Victor Reppert On Priors, Biases and Probabilities

Victor Reppert recently said:

It all depends on your priors. I think an argument can be good even when it isn't strong enough such that it ought to convince any unbiased person. An argument might provide some evidence for its conclusion, which might be sufficient or insufficient given someone's personal prior probabilities....The trouble with "unbiased persons" is that you have to go through town with a lantern in broad daylight to find one. Unless, of course, you find the ones who agree with me! :) LINK.

In one sense I agree with Vic. We all have priors, that is, background knowledge, the information we have accumulated prior to encountering a new argument. We also have biases. We are prone to so many cognitive biases it's astounding. We don't reason that well because of them. When facing the fact of biases most people will even say they are not affected by them it's so bad. So I agree there are arguments that are good ones even though they cannot convince others. The problem is what Vic thinks this proves. The real problem unaddressed by him is how we can best solve this problem when it comes to debates about his evangelical faith.

On Tweets, Blogs and Books, Oh My

The mere brevity of twitter feeds doesn't allow for better clarity, explanations and argumentation, which I'll label CEA. It's the lowest level of what an author can provide given its brevity. From what I've seen, Facebook is where many authors test ideas and provoke thought, so here again isn't the best place for a great deal CEA. Blogs and videos on YouTube are much better means for providing CEA. But sometimes they too are used to test ideas and/or provoke thought. Journal articles and book length treatments of ideas, especially written by scholars and especially when peer reviewed, are the highest means to provide CEA. Now let's say a scholar tweets. Is it reasonable to pick apart the tweet rather than his peer reviewed work? Surely not. The means of a tweet prohibits CEA. Therefore one must approach a tweet by a scholar with the utmost attention to the principle of charity. Furthermore, one must pay more attention to journal articles and peer reviewed books by scholars than any undergraduate student who has an audience.

A Highly Recommended New Book by Victor Stenger on the Multiverse

Another book is about to be released by the prolific and very informative Victor Stenger, God and the Multiverse: Humanity's Expanding View of the Cosmos.Given the high recommendations my suggestion is not to miss it. As a primer while you wait, you can watch NOVA The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? Go ahead. See what you think.

A Good Reading of Ingersoll's Mistakes of Moses

The other 5 parts can be found on YouTube.

Peter Boghossian's Famous Tweet Merits a Place Along With Other Important Satires

Taylor Carr just won't let up. Now he's trying to show the inconsistency of using the philosophy of religion in order to argue that it's an illegitimate discipline:

I'll just put this out there... is it not itself a philosophy of religion to claim that because religious language has no actual referents, therefore philosophy of religion is illegitimate?

Valerie Tarico On the Ten Commandments That Would Have Changed the World

There have been many attempts to improve on the Ten "Words" or Commandments in the Old Testament. Here is Tarico's list. Any of the secular versions I've seen are better than what we find in the Bible. I like her list very much. See, it isn't hard to be much smarter and more compassionate than an omniscient omnibenelovent god!

Once Religious People Get Public Prayer, Then They Want to Fight Over Which Religion is True

"A group of pastors at the meeting had mixed reactions to that idea.

“For us to have a prayer, according to our faith, or for us to have a legitimate prayer, it would have to be in Jesus' name,” said Pastor Jimmy Burrell.

“I am not going to pray to Allah. I am going to pray to Jesus, but I understand,” said Pastor Jimmy Anthony."

See News Video: School board pushes for prayer after high court ruling

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.