On Luke Breuer, David Marshall and Other Christian Apologists

Let’s begin with a true story and then an analogy related to Christian apologists.

A bank teller once told me of a customer who had a checking account demanded to know why her checks were being returned to her with an overdraft service charge.  The teller explained to the lady that her bank account was overdrawn.  The customer demanded to know how such a huge mistake could have happened due to the  fact she still had an entire checkbook full of checks!

More on Peter Boghossian's Controversial Tweet

Being published in the philosophy of Russell's teapot (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Elves, Trolls or Faries) should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table.

How is this? What is the difference between this "tweet" and Peter Boghossian's controversial tweet? Okay, sure, Christians will not like it, but Peter isn't writing for them. Let's discuss this.

Quote of the Day, by Luiz Fernando Zadra

Luke Breuer said: "I still don't fully understand what you mean by 'insufficient evidence'."

Zadra's response:

Insufficient evidence is that concept that you accept as crystal clear, precise and objective when addressing the claims of other religions, and suddenly it becomes a vague, unclear and ill defined idea when you have to think about the claims of your own.

In Defense of Peter Boghossian's Tweet About the Philosophy of Religion

Jeff Lowder has produced what he called a "reductio ad absurdum argument against Boghossian’s ridiculous tweet." A big brouhaha is taking place because of it. Me? I try to first understand what someone is saying before I criticize it. I try to state the argument better than the original if I can, something neither Justin Schieber nor Taylor Carr have done in addition to Lowder.

Here's Boghossian's tweet:

Being published in the philosophy of religion should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table. — Peter Boghossian (@peterboghossian) June 15, 2014.

Jeff quotes this tweet and proceeds to put together a very impressive list of atheist philosophers. It was a complete surprise to see my name in that list, by the way, for which I am very thankful. Jeff's point is that if published philosophers of religion should be disqualified to sit at the adult table then so should published atheist philosophers of religion. Since it's clear these atheist philosophers of religion are not to be disqualified as childish, therefore Boghossion's claim is absurd. Stay with me. I'm about to defend Boghossion. After all, I consider myself to be his bulldog.

Ronald A. Lindsay's Book "The Necessity of Secularism" Is Excellent!

Dr. Lindsay is the President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Research Fellow for the Center for Inquiry. I was very honored he would want me to read his book and write a blurb for it. It's to be published by Pitchstone Press in November or December this year. Here's my blurb:

If this book doesn’t convince readers of the necessity for a secular public square, as opposed to a sacred public square, then nothing can. It should additionally alleviate any fears believers might have that atheists will cause them harm as they gain more political power. Secularism offers the best protection believers have in a society they no longer control, because it best protects the rights of freedom of conscience and religion in a pluralistic society. A very important and exceptionally argued book!

Correction: Boghossian is Not Addressing All Atheists

I got to thinking that since there are some atheist criticisms of Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating Atheists,that he's not writing for all of us. He's addressing atheists 1) who are convinced that religion has no epistemic warrant, 2) who think the world would be a better place without religion in it, 3) who want to change the minds of believers, and/or 4) for atheists who are not necessarily intellectuals. He's largely addressing people he calls Street Epistemologists, seeking to motivate them into action. Even as an intellectual though, I appreciate what he's doing. This should surprise no one. There are many books written by Christians instructing them how to talk atheists into faith. Here's one recently suggested to me, written by Jay Lucas, Ask Them Why: How to Help Unbelievers Find the Truth.There have been many missionary books doing the same thing, showing how to make inroads into different cultures, only they sought to change and even destroy those cultures, as David Eller shows in a chapter for my anthology Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.The title to his chapter says it all: "They Will Make Good Slaves and Christians: Christianity, Colonialism, and the Destruction of Indigenous People."

Boghossian's book is not meant to change the minds of believers but rather the approach he lays out in it should.

In his book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, Peter Boghossian is not writing to Christians. He's writing to atheists. Christians are reading and critiquing his book of course, but the atheists who implement his strategies are taught by him to be respectful of believers as persons, using the Socratic Method. So what's going on here? He uses some rhetoric to get atheists motivated but in actual practice when speaking to Christians, as his own "interventions" demonstrate in the book itself, he advocates being respectful to them and their beliefs. He first motivates then he educates.

Critical Thinking Crash Course, by Peter Boghossian

[Redated post] This audio recording is from a public lecture given by Dr. Peter Boghossian of Portland State University on May 11th, 2012 at the Intel Campus in Hillsboro, Oregon. This is an excellent presentation. I could only hope his critics listen to it, especially the Q & A afterward. This predates his book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, but helps introduce it.

Daniel Dennett On "Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently"

Dennett offers what he calls “the best antidote [for the] tendency to caricature one’s opponent.” What he says (below) is a good reminder. Sometimes I need that. I have gone on record arguing that ridicule is an effective weapon in disabusing believers of their faith, and it is. It does not characterize what I do though. Most of the time I deal with the arguments of believers respectfully until it appears they are unwilling to think. Sometimes I can spot them quickly, on the first comment here. They will mindlessly quote-mine from the Bible or the theology based on it. These are people who come to preach to me rather than learn from me. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is nothing significant believers can tell me that I have not considered before. So it takes a great deal of my time before they will realize this about me. I'll even tell them to read my books but hardly any of them are interested. It doesn't occur to them that I have more to teach them as a former believer and an intellectual than they could ever teach me. Not even Randal Rauser has yet read my magnum opus. In many cases after dealing with the same believers for months or years, I lose respect for them and turn to ridicule (Think Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and Matthew Flannagan). In my mind they are beyond hope. But after regrouping and re-adjusting with some time off from them I start being respectful again, until it becomes clear all over again they are unwilling to think. This is a vicious cycle. Nonetheless, what Dennett writes is a good reminder to us all (along with the further commentary). Enjoy.

Peter Boghossian Responds to his Critics in an Interview with Ignoranti

Peter Boghossian says his critics have lost touch with how people actually use the word faith (think Tim McGrew, Randal Rauser, David Marshall, and Tom Gilson). Believers like "Betty Churchgoer" use the word faith just like he says. Boghossian tell us "Faith is the word someone uses when they don't have sufficient evidence toward belief but they decide to believe anyway." LINK.

The Apologist Two-Step Dance--Timothy McGrew and David Marshall on Boghossian

Here's James Lindsay on this dance of theirs:

The two-step is their game. The way it's played is simple: give multiple characterizations for everything, including God, faith, Christian, etc., and then whenever someone calls you out for the problems in any one of them (and there are always problems), switch to another. Dance, dance, dance. Pretend, pretend, pretend. Whatever it takes to avoid having the cherished beliefs treated with intellectual honesty, which would destroy them. [Read this!]

Crazy Stories, Crazy Christians: A Review of John Alan Turner's Book "Crazy Stories, Sane God"

My review of Crazy Stories, Sane God: Lessons from the Most Unexpected Places in the Biblecan be read right here. Christians will downvote it just because, so any upvotes if you like it would be appreciated.

Frank Schaeffer Now Claims to Be an Atheist Who Believes in God

*Sheeh* When will his shenanigans end:

I believe that life evolved by natural selection. I believe that evolutionary psychology explains away altruism and debunks love, and that brain chemistry undermines the illusion of free will and personhood. I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of my creator.

Franky should just trust the results of science. Where science is inconclusive suspend judgement. It's really that easy folks! LINK

On "Getting Excited About Jesus"

George W. Bush with Frank Page and Wife
 in the Oval Office

(This post was originally published in 2007 (from a letter) when Rev. Frank Page was pastor of the Taylor's First Baptist mega church here in Greenville county. Later, he was elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention.  This post illustrated how Christian propaganda is over sold; not even being believed by the pastor preaching it!) 

Dear Dr. Page,

I heard you preach Sunday morning on our local channel about “getting as excited about Jesus as people do about their favorite ball teams”. I (as a former Baptist preacher) must say there is a major difference between the world of everyday reality and the religious world view claimed by faith.

Quote of the Day, By Thomas Hobbes On Revelation

When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately; or by mediation of another man, to whom he had formerly spoken by himself immediately. How God speaketh to a man immediately, may be understood by those well enough, to whom he hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another, is hard, if not impossible to know. For if a man pretend to me, that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce, to oblige me to believe it....To say he hath spoken to him in a Dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win belief from any man ... [Leviathan, chap. 32.6]

Dr. Valerie Tarico On Bible Verses That Atheists Love

She asked some outspoken anti-theists and other champions of secularism what they think are the best verses in the Bible, and why. Here are their responses.

Finally! Sam Harris Responds to the Moral Landscape Challenge

A few months back Sam issued a challenge for someone to prove him wrong. Ryan Born rose to the challenge, as his essay was chosen out of hundreds of responses by Russell Blackford. Here is Ryan's essay. Read it and then read Sam's response Just a brief comment. I thought Sam's response is an effective one. The most interesting and controversial claim Sam makes is this one:

I am, in essence, defending the unity of knowledge—the idea that the boundaries between disciplines are mere conventions and that we inhabit a single epistemic sphere in which to form true beliefs about the world.

Richard Carrier vs Zeba Crook: Jesus of Nazareth: Man or myth?

Richard Carrier has written about it here.

Randal Rauser's Book, “What on Earth Do we Know About Heaven?” is FREE June 5 (eBook only)

The book looks like pure speculation based on the need to believe, but what the hey, see for yourselves, today only.

Three More Blurbs for "Christianity is Not Great"

I've previously mentioned that Richard Dawkins and David Mills wrote blurbs for my new anthology, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.Here are three more in the order I received them:

The Evolution of Venom: This is How Science Works

All believers denigrate science in at least a few areas. The more fundamentalist the believer then the more that person denigrates science. Methinks they just don't understand how it works. Below is a video showing an example with regard to venom in some animals. Notice that science makes predictions. In this case the prediction was based on evolution that venom must have existed before there were fangs, and further that snake venom was inherited from an earlier ancestor. This prediction went against common wisdom. But the evidence was found. Notice the scientist does experiments looking for evidence rather than believing any authorities. Notice also that this science is helping make our lives healthier by the development of medicines, something you will not find in the Bible, God's supposed wisdom. Seriously, do you see a mad scientist here, someone seeking to destroy people's faith?

Why Faith is a Delusion, Case in Point: William Lane Craig

Craig said:

Plantinga talks about intrinsic defeater-defeaters. That is to say, a belief which is so powerfully warranted for me that it intrinsically defeats any defeater brought against it. You don't need another extrinsic defeater to defeat the defeater. You have an intrinsic defeater-defeater in the witness of the Holy Spirit which allows you to retain faith rationally even in the face of unanswered objections.

The context of this quote is as follows:

Eleven Kinds of Verses Bible-Believers Like to Ignore, By Valerie Tarico

John Alan Turner wrote this book I'll be reviewing soon (click on the image). Usually though, Christians ignore these kinds of stories and verses. Here's Tarico on it:

Bible-believing Christians play fast and loose with their sacred text. When it suits their purposes, they treat it like the literally perfect word of God, and, in a peculiar twist of logic, they quote the Bible itself to back up their claim. Then, when it suits their other purposes, they conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that are—inconvenient.

Here are twelve [misprint?] kinds of verses that Bible-believers ignore so that they can keep spouting the others when they want to. To list all of the verses in these categories would take a book almost the size of the Bible, one the size of the Bible minus the Jefferson Bible, to be precise. I’ll limit myself to a couple tantalizing tidbits of each kind, and the curious reader who wants more can go to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible or simply dig out the old family tome and start reading at Genesis, Chapter One....Thank God most Bible-believing Christians don’t actually take the Good Book as seriously as they claim to. LINK.

The Idea of Heaven Seems Strange To Me Now

Now  that I've been out of Christianity for a while, one thing that seems very strange to me is the Christian conception of a Heaven in which, day and night, people will be singing songs to God and telling him how great he is.  For one thing, wouldn't that get old rather quickly?  More importantly though, what kind of person would want people groveling and constantly going on about how awesome you are?  I could see a North Korean dictator enjoying that sort of thing (Kim Jong-un certainly does), but normal people?  No way!  What kind of person needs their self-esteem propped up by that sort of subservient, fawning adulation?   Imagine if when your friends were with you, all they did was bow down before you,  sing songs in honor of you, and constantly shower you with praise.  Wouldn't it make you uncomfortable; embarrassed?  Healthy relationships certainly don't work that way. 

Quote of the Day, by Robert Ingersoll

Black comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible is in exact harmony with the New Testament, and that the two are “connected together;” and “that if one is true the other cannot be false.” If this is so, then he must admit that if one is false the other cannot be true; and it hardly seems possible to me that there is a right-minded, sane man, except Mr. Black, who now believes that a God of infinite kindness and justice ever commanded one nation to exterminate another; ever ordered his soldiers to destroy men, women, and babes; ever established the institution of human slavery; ever regarded the auction-block as an altar, or a bloodhound as an apostle. [Ingersoll, Debate with Jeremiah Black, theingersolltimes.com]