See below:
November 12, 2012
November 11, 2012
November 10, 2012
Two Original Thought Experiments Related to the Outsider Test for Faith
A professor of mathematics has come up with two original thought experiments related to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) that are akin to the Veil of Ignorance of John Rawls. I like them. Let's look at the first one below.
Quote of the Day, Concerning My Book
Well, you know an author can't help but like this quote from an email sent to me while I was on a speaking tour of four Colorado universities, even if it's quite an exaggeration: ;-)
"Why I Became An Atheist" is a book that can end Christianity on its own, and is to Christianity what the Iceberg was to the Titanic.
Al Stefanelli's Review of My Book "Why I Became an Atheist"
Al and I were writers at Freethought Blogs. Since then we've kept in touch. He now stays on his own blog where wrote a very nice (and humbling) review of my book. He calls it "exhaustive" and says:
Thanks so much Al! I appreciate all you do as well. Link. It's a shame that William Lane Craig, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and many others who comment here have not read it, or won't. Maybe this might change their minds. I'd like to have an honest review by one or more of them. But no, they've heard it all before they'll say. ;-)
At first glance, John’s book seems daunting. I’ve written a couple, myself, and when you look at a five-hundred-plus page book, it can be off-putting. Don’t let this sway you, because when you pick it up and start reading, and begin to understand the detail and clarity that John uses, you will soon realize that this book could have been written no other way. It’s exhaustive in content because it has to be. Everything in it is important, and the range of topics covered offer the reader a collective of information that I have not been able to find in one volume, anywhere.Concerning the subjects in the first part of my book, Al writes:
John goes into such great detail on these subjects, tearing them apart, laying them out on a literary operating table, and surgically examining them with such a precision that this book has earned a spot on my shelf with the reference books.Concerning the second part, Al writes:
The wealth of information here is astounding, and the way it is presented offers the reader one of the most detailed breakdowns of the problems with apologetics, and the cognitive dissonance that comes with religious belief.He concludes: "To a theologian, he is a worthy adversary. To an armchair apologist, he is positively lethal."
Thanks so much Al! I appreciate all you do as well. Link. It's a shame that William Lane Craig, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and many others who comment here have not read it, or won't. Maybe this might change their minds. I'd like to have an honest review by one or more of them. But no, they've heard it all before they'll say. ;-)
November 09, 2012
Obama and Atheists
November 07, 2012
Mary at the Census? Er, no.
Here is my latest video offering to the world of You Tube. Let me know what you think.
President Obama Did It. Four More Years!
Woooooo Hoooooo! I'm happy for him and for our country. I voted before leaving for my Colorado speaking tour--I LOVE COLORADO! After he was projected to be the winner some lady in the hotel bar went on about how she and her kids have no hope for the future, blah, blah, blah. Wow, she might as well leave the country, or end her life. What pure poppcock. People on opposing sides of most presidential elections have said the same things. And yet, here we are, alive and doing fine. How someone can put that much faith into an election is beyond me. The processes of democracy grind slowly, sometimes very slowly. The US has checks and balances in place that help to keep it that way, like a written Constitution, the three branches of our government and a free press. I'm so glad the right wingers don't dominate the political landscape as they did in the 80's. Looks like we've learned some good lessons and are being more reasonable to me. But it's taken time. Anyway, here's your chance to weigh in on this historic occasion.
November 05, 2012
Robert M. Price exposes William Lane Craig
Writer and New Testament scholar Robert M. Price exposes some of the flawed reasoning of Christian apologist William Lane Craig.
November 04, 2012
William Lane Craig is Shamelessly Taking the Low Road
I've heard three interviews where Bill Craig says I didn't leave the Christian faith because of intellectual reasons but because of moral failures, like an addiction to pornography and adultery. I've seriously considered filing a lawsuit against him for defamation of character, and I might do it. When I spoke to him after he debated Sam Harris he acknowledged not having read my book. I suspect he still hasn't. So to falsely and slanderously describe my deconversion while not having read my book is reprehensible ignorance at best and criminal at worst. While I'm no prude I have never said I had a pornography problem. Such a suggestion conjurers up a pervert to Christians, even though many of them ARE perverts by his own understandings who watch porn and then later publicly condemn it, or who have gay lovers then publicly condemn homosexuality. Is Bill projecting his own porn addiction on to me, or is he knowingly lying about me? Believers have always spread lies about apostates. In a different era we were killed. There is no evidence for this porn accusation of his. But who needs evidence when one is constantly in debate mode in defense of a faith that cannot be defended.
November 03, 2012
Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (1921-2012): In My View
Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages Emeritus, Harvard University
The first time I heard Frank Cross was at the 1974 Society of Biblical Literature and American Academy of Religion meeting in Washington, DC where he delivered his SBL Presidential Address: A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration. His passing last month at age 91 will be felt throughout the world of Biblical studies especially by his students. For those of us who followed his influence and control over the Qumran Scrolls, his legacy will marked by how the Scrolls were subjectively denied access to the scholarly world especially in the United States to those who were not part of the Harvard community.
Some Reasons Why, by Robert Ingersoll
My friend Julian Haydon with another excerpt from the illustrious Ingersoll. He writes:
Ingersoll compares Biblical and Pagan morality: "If the Jehovah of the Jews had taken upon himself flesh, and dwelt as a man among the people had he endeavored to govern, had he followed his own teachings, he would have been a slaveholder, a buyer of babes, and a beater of women. He would have waged wars of extermination. He would have killed grey-haired and trembling age, and would have sheathed his sword, in prattling, dimpled babes. He would have been a polygamist, and would have butchered his wife for differing with him on the subject of religion."
God Hates Dogs And the People Who Love And Raise Them!
No other animal is as detested more in the Bible then the dog. Even when compared to swine, dogs fall at the bottom having the most contempt and disgust of all the animals ever created by God (though I do wonder why God created something He detested in the first place)! Even the Talking Snake in the Garden of Eden didn't do enough to hurt its own species to earn Gods eternal hatred as the dog.
November 02, 2012
Dr. McCormick's Lecture: "What's Wrong with Having Faith?"
Religious believers often appeal to faith to justify their beliefs. Believing by faith seems to mean believing a religious claim even though the evidence on the whole is contrary to, or at least inadequate to fully support, the claim. Having faith is widely thought to be virtuous, admirable, desirable, and at the risk of being technical, epistemically acceptable. While faith is widely employed as a defense of religious belief, this answer to questions and problems with the God hypothesis is riddled with problems. It robs the believer of an important ability: she can no longer claim that her belief is true. She opens the floodgates for other outlandish views to do the same. Link.
Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?
This is the title to the very last chapter in my forthcoming book, The Outsider Test for Faith, some blurbs of which can be found here. That chapter is about faith, which I define as "an irrational leap over the probabilities." Victor Reppert is claiming that if this is what faith is then he doesn't have it. Here's what he said and my response below. I think this exchange cuts to the heart of the issue:
November 01, 2012
What's Wrong With Other Religions?
What's wrong with Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Haitian Voodoo, Animism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Scientology, Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, the Unification Church, and the many tribal and folk religions? Faith. You know it. I know it. We all know it. The adherents of these religions do not believe based on sufficient evidence because faith is a leap over the probabilities, an irrational leap over the probabilities. If they thought exclusively in terms of the probabilities they would not believe at all. Now that we've got that straight, what's wrong with Christianity? Faith. :-) You know it. I know it. We all should know it.
October 30, 2012
Victor Reppert Now Says He Doesn't Have Faith!
John: I am quite frankly prepared to admit that, given your definition of faith, I have no faith. Damaging admission? Not. Link.I know what he's saying so don't think I'm claiming otherwise. My definition of faith is that it's a leap over the probabilities. It fills in the gap between what is improbable to make something more probable than not without faith. As such, faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities. What Reppert is saying is that he doesn't have faith that leaps over any probabilities. He doesn't have faith, the only kind that exists among believers of all stripes and sects. He just doesn't have it. There are no gaps in the probabilities that need to be filled in. His is a reasoned conclusion that all reasonable people should accept. His is a reasoned religion, just like deism, but he concludes much more than any deist could ever do. He thinks with me that faith in my sense is indeed superfluous, irrational, unnecessary, and even dangerous. He thinks that in the end, when pressed, he should think exclusively in terms of probabilities after all! He's claiming this is what he does when embracing the Christian faith. *cough*
Once again folks, this is the kind of intellectual gerrymandering we expect from believers. When pressed against the wall they will say anything to get out of any problem that calls into question their faith. Stephen Law is right: “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.” (Believing Bullshit, p. 75). It reminds me of a story:
Dinesh D'Souza is Now Being Accused of Stealing
THE CONSERVATIVE pundit recently ousted as head of a Christian college in Manhattan for alleged adultery is now being accused of breaking another commandment — thou shalt not steal. Dinesh D’Souza allegedly diverted profits from “2016: Obama’s America,” the anti-Obama movie that’s been a big hit with right wingers, to a new book project, one of D’Souza’s partners charged in a lawsuit. Link.
October 28, 2012
Should We Think Exclusively in Terms of Probabilities or Not?
Christians cannot agree on a definition of faith because faith cannot be consistently defined except that it is an irrational leap over the probabilities. They cannot agree on a definition because they refuse to admit this about faith. It's what they think best describes all other religious faiths except their own. It's what I think of all of them. I'm just more consistent. Faith can be described as a body of doctrine of course, but the word "doctrine" in the religious sense is "a codification of beliefs" best described in a creed. And a "creed" is a statement of faith shared by a religious community. There is no getting around these facts. A creed is a doctrinal statement of faith of a religious community. Faith is what all religious adherents accept and promote. Yet faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities.
Most all modern Christian definitions of faith are not biblically based. Others are irrelevant or superfluous. But regardless of they way they define faith I want a straight-up answer from Christian apologists like Drs. Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and David Marshall who haunt these halls (it is the Halloween season ya know). Should we think exclusively in terms of probabilities, or not? If so, then why can't you admit faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, superfluous, unreasonable, irrational, and dangerous? If not, then why not? Come on boys, pony up. Put up or shut up!
For our lesson today let's look at what Jesus said about faith, and compare it with what Reppert said about it.
Most all modern Christian definitions of faith are not biblically based. Others are irrelevant or superfluous. But regardless of they way they define faith I want a straight-up answer from Christian apologists like Drs. Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and David Marshall who haunt these halls (it is the Halloween season ya know). Should we think exclusively in terms of probabilities, or not? If so, then why can't you admit faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, superfluous, unreasonable, irrational, and dangerous? If not, then why not? Come on boys, pony up. Put up or shut up!
For our lesson today let's look at what Jesus said about faith, and compare it with what Reppert said about it.
October 27, 2012
A Comparison of Books, by Robert G. Ingersoll
Julian Haydon with another bit from Robert G. Ingersoll: "If it was worth God's while to make a revelation at all, it was certainly worth his while to see that it was correctly made—that it was absolutely preserved."
October 26, 2012
God or Godless on Sale at Amazon
In case you're interested in getting the book God or Godless that I co-wrote with Randal Rauser, it's on sale at Amazon for just $8.47 (as of today). If you pre-order it the price will never be higher. If it sells for less at any time before publication you'll get it for the lowest price. Here are four blurbs for it by Michael Licona, Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier and David Marshall:
October 25, 2012
The God of the Bible Knows Nothing About Modern Psychology and Cannot Offer Real Solutions to Our Problems
A study done by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago tells us all believers think God agrees with what they do about a host of non-related issues. We know this. And it's dangerous. If this study shows us anything at all it should make believers less certain of what they pontificate about. In fact, this study falsifies faith itself, for there is no independent way to determine what God thinks, if he exists at all. Believers simply create their own religion, their own Gospel, and their own God in their own image.
There is something else, a few corollaries that need highlighted. What believers think about God is also what believers think that God thinks about God. Why not? Not only this, but what believers think about God is dependent on what they think of their parents and themselves to a large degree. The real causes of one's beliefs are almost never addressed and since that's the case believers cannot offer real solutions because they aren't to be found in the Bible. In the Bible people who are selfish, unruly, prideful, lustful, divisive, unforgiving, doubting, lazy, liars, disobedient, un-pure in heart, and who cannot love their enemies, are simply told not to be like that. [Yes, yes, I know, the New Testament promises God's Holy Spirit to help, but if that's the case then why didn't he communicate his will more effectively so that eight million Christians would not have slaughtered themselves during and after the Protestant Reformation?] In any case, I think this can be tested when it comes to the supposed "spiritual gifts" Christians claim to have been given by their God.
There is something else, a few corollaries that need highlighted. What believers think about God is also what believers think that God thinks about God. Why not? Not only this, but what believers think about God is dependent on what they think of their parents and themselves to a large degree. The real causes of one's beliefs are almost never addressed and since that's the case believers cannot offer real solutions because they aren't to be found in the Bible. In the Bible people who are selfish, unruly, prideful, lustful, divisive, unforgiving, doubting, lazy, liars, disobedient, un-pure in heart, and who cannot love their enemies, are simply told not to be like that. [Yes, yes, I know, the New Testament promises God's Holy Spirit to help, but if that's the case then why didn't he communicate his will more effectively so that eight million Christians would not have slaughtered themselves during and after the Protestant Reformation?] In any case, I think this can be tested when it comes to the supposed "spiritual gifts" Christians claim to have been given by their God.
October 24, 2012
Paul Kurtz On Why Eupraxsophy Matters
[In the wake of the death of Paul Kurtz I'm republishing this review I wrote of his last book].
Eupraxsophy (pronounced yoo-PRAX-so-fee) is a term Paul Kurtz introduced in 1988 to characterize a non-religious approach to life, which literally means "good practice and wisdom." In a newly released collection of Paul Kurtz's essays, Meaning and Value in a Secular Age: Why Eupraxsophy Matters,
edited by Nathan Bupp, we read Kurtz at his best. To read up on Kurtz's many accomplishments see his Wikipedia page. Kurtz is presently the Chairman of The Institute for Science and Human Values. So you can imagine how I felt when my blurb for this book by a giant of a man was placed on the back cover, which reads:
Eupraxsophy (pronounced yoo-PRAX-so-fee) is a term Paul Kurtz introduced in 1988 to characterize a non-religious approach to life, which literally means "good practice and wisdom." In a newly released collection of Paul Kurtz's essays, Meaning and Value in a Secular Age: Why Eupraxsophy Matters,
With his pioneering spirit and relentless efforts Paul Kurtz has done more to advance a positive image for a secular society devoid of religion than any other person in our generation, and perhaps in history. In an era like ours of angry atheists he is a breath of fresh air. Eupraxsophy does matter if we want to change our world. This may be his most lasting contribution, so it's wonderful to have all of these essays spanning his career together in one volume.
Michael Shermer on Paul Kurtz's Role in the Modern Skeptical Movement
There has been some debate (and much quibbling) about who gets what amount of credit for the founding of the modern skeptical movement...Regardless of who might be considered the “father” of the modern skeptical movement, everyone I have spoken to (including the other founders) agrees that it was Paul Kurtz more than anyone else who actually made it happen. All successful social movements have someone who has the organizational skills and social intelligence to get things done. Paul Kurtz is that man....For 20 years now I have been at the head of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, and as such as much as I admire Randi, Gardner, and the other public faces of skepticism, I have come to respect more than ever before what Paul Kurtz has done for our movement. He may not be as prolific and famous a writer as Martin Gardner, or as public and visible an activist as James Randi, but in terms of the day-to-day grind of keeping a movement afloat through the constant battering and assaults that come from variegated sources, there are few that can be compared with Paul Kurtz....R.I.P. Paul Kurtz. We all owe you a great debt of gratitude for making the world a better place. You will be missed. Link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)