The Philosophical Elitism of Keith Parsons

I'm going to try showing Keith Parsons that he stands a lot to gain by listening to me, that I know what I'm talking about, and that he's wrong about the New Atheism. While I probably won't convince him, keep in mind that an argument doesn't need to be convincing for it to be a good one. I'm going to argue his problem is philosophical elitism. I will do so respectably, although it's that same attitude that may keep him from responding. First, here's a quote from Eric MacDonald endorsing Parsons:

The problem is precisely that the New Atheists think it appropriate to dismiss theology and philosophy of religion without understanding the first thing about it. Some New Atheists say, "I know enough about it. I was brought up as a Catholic or an Anglican or ...." But that's not qualification enough. Arguing from this point of view, where you really do not know what your opponent is arguing, because you have made no attempt to find out, is a simple informal fallacy known as special pleading. And the New Atheism is full of it. That's where Keith Parsons is way ahead of the New Atheists. Be an unbeliever by all means. But don't say that you know that there is no God or that theology is all make believe until you have really tried to understand what theologians are saying. And when you have done so, you will, I think, qualify your dismissal. --Eric MacDonald

I think this criticism of the New Atheism fails to understand the very phenomena being criticized. Let's just re-purpose MacDonald's quote: "The problem is precisely that the New Atheists think it appropriate to dismiss Scientology, or Mormonism, or militant Islam, or Hindu theology, or Haitian Catholic voodoo without understanding the first thing about it..." Need I go on? If anyone is special pleading it is MacDonald, for it didn't enter his mind to consider the many other religious faiths out there he easily dismisses without knowing that much about them. So I think reasonable people don't have to know a lot about religious faiths to reject them. We can dismiss these and other faiths precisely because they are faiths. The evidence is not there and even runs contrary to them. The moralities of these faiths also count against them. Do we need to know something about them to dismiss them? Sure, we should know something about them. In fact, to reject one of them we should at least hear about it. But even a rudimentary level of knowledge is enough for that, since faith is the problem. As outsiders we don't need to look into the many varieties of faith to know the results of faith are not likely to be true. We can do this simply by generalizing from the many mutually inconsistent false faiths to the probability that any given particular faith is false, even before getting an in-depth knowledge about it.

My specialties are theology, philosophical theology and especially apologetics. I am an expert on these subjects even though it's very hard to have a good grasp of them all. Now it's one thing for theologically unsophisticated intellectuals like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Stenger to argue against religion. It's quite another thing for a theologically sophisticated intellectual like myself to say the "New Atheists" were within their epistemic rights to denounce religion from their perspectives. And I do. I can admit they lack the sophistication to understand and respond point for point to sophisticated theology. But it doesn't matter. The reason is because all sophisticated theology is based in faith: faith in the Bible (or Koran) as the word of God, and/or faith in the Nicene creed (or other creeds), and/or faith in a church, synagogue or temple. No amount of sophistication changes this. Even an informed ten year old can come to the correct conclusions about faith without any sophistication at all.

Let's take a serious look at what Parsons said:

Do you need a Ph.D. in philosophy to be a legitimate and respectable participant in the theism/atheism debate or the science/religion debate? Of course not. But you do need to know what you are talking about. Those, however accomplished in other fields, who leap into the debate philosophically uninformed inevitably commit freshman mistakes that expose them to the scorn of sophisticated opponents. LINK.

Read more »

The Philosophy of Religion Must End Because Faith-Based Reasoning Must End

Philosophy of religion must end. If the philosophy of religion is using reason to examine the the claims of religion, and if religion is based on faith, then philosophy of religion must end. For faith has no justification nor merit. A reasonable faith does not exist, nor can faith be a guide for reasoning to any objective conclusion.

Religion is indeed based on faith in supernatural forces and/or entities. Faith is indeed an unreliable way to gain objective knowledge about the world. And faith-based reasoning cannot justify any claim concerning matters of fact like the nature of nature and its workings. So philosophy of religion is reasoning about that which is unreasonable. It takes the utterly unwarranted conclusions of faith seriously. To reason about religion requires granting more than a philosopher worthy of the name should do, since the very first principle of religion is faith. There are some things philosophers should not take seriously and still remain as intellectuals. A faith-based claim is one of them. There are other ways to deal with those types of claims. The proper discipline to determine if a claim is faith-based or not is to be found in the sciences.

Robert M. Price On the Historicity of Jesus

A Contested Democratic Convention Is Now a Near Statistical Certainty, and Here's Why Bernie Sanders Will Win It

LINK.

The Philosophy of Religion Must End Because Religions Self-Destruct

There isn't a tenet of any religion that isn't opposed with cogent arguments by adherents of different religions. Even within any given religion there are sects that oppose some important tenets of their mother religion. See here, and here for examples.

This Should Cause Honest Theists To Doubt Their Certainties

Anyone Still Propping Up That Old-Time Religion With An Old-Time Atheism Is On the Wrong Side of History

Robert Conner, Christianity’s Critics: The Romans Meet Jesus, Part 2

Robert Conner studied Greek, Hebrew, some Aramaic and even Coptic back in the mid-70's at Western Kentucky University. He's written nine books, including Jesus the Sorcerer, The Secret Gospel of Mark and Magic in Christianity, as well as a number of articles and essays. If you want a primer on what the earliest critics of Christianity had to say about this new cult then I'm publishing an essay he wrote in several parts, with approval. This is Part 2. To get up to speed Part 1 can be found here.

Read more »

Papalinton Weighs In On Sophisticated Atheologian Keith Parsons

Another one of DC's commenters has spoken! Papalinton wrote:

sir_russ, I have just reread your OP, and again. I like it a lot, erudite, insightful. I had written this observation elsewhere but it equally fits yours. Your OP is a candid critique into what I coin the anachronistic class of 'philosopher-kings' in contemporary society, those self-described and self-identified doyens of philosophical discourse. They are indeed legends in their own minds.

Parsons, sadly, seems to have lost sight that the battle of ideas is not so much about the finer construct of the argument but the substance of the argument, whether the claims are verifiable or not. In his misplaced loyalty Parsons aids and abets the Fesers and Plantingas of the world who want you to believe, as someone I read elsewhere had written, that their [Feser's classical Catholic and Plantinga's Protestant Theistic Personalist] God impregnated his own mother to give birth to his own son who is himself, as if it were historical fact, meriting intellectual consideration as a truth.

The problem is, today's operant philosophy tracks a more rigorous and evidentiary-based line of reasoning with its supervening metaphysics ever more deeply grounded, both epistemologically and intellectually, into its underpinning physics. Pontification has been replaced with verification. And the 'philosopher kings' don't like it one bit, even prepared [as Parson's has done to Dawkins, Loftus et al] to eat their own kind [atheists] who might be perceived, wrongly or otherwise, to have crossed into their 'intellectual' territory.

Philosophy of Religion is an exercise in rhetoric to its core; insubstantial, imaginative, with an unhinged metaphysics grounded in the supernatural, a wholly untestable and inconsequential line of reasoning that bears little resemblance to reality of the natural world. Parson's knows that. In his defence of Feser, Plantiga etc., why is he defending the indefensible?

Parsons would do well to take stock.

Parsons is on record as saying these kinds of posts are personal attacks and he won't respond to them. If he thinks these are attacks then what does he think of Edward Feser's personal attacks against people whom he disagrees?

Dr. Vincent Torley Doesn't Think Much Of Randal Rauser's Kind of Sophisticated Theology

Vincent Torley: Hi John, if you really believe that sophisticated theology no longer deserves to be taken seriously, then you should be able to take on its ablest exponents in a debate and wipe the floor with them. Are you confident that if you were to publicly debate someone like Ed Feser before a live audience and an impartial panel of adjudicators, you would win?

JWL: Hi Vincent, why the emphasis on debates? I doubt I could effectively debate a Scientologist or a Mormon, or a Muslim. So? That just means someone is better at debating sophisticated theology. That does not say anything else.

VT: OK, then. What about a written debate - say, a book where you and some philosopher like Feser can argue it out? My point is that if there isn't some kind of ideal argumentative format in which you can present your case, take on all comers and win, then why should I (or anyone else) believe you're right?

JWL: Vincent, I already co-wrote such a book.

VT: You did indeed, John. The problem was that your opponent, Randal Rauser, is a trained theologian and Christian apologist, but not a philosopher - and it showed. As one reviewer of your book politely put it: "Rauser is perhaps not the best (or at least, not the more forceful) advocate for the Christian position that could have been featured." I also watched some of the online debate between you and Rauser on God's existence, via the link you presented. The opening statements were vigorously argued, but there were no 10-minute rebuttals on both sides, so there was no good follow-up. Instead, a third guy, a self-styled anti-apologist, interposed himself between you both, which upset the flow of the debate. It was a lost opportunity. I wish there had been a more lively free-for-all at the end. Anyway, you really need to debate a proper Christian philosopher - and not a wimpy theist who thinks belief in God is "properly basic," but someone who's prepared to defend classical theism (and Christianity) on rational grounds. LINK.

I guess one person's sophisticated theologian is another's "wimpy theist", eh? I wonder what Randal Rauser thinks of Edward Feser's sophisticated theology? Sophisticated atheologian Keith Parsons would agree with Torley that Edward Feser is someone to be taken seriously. Does Rauser? Curious minds want to know.

The Philosophy of Religion Must End Because Jesus Studies Have Ended Jesus

I've been told some people aren't taking me seriously. My bet is that they will when I'm done.

The philosophy of religion must end because Jesus Studies have ended Jesus. That's not the only reason but it's a good one nonetheless. Robert Conner:

Jesuitical (ˌjeZHo͞oˈitikəl) adjective, (1) of or concerning the Jesuits (2) dissembling or equivocating, in the manner associated with Jesuits.

Ancient immanentist philosophies such as panpsychism that might have sacralized the world and its life were largely extinguished by the advent of Christianity. A partial corrective is Hector Avalos' The End of Biblical Studies. Like professor Avalos, I have long advocated that we stop taking "Jesus Studies" nonsense seriously:

That Jesus Studies is rife with flawed scholarship, special pleading, fideism, rank speculation, manufactured relevance, careerism, homophobia and the misogyny that homophobia implies, sectarian allegiances, personal agendas, fraud and simple incompetence should come as no surprise to anyone conversant with the field. Indeed, whether Jesus Studies is even an academic discipline as usually understood is debatable, and that Jesus Studies has precious little to do with history is certain. [From Conner's essay Faking Jesus].

What is Sophisticated Theology/Philosophy?

Sophisticated theology/philosophy is argumentation used by delusional people to defend the indefensible. It is pure sophistry, empty rhetoric without substance, fallacious reasoning, ungrounded assertions lacking sufficient evidence. Sophisticated theology/philosophy is a kind of red-herring argumentation used as a smoke screen to hide the fact that faith lacks sufficient evidence. Follow its trail and you will be led down the rabbit hole of definitions used to obfuscate the lack of evidence. Sophisticated theology/philosophy confuses people who don't share that sophistication. At its most fundamental level sophisticated theology/philosophy is nothing more than special pleading.

Quote of the Day by Zeta, On Sophisticated Philosophy of Religion in Defense of Christianity

Jerry Coyne, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Richard Dawkins have all weighed in against sophisticated theology. Now it's my turn. As a former sophisticated theologian, watch out! ;-)

I can no longer take sophisticated theology/philosophy used in defense of the Christian delusion seriously. Atheists who want to deal with sophisticated theology/philosophy correctly must seek to end its grip over our institutions of higher learning. They must seek to end its influence in our world. Gamesmanship will not do. Puzzle-solving will not do. Dealing with questions that are interesting for the sake of an interesting discussion will not do. Seeking affirmation from Christian pseudo-intellectuals will not do. A delusion is a delusion is a delusion. Two thousand years of Christianity are enough, as someone once said. I'll give plenty of reasons why atheists should reject sophisticated theology/philosophy in defense of Christianity in my next book, Unapologetic (along with how to treat it as it deserves).

Now for Zeta's quote:

Read more »

Bernie's Debate Stopper!

Here is Bernie Sander's closing at last night's debate. The crowd chanted his name afterward! That's amazing for a debate where initially the crowd was largely in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Sir_Russ Takes Down Sophisticated Atheologian Keith Parsons

An atheologian is a non-theologian, an atheist opposed to theology. That's a good description of Parsons on his good days. A hypocrite might be better one, according to sir_russ in his letter to him below. Over at the Secular Outpost I'm being judged by my commenters, and also by who I have banned. As an example of one of my commenters let me introduce you to sir_russ, someone I personally know. As to my banning people, every online blog writer devoted to topics like atheism or theism bans people. I guarantee you I have never banned anyone merely because they disagreed with me, ever. In a few rare cases over the past decade I've banned a disagreeable person when the ignorance was just too great to tolerate and when that person would not give it a rest. After banning people they never say they were banned for good reasons, either. So that just about covers everything except the substance of our recent disagreement. Here's sir_russ:

Read more »

Robert Conner, Christianity’s Critics: The Romans Meet Jesus, Part 1

Robert Conner studied Greek, Hebrew, some Aramaic and even Coptic back in the mid-70's at Western Kentucky University. He's written nine books, including Jesus the Sorcerer, and the latest on The Secret Gospel of Mark, as well as a number of articles and essays. If you want a primer on what the earliest critics of Christianity had to say about this new cult then I'm publishing an essay he wrote in several parts, with approval. This is Part 1.

Read more »

The Korean Edition of "God or Godless" Now Available

This is the Korean edition of my co-written book "God or Godless." It's pretty cool!! There isn't an English word anywhere to be found in it.

The Differences Between Science and Religion

I'm Working On My Last Book Now

This is probably going to be my last book. I'm sure it'll be my most controversial one. Who dares to call for the end of the philosophy of religion, anyway? Me. Believing philosophers will rip it to shreds. Atheist philosophers like Keith Parsons, Graham Oppy, J.L. Schellenberg and others will do likewise. Wannabes and students in philosophy of religion programs from both sides will join in the slug-fest.

I have two months to finish it. I won't be doing much here while I do. The book description is to be found on Amazon. It's scheduled for a November publication with Pitchstone Publishing. Cultural anthropologist David Eller has agreed to write the Foreword.

This book will make it ten highly acclaimed published books in ten years. I think I've earned the right to be done after that. Looks like I'll go out with a big bang.

The Money Quote On Sophisticated Theology

The whole reason sophisticated Christian argumentation exists in the first place is because it takes sophistication to make the Christian faith palatable. The more the sophistication then the more the obfuscation, since their faith can only be defended by confusing people who don't share that sophistication. Defenses of Christianity are nothing but special pleading hiding underneath several layers of obfuscation with a sophistication to make it appear otherwise. It's nothing less than special pleading all the way down, and it doesn't take sophistication to see this or to call it out. Even a child can recognize what it is.

The Arrogance and Ignorance of Keith Parsons

Given that I have respected Keith Parsons as a man and a philosopher it is with great displeasure I write this post. But I assure you I am serious. I consider him both arrogant and ignorant. First, I consider Keith Parsons arrogant to think only sophisticated atheist philosophers can adequately respond to sophisticated Christian philosophers, such that any non-philosopher who tries is ignorant and shouldn't respond at all. At least Christians like William Lane Craig argue that philosophically unsophisticated Christians can continue believing in the face of philosophically sophisticated atheist arguments. Craig says they can continue believing due to the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Read more »

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? My Debate Opener vs Abdu Murray

The red headings represent PowerPoint slides. Here we go...

I’m very honored to be here and happy people actually showed up to listen to this debate. I have a lot of ground to cover so I must begin.

Read more »

Keith Parsons Attacks!

Does anyone think what Keith Parsons wrote describes who I am and what I'm about? This is the kind of stuff that has a long life, something I have to constantly fight uphill to overcome. LINK. I don't need to respond since it's obvious he's ignorant about me. I do think it illustrates the unfairness of the Secular Outpost, and why no one should pay attention to anything they write about me or my works (unless it's good of course!) ;-)

An Advertisement For Robert Price's Book, "Blaming Jesus for Jehovah"

I wrote a blurb for this book so I recommend it very highly. To get a glimpse of what's in it and what someone else thinks, here's an ad being placed in different magazines by fellowfeather.@gmail.com.

Read more »

The Bible Then and Now

I'll Be Debating Abdu Murray Tonight

It will be streamed live. Here are the links: 1) Link to the event on Facebook. 2) Link to the feed at Ravi Zacharias Ministries. Ravi spoke at my graduation from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985. 3) Link to the feed on YouTube. I'd appreciate it if my readers shared this event with everyone who might be interested.

Keith Parsons is Just Old. That Explains Why He Favors the Old Atheism.

Evangelicals seem to love Keith Parsons. And he likes it. When it comes to writing something in Christian anthologies he's the go-to guy. That slap on the back must feel good. Now he's a good guy I'll admit. But even Edward Feser likes him. Something's gotta be wrong! ;-) They agree in that they both want to return to that old time religion, er, atheism. I understand why Feser wants to live in the past, but Parsons?

Look, I am not interested in merely having a discussion. I'm interested in changing minds. Karl Marx spoke for me when he quipped, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

At issue are the differences between Old Atheism and New Atheism. Parsons prefers the Old Atheism as does Feser. My view is they both want to live in the past. One must accept the changes and move on into the future. There is no going back. Christianity is dying. Why in the world would Parsons want to return to the good old days when Christianity had a huge monopoly in American academia, and where it was considered a respectable faith? There is at the present time a massive exodus from Christianity by young people. I just learned today that over half the people in Scotland are non-religious. As that happens in westernized countries we no longer need to respect faith-based reasoning, but rather tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about religion.

What are the unique differences between Old Atheism and the New Atheism?

Read more »

On Dealing With Science Deniers

John Loftus: When it comes to the objective world of matters of fact, science is the only game in town.

Mr. Green: Hm, interesting. Can you describe the experiment you performed to arrive at that conclusion, so I can reproduce it?

John Loftus: Would you tell us what the alternative is to science?, and/or, What else in addition to science is as good of an alternative?

Mr. Green: I'd rather focus on the question that was actually asked, despite your attempt to dodge it like a seasoned politician.

Read more »

Religious Freedom on Cruz Control

I have written a newspaper column about Ted Cruz’s proposal to patrol Muslim neighborhoods. I suggest that his logic should also lead us to patrol some Christian neighborhoods that might become radicalized because of their anti-abortion beliefs.

Methodological Naturalism Again, When Will it Stop?

Victor Reppert is at it again.

I don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to methodological naturalism. Science cannot work without it. The problem comes when one draws the conclusion from it that metaphysical naturalism is the case. So you're opposed to it only if people conclude nature is all there is, that is, only if it's used as an argument to atheism.

Your faith-based arguments are that there is either a reliable source of knowledge about the world other than science, or that your god lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge, or both. But those arguments of yours go against the probabilities.

Why don't you tell us what that other source of knowledge is, and compare its merits to the scientific enterprise? Why don't you admit how many times science has forced you to move the goal posts, such that for centuries when theologians didn't think science could solve a problem science marched past it?

Why don't you address why your god set the world up this way, such that reasonable people will follow the probabilities? Even if for some reason your god could not create the world like this, why don't you admit your God failed to provide the necessary objective evidence that would overcome the methodological predisposition to naturalism?

If you want a serious discussion you must address these issues.

The Trend Ever Since the Enlightenment

Blurbs for My Anthology "Christianity in the Light of Science"

We're in the final copy-editing stage for this new anthology. Below are the blurbs to be put on the back cover.

This is the best compilation John Loftus has done to date and I have enjoyed reading his others. I truly couldn’t put it down. He has assembled leading authors to write essays in an easy to read manner that are well annotated. If you find a particular subject of interest in a couple of authors or more, check out their larger body of work. I highly recommended this book for those who want to delve deeper into why religion persists in our world and why it shouldn’t. --Karen L. Garst, PhD, editor of Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life Without Religion and blogger at www.faithlessfeminist.com.

Read more »

Ehrman–Licona Ongoing Dialogue On the Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Briefly, in such a dialogue both Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Licona will each contribute (1) an interview, (2) a statement, (3) a response, and (4) a reply — in that order.

The interview will typically take 6,000 words and give each the opportunity to favorably discuss one’s own life and work. The statement will typically take 10,000 words and constitute the portion of the dialogue where each most forcefully advances one’s own case. The response and reply together will typically take another 10,000 words, enabling each to refute the case of one’s interlocutor.

Drs. Ehrman and Licona will argue the following theses:

Dr. Ehrman: The New Testament is not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, it provides no convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Dr. Licona: The New Testament is a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, it provides convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. LINK.