Why Evolutionists Should Debate Creationists, One More Time

In my college ethics class I would offer a challenge to students who were against the legalization of Marijuana. I said that as the illegal use of it increased and with it the overcrowding of prisons and the deaths due to gang wars over who controlled the market in America, along with the drug wars in countries like Mexico, at what point would the harms of keeping it illegal outweigh any harms of legalizing its use? Now granted, I didn't think it caused much harm, if any to adult users, but this was after all, an ethics class. I asked a pragmatic utilitarian question, not a principled one. It got them thinking.

I think the same type of question can be asked of those who have a principled objection against evolutionists debating creationists. It does harm to science they say, by giving creationists credibility. Let's take what PZ Myers said as an example, although Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne would agree with him against an upcoming evolutionist vs creationist debate that is to take place this Saturday. [It will be streamed live!] PZ said:

More Sexist Misogynist Bullshit From the Pulpit!

Christians police your own ranks!



“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” ~Susan B. Anthony

“No man is good enough to govern any woman without her consent.” ~Susan B. Anthony

My Amazon Review of Bart Ehrman's Latest Book, "How Jesus Became God"

I spent yesterday and today reading Ehrman's book and then writing my brief review of it. Rather than criticize it I wanted to tell readers what to expect in it, so they can judge for themselves whether to buy it. Enjoy. Any up-votes would be appreciated if you think the review helps you decide.

Is the Outsider Test for Faith Circular?

I have defended the OTF extensively in my book, The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.I claim it's the only reasonable non-double standard for testing whether a particular religion is true. If you think your religion is true you should read it.

It's not the fault of a reasonable test if it shows us that something is false. No reasonable test is de facto circular just because it shows a truth claim to be false. So, it's not the fault of the OTF if no religion passes the test either. My critics cannot say the OTF presupposes its own conclusion just because it appears to show all religious truth claims to be false (whether it does is left up for debate). It just might be the case that all religions are false. People who reject the OTF as circular are therefore rejecting the OTF simply because it appears to show their religious faith is false. They must show the OTF to be faulty in some other way.

Quote of the Day, By sir_russ

If you are a Christian, why do you settle for less than the proof positive which must exist if Christianity is, in fact, true? Why embrace the smoke-and-mirrors Christians scholars keep producing, when they owe you the truth, the whole truth, and, nothing but the empirically demonstrable truth?

Newly Released, Bart Ehrman's Latest Book, "How Jesus Became God"

Bart Ehrman's book, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, just arrived in the mail. I'll be reviewing it soon.

World Vision Change, Now Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages

World Vision's American branch will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman. Abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule. But a policy change announced Monday [March 24] will now permit gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America's largest Christian charities. LINK.

Jerry Coyne: Poverty and Social Dysfunctional Societies Breed Religion

Based on the results of a recent poll by the Pew Global Research Project, Jerry Coyne writes:

Clearly, those who live in richer countries see a weaker connection between religion and morality....While I see no necessary relationship between atheism and belief in social reform—the kind of reform that makes people more economically and socially secure, and provides government-sponsored healthcare—it’s obvious that if we want to eliminate religion’s hold on the world, we must also eliminate the conditions that breed religion...Providing universal healthcare and reducing income inequality are good places to start. LINK.

Identifying Barriers to Unbelief

I was recently reading an interesting article called “How Not to Lose an Argument” and came across this:

“First, what does it mean to win or lose an argument? There is an unspoken belief in some quarters that the point of an argument is to gain social status by utterly demolishing your opponent's position, thus proving yourself the better thinker. That can be fun sometimes, and if it's really all you want, go for it. But the most important reason to argue with someone is to change his mind. If you want a world without fundamentalist religion, you're never going to get there just by making cutting and incisive critiques of fundamentalism that all your friends agree sound really smart. You've got to deconvert some actual fundamentalists. In the absence of changing someone's mind, you can at least get them to see your point of view. Getting fundamentalists to understand the real reasons people find atheism attractive is a nice consolation prize.”

This is really what we want – right?  Changing minds when possible, and at least clearing up misconceptions about atheists.

Later in the article, the author says:

“If you believe morality is impossible without God, you have a strong disincentive to become an atheist. Even after you've realized which way the evidence points, you'll activate every possible defense mechanism for your religious beliefs. If all the defense mechanisms fail, you'll take God on utter faith or just believe in belief, rather than surrender to the unbearable position of an immoral universe.

There are No Monotheistic Religions: Educating Monotheists to Their Polytheist Beliefs, By Darrel W. Ray

This is sure to be a controversial post but it's worth considering.

In everyday life, we non-theists may find ourselves in discussions with theists. Have you noticed that these discussions often go around in circles and achieve nothing? Why is that? Let me suggest that one reason is because we are using their framework in which to discuss and argue. In this article, I will explore some practical ways to stay out of their framework. Who says they have the sole right to define the terms of engagement? For this discussion, we will focus on monotheism, but other areas might be just as interesting.

Many modern-day theists seem to consider the so-called monotheistic nature of their religions as a sign of legitimacy, at least when compared to other openly polytheistic religions. The gods of ancient Greece and Rome were many, each with their own unique powers and niches in the nether world. It is no problem to see these as polytheistic religions but interestingly it is almost as easy to identify so-called monotheistic religions as polytheistic. If we expose the propaganda of these religions by challenging this key concept, we shift the frame, and open the door for a different kind of discussion. We don’t have to acquiesce to their definitions of their invisible friends.

Recognizing Ignorance: The Socratic Dictum Translated

Can God Do Perpetual Miracles?

When I argue that an omnipotent God should be able to do perpetual miracles, Christians ask how I can know what is metaphysically possible for an omnipotent God to do. Now it might be the case that the attribute of omnipotence is incoherent, but if we take our examples from what Christians interpret in the Bible, then we read of miracles like creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), a world-wide flood, a virgin birth and a resurrection from the dead. If such a God did those kinds of miracles then I see no problem for him doing a host of other things when it comes to naturally caused suffering. Take creation for example. Christians argue that a sustainer God is necessary for the continued existence of the universe, per Thomas Aquinas. This then, is an example of a perpetual miracle. If he can do this I see no reason he should not be able to avert all earthquakes, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions permanently.

W. L. Craig as a Pick-and-Choose Supernaturalist: A Response to Travis James Campbell

About a year ago, I began a series of responses to Dr. Travis Campbell, who wrote a critique (“Avalos contra Craig” = ACC) of my chapter on the historical Jesus in The End of Biblical Studies. See abbreviated Google version of the book.

W. L. Craig

Three posts were planned to address three issues that I had raised about William Lane Craig’s defense of the historicity of the resurrection. As Campbell (ACC, p. 290) summarizes my arguments:

“A. Craig has misused C. Behan McCullagh’s criteria [for the resurrection];

B. a case can be made for the apparitions of Mary using McCullagh’s criteria (thus, we have a disproof by counterexample); and

C. Craig is a selective supernaturalist.”

I addressed the first issue here. The second issue is addressed here.

The debate between myself and W. L. Craig is found here.

This post discusses how Craig is a selective supernaturalist insofar as his attack on methodological naturalism betrays an appeal to supernaturalism only for events he favors and not because of the application of some consistent criterion.

Faith in God and Jesus Now Superseded in Independent Baptist Churches by the King James Bible

 In 1974 I was Licensed to Preach (one step below Ordination) at an Independent Baptist Church (not associated with the Southern Baptist Convention) near Salem, SC.  There I filled the pulpit, taught Sunday school, lead the youth, and served as a guest evangelist at other Baptist churches. That same year I was a junior Bible Major at Southern Wesleyan University heading for seminary and spiritually on top of my  Independent Baptist world considering myself “Ordained by God, but not yet by man.” until I committed the unpardonable sin; I criticized the King James Bible (Yes it’s true . . .God forbid).  

It all started with an article in the local news paper 37 years ago and posted last year here at DC:  Remembering My First Article on Debunking the Bible: Sept. 14, 1977

My Tribute to Dr. James D. Strauss, 1929-2014.

James Strauss with William Lane Craig at my 1985 graduation from TEDS

I wrote this tribute to Doc Strauss a couple of years ago. Now he is gone, forever. He'll never know his entire life was spent on a delusion, for in order to know this he would have to wake up from the dead for a moment.

When I studied with Doc Strauss people called me a "Straussite," along with some others who started the Chi-Lambda apologetical studies group. I wear that badge with honor. I had an education that was next to none when I studied with Doc. He didn't do much writing, except for producing numerous syllabi with long lists of books to read, interspersed with comments. It was a challenge to find a new book he hadn't heard about yet. He was a teacher par excellence without peer though. There is no other intellectual that has made such a big impact on me. His wit also exceeded anything I have ever known. Any truck driver down HWY 10 could be stopped and he would tell us that, Doc would say! How could so much wit, wisdom and love be put together in that one package is quite the mystery to me. But I'm so glad to have crossed his path. He was the most unique and amazing man I'll ever meet! He inspired a generation to dream big. He will be missed greatly.

Strauss motivated me to become a Christian apologist in the first place. The irony is that it eventually led me away from faith and I now use what he taught me in my books. So to the degree I am effective in my attempts to disabuse people of faith, his towering influence casts a shadow over me. My life would be much different had I not met or studied or laughed with him. I am very grateful. Here's why:

Bart Ehrman Writes About Atheist Critics of His Book "Did Jesus Exist?"

I should say that one of the things that struck me, quite forcefully, in the aftermath of the publication of the book, was just how virulent, mean-spirited, and militant some atheists can be. The hate-mail and hate-response that I received for this book from the far left was absolutely as vehement as the hate-mail and hate-response that I have received for other books from the far right. It’s not easy being a historian, wanting simply to know what happened in the past, when so many have so many vested interests in having things their own way. Many of the mythicists are simply fundamentalists of a different stripe. Or so I’ve experienced! LINK.

What I don't understand at all is this phenomenon. Why do atheists get so worked up about the question of the existence of Jesus? Isn't it merely a historical question to be settled in a reasonable dispassionate manner? Don't we have other arguments, plenty of them, showing that the Jesus in the gospels did not exist? I've written about this before in my post Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War is Going On. On this question I do not find Christian scholars attacking atheists but rather calmly trying to explain why they think Jesus existed. What's the problem here folks?

In His Apologetic Book Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman Shares His Faith in Jesus With Atheists

Topic for discussion:  Bart Ehrman’s faith in Jesus

Bart Ehrman (in this YouTube debates, lectures and especially in his 2013 book) clearly states that he believes in Jesus . . . that Jesus existed (getting his “facts” from textual evidence of faith: The Bible, Patristic sources (along two short paragraphs from Josephus)), but mostly by using the New Testament to prove the New Testament.

Christianity Considered: Today's Thought

Church and Sunday school are nothing more than weekly one - two hour info commercials where people are mentally hyped up by motivational speakers ("Preachers") who usually make a good living convincing folks to accept an unproven theory (the product) known as Theology which is totally unregulated by the Department of Consumer Affairs.

John's Interview With The Thinking Atheist

Discover Education Internet Radio with TheThinkingAtheist on BlogTalkRadio

Bill Maher Trashes the Flood Story of Noah

We'll get to Bill Maher in a second. First, if you want to read a book on the Flood story in the Bible get Irving Finkel's The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood.In a great review of it posted at Skeptic Ink Network, we read:

The Ark Before Noah, written by Irving Finkel, describes the author’s discovery and interpretation of what he calls the “Ark Tablet” – an early and relatively complete version of the Atrahasis story dating from 1900-1700 BCE that sheds new light on the biblical flood story and its Mesopotamian roots.

Looks Like God is Going to Call One of His Faithful Home to Heaven

The Wrath of Yahweh Incarnate

"The Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., who founded a Kansas church that's widely known for its protests at military funerals and anti-gay sentiments, is in a care facility.

Westboro Baptist Church spokesman Steve Drain said Sunday that Phelps is being cared for in a Shawnee County facility. Drain wouldn't identify the facility but says Phelps is 84 and "having some health problems."

Members of the Westboro church, based in Topeka, frequently protest at funerals of soldiers with signs containing messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11," claiming the deaths are God's punishment for American immorality and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion." (The Associated Press)

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

I'm one fourth Irish.

I celebrated on Saturday.

Here I am celebrating with a Leprechaun! ;-)

Last year I wrote a series of posts about my Irish Ancestry. Enjoy.

Below see a picture of the Greening of St. Mary's River in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

The river was moving too fast to get it green due to melting snow.

Dr. James McGrath On the Resurrection and the Tools of the Historian

Recently James McGrath has said some important things about the tools of the historian:

I am not interested in defending "the claims of Christianity." I am interested in defending mainstream secular historical study as a discipline from those who seek to manipulate it for ideological ends, whether those be Jesus-mythicists or Christian apologists. Ultimately historical questions need to be settled using the tools of historical study, and not on the basis that a particular conclusion seems particularly appealing in order to defend or attack someone's beliefs...anyone who claims to use history to try to argue for the resurrection, or Matthew's zombie apocalypse, needs to be called out on it. And mainstream scholars do that.

In reference to the resurrection McGrath has said this before: "All sorts of fairly improbable scenarios are inevitably going to be more likely than an extremely improbable one. That doesn't necessarily mean miracles never happened then or don't happen now - it just means that historical tools are not the way to answer that question." When it comes to methodological naturalism McGrath wrote:

I don't see how historical study can adopt any other approach, any more than criminology can. It will always be theoretically possible that a crime victim died simply because God wanted him dead, but the appropriate response of detectives is to leave the case open. In the same way, it will always be possible that a virgin conceived, but it will never be more likely than that the stories claiming this developed, like comparable stories about other ancient figures, as a way of highlighting the individual's significance. And since historical study deals with probabilities and evidence, to claim that a miracle is "historically likely" misunderstands the method in question. READ THIS LINK.

The only way to know if Jesus bodily arose from the dead is by using the tools of the historian. But those tools cannot possibly lead anyone to conclude Jesus arose from the dead. Faith cannot help us know what happened in history. Faith is irrelevant to the historian's task. Faith has no method. Period.

Christians Really Can Be Reasoned Out of Their Faith!

For people who think we cannot reason people out of their faith here is a testimony from Dale Morgan on Facebook (used with permission):

Maybe Irish People Should Have a Moment of Silence On St. Patrick's Day?

What most people don't know about American slavery is that Irish people were used and abused as slaves before Africans were enslaved in the New World (which is my ancestry so it is personal with me). Here is the rest of the story, which can be read in Don Jordan and Michael Walsh's book, White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America.In an online commentary of the book, John Martin of the Montreal-based Center for Research and Globalization, points this fact out: