On Reviews of My Book Unapologetic

According to this review my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End is an "mandatory/essential read for people interested in the issues it addresses! I've copied it below for your convenience. There's more to my book than merely calling for atheist philosophers to end their own discipline. It's also a manual for teaching readers how to effectively deal with religion and other faith-based paranormal claims.

I expected some bad book reviews since my target is the philosophy of religion. What I didn't expect are utterly unfair reviews by people who should know better, who are destroying their own credibility in writing them. So far they nitpick at it rather than deal with its focus--one reviewer doesn't even tell readers what I'm doing in it, basically leaving them clueless. In any case, these two posts of mine effectively answer the bad reviews I've seen so far: 1) On The Value of Philosophy and Definitional Apologetics; 2) Isn't it inconsistent to criticize the legitimacy of Philosophy of Religion?

Was Jesus Born of a Virgin?, Part 2

Part 1 can be found here. I received a response from a Christian who switched topics from the virgin birth to the resurrection of Jesus and the mysteries that science hasn't solved yet. He argued the resurrection of Jesus supports the virgin birth of Jesus and that, even if the virgin birth is hard to believe he could never believe what an atheist like me does. My brief reply is instructive I think.

Billions of people were raised to believe something differently. As outsiders they could no more be convinced of your type of Christianity, than you could be convinced of their particular religion. Given this, the most charitable thing we can say about how people adopt their religion is that learning one's religion on Mama's knees is an unreliable way to know which religion is true, if there is one. Agreed? In other words, billions of people have been indoctrinated to believe something false. How do you know you aren't one of them? Do you want to know? Or are you having fun trying to match wits with me/us?

My Book "Unapologetic" Is Getting Out There!

Josh Baker posted this pic in a comment on Facebook from Powell's City of Books. Pretty cool! It's getting out there.

Was Jesus born of a virgin?

You would think that if Jesus was born of a virgin, and that such a belief is important to Christianity, the Christian clergy would all believe it. But significant numbers of them don't:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/christian-preacher-nativity-story-just-fairy-tale/

According to a 1998 poll of 7,441 Protestant clergy in the U.S., the following ministers said they didn’t believe in the virgin birth:

American Lutherans, 19 percent
American Baptists, 34 percent
Episcopalians, 44 percent
Presbyterians, 49 percent
Methodists, 60 percent

Yet another poll, in 1999, surveyed 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican priests and Protestant ministers in the U.K. That poll found 25 percent did not believe in the virgin birth, according to ReligiousTolerance.org. A 2004 survey of ministers in the Church of Scotland found 37 percent don’t accept the virgin account.

The clergy are educated Christians and they have much more at stake in maintaining their faith as traditionally believed. We would not expect so many of them to reject the virgin birth. The fact so many of them do so shows the evidence for the virgin birth is not there.

Jesus wasn't the only son of a god in ancient times

Christians are either ignorant of this fact or they unreasonably deny its impact. Why should anyone in today's society believe the virgin birth of Jesus since the so-called testimony of it comes from the same ancient superstitious world that believed in other virgin births? The fact is, Jesus wasn’t the only son of a god in ancient times, as biblical scholar Richard C. Miller previously argued here at DC: 'Tis the Season to Debunk Ridiculous Claims . . .

Isn't it inconsistent to criticize the legitimacy of Philosophy of Religion?

One major criticism of my book Unapologetic is seriously misguided to the point where my critics are just ignorant. I dealt with it in my book, especially at length on pages 181-184. But I can dispel with it quickly here. The criticism is that it's hypocritical or duplicitous or inconsistent or contradictory and perhaps even self-referentially incoherent to call for the end of philosophy of religion while using the philosophy of religion to do so.

If this criticism is sound then no one can ever call for the end of philosophy of religion. No one. Ever. This criticism forever insulates philosophy of religion as a discipline from ever being criticized. But why must that be the case, unless philosophy of religion is seen as beyond all criticism or justification? Upon what basis does a discipline need no justification? Critics must therefore state why the discipline they love so much needs no justification. But if it needs justification then it's possible that under rational scrutiny it may fail to be a legitimate discipline in the secular university.

Give Christians an Inch, They’ll Take a Light Year

God Shows Up Late

Believers get whiney and petulant when we delete God from “in the beginning,” so, for the sake of argument, let’s wipe their tears and soothe their troubled spirits by granting that a god must have launched the Cosmos—pending the latest updates from cosmologists.

But give Christians that inch and they’ll take a light year. They overreach and rush in with assumptions and faith babble. They’ll want to push the Bible agenda. Their swarms of ideas about their god are as deeply entrenched as the belief in god-the-originator. They leap to the conclusion that the God described in the Bible is the one that triggered the Big Bang. And they’re shocked to be told that this doesn’t follow at all. God is God . . . what’s the problem?

Unapologetic Is an Audible Book and in Barnes & Noble

You can now get "Unapologetic" in an an audio format. Listen to a sample on Amazon. I also chanced upon a copy in the philosophy section of my local Barnes & Noble store. Yeahhhhh!

Myth Versus History: Playing hide-and-seek with Jesus, by Robert Conner

Given the ubiquitous superstition of his era and the festering resentment of the Jewish populace in Roman occupied Palestine, there was nothing particularly noteworthy about the message or career of a certain Joshua of Nazareth, better known as Jesus of Nazareth—Jesus is the Latinized form of Ihsouj (Iēsous), the Greek rendering of ciriiry (Yehoshua), Joshua, meaning “Yahweh delivers.” Joshua son of Nun, or Jesus son of Nauē (Ihsouj o Nauh),¹ the eponymous hero of the book of Joshua, represented the mythic triumph of Jewish theocracy over gentile paganism. The name, which embodied the very hope of salvation, of freedom, of rescue from the gentile Roman overlords, was understandably popular in 1^st century Palestine.

An Excerpt with Discussions About My New Book "Unapologetic"

Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, announced my newest book Unapologetic. I had missed it when it first appeared on November 30th. He also posted it on his Facebook wall. Check out the excerpt and the comments below each announcement. There's more to my book than merely calling for atheist philosophers to end their own discipline. It's also a manual for teaching readers how the effectively deal with religion and other faith-based paranormal claims.

Top 30 Atheist Blogs And Websites Every Atheist Must Follow by Feedspot

Debunking Christianity was recently ranked in the top ten among atheist sites by Feedspot!! Pretty cool this is! Check their list out. Stop here. Read. Learn. Be challenged. Engage.

The UFO of Bethlehem - Through Atheist Eyes with Frank Zindler

The Lazarus Stunt

Theology-Soaked Fiction

The Pope and the Big Bang

Maybe Our Brains Are too Puny?

Quote of the Day On The Value of Philosophy and Definitional Apologetics

Over the last decade I have found that one bastion for Christian apologists has been philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion. The scholars have honed their definitional apologetics in such a fine-tuned manner that when engaging them in this discipline, it’s like trying to catch a greased pig. Or, to switch metaphors, trying to chase them down the rabbit’s hole in an endless and ultimately fruitless quest for definitions. What’s an extraordinary claim? What constitutes evidence? What’s the definition of supernatural? What’s the scientific method? What’s a miracle? What’s a basic belief? What’s a veridical religious experience? What’s evil? They do this just like others have done over questions like, “What is the definition of pornography?” And then they gerrymander around the plain simple facts of experience. I would rather deal in concrete examples like a virgin who supposedly had a baby and a man who supposedly was raised from the dead. [From Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, p.28]

Notice the red letter edition? The reason why I prefer to deal in concrete examples is because of how Christian philosophers use definitions to obfuscate their own theology. It isn't because I'm anti-intellectual. Nor do I think definitions are unimportant. I just want truth to prevail.  

Reviewing A Lopsided Bar Room Book Discussion About a Belief System No One Holds, Complete With Annoying Corny Cheesy Humor, Part 3

I'm reviewing Randal Rauser and Justin Schieber's conversational style book, An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything.

I've previously mentioned the lopsidedness between Rauser and Schieber's academic credentials. Schieber has a fair understanding of the material in this book, and he does have a fair understanding of it, not an expert understanding. I've also criticized the co-authors for discussing the classical concept of god because no one, or practically no one, holds to it in today's world.

As I write this review I wrestle with who might want to buy a copy. Not me. I haven't learned anything significant from reading it, but then experts cannot be the target audience either. I would rather read what Schieber said without having to read Rauser's take downs of what he said. This would've been more interesting to me, especially because it was annoying to wade through the muddy waters resulting from Rauser's dredged up obfuscations of Schieber's arguments (none original with him). Rauser's got nothing here. For his part Schieber seems happy to be invited to co-write the book. So he never presses his arguments to the end, and even bends over backwards in the face of Rauser's ignorance to be too polite and respectful to Rauser, his superior (after all, the book looks better on his resume than on Rauser's). 

What about typical bar room people, the Joe Six-Pack's of the English speaking world? Would they want to buy and read this book? Maybe. In too many cases the co-authors treat readers as if they're ignorant. The stories they tell in it are long and simplistic and take up too much space that would better be served getting to the point and arguing that point. This is standard Rauser. It's what he does, and he does it well if you find that type of writing useful. I don't. Many of his stories are analogies I find unhelpful because they don't clarify but rather obfuscate. What's interesting is that Schieber does the same thing, having learned from Rauser, a bad role model in my opinion, and so he's equally annoying. The stories they tell dumb down the discussion. Yet at times, the co-authors turn right around and forget about these readers by using language they probably cannot understand.

The Kindle Version of "Unapologetic" is Now Available!

The Kindle version of "Unapologetic" is now available!

Reviewing A Lopsided Bar Room Book Discussion About a Belief System No One Holds, Complete With Annoying Corny Cheesy Humor, Part 2

I'm reviewing Randal Rauser and Justin Schieber's conversational style book, An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything.

I've previously mentioned the lopsidedness between Rauser and Schieber's academic credentials. 

Let's turn a bit to its content. Rauser chose to make three chapter long arguments as did Schieber. Rauser's arguments focused on: 1) God, faith and testimony, 2) God and moral obligation, and 3) God, mathematics and reason. Schieber focused on: 1) the problem of massive theological disagreement; 2) the problem of the hostility of the universe, and 3) the evolution of the biological role of pain. These are all good interesting topics as far as they go.

Before they begin they talk about why god matters in chapter one. Now if I were Schieber and I were asked why God or gods mattered, I would say because people matter. God matters because there have been, and continues to be, a massive amount of suffering caused by the belief in God, or gods. That would be my focus, and I've edited a book on that topic with regard to Christianity, titled Christianity is Not Great: Why Faith Fails. Schieber doesn't feel the pain that belief in God or gods has caused. So does he lack the motivation to care? What he's doing is having an interesting dialogue for the sake of dialogue, and that's simply not good enough. Schieber says:

Ultimately, it matters little to me that readers are unlikely to have been swayed in either direction. I did not begin this dialogue with a primary goal of acquiring new notches on my atheistic belt. I began this project because I love the dialogue, the concepts involved, and the joy I get with exploring the mechanics of how arguments interact. (p. 206).

He needs to get some fire in his belly for all of the people who have been burned because of god beliefs. For him this is merely an interesting discussion and that's it. Treating god-belief as an interesting topic simply does not cut it. People have died and are dying because Rauser's god-belief is held by broadly two thirds of the world. I recommend him reading the book by Elicka Peterson Sparks, The Devil You Know: The Surprising Link between Conservative Christianity and Crime.

Instead, Rauser and Schieber focus on why the existence of God is the intellectually responsible thing to discuss for intellectually responsive people, and that we should take classical theistic beliefs seriously. Get that? Neither do I. There ought to be over-riding reasons to take God beliefs seriously. Those reasons should be because there is good evidence to do so, or in Schieber's case, because belief in God has produced, and still produces, harm. But they choose to focus on a set of beliefs that conceptualize the classical theistic God. For them this god "is a necessarily existent nonphysical agent who is omniscient omnipotent, and perfectly good." (p. 27) There are three things wrong about choosing to focus on this classical view of god.

First off, why does the classical belief in god have more going for it, such that we should take it seriously? They give no good reasons to think so over the other god-concepts and religions in the world. They do so because they live in the Christian western world and that's it. It's something I hammered home in my newly released book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End.

Second, practically no one holds to the classical view of God in today's world. All of these divine attributes have been dissected into oblivion by theologians and by a-theologians. No intellectually aware person in today's world can use the words omniscience or omnipotence and assume people know what's believed by the use of those words. More importantly, after divine attribute definitions are provided, no one, or practically no one, believes just this minimal amount about their god. Believers always believe MORE than this about their God, that's because they are monotheists, not deists or polytheists. This is a significant point Schieber fails to realize. By failing to realize this Schieber fails to go for the jugular of Rauser's evangelical Christian faith, the one that has caused, and is causing, so much harm. Rauser does not believe in the classical god, that's why. He believes in a full-blooded evangelical faith. He did not first believe in the classical god either. Rauser first believed in the evangelical faith of his parents, then he came to believe and defend the classical god concepts. So Schieber will not cause any attitude change in Rauser, or his fellow believers, by dialoguing about this classical god-concept because it isn't why he believes! To see how to dismantle Rauser's faith correctly I have done so in our co-authored book, God or Godless?.

The third reason why discussing the classical god concept is wrong is because this god is most emphatically not the kind of god we see in the Bible. The only part that's correct is that god is an agent in the Bible. All other descriptions of theirs fail to describe the biblical god. In fact, there are biblical statements to the contrary about that god, where Yahweh is not all-knowing, or all-powerful, or non-physical, or perfectly good. Shall I quote them?

Reviewing A Lopsided Bar Room Book Discussion About a Belief System No One Holds, Complete With Annoying Corny Cheesy Humor, Part 1

Randal Rauser has teamed up with Justin Schieber to write a conversational style book, published by atheist publisher Prometheus Books, titled An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar: Talking about God, the Universe, and Everything. Academically speaking Dr. Rauser earned a PhD from King's College, London, and is a professor of historical theology at Taylor Seminary in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He also has written nine books, including one he co-authored with me, titled God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions. Schieber, the co-author of this book, is a second year student at Grand Rapids Community College. How is it, you ask, that these two teamed up? Well, let me tell you. I don't know. Schieber is knowledgeable on these issues and intelligent. But intelligent buyers who wonder about a book they're about to buy look for academic credentials. I was asked by an atheist publisher who was considering publishing this book, whether or not it would be worth publishing. I said no, and they didn't publish it. My main reason for saying so is because of the lopsidedness of the participants, and it shows in this book. Readers want equal representation. But Prometheus Books disagreed. Okay then. I was wrong. [See parts 2 and 3 Tag below.]

The Day God Overslept (Well, One of Many Days)

Theodicy, AKA The Litany of Excuses

"Unapologetic" is the #1 New Release in Religious Philosophy

LINK to "Unapologetic"

On Amazon it's also ranked 7th in Atheism books and 13,406th overall.

Quote of the Day by Jon Green, On God's Supposed Love

One of my dogs disobeyed me the other day. I burned him alive in a fire pit. I love my dogs like God loves us. - Jon Green

"Unapologetic" is a tribute to the Influence of Three Atheist Intellectual Giants

My book "Unapologetic" is a tribute to the intellectual goading and influence of Drs. Peter Boghossian, David Eller and Hector Avalos. Kudos to them, intellectual giants all.

LINK to Unapologetic

“I Hate to Break it to You Here at Notre Dame”

“I’ve Started to Feel Distinctly Nauseous”

Quote of the Day, From My Book Unapologetic

Link to Unapologetic.

Who's to blame for Donald Trump winning the election?

Staks Rosch summarizes the best answers right here.

The Democratic Party is to Blame for the Trump Presidency!

They could have prevented this. I saw the signs as a Bernie supporter. We all did. If the DNC refused to nominate Bernie we might lose the general election The polls strongly suggested this. But the democratic party did not care. They nominated Hillary anyway. They were stupid stupid stupid. This morning I am embarrassed to be a Democrat. Let all Hillary supporters in the primaries chime in right now and apologize. Profusely. You were seriously wrong.

What Is the Best Argument for the Existence of Allah?

In the comments I've been asked by Christian apologists Trent Horn and C. Michael Patton to tell my readers what I consider the best argument to the existence of God. Okay. Here goes. The best argument on behalf of Allah is the moral argument to his existence.

Let me quote from my book Unapologetic:

Regarding the case for the existence of God due to objective morality, the moral argument to the existence of God depends on one’s morality. Many Christian theologians and philosophers attempt to make an argument from the existence of objective morality to the existence of their God, who just happens to have the same kind of morality they do, surprise!
...
Take for example the Islamic State (or ISIS). They 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 would have to agree with their moral argument, but subsequently disagree with their morals. However, the morals of ISIS are used as evidence that their god exists, just as the specific morals of Christians (depending on the century) are used as evidence their 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.

The moral argument works in an inductive manner with some degree of probability to it above 50%. But it only works if one's morals are absolute, unchanging and also good. Since it's demonstrably and unmistakably the case that morals are not absolute and unchanging then there cannot be an absolute and unchanging divine lawgiver. So even the best argument to the existence of Allah isn't a good argument at all. This applies to the Christian god Yahweh as well. Even the best argument to the existence of Yahweh isn't a good argument at all.

Discuss. What do you think of my answer?

Here is a wide ranging interview. Hope you like it!

Finally the Chicago Cubs Won it and Did it in a Big Way!

Yesssss! Chicago Cubs are the world champions!!! Finally! After all these years they did it with an amazing comeback for the record books! My great grandfather Tom Loftus (Thomas Joseph Loftus, November 15, 1856 - April 16, 1910) managed both the Chicago Orphans (Cubs) and the Cleveland Blues (Indians).

To the right is a photo of the 1901 Chicago Orphans (Cubs) that my great grandfather Tom Loftus managed. Top Row, L-R: Jock Menefee (OF/P), Cozy Dolan (OF), Bert Cunningham (P), Fred Raymer (3B/SS), Jim Delahanty (3B), Frank Chance (OF/C), Charlie Dexter (1B/3B/OF), Johnny Kling (C). Middle Row, L-R: Long Tom Hughes (P), Cupid Childs (2B), Mal Eason (P), Jack Doyle (1B), Tom Loftus (Mgr.), Danny Green (OF), Barry McCormick (SS), Jack Taylor (P). Bottom Row, L-R: Topsy Hartsel (OF), Mike Kahoe (C).

Here is a photo of the 1888 Cleveland Blues (Indians) that my great grandfather Tom Loftus managed.