Hitler’s American Christian Friends
Can Christianity clean up its act?
Bradley Dalton reviews the book "God or Godless"
LINK.He says of it that it's "Good for getting the conversation started!"
Bradley Dalton Reviews "Christianity is Not Great"
Here's a nice book review on my anthology, "Christianity is Not Great", if you were thinking of getting it.
"A Must Read for ALL Truth Seekers!" by Bradley Dalton, who says, "This is one of my favorite books. It’s the go to book regarding the pragmatism of Christianity."
Regarding my chapter 8 on Christianity and the Savagery of Slavery, the reviewer writes:
"This is my favorite chapter in the book. In it Loftus discusses the
topic of slavery in the Bible. I recommend referring Christians to this
chapter if they try to say that the slavery in the Bible wasn’t that
bad. Loftus goes through the Bible passages and debunks the common
apologetics used to defend biblical slavery. He also shows how the Bible
was interpreted to justify slavery in the United States."
Biology Defeats Theology
…and it’s not even close
Baseball Research Journal: Tom Loftus is the American League’s Forgotten Founding Father.
Here is the link to the long awaited article: Tom Loftus: The American League’s Forgotten Founding Father. This is my Great Grandfather Tom Loftus! I've written about him before. He's finally getting the
recognition he deserves. He was widely hailed in his day as important to
Major League Baseball, especially his role in helping to start the
American League and in navigating through the baseball wars of
1899-1903. I'm so thankful to have lived long enough to see this day! Here are a few snippets:
Calls For Ending the Philosophy of Religion Are Doing Nothing More Than Advocating For the Secularization Of Our Secular Universities
Recently Jerry Coyne wrote about the Philosophy of Religion:
Insofar as "theology" includes courses that presuppose the existence of the divine, take seriously the existence of God or Jesus, or prepare people for the ministry or to promulgate religious beliefs, then those courses not only have no place in a University, but are exercises in delusion. Now I think the higher-class divinity schools, like Chicago's and Harvard's, have very few of those courses, but there are some. They should not be part of a secular university. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that Hitchens's razor is correct: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." That applies to any form of theology that takes gods or superstitions as real. Universities should not be in the business of taking seriously those myths that have no evidence behind them. They can, of course, teach myths, but at no point should they imply that there is evidence for their truth. LINK
I've written on this topic several times before, collected here. But I don't think I've articulated my viewpoint in any single post better than I do in this one. I'm not surprised there is still a lot of misunderstanding about what I'm talking about. So here's another attempt--a book may need to be written on it.
My position seems to be the same as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay when it comes to ending the Philosophy of Religion (PoR) discipline in the secular universities. The classes covered could be taught under the umbrella of the Philosophy discipline itself (with no need for a subdivision of PoR) or in the Comparative Religion departments, and especially science classes. Just think of it this way. We don't have PoR classes on Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, Norse theology, Haitian Voodoo, Paganism etc., in any secular university that I know about. We don't see this for good reasons. Now think real hard about why, okay? The main purpose of the PoR discipline is to examine the evidence and the arguments for religion. Evidence. Arguments. Its main purpose is not merely to get students to understand religion. Rather, it seeks to assess the claims of religion by looking at the evidence (if there is any) and the arguments (if there are any good ones based on the evidence). By contrast, the main purpose of classes in Comparative Religions departments is to understand religion.
My position seems to be the same as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay when it comes to ending the Philosophy of Religion (PoR) discipline in the secular universities. The classes covered could be taught under the umbrella of the Philosophy discipline itself (with no need for a subdivision of PoR) or in the Comparative Religion departments, and especially science classes. Just think of it this way. We don't have PoR classes on Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, Norse theology, Haitian Voodoo, Paganism etc., in any secular university that I know about. We don't see this for good reasons. Now think real hard about why, okay? The main purpose of the PoR discipline is to examine the evidence and the arguments for religion. Evidence. Arguments. Its main purpose is not merely to get students to understand religion. Rather, it seeks to assess the claims of religion by looking at the evidence (if there is any) and the arguments (if there are any good ones based on the evidence). By contrast, the main purpose of classes in Comparative Religions departments is to understand religion.
An Angel with a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
Pushing Christian theology into fantasy land
Not too long ago I read the claim by a Christian apologist that Luke was a first-rate historian. Such confidence is no doubt based on the first four verses of that gospel:
“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”
“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”
I'm Skyping into the Apologetics class of Dr. Gary Habermas
This Wednesday I'll be Skyping into a class of PhD students majoring in Apologetics under Dr. Gary Habermas. I'll be interacting with the students who were assigned to read my new anthology, "The Case against Miracles." These are the future apologists! It's a good opportunity! What points would you make if you were me?
A Final Sermon in a Time of Pandemic
What does disease tell us about God?
I gave up on Christianity because it claims too much and explains too little. We know so little about the Cosmos we’re floating in—our home is one solar system among trillions—yet theologians brag and posture about God, as if they had some way of knowing: they claim too much. And when they brag about how good the Christian God is, they can’t tell us—in any even remotely convincing way—why there is colossal human and animal suffering: they explain too little. Even as I served two parishes in the Methodist Church, and plodded along on my PhD program in Biblical Studies, these deficiencies kept haunting me. Finally, I walked away.
I Unequivocally Without Qualification Condemn Systematic Institutional Racism!
My wife and I protested peacefully in Fort Wayne, Indiana, over the murder
of George Floyd. I unequivocally without qualification condemn systematic
institutional racism! That being said, I neither condone nor condemn the
violence of a few people who protested across the country. There's a lot of
anger from decades and decades of systematic institutional racism that have
not been adequately solved. The black community and those who seek justice
are fed up. If you were born black you would feel this injustice. You might
conclude property owners and society itself are to blame. We are all
complicit to some degree as this situation continues to exist. Peaceful
protests don't work, you might conclude. So you too might consider burning
it all down. No worries here since it's all covered by insurance anyway. I
understand this sentiment. You should too. While I understand the need for
law and order. I also understand the outrage, and I'm on the side of the
outrage right now. We might simply ask ourselves what level of priority is
systematic institutional racism on the agenda. From my perspective it hasn't
been high on my list of priorities, I'm so sorry to say. To be silent is to
be complicit.
Discuss. I know good people disagree. WATCH THESE TWO EXCELLENT VIDEOS FIRST!!
Discuss. I know good people disagree. WATCH THESE TWO EXCELLENT VIDEOS FIRST!!
Is There Evidence That There Are No Gods?
There are better and worse reasons for being only a negative atheist. But the one that was argued by my opponent in the discussion was pretty weak — and if it is accepted by others who call themselves atheists, they really should be aware of that.
Briefly, my opponent's argument was that one should only believe when there is evidence; that there is no evidence that there are no gods; and therefore that to positively disbelieve in such beings is completely unjustified.
On the Hunt for Jesus in the Old Testament
The manufactured prophecy miracle
Religious folks have a vested interest in managing expectations about miracles. Taking them at their word, that God is powerful and good—and has our wellbeing in mind—secularists can suggest miracles that should have happened. A year before the Sandy Hook School massacre, Richard Carrier wrote this:
Benjamin Blade Speed Watkins On Faith and Reason
Benjamin Blade Speed Watkins, Host/Producer at Real Atheology - A Philosophy of Religion Podcast, posted something for discussion: "Faith without reason is blind, but reason without faith is impotent. I’m came up with this little gem, or at least I like to thing I did. Who have I unknowingly ripped off? How unoriginal am I actually being? Philosophy friends, ASSEMBLE!" [For my response see below. For a more robust defense see this on Facebook].
Loftus:
There is only blind faith, that is, faith without reason. So reason doesn't need faith at all. *Why do I bother* There is reasoning based on faith, but that's equivalent to reasoning based on the conclusions of delusions and wishful thinking. By contrast, reasoning about the nature of nature, its workings, and origins is based on logic and objective evidence.
Liar! Christian Organizations Paid Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. “Roe”) To Speak Out Against Abortion
I have a chapter in my book, "How To Defend the Christian Faith:
Advice From An Atheist" titled, "When All Else Fails Lie". [Get my book while you're here!] Well now,
here's a big one. Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. “Roe” in Roe v Wade) received
about a quarter of a million dollars from Christian organizations to be
an outspoken opponent of abortion! Liar liar pants on fire! The Friendly Atheist broke this story!
The Corrosive Effect of Christian Excuses
Not doing God any favors
Introducing the 2020 International eConference on Atheism
The Global Center for Religious Research (GCRR) is hosting the 2020 International eConference on Atheism,
which is open to believers and nonbelievers alike. The purpose of this
multidisciplinary virtual conference is to advance the scientific and philosophical understanding of atheism, nonreligion, agnosticism, and
counterapologetics today. The eConference will provide an
interdisciplinary platform for scholars, educators, and practitioners to
present their research into recent innovations, trends, and concerns in
contemporary atheism. Moreover, this 3-day event will promote dialogue
and understanding among nonbelievers, as well as those who interact with
them.
And because the conference is held online, scholars and students can
attend from the comfort and safety of their own home at lower costs
without having to worry about travel and lodging expenses. I am one of the keynote speakers! Plan to join us September 3rd-5th! International eConference on Atheism.
Anselm "Faith Seeking Confirmation"
I think Anselm's dictum "faith seeking understanding" is to be understood in the history of theology and philosophy to be equivalent to "Faith Seeking Confirmation." If that's how it's historically used then that's what it means. Below is an updated edit from chapter 2 of my my book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End.
There is a common theme among St. Anselm's work and the work of other obfuscationist theologians and philosophers that needs to be highlighted. It’s called faith seeking confirmation. We see this in Anselm with regard to his new atonement theory and his ontological argument.
Anselm therefore is exhibit “A” in defense of what atheist philosopher Stephen Law said: “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.”1 If I could pick one sentence, one aphorism, one proverb that highlights the main reason philosophy of religion (PoR) must end, it’s Law’s. I’ll call it Law’s law of faith.
I Just Asked Dr. Craig An Important Question
I just asked my former professor William Lane Craig the following question on his website:
Hi Dr. Craig. I hope you are well.
With the relatively recent work in establishing the strong tendency of human beings toward cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, (which is the mother of all cognitive biases), along with many others like selection bias, the ostrich effect, omission bias, verbatim effect, and so on, what advice do you offer honest inquirers to overcome these biases when searching for the true religious sect? I haven't seen you address this question before.
What perspective do you suggest for honest inquirers when searching for which religious sect is true, if there is one? Surely you don't endorse one of faith seeking confirmation (i.e. Anselm!), as that is the epitome of a known cognitive bias, which leads inquirers to embrace whatever they were raised to believe.
Giving Too Much Credit to the Holy Spirit
Yes, I know, blasphemy!
Yes, we’re ready to Just Say No to the Old Testament—except for some of its famous stories, I suppose. Christians are proud that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, for example, sets the tone for much better religion—or so they think. Although if they actually read the Sermon on the Mount carefully, they’d find quite a few lines to cross out; e.g., those who have pension plans—even ministers—need to find a way to finesse, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth…”
Here's a good review of my anthology on miracles by Bradley Dalton
LINK. As one might guess I like what the reviewer said about my Chapter 3: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: "Loftus writes this chapter and does a great job of defending Hume and the title of the chapter. I don’t know how anybody could refute what Loftus argues for after reading it." The reviewer's favorite chapter is Dr. Madison's, saying, "I love how David Madison debunks the idea that the Bible was inspired by God." See other recommendations here.
Christianity: Ten Knockout Punches, Number 10
Paul, apostle and saboteur of sane religion
It’s hardly a secret that reading the Bible is not a favorite pastime even among Christians—especially when there are so many other options, e.g., movies, TV (binge watching is now a thing), sports, hobbies. God’s Holy Word doesn’t stand a chance. When was the last time you heard a Christian say, “I’m going to spend my evening reading the gospel of Mark, all of it, then tomorrow—I can’t wait!—I’ll dive into the book of Ezekiel”?
Whose Abject Failure? William L. Vanderburgh Tweets On Hume and Bayesianism
I reviewed Dr. Vanderburgh's book in defense of David Hume in the Appendix to my anthology, "The Case against Miracles." [Click on his book image to find out more.] Amazingly, Vanderburgh sums up his conclusion in one short Tweet! Tim McGrew, supposedly an "international expert" on miracles (but not my expert!), is in the dark on how to understand David Hume on miracles.
Geez, Just When We Need Evidence Of a Powerful God of Love, They Close Down the Lourdes Shrine!
Archaeology, Exodus, and the Canaanite Conquest
There are several good resources showing Moses did not exist, LINK. Here's my take on it all from my 2012 book, Why I Became an Atheist, pp. 302-307:
Archaeology, Exodus, and the Canaanite Conquest
If we assume the story of Exodus is correct, there should be some archaeological evidence for the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, the camping of the Israelites at Mount Sinai, their wilderness wanderings, and their Canaanite conquest. And this archaeological evidence should correspond to the biblical account. But what we find instead is a complete lack of it, and the story itself doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
Here's a good interview with students who attend Liberty University
"Atheist scholar, author, and former minister John W. Loftus shares his story of de-conversion from religious faith and presents arguments for assuming an outsider perspective toward one's ideology." LINK. There is a long 1 hour 13 minute interview and several shorter discussions.
A Helluva Good Story about Heaven
In which God and Jesus aren’t the heroes
TED Talk from Cognitive Scientist Philip Fernbach
Watch this TED talk video below, from cognitive scientist Philip Fernbach. We are tribal people. We have a very strong propensity to accept as knowledge what people in our own tribe accepts, which means we all claim to know things that are false.
I am a nonbeliever because of this research. I'm skeptical of people who have all the answers. I am skeptical of apologists who claim to have an impossible grasp of a whole range of disciplines of learning, like quantum mechanics, cosmology, astronomy, evolutionary science, neurology, psychology, cognitive biases, philosophy, theology, philology, Old Testament and New Testament studies, Jesus studies, church history, ethics, politics, and so on, and so on, which they use to argue for their faith. No one has such a wide grasp of it all. But far too many of them act as if they do! So they are inauthentic people, unjustly arrogant people, who are pretending to know that which they cannot know, like the Sophists in the days of Socrates.
This is why doubt is the only reasonable position to take about the objective world, its nature, its workings, and its origins (including which religion is true, if there is one) until such time as there's sufficient objective evidence leading to a confident conclusion.
The highest degree of confidence in a conclusion about the objective world is the consensus of scientists working in a field. The lowest degree of confidence in a conclusion about the objective world is one's own subjective feelings. Another conclusion about the objective world that has a very low confidence level is 2nd 3rd 4th-handed down ancient conflicting testimony debated by theologians down through history about extraordinary miraculous claims such as snakes and donkeys that talked, rocks that floated, a bush that didn't burn up, a sun that stood still (and even backed up!), great fish that swallowed a person, a god born of a virgin (based at best on 2nd handed testimony from the mother alone!), resurrecting people, levitating people, a few of which ascended back into heaven where it's claimed God's throne is, along with a 2000 year old prophecy that one of them will come back to a flat earth from which every person on earth will see him.
I am a nonbeliever because of this research. I'm skeptical of people who have all the answers. I am skeptical of apologists who claim to have an impossible grasp of a whole range of disciplines of learning, like quantum mechanics, cosmology, astronomy, evolutionary science, neurology, psychology, cognitive biases, philosophy, theology, philology, Old Testament and New Testament studies, Jesus studies, church history, ethics, politics, and so on, and so on, which they use to argue for their faith. No one has such a wide grasp of it all. But far too many of them act as if they do! So they are inauthentic people, unjustly arrogant people, who are pretending to know that which they cannot know, like the Sophists in the days of Socrates.
This is why doubt is the only reasonable position to take about the objective world, its nature, its workings, and its origins (including which religion is true, if there is one) until such time as there's sufficient objective evidence leading to a confident conclusion.
The highest degree of confidence in a conclusion about the objective world is the consensus of scientists working in a field. The lowest degree of confidence in a conclusion about the objective world is one's own subjective feelings. Another conclusion about the objective world that has a very low confidence level is 2nd 3rd 4th-handed down ancient conflicting testimony debated by theologians down through history about extraordinary miraculous claims such as snakes and donkeys that talked, rocks that floated, a bush that didn't burn up, a sun that stood still (and even backed up!), great fish that swallowed a person, a god born of a virgin (based at best on 2nd handed testimony from the mother alone!), resurrecting people, levitating people, a few of which ascended back into heaven where it's claimed God's throne is, along with a 2000 year old prophecy that one of them will come back to a flat earth from which every person on earth will see him.
An Excerpt From My Introduction to "The Case Against Miracles"
A miracle must be an event caused by a supernatural force or being, a god. Such an event could not take place on its own in the natural world without the action of a god. It must be an event which involves the interfering, or suspension, or transgressing, or breaching, or contravening, or violating of natural law. Such an event could not be explainable by science because it would be an event impossible to occur by natural processes alone. A miracle is therefore an extraordinary event of the highest kind.
Dr. Randall Heskett Interviews John Loftus On His Book, "The Case Against Miracles"
Dr. Randall Heskett interviews John Loftus on his book, The Case Against Miracles. Loftus speaks about David Hume's critique on miracles and turns the interview on Heskett about his chapter in the book. The two come to a consensus that apologetics is not a field, nor is it honest, nor fair but damaging to both Christianity and intellectual discourse. Loftus speaks about the dangers of faith and the "deplorables" who are bringing down American Society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)