What Do the London Times, The Society of Biblical Literature, and Prometheus Books Have in Common? Lil Ole Me.

Here are some exciting developments for this no-name first time author...

The London Times Religion editor is going to review my book soon. He wrote:

"The role of science in bringing – or not bringing – us to the threshold of religious belief is discussed in The Future of Atheism (SPCK) and other new books such as John Loftus’s Why I Became an Atheist (Prometheus Books) and David Ramsay Steele’s Atheism Explained (Open Court). Watch out, too, for a different kind of work – I Don’t Believe in Atheists (Continuum) by Chris Hedges, a journalist on the New York Times. Though himself an unbeliever, Hedges has harsh things to say about some of religion’s contemporary despisers. He warns that the science-religion debate is far from resolved, and that fundamentalism does not infect one side of the argument alone. The TLS will carry reviews of all these books in the near future."

Here's the Link.

-----------------

Along with Dr. Hector Avalos I've been invited to the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans to be on a panel discussing Bill Maher's Religulous movie.

----------------

Prometheus Books just gave me the initial approval for a book of chapters I proposed to edit by people such as Drs. Hector Avalos, David Eller, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Robert M. Price, along with Harry McCall, Dan Barker, Edward T. Babinski, Matthew Green, yours truly, and some others. More on this later but not now.

Newsweek Front Page Story: The Decline and Fall of a Christian Nation

Below are some quotes from the lead article:

...the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent.

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world."

Still, in the new NEWSWEEK Poll, fewer people now think of the United States as a "Christian nation" than did so when George W. Bush was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008). Two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is "losing influence" in American society, while just 19 percent say religion's influence is on the rise. The proportion of Americans who think religion "can answer all or most of today's problems" is now at a historic low of 48 percent. During the Bush 43 and Clinton years, that figure never dropped below 58 percent.

Here's the Link

Prof. James McGrath on Historical Studies and Methodological Naturalism

He said:

On methodological naturalism, I don't see how historical study can adopt any other approach, any more than criminology can. It will always be theoretically possible that a crime victim died simply because God wanted him dead, but the appropriate response of detectives is to leave the case open. In the same way, it will always be possible that a virgin conceived, but it will never be more likely than that the stories claiming this developed, like comparable stories about other ancient figures, as a way of highlighting the individual's significance. And since historical study deals with probabilities and evidence, to claim that a miracle is "historically likely" misunderstands the method in question.

Link.

Good, now let's turn to the Bible...

A New Phrase for Your Funk and Wagnalls: "pulling a Loftus."

For future reference, Victor Reppert can first be credited with using this line. ;-)

A Critique of Mark Linville's, "The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism"

Mark's chapter on this is to appear in the upcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, eds, William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Common Sense Atheism charges that Linville commits the Genetic Fallacy. It's an interesting argument, one that cuts both ways and one that needs to be addressed, something Keith Parsons has weighed in on here, and also here. What do you think?

Chris Hallquists New Book: UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God: Debunking the Resurrection of Jesus.

This book is unique in that it compares the claim that Jesus arose from the dead with other paranormal claims. Since modern claims to the paranormal have better attested evidence to them than Jesus rising from the dead, if we reject the former we should also reject the latter. This is a very informative book. He has done his research. I heartily recommend it. You can get it here.

Dr. William Lane Craig: "I Will Not Debate John W. Loftus"

That's right. That's what he said...in so many words.

I learned from DC member Darrin at the Carrier/Craig debate that Craig said he would not debate his former students. That's what he said.

I am now classed with a group of people, i.e., the people comprised of his former students. And Dr. Craig says he will not debate anyone in that class of people. Okay, I guess. But given the fact that I'm probably the only member of this class of people who wants to debate him he might as well have said: "I will not debate John W. Loftus."

I've heard him say this before about former students, so it’s not really like he’s singling me out, or is it?

While I was a student of his he said something I thought was odd at the time. This was back in 1985 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine." Keep in mind that Dr. Craig was on a High School debate team and has been debating these topics for probably just as long as I've been thinking about them. And he had only been teaching a few years before this to actually know of any student who might want to debate him. But that’s what he said. Again, he said "the person I fear debating the most is a former student of mine."

He cannot deny saying this, and I don't think he will.

Does he really fear me? I don’t know. But just maybe he does after all. He could change his mind though. I think a lot of people would be interested in this match-up.

In any case, the stated reason why he won't debate former students is that he "fears" doing so. Yep. That's what he told me when the cameras were off before the thought crossed his mind that I would want to debate him and would use his words against him. Again, he fears debating former students. That's his only word as to why he won't do it. One more time. He fears debating me.

If that word gets out he may have to man up, as it were, and show his followers that he isn't afraid.

Q.E.D

Christopher Hitchens in the "Den of Lambs"

I love Christopher Hitchen's tenacity and passion along with his literary examples. See him mix it up with Christians at the recent Christian book expo...




At about 33 minutes it gets interesting. Go get'em Hitch! I found the standard answers by the Christian panelists to be pathetic, really pathetic.

To read more about the Elisabeth Fritzl case that Hitchens mentioned, follow the link.

Another Review of My Book: "Comprehensiveness" Sets it Apart From Other Atheist Works

Link

John W. Loftus’ Why I Became an Atheist: a Former Preacher Rejects Christianity doesn't really blaze new ground, but it does cover a lot of it.

In fact, this comprehensiveness is a key distinctive that separates it from the work of the "New Atheist" trio, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.

Uniquely, Loftus provides a taste of all these critiques in his over 400-page, densely-packed tome. In other words, if one were look for a recent survey text for atheistic argumentation, this book would more than suffice.

To read other reviews click here.

William Lane Craig "Won by a Landslide" Against Hitchens

That's what Roger Sharp said on Facebook after watching the debate in person. [Full disclosure, Sharp is a Christian]. This is exactly what I had predicted. Christian professor Doug Geivett weighed in on the debate where he said: Craig "was thoroughly prepared for every aspect of the debate and never faltered in his response to objections by Hitchens," and that Hitchens's arguments "were largely unfocused, sometimes disconnected, and often irrelevant." Over at Common Sense Atheism (which is a great source for Craig debates) is an atheist review of the debate where we read: "Frankly Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." For more info visit here.

I would really like to try my hand at debating the master debater. Anyone else like to see that? If the debate was on Christianity vs. Atheism, what would you think my chances are? See the new poll on the sidebar. You can choose more than one answer.

Darrin Rasberry Interview: A "Searching Agnostic"

[Written by John W. Loftus] DC Blogger Darrin wrote the foreword to Ray Comfort’s latest book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can’t Make Him Think. It's an interesting interview. Enjoy.

Another Pastor Leaves the Fold

Former Evangelical Pastor, Bruce Gerencser, announced he no longer affirms Christianity, seen here. It appears that Christianity not only fails the outsider test for faith, it also fails the insider test for faith. Even Christians on the inside cannot continue to believe it!

Is the Bible Ever Wrong? Peter Enns vs. Stephen Chapman

Link. For more on the topic by Evangelicals see Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, and Kenton L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship.

Who is Open Minded, the Believer or the Scientifically Minded Skeptic?

The video might take a bit to load...

Science, Biblical Criticism, and Double Standards (Sigh, Par for the Course)

In my book, Why I Became an Atheist, the reader will find several chapter length arguments, some paragraph length arguments, and then there are a bunch of "gems" scattered around that could be made into larger arguments. I think what I’ve written fits together as a whole quite well, but if the reader really wants to get the full scope of it then try reading through the book a second time. Several arguments in the early parts of the book depend for their force on the arguments in the later parts of the book.

One such scattered “gem,” if you will, is mentioned on page 61 where I argued that since methodological naturalism “has produced so many significant results, I think it should equally be used to investigate the Bible, its claims of the miraculous, and the origins of the universe itself, and it provides a great deal of evidence against the Christian faith.” [I mention this on pages 50, 119-120, and again on page 185].

What is methodological naturalism? It’s a method in scientific inquiry whereby “all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.” Dr. Barbara Forrest tells us that “a massive amount of knowledge" has been gained by using this method.

This same method has been adopted by historians. Bart D. Ehrman, as a historian, adopts this method when it comes to studying the Bible, especially the New Testament, his area of specialty.

The rise of Biblical Criticism can probably be seen in light of the rise of modern science which adopted the method of naturalism. Again, we’ve gained a “massive amount of knowledge” from using it.

Applied to Biblical studies scholars have assumed a natural rather than a supernatural explanation for the stories inside the pages of the Bible. Based on the assumption that the past is just like the present in which miracles don’t occur, by taking their cue from the scientific enterprise that assumes a natural explanation for everything, Biblical scholars began studying the Bible afresh. As historians that’s what they must do. Robert M. Price tells us that if historians didn’t assume a natural explanation for events in the past they would be “at the mercy of every medieval tale, every report that a statue wept, or that someone changed lead into gold or turned into a werewolf.” [Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, p. 20].

Many believers reject what these Biblical scholars as historians do, but why? Why is it that methodological naturalism has worked extremely well in every area where it's been used--every single one--but that when it comes to looking the collection of canonized books in the Bible such a method should not be used? My claim is that since methodological naturalism has worked so extremely well in every area where it's been used--every single one--that we should apply that same method when it comes to studying the Bible.

If believers don’t want to apply methodological naturalism across the board into Biblical studies, then please tell me where it should be applied and where it shouldn't. If this method should not be applied to the Bible then why do believers hold to a double standard, allowing it to be used when seeking a cure for cancer (why not call for a miracle worker instead?), or to discover our evolutionary biology (why not just quote Genesis 1 and shun science altogether?), or to explain the weather (why not just do a rain dance?), or a crime scene (why not just cast lots as they supposedly did in Joshua's day?), or a freak tragic accident (why not just say God was punishing someone?), or a noise in the night (demons? angels?), but not when it comes to the stories in the Bible?

This is probably the crux of the issue with me. Without assuming a natural explanation in science and in historical studies we would still think God alone opens the womb, that sicknesses are the result of sin, that the reason we win wars is because God was pleased, and the reason why there are natural disasters is because God is displeased. Given these type of supernatural explanations we would already have the needed explanations in God so there would be no room for science, which is undeniably important to the human race for a wide variety of reasons.

Certainty is Unattainable Through Science and Reason? So What?

Eric commented

...take any proposition you believe to be supported by 'science and reason,' and proceed to provide the premises that support it. Take any one of these premises and support it. Continue. It won't take long at all before you reach a premise that you can't justify scientifically, and a short time after that you'll find a premise you can't justify with 'reason.' What then?

I agree with Eric on this. But there are two things I'd like to say about it:

1) This gets him no where as I've explained in my original post. Based on this admission he simply cannot all-of-a-sudden bring into the equation the whole host of assumptions he needs to do in order to believe in the Christian faith. I maintain that a believer cannot drive a truckload of assumptions through a mere possibility once it's admitted that certainty is unattainable in science and in reasoning. Simple assumptions, i.e. Ockham's razor, are better. For if Eric can do that based on his Christian assumptions when science and reason don't work at the level of certainties, then a voodoo witchdoctor or a Hindu, or a Muslim can do the same exact thing and bring into the equation all of their assumptions too. It seems as though the admission that science and reason don't work to produce certainties is used by believers like Eric with a type of carte blanch authority to write any amount in a blank check when it comes to one's own beliefs. But this blank check approach fails the outsider test for it allows too much that other faiths would reject. If it's the case that simply because we can't be apodictically certain of much of anything means we can write our own belief checks for as much as we want to, then anything, and I mean anything goes. Let's just believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Celestial Teapot at that point. They would have the same epistemological grounding.

2) When we reach a point where reason and science don't help us when trying to find the bottom of the rabbit hole, what we do at that point is we use our background beliefs to solve the question. Even though science and reason do not help us down there, we can still place that question next to the other things we believe and then have a good reason for deciding what to believe about the question in hand. Since we cannot investigate every sub-discipline of a sub-discipline what we believe can at least cohere with what else we believe.

But of course, this is what gets us all into trouble, because as human beings we believe contradictory things which we think cohere with the rest of what we believe, but we don't realize that what we believe is contradictory with other things we believe! This too favors being skeptical of our beliefs, all of them, to varying degrees (Quine's web of beliefs).

An important point I made in my initial post is that, science, and I’ll add reason, are the best we’ve got. They are the best antidote to wishful thinking, the best chance we have for getting it right. If we don’t lean on science and reason then anything goes at all, anything. And since certainty is an impossible goal then defending every proposition is unnecessary even if it’s practically impossible.

I’ve subjected a few of the most often proffered examples of beliefs for which it's claimed we have no scientific evidence for them right here, and even when it comes to these strange possibilities I have good reason to reject these examples. So what if we cannot prove otherwise? So what if there is always a possibility that we're wrong? We’re looking at what is probable, not possible. That’s all we can do!

Cheers.

If You Think You Know What Christianity Is: Think Again!

If God has a website; could this be it?


Have you ever wondered what it really sounds like as human souls burn for eternity in the fires of Hell?

Does the Pope and the Catholic Church Worship Satan?

Does Satan write Bibles and can Bibles be demon possessed?

Don't Be Fooled on April Fool's Day: Take the Outsider Test for Faith

The Outsider Test for Faith argument can be found in my book, or online in an edited version right here. I've recently defended it from some of Dr. Victor Reppert's criticisms. One Christian minister encourages believers to take the test! I also provided an example of what it means to take the test. So let me just say on this April Fool's Day that taking this test is the best and probably the only way to know the truth about what you believe. And here's why...

It's because of who we are. When it comes to the religious faiths we were raised to accept, it's not just that they may be false, which seems obvious, given their proliferation around the globe into geographically distinct locations. It's much worse than that. It's that, well, if Christian philosopher Victor Reppert was raised in a different home, and had different experiences, and read different books, and studied under different professors, and got a teaching appointment in a different place, then he could be an atheist philosopher right now, just as atheist philosopher Keith Parsons could be a Christian philosopher right now if he had led the life that Reppert did and his experiences were likewise reversed.

Deny this if you think you can.

That's how bad it is when it comes to anyone who claims to know the truth about these issues, and that's how bad it is when it comes to the claim that we as human beings can think outside the box and reason correctly, objectively, and dispassionately, without prejudices or preconceived notions. We can't, or at least, if we can, the only thing we can and should trust is the empirical sciences. That's our only hope. Science is the best we've got, and even science has it's problems.

We believe what we were raised to believe, and we defend what we want to believe for the most part. It's really bad. It's terrible. We humans are illogical creatures, especially when it comes to these issues. All of us.

Let me put it to you this way, if you read everything that I have read and experienced everything that I have experienced, then you would think on these issues exactly the same way I do.

Deny this if you can.

So there is only one way to deal with a particular whole way of looking at these things...by looking at it as a whole. And the best way to do so is from the outside, from the perspective of skepticism. If the opposite is being gullible then skepticism is favored by far, given who we are as human beings and what we learned to believe on our Mama's knees.

Therein lies the dilemna and I think I have a handle on this better than most anyone I've seen argue on the web about these types of issues. We are not the rational creatures we want to appear to be. As human beings we are in terrible shape on these kinds of issues. And since we know this to be true we should be skeptical about that which we were raised to believe. And we should be skeptical about that which we want to believe. It's that simple.

------------

Christian, no, don't say I should be skeptical about that which I believe too. In some sense when it comes to that which I affirm, I already am! I affirm an agnostic atheism. Join me. Will you say the same thing? Will you affirm that you are an agnostic believer (but isn't that an oxymoron)? In any case, if this is my problem I embrace it. Although, someone will need to explain to me how a skeptic can be skeptical about beliefs he doesn't have! A skeptic affirms no religious beliefs but merely says to the believer, "show me." Why should we consider non-beliefs as equivalent to beliefs? [Examples of non-beliefs: do you believe in the Eastern ONE, do you have a belief about ilks who might live in the stratosphere?].

Besides, it'll do you absolutely no good at all to pass the buck back to me. Whether I am skeptical of my agnostic atheism or not should mean nothing with regard to what you need to do, believer. Even if I am inconsistent you still need to subject your own beliefs to the outsider test. You still need to be skeptical about them. You still need to embrace the scientific method. It's the only antidote to the fallibility of the human mind.

We're Growing!

Not bad, eh?

Arizona Atheist: Arguments Against God's Existence

He'd like some feedback on this blog post and I don't have the time right now. He writes:

The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence).

Do you think he makes his case? Link

Douglas Groothuis on "Who Designed the Designer?"

Tell me what you think of his answer, Link.

While I'm at it, and not exactly unrelated, let me also throw in a link to the recent SEED Magazine's article on the Multiverse Problem.

Guest Post by Dr. Douglas Groothuis: "The Straw God: Understanding the New Atheism"

Douglas Groothuis is a Christian Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and co-editor with James F. Sennett of the book, In Defense of Natural Theology. [Sennett has recently explained that while he has doubts he still believes, seen here]. Groothuis is presently writing an apologetics book which I think will be the best of the lot and perhaps the standard text for years to come. Here is his submitted essay unedited and without comment:

Brian the Family Guy Dog is an Atheist

Do you think this is good exposure for atheists in general?

Rev. Philip Brown's Criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith

Anybody want to help me out with this one? I can't always respond. Does anyone, and I mean anyone, think his criticisms are on target and applicable?

He writes:

Mr. Loftus does not even tackle the Bibles very prediction of this phenomenon in Romans 10:14-17. The apostle Paul states that faith comes from hearing, and hearing from preaching. Consequently one would suspect little Christian faith in a country where it is illegal to preach Christianity. Such is what we find at the moment giving rise to geographically placed Christianity specifically.

Mr. Loftus argues from the general to the particular. However there is no discussion about comparative religion and cultural heritage....For Mr Loftus’ argument to carry the weight he will need to define what one considers as part of the culture and what ones considers as a legitimate religion. Of course this will only weaken Mr Loftus’ case as it will become evidently clear that many of the examples given under the guise or religion are actually just cultural throw backs to antiquity,

if Mr Loftus wants the Christian to take ‘The Outside Test of Faith’ then surely he must ask the Christian to take the 'Insider Test of Atheism', or ITA. Meaning, showing why atheism makes sense and why people should not adopt skepticism towards atheism as appose to Christianity. Such a test would include proving miracles do not exists, beyond a shadow of a doubt; a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, and the undeniable reasons why all religions (not just Christianity) should be disregarded. Indeed ITA would prove rather interesting placed alongside OTF, something Mr. Loftus fails to do in his book and on his blog.

An edited version of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) can be found here, and my additional defense of it can be found here.

Still a Believer: James F. Sennett Responds to Questions About His Faith

I've written about my friend Dr. Sennett's struggles of faith in my book and also here, where in the comments section he replied. The rumor has it that "he's really struggling with his faith." Sennett is the author of a book on Alvin Plantinga, and along with Douglas Groothuis edited the book, In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-humean Assessment. You can find his books on Amazon.com.

Here is his unedited response to this rumor: