Given his background, John Loftus is uniquely qualified to demand the long-overdue fall from grace befitting the philosophy of religion as an academic discipline in secular universities. In Unapologetic, he explains thoroughly and lucidly why it is time both atheists and secular philosophy departments step away from the discipline forever, exposing it for the religious evangelism it merely pretends not to be. Recommended for anyone who still believes in the value of the philosophy of religion, so that they can see their error.
While I said a few things that hadn't been said the way I did, I didn't expect this high praise:
Unapologetic is a wonderfully entertaining read. With masterful erudition, John Loftus presents a compelling case for why the philosophy of religion contains nothing but sophistry and illusion and should, therefore, be committed to the flames. It has no more right to exist than the philosophy of fairies, or the study of Superman. One might be skeptical of this claim—as I was before starting the book—but the arguments are so well-crafted and persuasive that I bet you’ll walk away nodding your head in agreement. Of Loftus’ many critiques of Christianity, this is the best yet. I highly recommend it to anyone with a fondness for great writing and the truth!
It's been a while since I last posted on Debunking Christianity, I know! Readers may recall that my central project right now (since my book came out) is trying to initiate a desperately-needed, extremely important conversation between the secular movement and the existential risk community. In sum, the former is far, far more important than it even realizes because of the latter, and the latter is failing in its effort to keep the world safe because it ignores the target of the former (namely religion). In a forthcoming "Technical Report" from my fledgling organization, the X-Risks Institute, I try a new strategy for getting existential riskologists and new atheists to talk about the future of humanity. But readers will have to wait another week for more details!
John Loftus is philosophy of religion’s—or what we would both probably prefer to call “Christian philosophy’s”—worst nightmare. He was inside in the whole bankrupt enterprise, earning a Master of Theology degree and studying toward a PhD under august teachers like William Lane Craig. He has moved from insider to outsider, even punishing theology with his “outsider test for faith.” He has written or edited powerful texts on the failings of Christianity and theism more generally, using philosophy of religion’s own tools against it. This new book, in honor of the recent decision of British voters to secede from the European Union, we might dub his Apologexit....what parades as philosophy of religion today is a dismal and embarrassing abdication of intellectual discipline. No other scholarly field falls as short of its calling, and no one is more qualified than that turncoat Loftus to induce philosophers of religion to snap out of their dogmatic slumber or else shut the whole business down. LINK.
Dr. Hebert Marbury, Associate Professor of Hebrew
Bible at Vanderbilt University, has written a review of my book on Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (2011), which argues that biblical ethics were not
responsible for the abolition of slavery in western civilization. On the contrary, reliance on the Bible spread and maintained slavery for about 1800 years in Christianity. Dr. Marbury’s review shows that Christian biblical scholars
can appreciate the work of atheist biblical scholars who are critical of
biblical ethics. I provide an extract of
the review below for those who do not have access to the website of the Review of Biblical Literature:
I love these types of memes. They're funny, intelligent and provoking.
I don't think there is a better chapter on petitionary prayer than the one Dr. Valerie Tarico wrote for Christianity in the Light of Science. Check it out yourselves. It puts an end to prayer. Prayer does not work. Period! Those who think it does live in a childish fantasy-land.
I have written a newspaper column about Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s proclamation encouraging a Bible reading marathon at all 99 Iowa county courthouses. Most people who participate in these Bible readings are probably not even aware that religious groups don’t always agree on what “THE Bible” means for them. You can see the complete text of the Proclamation here.
I am pleased to say I just sent my digital book files for "Unapologetic" off to Pitchstone Publishing to be printed. This was the hardest book I have written since I know it'll be the most hotly contested one. I hope many readers like it. LINK.
Now I have about a month of things to catch up on that I let slide. Cheers.
Let me give you some indicators when faith is on the hook. Faith is certain. It doesn’t entertain much doubt at all. Faith refuses to change its mind in the face of good solid evidence. Faith seems to always find that small little hole through which it can still maintain it was not obliterated by the evidence. It has a deer in the headlights look when encountering a good argument to the contrary for the first time.
Probably the best way to figure out if an idea is held by faith, rather than because of the probabilities based on good evidence, is the intersection where faith and science meet. If there is overwhelming support for an idea in the global scientific community then that idea has the backing of very strong objective evidence. It’s faith if it objects to that idea. Evolution is one of them. The present crisis of human caused climate change is another one. That vaccines save lives is yet another one. Science delivers the goods. Period. Faith does not.
By contrast to the assured results of the consensus of scientists, if an idea is not agreed upon by religious believers, then to that same degree of disagreement the idea is faith-based, false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. Moreover, if an idea is only—or largely—held by people in one part of the globe, then to that same degree of global separation the idea is faith-based, false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If that idea is only contained in one religious book, or only held by a sect within a sect of a religion, then to that same degree the idea is faith-based, false and probably unworthy of serious consideration.
Furthermore, if any religion has taught, or still teaches, its church, mosque, temple, shine or holy place sits at the center of the earth, then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If any religion has taught, or still teaches, it’s okay to enslave people against their will, or mistreat and rape women, then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If any religion has taught, or still teaches, it’s mandatory—or even permissible—to kill homosexuals, witches, heretics, apostates and/or people who hold another religion, then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If any religion has taught, or still teaches, that it’s okay to brutalize animals due to some kind of dominion mandate, or dash babies against the rocks as the last acts of genocide, then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If any religion has taught, or still teaches, their God approves and/or commands a holy war in defense of its sacred truths, or to convert people by force, or to steal land from others then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration.
And Herod heard of it, for [Jesus’] name became known and they were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead and be-cause of this the powers are at work in him.”But others said, “He is Elijah,” but others said, “A prophet, like one of the former prophets.” But when Herod heard, he said, “John, the one I beheaded, this one has been raised!”[1]
I posted this on Facebook and got the usual unthinking response. A Christian said: "Actually, Allah is the Arabic word for the God of all the Abrahamic religions and Arab Christians also call him Allah. So that meme above is a mistake." Listen up, next time Christians respond like that ask if they believe in the deity who inspired the Koran. Yes or no?
I was told this morning that copies of Christianity in the Light of Science arrived in the office yesterday and are being shipped out. It won't take long before you can have a copy from online stores. It is sure to be talked about. Help make it a good seller by buying your copy today!
This is the first day of summer and it's hot where I live! I'm very busy so I may not post much this summer. There is a lot going on in my life, much too much. I'm still writing one titled Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Then sometime this week I'll be proposing yet another book, details forthcoming, 'cause that's what I do. Plus, there is a whole lot of life to be lived, and a whole lot of loved ones to love. Don't neglect to pre-order my next book, Christianity in the Light of Science, due out at the end of July (but will surely, surely be out earlier), which I consider a show stopper!
Carry on in my temporary and spotty absence. Subscribe to DC or become a follower so you don't miss a thing. Who knows but when you least expect it I'll be back in a big way! If you desire to write essays for DC by joining our team let me know in the comments. While you're at it, go ahead and comment on anything you wish to, too!
Tomorrow is the day of the Indiana State Democratic Party Convention held in Indy. I'm driving down with Todd Nightenhelser, who ran as a candidate to represent my 3rd District. This should be chaotic but important and fun.
As a state delegate I get to cast my vote for Bernie Sanders. Then the delegates will vote on our platform, and on which delegates get to represent our state at the national convention.
Let me state for the record what I’m not proposing. This will better clarify my position before I argue it, as sort of a preemptive strike against misguided caricatures of my position. First and most importantly, I’m not saying Philosophy proper is stupid or dead or unnecessary or that there has been no progress in that discipline. Massimo Pigliucci is addressing these questions in his book. Richard Carrier addressed these issues in a cursory fashion in a video. In it Carrier addressed the question “What is pseudo-philosophy?” It’s “Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion, and/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises. And isn’t corrected when discovered.” Based on this accurate definition alone all supernaturalist philosophy is pseudo-philosophy. Religious philosophy is to philosophy what “creation science” is to science.
I’m not proposing atheist philosophers, or anyone else who specializes in a particular religion, should dismiss out-of-hand or ridicule philosophy of religion arguments. They can do so I’ll argue later, but I see no reason why anyone who specializes in a particular religion would do that regularly. Perhaps surprisingly, I’m not even proposing atheist philosophers should cease writing books on PoR or that they should cease all lectures or classes on such topics in the secular universities. I’m not suggesting everyone else should stop discussing the issues of the PoR, or writing books on it. I will however, be showing them all how to do it correctly from now on, if they wish to continue dealing with these issues at all. But if they do the philosophy or religion correctly it would no longer be considered the philosophy of religion, but something else. Finally, I’m not proposing that if students don’t agree with secular or atheist professors they should fail the classes. *Sheesh* Where do these objections come from?
I’m going to argue in this chapter that it’s enough to be right about something. My focus is on religious beliefs as a subset of paranormal beliefs, of which Christianity is my main target, but I think the case can be made about most any issue. While reasonable people would certainly want more than to just be right, when it comes to solving problems, alleviating misery, and doing what is good, being right is good enough.
Let me begin with a political example. Let’s say there are two people who voted for the same USA presidential candidate. Person A had good reasons to do so. Person B did not. Let’s say every political commenter and scholar agreed that person A had good reasons to so vote (regardless of whether they agreed with those reasons) and person B did not have good reasons to so vote. Now let’s say person A is right to have voted for the chosen presidential candidate for the said reasons (irrespective of how we can know this). Then it is enough for person B to have voted for the same chosen presidential candidate irrespective of the fact that good reasons were not offered for doing so.
I know the point of contention will be on the epistemological question, that is, how we could know Person A voted for the right presidential candidate. However, that changes nothing. If Person A was right to vote for the chosen presidential candidate then so was Person B. Period. The standard definition of knowledge is that it’s justified true belief. So if my critics want to say that due to this definition Person B’s decision to vote was not based on knowledge, since it was not reasonably justified, I can agree. That being admitted, it still does nothing to change the fact that Person B voted rightly.
Dawkins was not able to attend Reason Rally but he did send a video. Here it is. In it Dawkins answers his critics (from 3:45 to 5:10), who said he was ignorant for not knowing God is a simple being. What he meant was not something metaphysical. He was asking about the mind of God, that is, how and where does God get all of his knowledge? It's utterly incomprehensible to the point of refutation to believe God has always held true and utterly comprehensive propositional knowledge about everything, even of himself. I still cannot understand how this God chose his nature, or how the trinity came to be joined at the hip. Imagining just one eternal being who knows everything that can be known is incomprehensible on its own, but now there are three such divine beings who have this knowledge and have never disagreed within the Godhead. It's clear obfuscationist philosophers are making shit up as they go to save their Christian faith from refutation, since the only basis for believing this crap are some ancient pre-scientific writings. [Transcript of this part of his speech is below].
Imagine the cognitive dissonance required to pass out these cards!! A street peddler gave me one at the Reason Rally. Christians really do not understand the difference between a person who believes something, from someone who won't believe until there is sufficient evidence to do so. Atheists merely say we won't believe until someone puts forth the required sufficient evidence. That puts us in an entirely different category than believers.
There are many humanists and atheists working on behalf of reason and science that most of us will never hear about. When at the Reason Rally I was invited to a Humanist celebration hosted by Ellen Sutliff at a yacht club in Washington, DC. She is the President of Humanists & Freethinkers of New Bern, NC. She was a sheer delight. When Ellen learned I was the author of Why I Became an Atheist she told me something pretty cool. Her group went through a list of humanist/atheist authors and chose the top 50 books to donate to the Craven Community College Library in New Bern, NC. Among the best of the best they chose my book as one of them! You can see the list alphabetized below. It's very impressive. I was very happy to learn mine was one of them.
I'm leaving tomorrow to go to the 2016 Reason Rally! I'm pretty pumped about it. I hope to see lots of people I have known only by emails and Facebook messages. LINK. It's way to sad to hear Johnny Depp backed out of the speaking lineup. If you're paying attention to the news then you know why.
