Killer Quote From Robert Ingersoll On The Darwinian Problem of Evil

Robert Ingersoll's birthday would have been yesterday. He would have been 182 years old. Yet what he said and wrote still resonates with us.

I wrote a chapter on the problem of animal suffering for The Christian Delusion (chapter 9). I sure wish I had known of the following quote of Ingersoll's so I could include it. Turns out, professor John Schneider sent me the quote yesterday and prefaced it with these words:

I have a killer quote from him that should intimidate any thoughtful believer in the Christian God and make them think along lines that evangelical theology cannot even begin to do, much less cope with the problem he raised in the light of Darwinism.

Here 'tis:

Christian Apologists Lie, Here's What I Mean By That

David Marshall just doesn't understand, but then what's new? He wrote:

John: You called two of my friends, honest men both, "liars." That does bother me, because they ARE my friends, because it is false, and because I hate to see you acting like that. If you have some special meaning for the word "liar," of course you can't expect the wide world to be cognizant of that - it looks like a cheap smear from here.

David, in my new book I have a whole chapter titled "When All Else Fails Lie." It's a fact that people whose brains lie to them will in turn speak lies. A fact. Your brain lies to you, so you also lie. You don't know that's what you're doing but you do. That's the sense in which I say you or Tim McGrew or Tom Gilson and others lie. It's nuanced but accurate. It's what deluded people do.

A Message From Kenneth Who Comments Here

Don't you think more Christians would be willing to participate in these sites if the atmosphere was a little more welcoming? I know you are an advocate for ridicule, but it's kind of a turn off. If the stray christian wanders onto this blog, comments, and then gets blasted with crude, rude, insulting, ridicule.... how many do you think will stick around for the rest of what you have to say?

I'm an extremely avid reader, and I can say with confidence that you haven't gotten half the attention your work deserves. The Christian community needs to grapple with what you have to say. I think that more Christians would engage here if they felt like it was a safe place for them to dialog...

My response:

Fair enough kenneth. Thanks. I appreciate your kind words. I do wish people would use less snark and ridicule and more dispassionate reasoning. I do think the commenters here are better on average than anywhere else. I should take what you say to heart. It's just that I used to be as you describe. I'm just jaded after nearly ten years of suffering what I consider to be fools.

On Lowder's Stupid Atheist Meme #4: “Let’s Put an End to the Philosophy of Religion!”

Jeff Lowder again, with another so-called "Stupid Atheist Meme." One of the reasons I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy is because he has successfully convinced people into thinking he's a philosopher when he is not, which I consider his biggest con. He has a college degree in computer science and is well-read in the area of philosophy of religion, okay. But I have found him to be ignorant many times. His biggest ignorances have to do with taking positions against those I have taken, so it does matter that people see who he really is. For if he's considered a full credentialed philosopher with a Ph.D., then what he says is taken more seriously than what I say. His all white male philosophy student cheerleaders defend him because he has successfully conned them. They say there have been many philosophers in the past who didn't have Ph.D.'s, like Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes and Aquinas, which I know all too well. That is irrelevant. I'm arguing Lowder lacks the depth and breadth necessary to have earned a Ph.D. in philosophy.

What I'm writing is helpful. One person wrote:

I have been using the Internet Infidels for about 15 years now. The essays therein has helped me in my philosophical path from "angry antitheism" to a more moderate nontheism. And in all those time I have thought JJ Lowder is a philosopher. I don't know why I had that impression, but I did. Maybe subtle hints in his online writings made me believe that he is one. If you had not exposed his actual academic background, I would still think he is a PhD-toting analytic philosopher. LINK.

My Intervention With Christian Apologist John D. Ferrer

Ferrer seems young to me but he teaches at a community college, is respectful and fairly smart. He unfairly reviewed my book "The Outsider Test for Faith" though. On Facebook I wrote this teaser:

Yes, Christian apologists are lying. But no, I don't think they consciously realize it. The answer to this dilemma is in how the brain works. It lies to us. It didn't evolve to arrive at the truth in the first place. It evolved because of the value of survival. I describe this process in chapter 3 of "How To Defend The Christian Faith". What an amazing and fruitful study the brain must be!

Below you can read Ferrer's comments and my "intervention" as Peter Boghossian calls it. Or, you might be able to see it by following this link (the discussion is ongoing). I think my intervention is very effective even if it was very short. So far Ferrer has not responded.

Why Do Tom Gilson and Tim McGrew Disagree With What Peter Boghossian Actually Does?

Here's a comment I left on Tom Gilson's blog Thinking Christian, where Tom expresses his and McGrew's disagreement with Boghossian's actual practice of using questions to get people to think deeper about what they believe. Do Tom and Tim represent the Thinking Christian or not? Do they advocate thinking? Or are thinking Christians not needed? Yes, I'm serious!

Tom, I don't think you should be disagreeing with the actual practice of what Boghossian does, regardless of his motivations. You mentioned Josh McDowell, who does this same thing. As a result Dustin Lawson, McDowell's former protege, left the faith. So? You should still do what Josh McDowell does if you think truth will win out. In my forthcoming book which you should read titled, "How To Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist", one of the most important chapters is "Become an Honest Life-Long Seeker of Truth." You should advocate the same thing. Here's a link to info about it.

The very fact that you disagree with what Boghossian actually does leaves me wondering if you think it's wrong to start the "hapless Christian" on an intellectual journey. If you represent the "party of true reason" you should be happy he does this because truth should win the day. In fact, he might be sending Christian people to read your book(s).

You should pick up more converts from Boghossian's efforts. You should pick up better informed Christians from his efforts. What am I missing?

Whether It’s an Apparition of The Virgin Mary or an Apparition of Bigfoot: What’s the Difference?

Bigfoot  Sighted in North Carolina

Reported in the Citizen-Times:

Tourist claims Bigfoot sighting in Henderson County

“A reader in Henderson County sent in this video showing what he believed to be Sasquatch. Spotted Thursday morning near Hendersonville. Aug. 6, 2015

HENDERSONVILLE – A Boone man vacationing in Henderson County says he spotted – and videoed – what he believes to be a Bigfoot.

You'll have to be the judge on this one. Eric Walters just asks that viewers keep an open mind.

Hemant Mehta May Not Understand the Problem, But Here's A Solution

Earlier I had written a post where I expressed a reservation that atheists are largely talking to themselves about atheistic concerns, rather than trying to convince Christians to abandon their faith. While I didn't single Hemant Mehta out or anything, he kindly responded, explaining Why I Don’t Explicitly Debunk Religious Arguments. He agrees that counter-apologetics are important and should be done. However, in his response he says why this isn't his focus. Here are his six reasons with key explanatory quotes from him:

1) It’s been done in this medium.

There are no arguments Christians have that I can’t find strong rebuttals to via a Google search. People have been writing about things like Pascal’s Wager for a looooong time. So doing that on this site, when those explanations already exist to my satisfaction on other sites, seems unnecessary.

Yes, in a way Christian theism was dealt a death blow by Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), then fatally stabbed by Thomas Paine (1737-1809] and burned to ashes by Robert Ingersoll (1833–1899). The death of God was facilitated by others, including many Christian thinkers themselves, until he was declared dead in the 1960's. This all happened long before the so-called new atheists, who opened this debate up for discussion to the wider public. But if the arguments for Christianity have all been demolished--and I agree they have--why were the new atheists needed? For publicity? If so, I'd say even THAT is a good enough reason to never lose sight of the goal, to try to reach believers with solid counter-arguments they have never heard before. Yes, many Christians have never heard any good counter-argument to their faith, or if they have they didn't take it seriously. So Christians must be made to deal with them at every reasonable opportunity.

There is now a second wave of atheist scholars who are following on the heels of the new atheists, some of whom have written chapters for my anthologies. Why are they needed? Answer that question and you'll see why we must always be diligent in the cause for doubt. The answer is because Christian scholars are extremely resilient. They are experts in obfuscating legalese who can find loopholes for the possibilities of faith no matter how small. And they are being heard by rank and file Christians who don't know any better. They have so fine-tuned their arguments to make it appear their faith is reasonable, despite the arguments of Hume, Paine, Ingersoll, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and some others.

I have written a book to be released soon detailing exactly what these Christian apologists are doing to maintain the fires of faith, called How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist. You cannot make a big impact into future Christianity if you don't understand what their scholars have been doing. Most atheists have basically fallen asleep at the wheel while driving toward a secular society. In my opinion most atheists think religion and Christianity have already been debunked such that there is no need to continue to man the fort, no need for watchmen at the gates, and no need to make sure our weapons have been upgraded to resist the next onslaught from the believing barbarians. {Good, eh?} That is our big mistake, and I'm not joking.

Now for the rest of Hemant's reasons, which have common themes to them.

The Stupidity of Jeff Lowder: "Nontheists Should Stop Using 'Freethought' as an Umbrella Term"

Jeff Lowder again, with today's post: "Stupid Atheist Meme #3: Freethinker = Atheist." He may be baiting me so I won't continue dogging his every step, just a few of them as I see fit. Jeff Lowder smuggled his way into being known and respected as a philosopher without any relevant credentials. I aim to "out" him about this. Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. If you're looking for a more accurate analysis of philosophical arguments then I bid you turn elsewhere. I am banned from commenting at the Secular Outpost because I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy, so in order to comment on a post of his I must do so here. Okay.

First let me point out more of his hypocrisy. A while back Dan Fincke, a former Freethought Blogger, issued a pledge to civility. Jeff Lowder endorsed it with his full support. Afterwards Greta Christina published her book, Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless.Lowder has yet to state for the record that he disproves of the tone and/or substance of that book since she is definitely not being civil to religionists. So his supporting the civility pledge doesn't mean much. I consider this more of his hypocrisy, as I wrote earlier. Now why is he a hypocrite? For one reason. To please important people. He will, on occasion, say what needs to be said to please them, hoping no one notices his hypocrisy. People call that being two-faced. [For my part I reserve the right to piss people off and I can like Greta Christina's book because I never signed that unbalanced pledge].

But to the point of today's lesson. Lowder once again is spouting ignorances. He calls himself a philosopher but he lacks both the knowledge and thinking skills to be awarded that accolade. See for yourselves. He claimed it is stupid to think of a Freethinker as an atheist. Not just wrong, mind you. Stupid. Let's see who the stupid one is, shall we, and why.

Can Someone Deny That Philosophy Matters Without Also Affirming Its Importance?

This meme (as it's called) is making it's way around the web. The point is that  philosophy matters even to people who deny its importance. Now I don't deny the importance of philosophy, nor the value of the philosophy of religion if done correctly  [On this see tag below].

However, philosophy must not be considered equivalent to reasoning, otherwise there is no content to the discipline of philosophy. Scientists must reason to be scientists, but that isn't the same thing as discussing Aquinas. The mere use of logic and the avoidance of fallacies shouldn't be considered philosophical reasoning in and of themselves. Philosophy helps by discovering the rules we debate the issues with, but not everything discussed using these rules is to be considered philosophy.

Christian Apologists Dishonestly Discuss Peter Boghossian's Method

In Boghossian's book A Manual for Creating Atheists,he talks about being a Street Epistemologist, which is a person who uses the Socratic method of dialectically asking a series of questions to get people to realize they are pretending to know what they don't know. Pretending. That's Boghossian's definition of faith. Believers are pretending when they claim to know with 100% certainty that what they believe is true. The antidote for this faith virus, as he calls it, is the Socratic method. Below is a video of what Tom Gilson and Timothy McGrew claim he's doing compared with what he's actually doing. What they claim is false, and the evidence that it's false is just not found in his book, but also in several video clips. More liars for Jesus. When evangelicals feel threatened why do they need to lie for Jesus? But they do. I'm hoping that by highlighting these liars for Jesus that honest Christians will look elsewhere for honest discussions of their faith, rather than paid apologists serving in creedal affirming evangelical colleges.

IF LIBRARIANS WERE HONEST

IF LIBRARIANS WERE HONEST, by Joseph Mills.

If librarians were honest,
they wouldn’t smile, or act
welcoming. They would say,
You need to be careful. Here
be monsters. They would say,
These rooms house heathens
and heretics, murderers and
maniacs, the deluded, desperate,
and dissolute. They would say,
These books contain knowledge
of death, desire, and decay,
betrayal, blood, and more blood;
each is a Pandora’s box, so why
would you want to open one.
They would post danger
signs warning that contact
might result in mood swings,
severe changes in vision,
and mind-altering effects.
If librarians were honest
they would admit the stacks
can be more seductive and
shocking than porn. After all,
once you’ve seen a few
breasts, vaginas, and penises,
more is simply more,
a comforting banality,
but the shelves of a library
contain sensational novelties,
a scandalous, permissive mingling
of Malcolm X, Marx, Melville,
Merwin, Millay, Milton, Morrison,
and anyone can check them out,
taking them home or to some corner
where they can be debauched
and impregnated with ideas.
If librarians were honest,
they would say, No one
spends time here without being
changed. Maybe you should
go home. While you still can.

Another Example of Jeff Lowder's College Level Approach to the Philosophy of Religion

Jeff Lowder smuggled his way into being known and respected as a philosopher without any relevant credentials. I aim to "out" him about this. Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger. If you're looking for a more accurate analysis of philosophical arguments then I bid you turn elsewhere. I am banned from commenting at the Secular Outpost because I have publicly exposed Jeff Lowder's dishonesty and hypocrisy, so in order to comment on a post of his I must do so here. Okay.

I first want readers to notice how he dishonestly presents the impression that he is a philosopher. In a recent post on morality he writes as follows:

The concept of “objective morality” is notorious for its ambiguity. You might even say that people–or, at least, philosophers–have a moral obligation not to use that expression unless and until they first give a very nuanced definition of what it means! Because the concept is often misunderstood, I’m going to try to offer a “layman’s guide to moral objectivity” in this post.

Let’s start with “morality.” The average person who is not a philosopher probably thinks there is just the one ‘thing,’ morality, and that’s the end of it. In fact, the topic is a little bit more complicated than that. Non-philosophers might be surprised to learn that philosophers make a distinction between the good (values) and the right (duties). LINK.

If you don't see this for what it is, or object to his use of language then you should. In a post sometime back, Lowder talked about having written "a paper", which real philosophers know is a technical term for something one reads at a philosophical conference (just think of a "call for papers"), or it refers to something that will be published in a peer reviewed journal. What he wrote was neither of these things, just the dishonest use of language.

When Will Apologist David Marshall Learn He's Out of His League? Never?

I've gone round and round with Marshall, almost always to no avail (with at least one exception below). Where has he been lately? He's decided to challenge some fella named Matthew Ferguson who said: "...it is clear to me that the Gospels are not historical writing. These texts instead read like ancient prose novels . . . the Gospels all fall short from the criteria that can be used to categorize a piece of historical prose." Marshall all too quickly responded as if Ferguson was some kind of duffas, claiming he was the expert, and that Ferguson had not seriously studied the Gospels. So what are Ferguson's credentials? He says,

I am a Classics Ph.D. student who also holds an M.A. in the subject with an emphasis in ancient history. Such experience has involved studying multiple Greek and Latin authors in the original language, in addition to doing genre criticism and understanding the history of 1st century CE literature. I have likewise taken graduate seminars on the New Testament and Christian Origins.

Big Oops! So when Marshall heard this he does the backstep dance routine we're so used to here, rather than apologizing for rashly jumping to a conclusion like he did. Ferguson:

After Marshall posted his first comment on my essay, in which he claimed that I had not seriously studied the Gospels, he did not like the fact that my reply emphasized my experience studying Classical languages. Marshall accused me of “waving around my credentials” when I stated that I had studied a wide array of literature from the 1st century CE (including the NT) in the original language.

Which is it Marshall? You blamed him for not being informed but when it was clear he was more informed than you, then you blamed him for telling you he was an expert. To read a serious take down of Marshall, his level of competence and his behavior when caught red-handed read through this.

There are a few additional items we've written on Marshall's style and substance here at DC. Notice the titles, if nothing else:

Muslim, Orthodox Jews and Christian Sophisticated Theologians

When I see how the Muslims and Orthodox Jews justify treating women as second class citizens at best, and the male brutality at worst, I think of Christian justifications for their faith and morals. It's the same word salad intended to skirt around the fact that the evidence for their faith and morals is just not there.

National Geographic demonstrates what happens when you blindfold people using a ouija board.

This is what it means to think like a scientist, except that one shouldn't be afraid of stating the obvious conclusion at the end.

My New Inquisitive Minds Podcast

This is Part 2 of my interview (apx. 30 minutes) with Dr. André Gagné, Costa Babalis, and Calogero Miceli of the Inquisitive Minds podcasts. I discuss a wide array of questions regarding the Historical Jesus, health care and the rise of Christianity, scarce resource theory in relation to religion and violence, the role and responsibilities of biblical and scholars of religion in today's world, the end of biblical studies, and my future research projects. I recorded it in Montreal, Canada on June 15, 2015.  If you have not already done so, you also can also listen to  Part 1. 

When Your Muslim Coach Prays

There is no one way to pray

I have written a column on the routine attempt to Christianize college sports teams.  The idea that student-athletes "need" spiritual guidance is itself a biased religionist assumption that is too often unchallenged. There is no single way to pray, and the idea that all Christians pray in the same way is also untrue.

Dr. Karl Gilberson's Open Letter to The New President of Northwest Nazarene University

Dear President Pearsall:

The time has come to fight back against the fundamentalists who are destroying the mind--not to mention the heart and soul--of American evangelical Christianity, including your university.

You have just assumed the presidency of Northwest Nazarene University (NNU) under a dark cloud. Your predecessor, David Alexander, resigned in disgrace amidst a scandal that seems to be growing, and you unexpectedly found yourself in an office that you did not seek, confronted with problems that you did not create. The greatest of these problems was your predecessor's termination of Tom Oord, a popular professor and your school's leading scholar.

In terminating Oord, Alexander caved in to pressure from Christian fundamentalists who wanted Oord's ideas--like evolution--removed from the classrooms of NNU. And this happened despite longstanding commitments to intellectual diversity and openness in colleges and universities. As you begin your presidency, you will find yourself surrounded by these same fundamentalists. Oord may leave but they will remain. And they will pressure you to remove other scholars who promote ideas they don't like. Please don't listen to them.

On Atheist Irrelevancy and Myopia: "I have found only two blogs that focus on debunking Christianity"

Robert Miller wrote me saying,

The Internet has more Christian apologists than a horse has hairs and many blogs by atheists or skeptics, but I have found only two blogs that focus on debunking Christianity or Christian apologetics. Yours and Cross-Examined. Do you know of any other blogs or websites that look at New Testament issues from a skeptical point of view?

I'm assuming Miller is speaking of sites that focus exclusively on debunking Christian apologetics. I am happy Miller found this site, that's always good to know. However, I find his question both interesting and provocative. I ask my readers to comment on other blogs that seek to do this exact same thing. I'm sure there are others. But I'm not sure there are others more popular than the two blogs he mentioned. And between us, only one has multiple authors with advanced degrees writing for it.

But, if Miller's observation is largely true, we have a serious problem. It means atheists are largely talking to themselves about atheistic concerns.

Two More Blurbs For My Book, "How to Defend the Christian Faith"

My next book, to be published by Pitchstone Publishing in November, is provocatively titled: How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.Here are two more blurbs for it:

Why Atheists Laugh at Religion

Just think of the Outsider Test for Faith here! Funny stuff!

Evidence Without Reason is Lame, Reason Without Evidence is Blind

Earlier I issued a challenge to creationists right here. It has generated quite a storm of controversy. For some reason whenever we argue against creationism or faith itself, this happens. At issue this time is whether philosophy is considered to be evidence, or even helpful at all. Creationists are arguing that it is. Others disagree vehemently. To help answer this issue let's consider for comparison the well-known aphorism, "Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind." [Most people substitute the word "religion" for "philosophy" as quoted originally by Einstein]. If we take this aphorism and correctly unpack it, the point being made is this:

Evidence without reason is lame, reason without evidence is blind.

For if by philosophy we mean the use of good critical thinking skills, then evidence can be "hamstrung" by people with poor critical thinking skills. Creationists fit the first part of this aphorism perfectly. They don't really know what constitutes as evidence, even while dealing with the evidence. For the lack of evidence is not evidence for creation. The lack of evidence is merely the lack of evidence, get it?! Moreover, just as the tools for digging up treasures in the ground are not themselves the treasures found, so also the rules of logic that help us reason correctly are not themselves the evidence found either. So creationists also fit the second half of this aphorism perfectly. They are using reason to skirt or ignore the evidence because they are blind to it. Have you ever heard of the phrase "He's too smart for his own good"? That describes a person who can justify almost anything. Christians have had some really smart pseudo-intellectuals down through the centuries who can fool anyone who wants to be fooled. Faith causes people to want to be fooled, while faith causes the brain of the pseudo-intellectual to lie to its host. Blind is a perfect metaphor for creationists.

My Challenge to Intelligent Design Creationists

I received a message that essentially said: "As a scientist I believe God used evolution to bring life forms into existence." My response is short but sweet:

Where is the evidence that evolution is being guided by a god? Asking for this evidence is a reasonable request. But it doesn't exist. No one ever observes a god doing anything. Since this evidence doesn't exist, the god hypothesis is an unnecessary one. An unnecessary hypothesis is one we can do without. To accept some other reason apart from science to believe that a god guides evolution, is accepting that which lies outside the parameters of science. Since science is the only way to know the nature of nature and its workings, a god probably isn't guiding evolution.

John Schneider On the Accreditation of Bethel College and Calvin College

Previously I've argued that College Accreditation Should Be Denied To All Evangelical Institutions That Require Professors To Sign Doctrinal Statements. Recently in response to professor Jim Stump's forced resignation from Bethel College over the issue of evolution, John Schneider, a professor who was forced to resign from Calvin College, wrote on Facebook:

Bethel is apparently circling the wagons and eliminating a hundred questions that create intellectual ambiguity of a sort that would sink their financial ship. I understand why they are doing so, but I also wish that the accrediting agencies would sink the accreditation ship for such schools. IMO they do not offer bona fide academic educations in key areas.

I never thought I'd hear a Christian professor say that. Kudos!