What a Delusion Does To an Otherwise Intelligent Mind: Vic Reppert On Methodological Naturalism

I had initially written about Methodological Naturalism (MN) here. Unpersuaded, Vic wrote:

Methodological naturalism would rule out a supernatural explanation in any event.

Now if you want to see what a delusion can do to an otherwise intelligent mind you must read this! I asked if he really read what I wrote and he commented as follows:

The Philosophy of Religion Is Under Attack, This Time via Argument Not Tweet

Jerry Coyne wrote:

I have to agree with Peter Boghossian that the bulk of work in that field (indeed, nearly all of it) is worthless. I am a fan of philosophy as a whole, or at least branches of it (especially the philosophy of science and ethical philosophy), and don’t think it’s worthless by any means, but I have no use for the philosophy of religion. Look at the above: the author is telling us that it’s likely that God, had he created the Universe, would have created a multiverse (that’s what Draper means by “many worlds”)! If you want a real laugh, go see why God would have been likely to create many universes. It’s garbage: pure mental masturbation. But such is the philosophy of religion, for it’s the philosophy of a nonexistent construct. It’s like a field called “the philosophy of fairies.” LINK

I have said that atheist philosophy of religion exists because there is bad Christian philosophy of religion that must be answered. And yet I don't think there is anything that atheists haven't already answered. My judgment is that atheists working in that field have trounced their opponents so badly there is nothing left to say. We can therefore dispense with it as an academic discipline in our universities as unworthy of serious attention. Let's replace it with the various sciences, like geology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, psychology and neurology. Until Christians can come up with sufficient evidence to believe we should no longer have to deal with their rationalizations, gerrymanderings, non-sequiturs and baseless assertions masquerading as a reasonable discussion. I hereby declare the philosophy of religion dead. All we have to do from now on is quote what has already been written. Please move along. There is nothing here to see.

Will Religion Go the Way of Racism?

Quote of the Day, by Articulett to Victor Reppert

If there was a god...
And that god wanted people to believe certain things...
Then that god would communicate clearly to ensure that the beliefs passed the Outsider Test for Faith (or faith would not be a necessary requirement as the evidence would suffice). This would at least necessarily be true of any god worthy of worship. So, there is either a god that doesn't care what people believe... a god that cares and is incompetent (and thus not worthy of worship) --or no god at all. The most likely scenarios is no god at all because we know that humans invent gods and other beings to explain that which they don't understand, --but we have no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist without a brain.

Two More Blurbs For My Forthcoming Anthology, "Christianity is Not Great"

We're getting a few good blurbs for Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails. One is from a Christian professor.

Christian, Answer These Questions About Slavery in the Bible

Understanding the Mind of a Deluded Intellectual: Lessons from Victor Reppert

Dr. Victor Reppert responded to my post On Priors, Biases and Probabilities. It's just a comment but there are lessons to be learned from it that help us get inside the mind of a deluded intellectual like him.

Peter Boghossian Authenticity TAM 2013

Quote of the Day, by Primenumbers

You're right. Extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. They require no evidence at all. All they require is a little faith....

The Arizona Atheist Defends the Outsider Test for Faith Against David Marshall

Previously I had written something brief in response to Marshall's chapter on the Outsider Test in the book True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism. I was thankful that at a minimum he embraces it (with caveats) against Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, Matthew Flannagan, Norman Geisler, Mark Hanna, Thomas Talbot and some others. LINK I was planning on writing a longer response but didn't get around to it. Now I don't need to, for the Arizona Atheist has done so as he's reviewing each chapter in that book. He says:

Each of David Marshall’s arguments against the OTF fail. His next tactic, regardless of how illogical it may be, is to argue that Christianity has passed the OTF “billions of times.” (59) If an argument is by its nature “flawed,” as Marshall contends, how then, can he possibly believe arguing that “billions” allegedly passing this flawed test is proof that Christians have come to their faith in a rational manner? See more here.

What the Bible Says About Slavery: A Handy Guide

Faith Acts Like An Anesthetic Which Deadens the Pain Felt For Others

If you were a naked slave with your family on the auction block under the threat of the blood soaked cowskin, where your family members were bought by different masters, wouldn't YOU wish your God had clearly condemned slavery? It's as if Christians refuse to feel their pain. Feel it. The problem is that your faith acts like an anesthetic in order to believe, by deadening the pain from stepping into other people's shoes. Faith is the opiate of the masses in this sense too.

Dear Christian, Doubt is not Your Enemy (Part 2)

In this installment, dear Christian, let’s look at the role of doubt, with regard to religion and truth.  Most religions have sacred books or traditions.  These books make claims about all sorts of things – the origins of the world, prescriptions for daily living, and promises and threats about a supposed afterlife.  The more fundamentalist the religion, the more demands it places on the believer’s mind and life.  Often, fundamentalist faiths seek to impose these view by force of law, for example the Taliban and Sharia law, or religious conservatives in the U.S. who want to impose legal penalties for those who violate their beliefs or ‘offend’ their god. 

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!