Can We Will Ourselves to Believe?

Q: Do you think that belief is subject to the will? Can one "choose" to believe something, such as religious propositions?

A: Apart from the issue of free will, I do think we can will ourselves to believe. Christians do it all the time. It's the will to believe that blinds them to the evidence. William James and Pascal said that if we have doubts we can change them by attending worship, praying and looking for God. I think that happens. I think atheists can will ourselves not to believe too, because of a tragic event. It is a sticky and complicated subject. At some point though, no matter how much we want to make ourselves believe, we cannot do it. I cannot believe. There is nothing I could do to make me believe.

Quote of the Day, by Loftus

Most Christians cannot be reasoned out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place. They must first be convinced their faith is impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, which is reversing the standards that reasonable people require.

A Short Note on the Use of Tacitus as a Historical Source for Jesus

A. It would have been impossible for Tacitus (56 CE – ca 118 CE) to have had any firsthand knowledge of a Historical Jesus since Jesus would have already been dead for at least 23 years before Tacitus was born (assuming the latest date of April 33 CE for the crucifixion).

B. The fire in Rome happened on June 19, 64 which would have made Tacitus only 8 years old at the time. At such an age, Tacitus would have likely been much too young to have recorded anything (if he was literate at that age) especially for a child living in Gaul.

C. The distance from Gaul (setting Paris as the central city) to Jerusalem (by land) is about 3,695 miles. How could Tacitus, who was only 8 years old at the time, have any firsthand knowledge of either the Christians in Roman Palestine or even the fire in Rome over 700 miles away?

D. Tacitus published his first work (Agricola) in 98 CE and his Annals around 114 or 115 or 59 years after the fire in Nero’s Rome and 82 years after the death of the so-called Historical Jesus. Thus, the information about “Christus”  (a hapax legomenon) suffering under Pilate shows a confessional belief and not any historical event he knew about. If Jesus is the Christus meant here, then we would expect the Latin “Iesum Christum”.  However, Tacitus is likely simply repeating an established tradition as we learn nothing more than that which is not already stated by Josephus and forms the basis for the Apostles Creed: “ . . . passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, . . . “(suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;).

 Reference: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 rd ed., edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (Oxford University Press, 1996)

Religion and Violence: Dr. Richard Hess responds to Dr. Avalos

Dr. Richard Hess

Finally available on high quality video is my 2012 presentation on my theory of religion and violence (a summary of Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence [2005) at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

This particular presentation is notable because  Dr. Richard Hess, a well-known evangelical biblical scholar and apologist at Denver Seminary, responds at 1:06:58, and I respond at 1:26:01 to him and others.

I don’t think Dr. Hess was successful in defending biblical violence, but you can judge for yourselves.

For My Christian Friends Offended By Michael Sam's Kiss

So, I've been seeing some upset and outrage from some of my Christian friends, about the public broadcast of Michael Sam kissing and embracing his boyfriend.  I find it strange that these same people aren't bothered by some things in their Bible.  Consider the following passages:

An Update on Richard Carrier's Book, "On the Historicity of Jesus"

The subtitle and table of contents are now available. The subtitle is "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt." It's scheduled to be published in June of this year with a whopping 700 pages! The hardback list price is $95 and the paperback list price is $35. Below is the book description and table of contents:

What About the Origins of Life Itself?

We know that we descended from a common ancestor. We know this. Evolution is a fact. Many believers agree about this, even a growing number of evangelicals. But what about the origins of life itself? The answer is simple. Ready? Since the evolution of life has a natural explanation then so also does the origins of life, we just don't know how yet. Give science time. Don't punt to a god explanation just as believers shouldn't have done before Darwin. Comprende?

Dear Christian, Doubt Is Not Your Enemy (Part 1)

For the Christian, doubt is a bad thing - a lack of faith, or even worse, outright unbelief.  Early on in the Bible, doubt is portrayed in a negative light.  The Eden story in Genesis tells of a serpent planting doubt in the mind of Eve - did God really say not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? 

According to the Bible, faith is the “evidence of things unseen” (Hebrews 11:1).  Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).  The writer of the gospel of John has Jesus saying “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).  In other words, God approves of those who believe on the basis of stories they have been told, rather than requiring evidence, as “doubting Thomas” did.

Such credulous acceptance of unverified word-of-mouth claims played an essential role in the rise of Christianity.  Miraculous stories abounded in ancient superstitious cultures, providing fertile soil for supernatural beliefs to grow and thrive.  Apologists and theologians love to claim that the New Testament stories are based on eyewitness accounts, but let’s face it – it’s not like the early believers could use a phone, or Google, or Snopes to investigate claims.  Do we really think that they climbed on a donkey and rode for days to track down and interview sources, to verify the tales they were told?  The fact that the people of that time would most likely not be skeptics is the more reason that it is vital we should scrutinize the biblical claims.

The First Two Blurbs for "Christianity is Not Great"

My anthology, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails, should be out in October.You wouldn't believe who wrote a blurb for it! Check out the first two blurbs by clicking on the link. Then pre-order it today!

Quote of the Day by Darrell Barker

Dear thoughtful friends, stay clear of people who require the threat of death and punishment to overcome the moral weakness of their contradictory and deeply flawed ideas.

10 Tips for Winning a Debate

Some good advice from Hemant Mehta.

Do Ossuaries Claimed for St. James and St. Peter Prove a Historical Jesus?

The James Ossuary

“So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?”  (John 6: 30) 

It was bound to happen. After I posted seventeen reasons why any evidence for a Historical Jesus should be rejected, a person who calls himself “MrEveryman” left several comments with evidence he claimed proves that at least two ossuaries (bone  boxes) carried the bones of St. James and St. Peter, thus vindicating the Gospels.

The Holy Trinity as Incoherent

The Holy Trinity has had a problematic history, partly evidenced by point of fact that theologians still don't agree on how it works, and partly  seen from its ex post facto evolution, shoehorned into the scant evidence of the biblical texts. From Ignatius of Antioch onwards we see development of the idea in early church thinking, until it is codified at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century CE. There will be more talk later on what was creedally set out.

“Bryan College losing nearly 25% of faculty after 'Adam and Eve' controversy”

                                                            
                                                               
You can read the full story HERE

An Apple Doesn't Fall Too Far From the Tree: The Bible's Failed Prophecies and Those Who Believe Them

(This book was given to me by a Christian twenty-two years ago with a stern warning that I needed to either repent or perish.  The 228 page book was first published in 1988 (revised in 1991) was written by a Johns Hopkins University nuclear engineer, Robert W. Faid mathematically proving that Mikhail Gorbachev was the Antichrist having the Mark of the Beast on his forehead.)

Secular Leaders Online Classes Now Available

Dr. John Shook is heading this project, which you can be read about right here. Classes available for June include:

The Science and Philosophy of Free Will, with Richard Carrier.

Sexual and Gender Diversity, with Julia Hemphill and Greta Christina.

Sean Faircloth on Defending Secular Government: Strategies for Success.

God’s Not Dead? How an Unscripted Philosopher can Disprove God, with Dan Fincke.

The Founding Fathers and Religion, with Myron Jackson with Sean Faircloth.

Does Morality Need God? A Christian and an Atheist Debate, with John Shook and David Baggett. [This one should be good!]

Dr. Shook is also doing a series of excellent "Humanist Matters" videos which can be viewed here.

Soon I'll be teaching one of these classes and doing a "Humanist Matters" video, so stay tuned.

Five Factors That Cause Christians To Lose Their Faith

[Written by John W. Loftus on 12/9/10] I just thought I’d put this out there since I’ve been thinking about these kinds of things for years. By no means are all of the following factors involved in every story of deconversion. But in almost every case at least one of them is true. So here goes:

Do You Think You've Seen a Miracle? Think Again!

David J. Hand's new book, The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day looks excellent!

In The Improbability Principle, the renowned statistician David J. Hand argues that extraordinarily rare events are anything but. In fact, they’re commonplace. Not only that, we should all expect to experience a miracle roughly once every month. But Hand is no believer in superstitions, prophecies, or the paranormal. His definition of “miracle” is thoroughly rational. No mystical or supernatural explanation is necessary to understand why someone is lucky enough to win the lottery twice, or is destined to be hit by lightning three times and still survive. All we need, Hand argues, is a firm grounding in a powerful set of laws: the laws of inevitability, of truly large numbers, of selection, of the probability lever, and of near enough.

Supreme Court Rules Town Meetings Can Have Prayer: A Mere Symbolic Victory for Conservatives

You can read the story right here if you haven't heard yet. I don't usually comment on political issues although I could do so. Today's Supreme Court ruling deserves commentary though, and I'm the one to provide it. First off, the ruling is inconsistent with the First Amendment as applied to the state and local level by the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified the Bill of Rights as a whole, including the First Amendment, applied to the state and local level. We fought a war over this so we cannot revisit that issue. The ruling is also stupid and offensive to those of us without faith. However, Christians are hailing it as an important victory while atheists think it's quite a setback for us. It is neither. It is merely a symbolic victory that serves as a morale booster for the conservatives, something that means little to either side in the long run. There's no reason to praise Jesus nor is there any reason for despair. Let me explain.

Evangelicals Concede They Are Losing in the Marketplace of Ideas

"In the next decades we will see a massive decrease in evangelical influence politically, economically, culturally, and financially" writes John S. Dickerson, in The Great Evangelical Recession (p. 26). "260,000 evangelical young people walk away from Christianity each year. Of that number 35% will find their way back, and 65% do not find their way back. Why are they leaving? They don't believe anymore." [Dickerson, pp. 98-102]. "This is not a blip. This is a trend. And the trend is one of decline," said Ed Stetzer [as quoted in Dickerson, p. 32]. Here are a few of the books that are sounding the alarm:



The solutions offered in these books range from becoming culturally relevant to the young generation, committing to serious discipleship, fervent prayer, massive evangelism, and prioritizing the wisdom of God over the wisdom of man. Not one of them thinks for a nanosecond that the Christian faith should be abandoned, that their faith cannot win in the marketplace of ideas. But that is the real problem. In the minds of other evangelicals like Peter Enns, John Walton, Kenton Sparks, Christian Smith, Bruce Waltke, Randal Rauser, Rob Bell and others, they suggest revising and extending their faith to accommodate to the new realities. But when they do this they are conceding their faith is relativistic with no foundation. This is very interesting to watch.

We are watching the demise of evangelicalism!

Don't think so? Here is a page from Dickerson's book:

Kel on Ten Things Christians Should Keep in Mind When Debating Atheists

His list would be something along the following:

From Minister to Atheist - Joe Holman On The Infidel Guy Show

This interview took place in 2004, before the Clergy Project. Joe does a great job in it as a former team member here with me at DC. Link. [Click on the "Download" link underneath Joe's picture even if your cursor looks like an hour-glass.] Joe authored a good book, Project Bible Truth: A Minister Turns Atheist and Tells All.

Should We Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?," A Submission by Brad Compton

We have only two main sources on the resurrection of Jesus: the writings of Paul, and the Gospels. Let’s look at each of them in turn.

Robert Price and Edwin Suominen Interviewed by The Thinking Atheist

Robert M. Price and Edwin A. Suominen co-wrote the excellent book, Evolving Out of Eden, which I have recommended very highly.They were interviewed by The Thinking Atheist recently. Enjoy.

Thinking Critically vs Skeptically

[Edit 1/2/2015: This is another post in my series, "Do You Want To Be A Christian Apologist?" This is number 17 in the series, which are tagged with the words "Christian Apologetics" below, seen in reverse chronological order. So, let's say you want to be a Christian apologist, someone who defends the Christian faith. Then what must you do? The 17th thing you must do is make a distinction between thinking critically and thinking skeptically and focus on the former to the exclusion of the latter. ]

There shouldn't be a difference between thinking critically vs skeptically, for to think critically is to think skeptically, and vice versa. So why do I write about this? The answer in a word: Faith. Believers can and do think critically, especially the best of the best, like Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig. Other notable Christian scholars are Paul Copan, Randal Rauser, Victor Reppert, David Marshall, and Matt Flannagan who regularly engage in apologetics against atheists like me. But they are not truly critical thinkers since they do not think skeptically.

Teaching students to be critical thinkers is very important but teaching them to have a skeptical disposition is more important. Critical thinking should lead to this disposition. The problem is that faith is a critical thinking stopper. It builds up a wall that stops believers dead in their tracks. They dare not go beyond it to the proper conclusion when applying the standards of critical thinking. Now I taught critical thinking classes as a Christian believer. So I know exactly what they are doing. Norman Geisler, one of the leading Christian apologists who defends the indefensible, even co-wrote a book with Ronald M. Brooks titled, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking.I don't know enough about the leading defenders of other religious faiths, but I suspect in their universities they teach critical thinking classes from textbooks they have written too. And I expect we would all agree with what they teach and write, except for some of the examples they use to illustrate a particular logical rule.

So what's the problem? Faith. Faith stunts one's critical thinking skills. It prohibits a person of faith from applying the set of critical thinking skills we all agree about. You can see this by how they argue, which I am documenting here. What believers do is to defend their faith rather than look critically at it, no matter what the intellectual cost. 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). If Christian apologists could think logically, without the perceived need to defend their religious sect's faith, they would see they are not thinking consistently critically.

In the hopes I can help nudge them along this road I recommend reading Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn's college textbook, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age.There are newer, more expensive editions of this book than the one I linked to. But look inside this one then choose which edition at which price you can afford. But get it. You will see what I mean when I say there is no distinction between critical thinking and thinking skeptically. They are one and the same. That's why I argue faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities. I say believers operate by double standards. They do not think critically, in the sense I just wrote about and which this book could help show them. When we say the party of agnosticism and atheism is one of reason and science we mean it. We invite believers to the adult table, where an adult conversation can be had.