In a Godless Universe the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting is What We'd Expect Would Happen

Even though I'm a godless atheist I say this. Don't quote me though, at least not without my explanation. I'm not speaking about a godless ethic, that supposedly atheists do these kinds of deeds, and/or that they have no ethical standards to condemn such terrible senseless acts. I do have an ethic and I do condemn these kinds of deeds. That's a topic for another time so don't derail what I'm saying with irrelevant comments. What I'm saying here is something different.

The Use and Abuse of Scholarship by The Watchtower Society

         Of all the religious groups in America, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are probably the most zealous missionaries.  Chances are that one will knock on your door or approach you on the street to hand you a Watchtower or Awake magazine. Most of these missionaries are pleasant and well-groomed individuals, and they would like nothing better than to discuss their literature with you. What these Witnesses don't often know is how poorly researched their literature is.

The Late Semitic Scholar Anson Rainey’s Description of Most Jews Living in Israel and Scholarship

This email by Anson Rainey was his answer to my question over his conversion to Judaism. (One likely reason most Israelis would have let John Strugnell’s comments pass.) [Click on the email to enlarge for reading.]

Frank Moore Cross: A Secularist’s Assessment

It’s been two months since Professor Frank Moore Cross (1921-2012) died on October 17. Cross was Hancock Professor of Hebrew and other Oriental Languages at Harvard from 1958-1992. In 1991, Hershel Shanks, the powerful editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, called him “one of the world’s leading Biblical scholars and probably the most influential.”

        

         Much has been said about his life and work, and I have left it to others to assess his enormous contributions to the study of ancient Hebrew poetry, the composition of the Deuteronomistic History, and many other areas of biblical studies.

         Here, I aim to place his work in perspective for those interested in the secular study of the Bible. In addition, I was the only openly agnostic/atheist doctoral student that he had as far as I know, and I completed my doctoral thesis under his supervision in 1991. Therefore, I may have a different perspective on the implications his work for secularism.

     Although Prof. Cross was no atheist activist, his work contributed much to undermining traditional Christian views of the Bible even if that was not always  his intention.

My Reviewers Reviewed, by Robert Ingersoll

This lecture was delivered by Col. Robert Ingersoll in San Francisco Cal., June 27, 1877. It was a reply to various clergymen of that city, who had made violent attacks upon him after the delivery of his lectures, "The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," and "The Ghosts." Thanks once again to Julian Haydon for sending me this.

Science Denialism in Congress is Rampant and Appalling

We've been talking with David Marshall who denigrates and/or denies science in favor of his ancient holy book. So in order to highlight what we're talking about, Maria Maltseva, of Skeptic Ink Network (SIN), recently interviewed Dr. Donald Prothero who speaks to that issue. He tells us of some "scientific illiteracy and science denialism that are appalling enough by themselves, but even scarier is the thought that they come from the members of the House Science and Technology Committee!" Enjoy.

Quote of the Day, by David Marshall

Actually, John, I would say that almost all scientific evidence COMES TO US as historical evidence. Science is, in effect, almost a branch of history, as it transmits knowable and systematically collected and interpretted facts to our brains.

What then? Does the fact that you're not a scientist, and therefore have to trust what scientists say, entail that you don't have to trust science when it contradicts what you find in an ancient pre-scientific holy book based on the supposed historical evidence? Historians do not have at their disposal very much evidence to go on in many instances, especially the farther back in time they go. A miracle cannot be investigated scientifically since if it happened then the past is non-repeatable. Science however, progresses in the present with experiments that can be replicated in any lab anywhere on the planet. The only reason you want to bring science down to the level of the historian's very difficult but honorable craft is because you need to believe your faith-history is on an equal par with scientific results, only you place it above science because you say science is a branch of history, and not the other way around. You are therefore an ignorant science denier. You could become informed. You could visit a lab. You could notice the consensus of scientists on a vast number of areas. But no, you'd rather stay in your ignorance in order to believe in talking asses and that a sun stopped and moved backward up the stairs. Science or faith it is, and you choose faith. I choose science. The divide could never be more clearer.

Now There's A Queen James Bible! A Gay Bible for Gays ;-)

This was first spotted by Beth Ann Erickson at Skeptic Ink Network. According to the editors,

The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.

When I say there are all kinds of Christianities I mean it. *chortle chortle*

Look What Kind of Company I'm Keeping These Days!

Can you judge people by the company they keep? It depends. Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't.

Just the same I'm very grateful that someone thinks I'm to be included in this company. Now if Greg would include a picture of the revised WIBA then that would be perfect.

Thanks!

Christian Apologist David Marshall On Science

David Marshall opines, “Those who make wild claims about the scientific method often base their arguments not on good human evidence, but rumor, wild guesses, and extrapolations that would embarrass a shaman.” [From The Truth Behind the New Atheism, pp. 28-30] This sentence of his expresses a such very low view of science and its method that one wonders if he is Amish. People of faith must denigrate science in at least some areas, simply because science is the major threat to their faith. That’s the nature of faith. People of faith must deny science. To maintain their faith believers must remain ignorant of science. Yes, scientists have made mistakes in the distant past, but Marshall cannot possibly say this with a straight face about modern science. Yet he did.

An Excerpt From My Coming Book On the OTF

Dr. Randal Rauser objects to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) among other reasons, because he thinks it lacks one of the key intellectual virtues, that of being open-minded. As a refresher, the OTF is expressed in the following words: "The only way to rationally test one’s culturally adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider, with the same level of reasonable skepticism believers already use when examining the other religious faiths they reject." I'm working on the edits for a book on this test right now, which can be pre-ordered: The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.Below is an excerpt where I respond to him:

What Kind of Atheist/Theist Are You?

I found an interesting discussion about the differences between atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism and theism which can be seen here. The "arrangement is an attempt to clarify and classify these words, so that their rogue meanings no longer confuse and muddle religious debate," we're told. The horizontal axis concerns what we think or believe (I don't have any beliefs). The vertical axis concerns what we think we can know. I found it unhelpful to truncate this graph like the author did later in his post, because there are people who think outside of it. In any case I placed a blue dot where I stand. The position of that blue dot has changed over the last few years since I'm becoming more and more of a gnostic. Where do you stand?

Welcome to Eternity Christian: What Heaven is Really Going Be Like!

{My first post for DC in 2006 (now revised)}

As a Christian, I heard the Bible verse of John 3:16 run into the ground about how “God so loved the world that he gave His only Begotten Son” to die for us because He loved us so much.

Why Nothing Bothers Me About Unbelief

Randal Rauser is at it again. Maybe I should just go along by playing his game? After all, he's invited me to his seminary in May to help promote our book, God or Godless? It looks like he wants me to do this pretty badly. He wants us each to say the "top three biggest problems that we face with our worldview," only now, it's "the things that keep us up at night." If he wants me to say what keeps me up at night, then it's some sort of sickness, or worry, or deep thought about something. But worry about unbelief? No, never! I do wonder about a lot of things though. Let me play his game by suggesting the three things I wonder about and show why they don't bother me in the least. Ready. Set. Go!

The Wikipedia Article on Atheism

This Wikipedia article looks very well-written. In the "See Also" part of it just before the "Notes" there is a link to a "List of Atheists." When you click on it and then click on a "List of Atheist Authors" yours truly is not there. Oh, well, maybe next time. I keep hoping! ;-) Some people like Dr. James Lindsay think my contributions "are often-overlooked." He said:

John Loftus blogs for Debunking Christianity, one of the biggest blogs dedicated to the task of examining faith versus relinquishing it, and his posts are nearly always deep, insightful, and well worth reading. This blog, however, is a far cry from why I think John Loftus is perhaps the most underrated author in this entire field. In my opinion, Loftus holds the honor of having come up with the most sterling silver bullet in the discussion since David Hume, surpassing, if I might suggest it, even greats of the early twentieth century like Bertrand Russell and and those of the late nineteenth like Robert Ingersoll. Link.

He's speaking of The Outsider Test for Faith, blurbs for my book on it can be found here. I'll have to await the judgment of history on these things (Hint: it'll be somewhere between 0 and 100 on that scale). For now I'll take whatever I can get. Perhaps one of the reasons I'm often overlooked is because I keep beating the evangelical horse that has been beat to death so many times before from all angles that most educated people don't care anymore. Until it completely morphs into liberalism as the New Orthodoxy evangelicalism has no chance of winning its case in the free marketplace of ideas.

More Evidence Christians Just Don't Think

They don't! Not most of them anyway. All they do is defend God not matter what. It's like they are defending themselves or something, and people always do that whenever threatened. We know people create their own religion, their own gospel, and their own God in their own image. We know this! Whatever they believe then God agrees with them about everything. Do you doubt it? Then read this study. So no matter what the problem is they will defend their God because they are defending themselves. Why? Because they are God. God is them. They are one with God anyway. They think the same things. They feel the same things. Argue against God and we are arguing against them. So they take it personally. And nothing we say can penetrate that 200 foot thick impenetrable castle wall around them to fend off attackers. Not even a bunker bomb. Want more proof? Here 'tis.

How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?

Here are Four (among many) Christian miracles:

1. There was a talking snake in Eden that talked (in Hebrew) to Eve.
2. Joshua made the sun stand still.
3. Jesus arose from the dead.
4. St. Raymond of Penyafort had a Sailing Cloak.

Heretic!

Commenting on my previous post, Professor Jaco Gericke said:

Most Christians today would be condemned by Luther and Calvin, who themselves would be condemned by Aquinas and Anselm, who would be condemned by Athanasius and Augustine, who would be condemned by Paul, who would be condemned by James, who would be condemned by the Christ of John's gospel, who would be condemned by the synoptic characterizations of Jesus, which would all be condemned by most versions of Yahweh in the Old Testament, who himself would be condemned by yet older versions of the deity.

Dr. James A. Lindsay's Definition of Faith

Faith, he argues, is "a form of cognitive bias that tends to overestimate the probabilities that the hypotheses in which faith is placed predict the evidence (of the world) while underestimating the probabilities that alternative hypotheses predict the evidence we have." Or, in other words he says:

The Case Against the Resurrection

Here is Richard Carrier's case against the resurrection.  He comprehensively debunks the typical  apologetics (based on the Pauline epistles) used by people like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.

(More clips below)

Howard Mazzaferro's Defense of the Indefensible

Howard Mazzaferro is a Jehovah's Witness scholar of sorts who comments here at DC. Harry McCall puts his culturally adopted faith into perspective with what I consider required reading. What I find interesting is that evangelicals reject the JW's but would accept everything Mazzaferro writes in defense of faith, the reliability of the Bible and of the miracles we read in it. Why is it that people of faith cannot agree? It's because that's the nature of faith. When faith is the foundation for knowledge anything can be believed. As Dr. James Lindsay says, faith is "a form of cognitive bias that tends to overestimate the probabilities that the hypotheses in which faith is placed predict the evidence (of the world) while underestimating the probabilities that alternative hypotheses predict the evidence we have." In any case, Mazzaferro did a good job of defending the indefensible so let's take a look.

Quote of the Day, by Articulett

To me, being a naturalist means that you don't believe in anything supernatural... the arguments against Randal [Rauser'] supernatural beliefs are identical to his own disbelief in myths past and other superstitious or far-fetched ideals. Not knowing a natural answer is not a good reason for plugging in a magical answer!-- And all religions plug in magical answers. They feel like answers to the believer, but they don't really explain anything. And there's no way to tell a true supernatural answer from the infinity of competing supernatural answers that would be false if ANY supernatural answer was true. So even if naturalism wasn't correct-- there is no method for distinguishing a true supernatural answer from a false one... no way to tell a true prophet from a false one-- or a real god from a demon or advanced space alien or tricky fairy or a myth! People who believe in these sorts of things tend to be people who were indoctrinated to believe such things --people who have a vested interest in believing those things-- and people who are afraid they might be punished if they don't believe such things. If there was actual evidence for any of these things than scientists would be testing, refining, and honing that evidence for their own benefit... especially if there was actual evidence that there was life after death. But how can one be alive or conscious without a brain? It makes no more sense than concluding a rock is conscious! Can one have a debate or discussion as to the problems with not believing that rocks are conscious? How is Randall's suggesting any more coherent than his being asked to demonstrate the problems with his non-belief in rock consciousness?

Jehovah Witness: A Made in America Religion

Christianity is one of the major religions of man a washed in a history of contradictions and confusion. Like cancer cells, Christianity not only mutates over time, but reinvents itself to deal with its new context both socially and theologically. This often entails receiving new revelations from God to make one flavor of a Christian faith appear as God very own favorite in a sea of competing Bible truths. Since God can’t be contacted for direction and the fact that Jesus is said to have gone back to where he had come from two-thousand years ago, believers are left to being creative with the Bible and often must receive new revelations form God.

Dr. Randal Rauser's Ideologue Barometer Test

I like new tests for faith, and I have written about three of them before. Randal introduces a new one as far as I can tell, the Ideologue Barometer Test, and guess what? After taking the test I am one. No, not a barometer silly, an ideologue. So?

Randal has graciously invited me up to his Seminary in May of 2013 to Edmonton, Canada, in order to help promote the release of our co-written book God or Godless. I'm pretty excited about this too. So, being the creative person that he is (after all, he creatively defends the indefensible), he suggested we do something new and different rather than the normal "he said she said" type of debate. What he suggested is this:

each of us talk on the top three biggest problems that we face with our worldview. I’d explain the top three conceptual or evidential problems with being a Christian and John would talk about the top three problems with being an atheist.

He's mentioned this to several people and the response has been "overwhelmingly positive" he reports. But he's not happy that I objected to it. So now he's taking his case to the streets, er, the blog world. He said we'd try to work things out. I didn't know this is how he wants to do it. Okay, I guess.

Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.

Previously I made a book proposal:

Let's have a four -five -six views book with this as a question: "Why are there so many ways to interpret the Bible?" A proposed title might be this: "Five Views on Why Christians Disagree," or something like that. Then invite me as a contributor. I've written on this issue, calling it The Problem of Divine Miscommunication. See here.

Doug Geivett, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology strongly recommends against it. Now isn't that interesting? Why would he do so? He doesn't explain. He refuses to explain. Here's the story: