Why Should We Believe Meme
On Twitter Eric @edes1103 created this meme from something in my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice From an Atheist.
I'm Debating Dr. Wallace Marshall This Wednesday On the Existence of God
I'm going to debate Dr. Wallace Marshall this coming Wednesday, as announced here on Facebook. Wallace appears to have read my magnum opus and says two chapters in it should be "required reading for all evangelicals." Good! I searched and found a debate between Wallace and Phillip Drum on a similar topic. See what you think. Any suggestions?
Peter Enns Wrote Another Book, "The Sin of Certainty"
 |
| I am very uncertain about faith! |
The controversial evangelical Bible scholar...explains how Christians mistake “certainty” and “correct belief” for faith when what God really desires is trust and intimacy. Combining Enns’ reflections of his own spiritual journey with an examination of Scripture, The Sin of Certainty models an acceptance of mystery and paradox that all believers can follow and why God prefers this path because it is only this way by which we can become mature disciples who truly trust God. It gives Christians who have known only the demand for certainty permission to view faith on their own flawed, uncertain, yet heartfelt, terms.
God Has Watched Every Molestation And Did Nothing
If you say God has good reasons for allowing this child abuse, then his reasons must be beneficial for the very children who were molested. His reasons for allowing this to happen cannot merely be to teach the rest of us lessons. Otherwise the victims are being used as fodder for what God wants to teach us. So let's talk again about why a perfectly good God allows such things. Why? Given the amount of child abuse his reasons must be discernible to us enough to conclude they are good ones. Otherwise, an all knowledgeable God would know that because of his inaction many people would not believe in him.
New Book by Sean B. Carroll, The Serengeti Rules: The Quest to Discover How Life Works and Why It Matters
How does life work? How does nature produce the right numbers of zebras and lions on the African savanna, or fish in the ocean? How do our bodies produce the right numbers of cells in our organs and bloodstream? In The Serengeti Rules, award-winning biologist and author Sean Carroll tells the stories of the pioneering scientists who sought the answers to such simple yet profoundly important questions, and shows how their discoveries matter for our health and the health of the planet we depend upon.
One of the most important revelations about the natural world is that everything is regulated--there are rules that regulate the amount of every molecule in our bodies and rules that govern the numbers of every animal and plant in the wild. And the most surprising revelation about the rules that regulate life at such different scales is that they are remarkably similar--there is a common underlying logic of life. Carroll recounts how our deep knowledge of the rules and logic of the human body has spurred the advent of revolutionary life-saving medicines, and makes the compelling case that it is now time to use the Serengeti Rules to heal our ailing planet.
A bold and inspiring synthesis by one of our most accomplished biologists and gifted storytellers, The Serengeti Rules is the first book to illuminate how life works at vastly different scales. Read it and you will never look at the world the same way again. LINK
What Does Your God Actually Do?
It won't do to say God works through people when every religious person would say the same thing. What does your God actually do that can be objectively measured? Why does s/he need anything or anyone to do this work?
Michael Moore's Satire "Where To Invade Next?" Is Both Hilarious and Brilliant!
I've written a lot about ridicule and satire. I've defended their use in our religious and cultural debates in several posts here at DC. I argue ridicule and satire work to change minds. Ridicule works to the degree there is truth behind it.
Enter Michael Moore with his just released movie, "Where To Invade Next?" It is both very funny and based on fact. Below for your consideration I'm including a trailer along with an interview he did with Stephen Colbert. If you care about the direction of America this is a don't miss movie, a movie that is neither liberal nor conservative. Chris Woods, a friend of mine and movie aficionado wrote, "IMO, Michael Moore's Where To Invade Next is not only the best Michael Moore movie I've seen, but also the best movie I've seen so far this year." I agree.
There were three segments to Moore's movie that really touched me. The children in France are fed good lunches in their schools, compared to the shit that gets fed to American students in our schools. Why does this continue! It's a complete and utter disgrace.
In another segment we're told of the recent Tunisian political revolution where women have successfully risen up to gain equal rights, something I hadn't heard of before. The president was interviewed by Moore, who is clearly a Muslim with conservative Muslim values (i.e., repressive of women), but he has come to embrace secularism, or the separation of State and Church, where people should be free to live the way they desire irrespective of their religious values. Now there's an idea Christians should wish upon the Muslim world. Why don't more of them wish it upon us in America! That befuddles me.
Then in a segment directly following the Tunisian one, Moore interviews Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, who was the first woman in the world to be elected head of state, in Iceland. For about what seemed to be ten minutes afterward, there was a superior montage of women leaders and activists around the world, showing what women have accomplished. It was inspiring. Viewers could clearly understand that it's time for women to take charge of the world. The rule of testosterone-driven male egoists should end, and I agree wholeheartedly. [Of course, in America we should tackle one problem at a time. So while Moore and I truly think women should lead us, both he and I endorse Bernie Sanders for President. Here are his reasons why.
Enter Michael Moore with his just released movie, "Where To Invade Next?" It is both very funny and based on fact. Below for your consideration I'm including a trailer along with an interview he did with Stephen Colbert. If you care about the direction of America this is a don't miss movie, a movie that is neither liberal nor conservative. Chris Woods, a friend of mine and movie aficionado wrote, "IMO, Michael Moore's Where To Invade Next is not only the best Michael Moore movie I've seen, but also the best movie I've seen so far this year." I agree.
There were three segments to Moore's movie that really touched me. The children in France are fed good lunches in their schools, compared to the shit that gets fed to American students in our schools. Why does this continue! It's a complete and utter disgrace.
In another segment we're told of the recent Tunisian political revolution where women have successfully risen up to gain equal rights, something I hadn't heard of before. The president was interviewed by Moore, who is clearly a Muslim with conservative Muslim values (i.e., repressive of women), but he has come to embrace secularism, or the separation of State and Church, where people should be free to live the way they desire irrespective of their religious values. Now there's an idea Christians should wish upon the Muslim world. Why don't more of them wish it upon us in America! That befuddles me.
Then in a segment directly following the Tunisian one, Moore interviews Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, who was the first woman in the world to be elected head of state, in Iceland. For about what seemed to be ten minutes afterward, there was a superior montage of women leaders and activists around the world, showing what women have accomplished. It was inspiring. Viewers could clearly understand that it's time for women to take charge of the world. The rule of testosterone-driven male egoists should end, and I agree wholeheartedly. [Of course, in America we should tackle one problem at a time. So while Moore and I truly think women should lead us, both he and I endorse Bernie Sanders for President. Here are his reasons why.
"Evangelical Christianity’s Brand Is Used Up" by Dr. Valerie Tarico
I think it's time evangelicals grasp what they have done to their own branding as evangelicals. They have mucked up the word "evangelical." They should abandon using the description or change their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. Excellent essay! I love how Tarico writes, using simple bullet points for easy comprehension. Enjoy.
- Evangelical means obsessed with sex.
- Evangelical means arrogant.
- Evangelical means fearful and bigoted.
- Evangelical means indifferent to truth.
- Evangelical means gullible and greedy.
- Evangelical means ignorant.
- Evangelical means predatory.
- Evangelical means mean. LINK.
The Book "God or Godless" is Going Out of Print. Who's To Blame?
A good debate book should have two opponents who are more or less equally matched. Or, almost certainly more to the point, the issues debated should be ones that can be reasonably debated. Baker Books, a major Christian publisher, contracted for our co-written book in hopes it would foster good discussion, and/or help promote Christianity. Rauser didn't keep up his end of this bargain, in my opinion. But he couldn't, because no matter how smart or educated he is, he was defending the indefensible. I admire his passion and evangelistic zeal, but what he tried to do cannot reasonably be done.
This book is going out of print. I don't think Rauser understands how disappointed I am about this. I put a lot of effort into it. He's offering some excuses as to why our book didn't sell well. But he offered no evidence. He concludes he was not to blame. So I wrote on Ten Lessons From Randal Rauser On How Not to Lose Gracefully.
I have a different view. Had the truth been on Rauser's side, had he beat me--had he trounced me--the book would've sold better, much better. There are other factors to be sure. Popular authors get more readers regardless of the content. So let's be honest, neither of us are all that popular with the Christian audience this book was aimed at. Furthermore, quality arguments are not always perceived as such by readers, if they're couched in simple language. I almost always try to keep it as simple as I can without being simplistic. In this book we both used simple language. So the book was perceived as lacking in depth, given some of the Amazon reviews.
UPDATE: Great News! It looks like it's not gone out of print after all.
This book is going out of print. I don't think Rauser understands how disappointed I am about this. I put a lot of effort into it. He's offering some excuses as to why our book didn't sell well. But he offered no evidence. He concludes he was not to blame. So I wrote on Ten Lessons From Randal Rauser On How Not to Lose Gracefully.
I have a different view. Had the truth been on Rauser's side, had he beat me--had he trounced me--the book would've sold better, much better. There are other factors to be sure. Popular authors get more readers regardless of the content. So let's be honest, neither of us are all that popular with the Christian audience this book was aimed at. Furthermore, quality arguments are not always perceived as such by readers, if they're couched in simple language. I almost always try to keep it as simple as I can without being simplistic. In this book we both used simple language. So the book was perceived as lacking in depth, given some of the Amazon reviews.
UPDATE: Great News! It looks like it's not gone out of print after all.
I'm Seeking More Confirmation Bias Stories
Let's say you're into football as a Cowboy fan. You don't care much at all how other teams do. You just root for the Cowboys. Come Super Bowl time this past year you could care less who won. But someone challenges you to predict the winner. So you study it out. You have no biases that would directly affect a clear-headed judgement. But if your Cowboys were in the Super Bowl it would affect a clear-headed judgment.
There are biases that get in the way of a clear-headed judgement and there are biases that don't. It depends on such things as the issue, how important it is to you, how much of your social network depends on your having the same belief, how long of a prior commitment you have had to your belief, and what the punishments and rewards are for maintaining said belief.
I said I could multiply these examples by the hundreds. So here's where my readers come in. Provide analogies that are directly relevant to believers who need to remove their confirmation bias, as they re-examine their faith for the first time, upon becoming adults. I'll send a free signed copy of my recent book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist
to the person getting the most upvotes (within the continental US).
There are biases that get in the way of a clear-headed judgement and there are biases that don't. It depends on such things as the issue, how important it is to you, how much of your social network depends on your having the same belief, how long of a prior commitment you have had to your belief, and what the punishments and rewards are for maintaining said belief.
I said I could multiply these examples by the hundreds. So here's where my readers come in. Provide analogies that are directly relevant to believers who need to remove their confirmation bias, as they re-examine their faith for the first time, upon becoming adults. I'll send a free signed copy of my recent book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist
to the person getting the most upvotes (within the continental US).The Finalized Cover For My Forthcoming Anthology
You can pre-order it on Amazon. I claim methodological naturalism is a bogeyman that no one needs to worry about in the pursuit of scientific truth. To believers who say otherwise, that our conclusions are dictated by a prior commitment to naturalistic explanations, my challenge is to test that false assumption from the chapters in this book.
New Book, "The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing"
This new book is written by computational biologist John C. Wathey. LINK. According to one reviewer on Amazon, Wathey
...cuts to the heart of religion’s appeal: the strong emotional pull of belief and its promise to fill what has been called “the God-shaped vacuum in our hearts and minds.” As the author notes in his preface, the New Atheists have “largely ignored the real reason that most believers believe: their personal experience of the presence of God.” This book examines that subjective religious experience, offering a cogent description of its likely biological and psychological underpinnings.It looks like a fantastic book. I would prefer the book was titled The Delusion of God's Presence, but that's just me. Regardless, gone is the cockamamie notion of the authenticating private subjective witness of a god in our lives (i.e., the god named holy spirit). Anyone who takes it seriously is indeed deluded. There are Christian apologists like Norman Geisler and Victor Reppert (I think) who don't agree with it, like me. What they should see is the lengths Christian apologists will go to defend their evangelical faith. And since that's obviously the case here, they should reflect on the lengths they themselves go to defend their evangelical faith.
New Atheist Book, "God's Gravediggers: Why No Deity Exists"
This brand new atheist book by philosopher Raymond D. Bradley looks very interesting to me. It has blurbs written by Graham Oppy and Theodore Drange. LINK.
Define Faith? It's Quite Easy Really
Faith should one day be labelled a cognitive bias. It keeps one's cognitive faculties from functioning properly! Faith is an irrational, unevidenced or misplaced trust in something or someone. Believers have it and don't know it, just as other religious adherents in other religious faiths do. Christian, I probably cannot convince you of this, just as you wouldn't be able to convince them of that.
New Atheism, Meet Existential Risk Studies!
I just wanted to let denizens of this blog know that I recently published an article in The Humanist about why the "new atheist" movement will only become more important and urgently needed in the future. Below is a paragraph from the article in which I discuss an idea that I've also explored on Debunking Christianity. Thoughts and feedback are always welcome, and I discuss here (curiosity and kindness!). I hope readers enjoy it.
Loftus vs Murray Debate WAS JESUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD?
The Secular Student Alliance and Ratio Christi: Campus Apologetics Alliance at Western Michigan University present a debate between myself and Abdu Murray. You know about me. Abdu Murray is a former Muslim turned Christian. "Abdu holds a BA in Psychology from the University of Michigan and earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School. As an attorney, Abdu was named several times in Best Lawyers in America and Michigan Super Lawyer. Abdu is the Scholar in Residence of Christian Thought and Apologetics at the Josh McDowell Institute of Oklahoma Wesleyan University." Abdu has also authored two books and works as the North American Director and a speaker at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. LINK. We know each other and I consider Abdu a friend.
"Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, A Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency"
I think this story in Current Affairs should be read by anyone who does not want a Trump Presidency.
A Clinton/Trump match should not just worry Democrats. It should terrify them. They should be doing everything possible to avoid it. A Trump/Sanders contest, however, looks very different indeed...Sanders is an almost perfect secret weapon against Trump. He can pull off the only maneuver that is capable of neutralizing Trump: ignoring him and actually keeping the focus on the issues. LINK.
What Does It Mean To Be Open-Minded? Or Closed-Minded?
Open-minded people are willing to honestly consider evidence that could change their minds. Closed-minded people will not. No one is completely open-minded. No one is completely closed-minded.
There are two problems we face in order to cultivate the intellectual virtue of open-mindedness. The first is to learn what constitutes evidence, since most people are unreasonably persuaded because of anecdotal evidence, or fallacious arguments substituting for the lack of evidence, or even peer-pressure or the accidents of birth into a particular family or a different culture. The second is to learn to avoid confirmation bias as much as possible, which Michael Shermer calls "the mother of all biases." [In The Believing Brain, p. 259].
Once we learn about these problems and recognize them as the serious ones they really are, and that they stand in the way of a clear-headed investigation of the truth, we can proceed to be honest investigators of the truth. We would know what kind of evidence to look for and be better able to see any bias we might have and adjust for it.
There are two problems we face in order to cultivate the intellectual virtue of open-mindedness. The first is to learn what constitutes evidence, since most people are unreasonably persuaded because of anecdotal evidence, or fallacious arguments substituting for the lack of evidence, or even peer-pressure or the accidents of birth into a particular family or a different culture. The second is to learn to avoid confirmation bias as much as possible, which Michael Shermer calls "the mother of all biases." [In The Believing Brain, p. 259].
Once we learn about these problems and recognize them as the serious ones they really are, and that they stand in the way of a clear-headed investigation of the truth, we can proceed to be honest investigators of the truth. We would know what kind of evidence to look for and be better able to see any bias we might have and adjust for it.
The Outsider Test Reppert Style, Another Confirmation Bias Sighting
Another Confirmation Bias Sighting!
Everyone knows I only respond to Vic Reppert when he writes something about the OTF. If he wrote nothing about it there would be nothing for me to respond to. Obvious, right? Not so fast:
ephemerol Takes Christianity Down So What's Left For the Philosophy of Religion?
What is this "evidence" of which you speak? Pray, tell, where is this bounteous cornucopia of ignorance masquerading as knowledge?
What do you make of how genetics, geology, archaeology, comparative religions, and even biblical textual criticism contradicts your bible?
1. Genetics falsifies both the Adam&Eve myth and the Noachian flood myth by disproving these population bottlenecks
"Adam and Eve: The Ultimate Standoff Between Science and Faith", Jerry Coyne.
2. Noah's Ark as recounted in the bible has no possibility of being anything more than a story on practical grounds
Moore, Robert A. "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark." Creation Evolution Journal Vol.4, No.1, Winter, pp 1-43. 1983.
3. The Noachian flood myth as told in the bible is not historical on geological and hydrological grounds
Collins, Lorence G. "Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth." Reports of the NCSE Vol.29, Iss. 5, September-October, pp 38-41. 2009.
4. There's no trace of Israelites having been slaves in Egypt, of the Exodus, 40 years of wandering, of the Canaanite conquest, or of the story of David and Solomon.
"PATTERNS OF POOR RESEARCH — A Critique of Patterns of Evidence: Exodus", Hector Avalos.
"Why David Rohl's Response Fails.", Hector Avalos.
"How Archaeology Disproves Biblical History", Israel Finkelstein.
"Historical problems with the Hebrew Bible and the Conquest of Canaan", Bart D. Ehrman.
My Interview of Professor Keith Parsons About The Philosophy of Religion
The following interview took place as I asked Keith a question via email, to which he responded as his time allowed. Then I would ask him another one, and so on. This was not debate, because I was restricted to asking questions. Even though I threw a few hardball's it wouldn't be fair to characterize this as anything more than a discussion. I interviewed him for the purposes of learning his views more or less, and that's it.
----------
John: The first question I must ask is why are you teaching a PoR class? Is it just one class, or are there others? Didn't you say you would no longer do so?
College Accreditation Should Be Denied To All Evangelical Institutions!
Earlier I had called for ending college accreditation of Evangelical colleges that require professors to sign creedal statements. [See tag below]. Now I've got good news and bad news. The bad news is that Wheaton College Professor Larycia Hawkins, the school’s first tenured African-American female professor, was effectively ousted under a mutual agreement with school officials. The good news is that this incident is thrusting into the limelight calls to stop accrediting evangelical schools, something I argued for in my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith. Just read Vic Sizemore's article for the Humanist, The Case against Evangelical Higher Education and see for yourself. It's 'bout time.
"Apologists should be running for cover"
My readers know I'm not a self-promoter of my own works. Yet, I like to promote what others say about them. There's a difference, right? ;-) A new review of my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith, is titled "Apologists should be running for cover." I like that!
Loftus takes on the apologists in their own domain, showing why their arguments are flawed. He speaks very much from the point of view of someone who was, himself, one of them, addressing the (erroneous) criticism frequently leveled against other writers that they lack an understanding of religion and theology...The title of the book is also deliberately provocative; critics would say disingenuous. It isn't intended to help people become apologists, it's a masterful demonstration to those with an open mind of why the apologist position is untenable. LINK.
Victor Reppert Is Determined to Crack The Outsider Test for Faith, But Once Again Fails
Over the years no other Christian apologist has tried to find a fault with the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) as much as Victor Reppert has, even though I'm fairly convinced he has not read the book on it. I would think if a scholar wants to critique an idea he should read the book first, wouldn't you? Anyway, once again Victor Reppert is at it, with a bit of a different twist.
When it comes to the fear of religion what is he talking about? From my experience, and the experience of countless ex-Christians, the fear of hell kept us in the fold much longer than we would have been if we didn't fear hell. Hell is the cradle to grave threat that keeps Christians in the fold. It's THAT fear, more than any possible fear of religion, that needs to be overcome by far, hands down, no iffs ands or buts about it.
But Reppert isn't done. He just used this as an example to introduce his main point.
Isn't fear of religion at least a possible biasing factor? And if so, shouldn't any real test concerning religious belief have the capability of counteracting it. If the test only counteracts pro-religious biases but not anti-religious biases, then the test is faulty.I find this to be a very self-serving. The mother of all biases is confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias), which is the strong tendency to search for and/or interpret information in ways that confirm one's biases. People of faith have this problem evaluating their own religion because faith itself is a cognitive bias that misjudges the probabilities in favor of faith. Faith gets in the way of dispassionately evaluating one's inherited faith. Surely Reppert cannot disagree with this. If nothing else, just think of the millions of people who have inherited a different faith, and ask what keeps them from leaving their faith. The OTF is meant to help people with faith overcome their faith bias precisely because they need it. Non-believers don't have it precisely because we are non-believers. Take for example a Hindu raised in a Hindu culture who accepts the Hindu religion but is evaluating Islam to see if it's true. What real concern (as opposed to a feigned concern in the service of an apologeticial Jedi mind trick) would Reppert actually have that such a Hindu might have a confirmation bias problem when it comes to Islam, since s/he is not a Muslim? None, none that I can see. Any confirmation bias s/he has would be for Hinduism.
When it comes to the fear of religion what is he talking about? From my experience, and the experience of countless ex-Christians, the fear of hell kept us in the fold much longer than we would have been if we didn't fear hell. Hell is the cradle to grave threat that keeps Christians in the fold. It's THAT fear, more than any possible fear of religion, that needs to be overcome by far, hands down, no iffs ands or buts about it.
But Reppert isn't done. He just used this as an example to introduce his main point.
My New Book Acquisitions
Dr. Graham Oppy personally mailed his book to me from down under!
Do you like the ones you see?
Of the items pictured what one would you choose to have?
Robert Price's Latest Book Is Out, "Blaming Jesus for Jehovah"
The full title is provocative, Blaming Jesus for Jehovah: Rethinking the Righteousness of Christianity.
I was honored to be asked to write a blurb for it. Here is what I wrote:
I was honored to be asked to write a blurb for it. Here is what I wrote: This book is written by the man most comparable in our day to the great 19th century communicator Robert G. Ingersoll. In it Price bypasses the usual cadre of apologists and clergy gatekeepers by taking his case directly to the fleeced flock of sheep still caged in their pew stalls. This book will liberate many of them, guaranteed! --John W. Loftus, author of Why I Became An Atheist and How to Defend the Christian Faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)