Tim Callahan looks at C.S. Lewis's grief and his own.
Skeptic religion editor Tim Callahan reflects on the loss of his home in the Altadena fires and the subsequent suicidal death of his daughter.
LINK.
An honest sermon about the gospel of Mark: Chapter 3
Helping parishioners understand this chapter must be a real challenge for the clergy—especially those parishioners who have a grasp of how the world functions, and thus have little patience with ancient superstitions. The clergy are—more or less—obligated to promote the belief that the gospels were divinely inspired, despite the obvious evidence that this cannot possibly be true. There are just too many flaws and contradictions in the gospels. Thus a basic rule for reading the gospels, with any intent of truly understanding what’s going on with these documents, is this: admit that their authors were promoting the cult of their holy hero, Jesus. Championing Jesus theology was their goal, and there is little evidence that they knew what it meant to write history. Over and over again, contemporary readers must ask: how did the gospel author know this or that event actually happened? How did he know this or that Jesus-script was authentic? They fail as historians because they never cite their sources. This is alarmingly obvious because Matthew and Luke copied most of Mark’s gospel without admitting they’d done so. It was plagiarism off the charts.
John W. Loftus asked me to write about Steven Law’s Evil God
challenge (Wikipedia link). The topic turns out to be rather large,
and it ramifies into several related topics that should be familiar to
readers of this blog.
The Evil God challenge spawned a sizable literature, with articles
that expand on it, and articles from theists that attempt to rebut it or
nullify it. To keep the subject manageable, I’ll split my coverage
across several articles. This article introduces the subject and
provides references and a video.
Steven Law’s “Evil God challenge” is a philosophical thought
experiment that questions the traditional concept of an all-good,
all-powerful God. Here’s a summary of its core ideas:
The Challenge:
Law presents the challenge of explaining why believing in an
all-good God is more reasonable than believing in an all-evil God.
He argues that many arguments for God’s existence don’t inherently
prove God’s goodness, and could equally support the existence of an evil
deity.
The Symmetry Thesis:
A key component is the “symmetry thesis,” which suggests that if the
existence of good in the world is used to argue against an all-evil God,
then the existence of evil should similarly argue against an all-good
God.
Essentially, he questions why the “problem of evil” is considered a
strong argument against a good God, but the “problem of good” isn’t
considered an equally strong argument against an evil God.
The Goal:
The challenge aims to provoke deeper consideration of the attributes
ascribed to God, and to examine the logical consistency of theistic
arguments.
It also forces examination of why we define good and evil in the way
that we do.
Responses:
There have been many responses to Laws challenge, including
arguments that good is a positive reality, and evil is a privation of
good, therefore not symmetrical. Also there are arguments that an all
evil god, would not allow any good to exist.
In essence, Law’s challenge forces us to consider why we prioritize
belief in a good God over an evil one, and to scrutinize the reasoning
behind our theological assumptions.
Gemini’s summary is pretty good, but could do better at framing the
Evil God challenge as a tool for showing how weak the standard
theodicies are. (A theodicy is an attempt
by a Christian apologist to solve the Problem of
Evil, i.e. to explain how there can be so much evil in a world
supposedly created by an omni-God.) Steven Law says that for many of the
standard Christian responses to the Problem of Evil, there is a “mirror
theodicy” that equally well (or poorly) tries to explain how there can
be so much good in a world created by an omni-malevolent God. If the
theist views the theodicy as a valid justification for the omni-God, why
then isn’t the mirror theodicy an equally valid justification for the
Evil God?
Alert readers will recognize similarities to parody
religions and Street
Epistemology, topics I’ll address in following articles. To very
briefly summarize, both of those things aim to stimulate critical
reflection by showing a person how the arguments they give to
support their own religious claims work equally well, mutatis
mutandis, to support a wide variety of other claims, such as
the claims of other religions, or of parody religions.
This notion of analyzing the form of an argument, and plugging
different terms into it, to see if the argument form still seems to
work, is central to critical
thinking. Around 2400 years ago, Ancient Greek thinkers began to
analyze arguments this way. Presumably people had been making arguments
for as long as they had language (which might have been for as long as
people had anatomically modern vocal organs). Critical thinking began
when people realized that arguments aren’t just things you assert when
you want to make some specific point, but things that have forms you can
analyze. The Evil God challenge is a clever case study in this kind of
critical thinking.
Here’s a video to finish off this short introduction to the Evil God
Challenge. Enjoy!
Hardly a surprise, since the clergy urge, “Just take it on faith”
Quite a few years ago I knew a devout Catholic woman who bragged that she never read books—not even in college. She managed to get passing grades by taking careful notes in class. Nor did she have any interest in discussing religion, because she didn’t want to risk damaging here faith. Her primary goal in being deeply Catholic was to be able to see her mother again in heaven. She represents a case of extreme piety, but I have met other devout Christians who decline to engage with me on religious issues; they are determined to hold tight to their beliefs, reluctant to weaken them in any way. I suspect they’ve experienced too many moments of scary doubt.
I am pleased to announce that my new book on prayer is now available on Amazon, both paperback and Kindle. My collaborator on this work was my publisher at Insighting Growth Publications, Tim Sledge, whose many books are listed on his Amazon page.
My first book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief, was published in 2016, but I transferred the manuscript to Tim when my original publisher gave up the business. Tim suggested dividing the book into several easily accessible volumes, which we are now in the process of doing. This book on prayer is the third volume in the new series.
You should already know of my 13 critically acclaimed books as I described them here. Avid readers will pardon me for reminding others of my page at The Secular Web. I've published on some key issues there. They cover the major faith responses to those of us who value reason and science. My next paper will probably be something to do with an atheist morality without a God, gods, or goddesses. In no particular order:
What is faith, atheism, and agnosticism? How should these words be understood? Why is this debate important? Who is right, and why does it matter? In this essay John Loftus tackles these issues, offering insights that are sure to enlighten us all.
In this essay John Loftus explores the most important questions regarding the belief that the 'Virgin Mary' truly was the mother of God's son. In short, he argues that no virgin ever gave birth to a son of God, citing sources for those who want an even longer argument. The argument begins by exploring a noteworthy Christian sect that questions whether, in fact, Mary was indeed a virgin, and whether God had a body through which conception could be achieved. The questions and issues that he goes on to explore should challenge what Christians believe about God, Mary, the Gospels, and their entire faith.
Apologists specialize in claiming the tires aren’t flat at all
I can think of at least six Christian tires that have been totally, permanently destroyed. They will be flat forever. (1)God is good, loving, and all powerful. Horrendous human and animal suffering—ongoing for millennia—provide abundant evidence that this claim is feeble, indeed ridiculous. (2)The resurrection of Jesus, that is, god raised Jesus from the dead, thereby rescuing humans—those who believe in it—from eternal punishment. Yet the accounts of Easter morning in the gospels are contradictory and confusing. There are no reports of anyone actually seeing the resurrection happen. (3)We can be guided and inspired by the god portrayed in the Bible. Anyone who has read the Bible cover-to-cover can see that his claim is baseless. The god described in both the Old and New Testaments is cruel, bad-tempered, vindictive. Apologists deflect attention from this painful truth by quoting feel-good texts…and most churchgoers are none the wiser.
You might wonder what this article has to do with zebras. Spoiler: they
teach us how pain is not necessary for soul building, even if we allow
for the baseless metaphysical projection of souls from the merely
physical psychology of learning. Unlike Bruce
Springsteen, Zebras are literally born to run.
In his blog post entitled My
Paper on Morality without God is finished of March 1, 2025, John W.
Loftus mentions his visit to Notre Dame
University to meet James Sterba. A
photo accompanying his post shows a reprint of Sterba’s article An Ethics without God
That Is Compatible with Darwinian Evolution (Religions2024, 15(7), 781;
doi.org/10.3390/rel15070781). Religions is an Open Access
journal, so Sterba’s paper is free to read online. (Read it now! I’ll
wait.) The paper overlaps considerably with Sterba’s recent book:
It's finished, and I'm ready to send my response to Dr. James Sterba's essay on an ethics without God. He had invited me to write a response. It's ready to go. I also visited him at Notre Dame University and enjoyed the tour and our conversations. He's a great guy! pics below:
In earlier articles I’ve mentioned this confession by a devout elderly Catholic—she told it to me herself—but it’s always worth repeating: “Our priests told us never to think about what we had learned in catechism.”It came to mind when I saw a meme on Facebook this week: “Want to join me in church next Sunday?” “Sorry, I’m an atheist. I can’t pretend to have faith in such a misogynistic, homophobic, fear-inducing system.” “I don’t want to think about that.” “That’s why it works.” There is a major disinclination on the part of devout churchgoers to think about the current state of Christianity, the immoral behavior of the church over so many centuries, and the logical fallacies preached from the pulpit.
This is his Chapter 13 from my anthology "The Christian Delusion." Enjoy.
Christianity
Does Not Provide the Basis for Morality by Dr.
David Eller.
Imagine
someone said to you that English provided the only basis for grammar.After you overcame your shock, you would
respond that English is certainly not the only language with a grammar. You
would add that grammar is not limited to language: understood broadly as rules
for combination and transformation, many phenomena have a grammar, from sports
to baking. Nor is grammar the sole or essential component of language: language
also includes sound systems, vocabularies, genres, and styles of speech. And
you would remind the speaker that grammar does not depend on human language at all: some nonhuman
species, including chimps and parrots, can produce grammatical—that is, orderly
and rule-conforming—short sentences. Ultimately, you would want to explain that
English does not “provide a basis” for grammar at all but rather represents one
particular instance of grammar. English grammar is definitely not the only
grammar in the world and even more definitely not the “real” grammar.
The
person who utters a statement like “English provides the only basis for
grammar” either understands very little about English (and language in general)
or grammar, or the person is expressing his or her partisanship about language
(i.e., pro-English)—or, more likely, the speaker is doing both. Thus, the
person who utters a statement like “Christianity provides the only basis for
morality” either understands very little about Christianity (or religion in
general) or morality, or the person is expressing his or her partisanship about
religion (i.e., pro-Christianity)—or, more likely, the speaker is doing both.
But, as a savvy responder, you would answer that Christianity is certainly not
the only religion with morality. You would add that morality is not limited to
religion: understood broadly as standards for behavior, many phenomena have a
morality, from philosophy to business. Nor is morality the sole or essential
component of religion: religion also includes myths, rituals, roles, and
institutions of behavior. And you would remind the speaker that morality does
not depend on human religion at all:
some nonhuman species demonstrate moral—that is, orderly and
standard-conforming—behavior. Ultimately, you would want to explain that
Christianity does not “provide a basis” for morality at all but rather
represents one particular instance of morality.Christian morality is definitely not the only morality in the world and
even more definitely not the “real” morality.
An honest sermon about the gospel of Mark: Chapter 2 Mark 2:1-12 provides a good case study of several things that are wrong with the Bible, despite the fact that the event depicted here ranks as a favorite tale about Jesus. In fact, I fondly remember this story when I heard it as a kid in Sunday school. Jesus is teaching in a house packed with people—so crowded at the door that four fellows carrying a paralyzed man on a stretcher couldn’t get in. They had to make a hole in the roof, so that they could lower the guy in front to Jesus.
This meme popped up on my Facebook feed recently: “When a man creates a god, he can tell you all about him, what he likes and dislikes. That’s how imagination-gods work.” This describes a practice that has gone on for millennia: Humans have indulged in creating, imagining, and describing gods in detail—many thousands of them. The writers of the Bible were committed to this practice, but they disagreed far too much about Bible-god. Hence clergy, theologians and apologists have devoted so much time and energy to diverting attention from the contradictions, making excuses for them, and minimizing the bad consequences. All in the interest of keeping their particular versions of Christianity intact.
Once again cultural anthropologist Dr. David Eller has granted us access to a large amount of text, from his excellent book, Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker, pp. 365-390. If you want to learn about morality this is very good, as is the whole chapter 10, "Of Myths and Morals: Religion, Stories, and the Practice of Living."
On Morality and Religionby David Eller.
There is no doubt much more stress in Western/Christian
cultures on morality than on myth.Again,
Christians would insist that they do not have “myth” but that they definitely
have morality, or even that their religion is
morality above all else. Atheists, often
taking their lead from Christianity and literally “speaking Christian,” tend to
allow themselves to be swept along with Christian thinking on this
subject.Atheists do not much trouble
ourselves with myths (for us, all myths are false by definition, since myths
refer to supernatural/religious beings and we reject the very notion of such
being).But we trouble ourselves very
much with morality, down to trying to prove that we “have morality too” or that
we can “be good without god(s).”
Given the amount of time and energy that Christians and
atheists alike—and not just them but philosophers, politicians, lawyers, and
social scientists—have devoted to the problem of morality, it is remarkable
that so little progress has been made.As the famous early 20th-century moral philosopher G. E.
Moore wrote almost one hundred years ago, morality or ethics “is a subject
about which there has been and still is an immense amount of difference of
opinion….Actions which some
philosophers hold to be generally wrong, others hold to be generally right, and
occurrences which some hold to be evils, others hold to be goods” (1963:
7).Surely any topic that has resisted
progress and agreement for so long must be being approached in the wrong way.
When discussing religion with persons of faith, try to be aware of
their tactic of framing the argument in terms of positive arguments for
their particular faith, rather than in terms of negative arguments
against all competing faiths. This was on display in the
four-way debate video that John W. Loftus posted about the Virgin
Birth. John’s Orthodox Christian interlocutors demanded that John
clearly define what he would consider to be sufficient evidence for
their religious claims. But they did not mention that they must think
that no competing religion has met the same standard of evidence for
them. So they must know what “evidence” is, well enough to conclude that
no other religion has it. Perhaps they have just never thought this
through before.
In this blog post I’ll dig deeper into this dispute about evidence. I
include my own manual transcriptions of the dialogue from the video with
time markers, but transcribing is hard so refer back to the video for
each’s speakers statements in his own words.
Solid teaching, solid truth
I’ll start with a sort of mission statement from the senior opponent
to John in the video:
12:26 Fr. Jonathan Ivanoff:
“And right now I’m just very very interested in bringing the
knowledge of that [Orthodox] faith to a public that is hungry and
thirsty for solid teaching, solid truth.”
This statement about audience demand sounds plausible enough. It
stands to reason that if Fr. Ivanoff has a job, he must have found an
audience that likes what he has to say. Good for him. A man’s gotta eat.
But I have some questions about what he means by “solid teaching, solid
truth.” Those are rather bold claims. Presumably Fr. Ivanoff is aware
that there are other audiences who are equally hungry for other “solid”
teachings, other “truths.” For example, Fr. Ivanoff seems to hail from
the Orthodox side of the Great Schism of
1054. The folks on the other side, for the past 950+ years, are
Roman Catholics (and by extension, the Protestants who later schismed
off from them like so many proliferating species). I’m pretty sure the
current Pope would say he has “solid teaching, solid truth” as well. Yet
these two equally solid teachings have been in conflict for fully half
of the Christian era. Thus I think it’s fair to ask (a) whether
Fr. Ivanoff views his own teaching as more “solid” and “truthful” than
the Pope’s teachings (I’m guessing he does!), and (b) how he knows
this.
I’d also like to know how comfortable Fr. Ivanoff feels about
worshipping in a Roman Catholic Church.
The clergy know that honesty about the Bible is risky
I was a preacher for nine years, so I do know a thing or two about sermons. And from my perspective now, I will offer my opinion on how honest sermons differ from those intended to keep the folks in the pews believing that Jesus was everything the church has claimed he was. An honest sermon requires that listeners be genuinely curious, and allow themselves to think critically. Preachers, who earn their livings promoting the faith, would prefer that their parishioners trust and accept their interpretations. Please don’t ask questions!
David Eller, as many of you know, is pretty much my favorite scholar/author at this point, next to just a very limited number of others. As a friend he's allowing me to publish the very best, next to none chapter, on what the words atheist and agnosticism mean. It comes from his most recent book, Liberatheism: On Freedom from God(s) [GCRR, 2024], one that I was honored to write the Forword. Enjoy!
Freeing Ourselves (and Others)
From Misunderstandings of
Atheism
“I
do not believe in God and I am not an
atheist,” Albert Camus wrote in his Notebooks
1951–1959.[1]
What are we to make of that statement? Perhaps Camus was being wry and cryptic,
as French philosophers are often wont to be. Maybe “atheist” meant something
different to him or to 1950s-era France. Alternatively, it might have been too
dangerous to avow atheism in that time and place. Or maybe he was just confused
about the word.
If the latter
is the case, then Camus would not be the first or the last to labor under
misconceptions about atheism. Of course, theists are highly likely—and highly
motivated—to get atheism wrong. Since they are not atheists and possibly have
never spoken to one (at least not intentionally and civilly), they really do
not know what we think; they can only see us through their own theistic eyes
and assume that we are the reverse image, or, more perversely, some odd
variation, of their own theism. Then, as sworn and mortal enemies of atheism,
they are driven to portray us in the most unflattering light, to construct a
ridiculous straw man that they can summarily caricature and assassinate. We
need not take their (mis)characterizations of us seriously, except as a public
relations problem.
What about
atheists themselves? Surely they are accurately portraying their position.
Surprisingly and distressingly, too many professional atheist writers and
speakers commit a regular set of errors in describing the nature of atheism.
This is a tremendously damaging tendency, for two reasons. First, we mislead
current and future atheists, who are misinformed by the incautious
pronouncements of prominent atheists. Second, we empower theists and other
critics of atheism who use our words against us: “See, even atheists say that
atheism is X, so we are justified in our criticism and condemnation of the
idea.”
In this chapter,
we will expose and free ourselves from recurring and systematic mistakes in the
atheist literature. We will not repeat or critique “arguments for atheism,”
which have been sufficiently covered, including by me[2]
and are largely cogent and decisive; all but the most hard-headed theists and
religious apologists (who still exist) concede that “the case for god(s)” is
weak at best and lost at worst. Nor will we linger on the New Atheists, who
have been thoroughly examined many times before, including in the previous
chapter where we noted their unexpected and unfortunate turn toward reactionary
social and political attitudes—ironically simultaneously debunking one of the
pillars of Western civilization (i.e. Christianity) and defending Western
civilizational traditions of sexism, racial thinking, and Islamophobia, among
others. The New Atheists are broadly guilty of the common charge of scientism,
not just of crediting science with the solution to all problems but of
equating, as Richard Dawkins does, religion to science (albeit bad science).
For instance, Dawkins wrote in his lauded The
God Delusion that “‘the God Hypothesis’ is a scientific hypothesis about
the universe,” and Victor Stenger actually put this “god hypothesis” business
in the title of one of his books.[3]
Finally, all of the New Atheists, who are quality scholars on their own turf,
operate with limited (by which I mean Christianity-centric) notions of religion
and god, in which “god” means the Christian or Abrahamic god and “religion”
means Abrahamic monotheism. Any college freshman student of religion knows
better.
Anglican apologetic writer (undeserving of the designation “scholar”) Richard Bauckham in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses perpetuated the faith-bolstering theory that since Papias and Justin Martyr described earliest gospel texts as ἀπομνημονεύματα, this term implicitly determined their mode and genre as “memoirs of the Apostles,” that is, recorded living memories of Jesus’ original students. Aimed at a predominantly faith-anxious public market, this book with its litany of absurd theories went on to sell countless copies and is to this day held up by pseudo-intellectual believers as grand justification for their indulgence in such tales as presenting reliable footage of first-century supernatural events.
While early Christians did indulge such tales with belief as the pious mechanics of their cultic conversion rite, such was the point of sacred legend through all times and societies, particularly in the Roman Hellenistic world. Bauckham and others would have humankind accept the canonical Gospels (none of the others, mind you) as histories. The Greek term, however, arose as cognate to the common verb ἱστορέω, that is, to conduct a critical inquiry of the evidence. A “history” in antiquity thus was the product of such rigorous research with the aim of presenting true accounts of past ontological events. The problem, however, with those who seek to foist this descriptor onto the canonical Gospels: Nowhere did the early Christians refer to the canonical Gospels as histories or use them in that manner. This term above, moreover, often translated by them as “memoir,” did not indicate or imply the presence of anecdotal memory, be that genuine or fraudulent. Rather, the term denoted how something or someone was to be honored in cultural memory, that is, their social memorabilia or memorialization. This would often include legend and outright myth, what the Germans term a person’s Nachleben. The culture exalted or damned the memory of the Caesars, for instance, either by bestowing on them divinity (divine birth, divine powers, divine ascension, etc) or by lampooning their image, defacing their statues, restriking their numismatic images (i.e, their coins) etc.
Carl Sagan once said, “I don’t want to believe, I want to know.” I have encountered so many churchgoers who are satisfied with belief—and they trust that their clergy have taught them correct beliefs. There appears to be so little curiosity about Christian origins, about the complex ancient thought world in which their faith arose. Nor is there much curiosity about how the gospels came to be, and how much they are burdened with flaws, contradictions, and laughable impossibilities. The drama, ceremony, music, and ritual of weekly (or even more often) worship are enough to sustain devotion and commitment. They are happy with believing, not knowing.
Testimony to the high moral standards of many non-believers
One of the surprising developments of our time—or maybe it’s not so surprising—is the marked increase of people who admit that they have no religious affiliation. They have been labeled the “nones.” One factor might be that some churchgoers decided to read the Bible, and discovered just how flawed it is. That it falls far short of being a divinely inspired book; they’ve been fooled by the clergy. Another factor is increased scientific understanding of the world and how it works. In Western Europe, after two world wars that killed up to ninety million people, belief in god has declined sharply. Surely Christianity is also taking a hit because one of the least religious, least moral persons on the planet has been championed by fanatical Christians—and this week returned to the White House. That will certainly cause substantial damage to the faith in the long run.
This final chapter in "Why I Became an Atheist" (2012) provides the reasons why I finally became an atheist after being an evangelical Christian who became a moderate, then a liberal, then a deist who turned agnostic, a journey that took twelve years. LINK
Study, research, and critical thinking are the key
A long time ago I heard it said of someone, “He’s got a mind like concrete: all mixed up and firmly set.” Perhaps the reference was to a fundamentalist, and it certainly applies. In my article here last week, I discussed Janice Slebie’s book, Divorcing Religion: A Memoir and Survival Handbook. She describes the rigid mindset that she was raised to accept and was expected to obey without question. It took a lot of anguish and family crises for her to realize that she had been severely brainwashed. She made her escape, and has devoted her career to helping others who have experienced religious trauma. Selbie’s book is a welcome addition to the publishing boom by atheist/secular/humanist authors in the last two or three decades. The horror of 9/11, a religiously motivated terrorist attack, was a powerful motivator for non-believers to finally step forward to say, “Enough is Enough!”
According
to the English Wikipedia, Daniel Dennett
(March 28, 1942 – April 19, 2024) “was an American philosopher and
cognitive scientist. His research centered on the philosophy of
mind, the philosophy of
science, and the philosophy of
biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary
biology and cognitive
science.” Dennett was and remains well-known in
atheist/freethinking/skeptical circles as one of the so-called “Four
Horsemen” of New
Atheism, alongside Richard
Dawkins, Christopher
Hitchens, and Sam
Harris.
