Keith Parsons is Just Old. That Explains Why He Favors the Old Atheism.

Evangelicals seem to love Keith Parsons. And he likes it. When it comes to writing something in Christian anthologies he's the go-to guy. That slap on the back must feel good. Now he's a good guy I'll admit. But even Edward Feser likes him. Something's gotta be wrong! ;-) They agree in that they both want to return to that old time religion, er, atheism. I understand why Feser wants to live in the past, but Parsons?

Look, I am not interested in merely having a discussion. I'm interested in changing minds. Karl Marx spoke for me when he quipped, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

At issue are the differences between Old Atheism and New Atheism. Parsons prefers the Old Atheism as does Feser. My view is they both want to live in the past. One must accept the changes and move on into the future. There is no going back. Christianity is dying. Why in the world would Parsons want to return to the good old days when Christianity had a huge monopoly in American academia, and where it was considered a respectable faith? There is at the present time a massive exodus from Christianity by young people. I just learned today that over half the people in Scotland are non-religious. As that happens in westernized countries we no longer need to respect faith-based reasoning, but rather tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about religion.

What are the unique differences between Old Atheism and the New Atheism?

On Dealing With Science Deniers

John Loftus: When it comes to the objective world of matters of fact, science is the only game in town.

Mr. Green: Hm, interesting. Can you describe the experiment you performed to arrive at that conclusion, so I can reproduce it?

John Loftus: Would you tell us what the alternative is to science?, and/or, What else in addition to science is as good of an alternative?

Mr. Green: I'd rather focus on the question that was actually asked, despite your attempt to dodge it like a seasoned politician.

Religious Freedom on Cruz Control

I have written a newspaper column about Ted Cruz’s proposal to patrol Muslim neighborhoods. I suggest that his logic should also lead us to patrol some Christian neighborhoods that might become radicalized because of their anti-abortion beliefs.

Methodological Naturalism Again, When Will it Stop?

Victor Reppert is at it again.

I don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to methodological naturalism. Science cannot work without it. The problem comes when one draws the conclusion from it that metaphysical naturalism is the case. So you're opposed to it only if people conclude nature is all there is, that is, only if it's used as an argument to atheism.

Your faith-based arguments are that there is either a reliable source of knowledge about the world other than science, or that your god lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge, or both. But those arguments of yours go against the probabilities.

Why don't you tell us what that other source of knowledge is, and compare its merits to the scientific enterprise? Why don't you admit how many times science has forced you to move the goal posts, such that for centuries when theologians didn't think science could solve a problem science marched past it?

Why don't you address why your god set the world up this way, such that reasonable people will follow the probabilities? Even if for some reason your god could not create the world like this, why don't you admit your God failed to provide the necessary objective evidence that would overcome the methodological predisposition to naturalism?

If you want a serious discussion you must address these issues.

The Trend Ever Since the Enlightenment

Blurbs for My Anthology "Christianity in the Light of Science"

We're in the final copy-editing stage for this new anthology. Below are the blurbs to be put on the back cover.

This is the best compilation John Loftus has done to date and I have enjoyed reading his others. I truly couldn’t put it down. He has assembled leading authors to write essays in an easy to read manner that are well annotated. If you find a particular subject of interest in a couple of authors or more, check out their larger body of work. I highly recommended this book for those who want to delve deeper into why religion persists in our world and why it shouldn’t. --Karen L. Garst, PhD, editor of Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life Without Religion and blogger at www.faithlessfeminist.com.

Ehrman–Licona Ongoing Dialogue On the Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Briefly, in such a dialogue both Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Licona will each contribute (1) an interview, (2) a statement, (3) a response, and (4) a reply — in that order.

The interview will typically take 6,000 words and give each the opportunity to favorably discuss one’s own life and work. The statement will typically take 10,000 words and constitute the portion of the dialogue where each most forcefully advances one’s own case. The response and reply together will typically take another 10,000 words, enabling each to refute the case of one’s interlocutor.

Drs. Ehrman and Licona will argue the following theses:

Dr. Ehrman: The New Testament is not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, it provides no convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Dr. Licona: The New Testament is a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, it provides convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. LINK.

The Gore At the Very Heart of Christianity is Disgusting

A good friend of mine gave me a prayer card with this photo of a statue, now located at the Cathedral Museum in Fort Wayne, Indiana. 

I cannot begin to describe what a gruesome faith Christianity really is. Maybe this picture can help. 

You see, the more gruesome the death of Jesus was, then the more he loved us and wants us to be grateful for what he did. The more gore the better, you see.

So this statute could be bettered, since he surely loved us more than this statue depicts. His entrails should be spilling out over his naked body, with at least one eye completely gouged out, a broken swollen nose, a broken jaw hanging off his cheek, and bloody hair in tattered shreds. 

Have you no imagination Christian!

Methodological Naturalism Again

Paul de Vries described the difference between “methodological naturalism,” which is a disciplinary method that says nothing about God’s existence, from “metaphysical naturalism,” which “denies the existence of a transcendent God.” [Paul de Vries, “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences,” Christian Scholar’s Review 15(1986): 388–96]. The method of naturalism assumes that for everything we experience there is a natural explanation, whereas metaphysical naturalism is a worldview that denies the supernatural realm exists. [For discussions of this see Alvin Plantinga’s essay “Methodological Naturalism?” parts 1 and 2, which can be found at www.arn.org, and in the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (49 [1997]). Barbara Forrest’s “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection,” Philo 3, no. 2 (Fall–Winter 2000): 7–29, along with Michael Martin’s “Justifying Methodological Naturalism,” both found at www.infidels.org/library.]

I myself have written a few things about it. Now for a few new thoughts.

Do I Worry I Could Be Wrong About God?

I was asked this question. My answer:

I have no worries. What would I be worried about if so? The possibility there is a wicked god who would torture me in hell is infinitesimal on my calculations. We should think exclusively in terms of the objective probabilities and proportion our conclusions to the evidence. When we do so, there is no reason to think any one of the many god-concepts exists.

I'm Preparing to Debate Abdu Murray Next Week.

It will be streamed live. Here are the links: 1) Link to the event on Facebook. 2) Link to the feed at Ravi Zacharias Ministries. Ravi spoke at my graduation from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985. 3) Link to the feed on YouTube. I'd appreciate it if my readers shared this event with everyone who might be interested.

Feel the Bern! Sanders Is Still In This!

Since I don't think anything significant happened on Easter I'm not treating it as a special day.

Bernie Sanders gained three YUGE wins in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington yesterday with more than 68 percent of the vote, same as he did last week in Idaho, Utah, and Democrats Abroad. The real numbers to watch are circled in red. 2,383 delegates are needed for the nomination · 2,049 still available. The chart above hasn't yet been updated yet. Washington has 101 delegates; 25 have gone to Sanders while 9 have gone to Hillary. That's only 34 out of 101. These numbers will change early tomorrow. The super delegates switched to Obama in June of 2008.

Happy Rabbit's Day Everyone!

It's funny isn't it? That an omniscient God could not have done better?

Christian, Your God Concept Is Only Conveniently Omnipotent

This salamander can regenerate amputeed body parts. I've argued if there is a good omnipotent God s/he could make us like that. If God exists all amputeed limbs should regenerate themselves. Or, is God only conveniently omnipotent? Which is to say, he's only omnipotent in selected stories we read in the Bible. (Iron Chariots, anyone?) Go figure. Christians will remove from consideration what we would expect if God exists, preferring instead fairyland tales told in the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past, which by their very nature cannot be witnessed or verified.

Come on people, think like an outsider 
for once in your life!

Del cristianismo al ateísmo: Mi experiencia personal

Leyendo la Biblia en México

Dos preguntas siempre surgen cuando creyentes cristianos se enteran que soy agnóstico o ateo.*  

Una es ¿Cómo es que una persona pudo haber llegado a ser ateo o agnóstico con su estudio de la Biblia?

Mi respuesta menos complicada es que soy agnóstico o ateo precisamente porque he estudiado la Biblia, y porque me he dado cuenta de muchas cosas que los creyentes comunes no conocen.  

Las razones específicas han sido explicadas en detalle en mi libro,¿Se puede saber si Dios existe?, el cual es probablemente el único libro escrito originalmente en español por un ateo que es erudito bíblico acádemico nacido en América Latina.

Otra pregunta común es: ¿Cómo se puede vivir una vida productiva y feliz sin Dios? 

En sí, un concepto muy popular es que el ateo es una persona amargada, que no tiene ningún motivo para vivir, o vive una vida que no le satisface. Muchos piensan que el ateo es una persona que se dedica a los vicios y placeres sin conciencia.

Aquí deseo exponer como llegué a descubrir las verdades que he discutido en mi libro de un punto de vista personal, y también demostrar que un agnóstico o ateo puede vivir una vida productiva y que se considere buena en nuestra sociedad.        

David Pakman Interviews Me: How an Evangelical Christian Preacher Became an Atheist

My Future Non-Plans

I have a book to copy-edit, another one to write (due June 1st) and then I'm taking a break, hopefully a long one. If I like my break I may not come back. Don't hold me to this since I may change my mind. "Don't say I didn't say, I didn't warn ya."

The Damoclean Sword of Hell

Bart Ehrman: "Why the biblical stories about the last days and hours of Jesus are probably not true"

LINK. Hat Tip to Patrick Reynolds for this.

Quote of the Day, By Chuck Johnson

Exaggerating the truth of something which is true, or exaggerating the falseness of something which is false is the root of a huge amount of ignorance, dishonesty, and disastrous thinking. By proportioning our beliefs to the evidence, and by becoming authentic by not pretending to know what we don't know, we can see our way to the truth.

A Brief Email Discussion On The Evidence That Our Brain Lies to Us

Garard: In chapter 3 of your book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, if your content is true, how would you know?

Loftus: Because of the scientific evidence coming from both psychological studies and neurology.

Garard: But to suggest you can't trust your brain would suggest you can't trust the evidence from scientific and psychological reports. You could be misunderstanding them, you could be mistaken about what you're reading, they could be mistaken, how do you avoid total skepticism?

Loftus: No. Only a lying brain could reach that conclusion. For upon accepting this evidence, total skepticism could not be an option since the evidence tells us the truth about our brains, that they can and do lie to us. Henceforth, to keep our brains from lying to us about things we desire to be true but aren't, we would demand the same kind of evidence that forced our brains to accept this conclusion. Where there isn't this same kind of evidence we would force our brains to heel by proportioning our beliefs to the evidence, and by becoming authentic by not pretending to know what we don't know.

Thank you. Thank you very much! The End. [Loftus exits the building.]

Quote of the Day, By Dr. Wallace Marshall

[Re-dated post from April 5, 2015]

Recently Dr. Marshall messaged me with permission to quote him:

I wish I could make your two chapters on the problem of suffering (in Why I Became an Atheist) required reading for all evangelicals. They would banish many a shallow Christianity! Your section on the free-will defense also raises a number of issues that most Christians haven't thought about.

--Dr. Wallace Marshall is a Christian apologist and Director of the Charleston, South Carolina, Reasonable Faith chapter.

Dr. Wallace Marshall Endorses the Outsider Test for Faith

This should not be news to anyone since I'm confident the only way to objectively test one's inherited religious faith is from the outside. The very fact so many Christian apologists have been attacking it shows they really are not interested in knowing whether their religion is true or not. They do so because they tacitly acknowledge their faith cannot pass the test. David Marshall pays lip service to it by acting as if he endorses it, but he guts the test of its key elements.

Enter Dr. Wallace Marshall, whom I debated last Wednesday. [No, to answer your question, I was told it was not recorded.] Marshall told me he endorses the OTF since he is an evidentialist, and gave me permission to quote him. He's the first Christian apologist to do so. See? That wasn't too hard, was it? The problem, as I highlighted in my latest book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, is that most Christian apologists reject evidentialism, that is, they deny the need for, and/or existence of sufficient evidence for their faith. 80% of them by my rough estimation. So let me put it to Christian apologists everywhere: what would you think if 80% of Mormon apologists denied the need for, and/or existence of sufficient evidence for their faith? Come on, think like an outsider for once in your lives!

Infinity Is Not A Number, So The Kalam Argument Fails

The concept of infinity is not an actual number. It’s a placeholder for a number beyond our finite conceptions. To see this, just think of an infinite set of even numbers. Now add to that set an infinite number of odd numbers. By adding an infinite set of odd numbers to the infinite set of even numbers we have not increased the actual numbers in that set. So an actual infinite set of numbers does not exist. We could even subtract all numbers with zeros in them, or the numbers 1-1000, or all prime numbers and more, and still have an infinite set of numbers leftover.

With the Kalam argument William Lane Craig's error is in thinking infinity is an actual number. Based on this error he says there cannot be an actual infinite number of past events. Well, of course not. That's because infinity isn’t an actual number. Since infinity is not an actual number we cannot count an infinite number of past events. The way Craig uses infinity assumes there was a beginning an infinite time ago anyway. The truth is that an infinite timeline necessarily lies outside of our epistemic horizons. But this tells us nothing at all about whether the universe is eternal.

I short, the Kalam rests on the claim that infinity is a number. But it isn't. So nothing follows from the fact we cannot count to infinity.

Dr. James Lindsay, a friend of mine who has a Ph.D. in math and wrote the book Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly, says:

Eternal cosmologies deny the existence of a beginning. Eternal means no beginning and no end. No first moment. No last moment. In an eternal cosmological model, we have to reckon time only from defined moments, and we can imagine a timeline of infinite length in both directions from any point that we choose. The way we conceive of that is not of a beginning infinitely long before or an end infinitely long after but rather as “there’s always an earlier moment than any we describe and always a later moment than any we describe.”

Now the point isn’t that we know the universe is eternal. It’s that we don’t know that it isn’t. The whole point, by definition, of an eternal cosmology is that there is no first moment (i.e., no beginning).

He goes on to say,

The Kalam is exactly the kind of cosmology we would expect from people who hadn't yet discovered science…It would be absurd if they weren't so embarrassingly serious.

The Moral Argument to the Existence of God

As far as I can tell, the Islamic State could make the same moral argument to the existence of their god, using their own morality, where it’s okay to rape women, own slaves, chop off heads and burn people alive. Christians like Wallace Marshall would have to agree with their Moral Argument, but disagree with their morals. However, their morals are used as evidence that their god exists, just as his morals are used as evidence his god exists. So certain kinds of morals lead to certain kinds of gods. Or certain kinds of gods are used to justify certain kinds of morals. Which comes first? I’m as sure as sure can be that the morals come first. Where do believers get their morals from? That’s as tricky of a question as it is for me. But I can guarantee you Marshall does not get his morals from the Bible. For if he did, his morals would look much like the morals of the Islamic State. For in the Bible we see much of the same things, like slavery, holy wars, genocide or ethnic cleansing, and Inquisitions.

Regardless, there is no time in the history of ethics where Marshall could not make this argument based on the morals of his day. He could own slaves, offer up his child to Yahweh or have sex slaves and be heard to argue at the local pub that his god is the source of objective morals. This argument to god from morals is empty rhetoric without any content.

Since morals come first, I think Philosopher Raymond Bradley has produced a good counter-argument. Bradley: “If there are universal objective moral truths, then there is no God of the Bible. He then provides some universal objective moral truths that are counter to biblical morality: 1) “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing”; 2) “It is morally wrong to provide one’s troops with young women captive with the prospect of their being used as sex slaves”; 3) “It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family”; 4) “It is morally wrong to practice human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise”; 5) “It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.” He argues that “if we take these moral principles as objective ones, as Christians themselves do, then since we find them commanded and permitted by the God of the Bible, he does not exist.”