. If it's not a matter of faith then why do scientists agree so much and religionists disagree about a wide number of issues? A fact is a fact you see. If it's not a fact, then it has to be accepted by an irrational leap over the probabilities, that is, by faith. Sheesh.

Why Do Christians Love Atheist Philosopher Thomas Nagel?

The answer to this question lies in the fact that for some unexplained reason they both share an illicit grounding for knowledge. Thomas Nagel is one of the reasons I have very little respect for scientifically uninformed philosophers even if they are atheists. His forthcoming book is titled, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.About this book we read on Amazon:

Explaining Faith So That Even David Marshall Can Understand ;-)

Written by Johnathan Pearse

David
Part of the problem is that you are extracting these issues from their real world application and in a sense making them irrelevant. Let's apply the faith vs reason to real life instances:

"Think Atheist" Interview About My Revised WIBA Book

The Think Atheist podcast was a finalist in the About.com "Reader's Choice Awards for 2011," and it's well deserved. I was recently interviewed for the program about the revised and expanded edition of my book, Why I Became an Atheist.It's Episode 53 APR 8, 2012. Enjoy.

Quote of the Day, By Yours Truly ;-)

I think the Christian delusion is harmful if for no other reason than that it weaken one's critical thinking skills. If faith is the basis for what one thinks then anything can be believed. It also adversely impacts us in polls that bolster the delusion in others, in donations to faith-based causes that are harmful, in TV, radio, and book buying habits that grant spokespersons for the delusion a bigger voice than warranted, and in voting patterns that place deluded people in power who in turn cause harm to individual people, one's particular nation, and the world at large.