Michael Shermer and Ken Miller debate the compatibility of science and faith

Michael Shermer wrote:

If no empirical claim is made that science can address, then there is little more to be said on the matter. If specific claims are made in the name of God and religion then let's hear them and put them to the test.

Until then, I believe that it is time to step out of our religious traditions and embrace science as the best tool ever devised for explaining how the world works, and to work together to create a social and political world that embraces moral principles and yet allows for natural human diversity to flourish. Religion cannot get us there because it has no systematic methods of explanation of the natural world, and no means of conflict resolution on moral issues when members of competing sects hold absolute beliefs that are mutually exclusive. Flawed as they may be, science and the secular Enlightenment values expressed in Western democracies are our best hope for survival. Link

What's Faith Got to Do With It?

George H. Smith tells us in Atheism: The Case Against God, that “The conflict between Christian theism and atheism is fundamentally a conflict between faith and reason. This, in epistemological terms, is the essence of the controversy. Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.” (pp. 96-98) As such, “For the atheist, to embrace faith is to abandon reason.” (p. 100) I have come to agree with Smith. Let me explain.

Faith is Irrational

I've been writing about faith lately, claiming it is an irrational leap over the probabilities. I'm not saying people who take the leap of faith are irrational, only that it's irrational to take that leap. But once they take the irrational leap of faith they can be very rational based on it. It's rational to conclude, as Pat Robertson does, that national disasters are God's judgment for our sins. The problem isn't that his utterly ignorant conclusion isn't rational. The problem is his faith. Faith is irrational. It's also rational for Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church to say "God hates fags." The problem isn't that their utterly ignorant conclusion isn't rational. The problem is their faith. Faith is irrational. The Inquisition was a rational conclusion too. The Church believed heresy was a leavening influence in society and as such was the worst crime of all. It could send others to hell. So they concluded the heretic must die. The problem isn't that their utterly ignorant conclusion isn't rational. It was their faith. Faith is irrational.

What Would a Secular Translation of the Bible Look Like?

What if one were to translate the Bible according to the same principles as we translate Homer, Aristotle, and Freud? What if we were to translate the Bible regardless of the faith of its potential readership, regardless of any investment in the question of whether the texts are right or wrong, and regardless of how the texts might be used to address contemporary faith? Link

Even Christians Agree That Faith is Opposed to Reason

Yep, that's right. What's all the hullabaloo about? Christians themselves agree with skeptics:

Faith and Reason are Mutually Exclusive Opposites

This is the conclusion I have come to. In my years of Blogging there is nothing I have written that elicits more of an adverse response from Christian believers than when I have denounced faith in favor of scientifically based reasoning. I can write against the resurrection, miracles, or the inspiration of the Bible, but when I write against faith the blog world lights up (well, those who read my blog anyway). Why? George H. Smith tells us in Atheism: The Case Against God: “In order to understand the nature of a philosophical conflict one must grasp the fundamental differences that give rise to the conflict.” True enough. Applied to debates between atheism and Christianity he identifies what it is: “The conflict between Christian theism and atheism is fundamentally a conflict between faith and reason. This, in epistemological terms, is the essence of the controversy. Reason and faith are opposites, two mutually exclusive terms: there is no reconciliation or common ground. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, reason.” (pp. 96-98) As such, “For the atheist, to embrace faith is to abandon reason.” (p. 100)

Does Morality Come From God?

Written by J. M. Green for DC:

Since becoming an atheist, one of things that I hear over and over from Christians is that I now have no basis for morality because morality only comes from their god and their Bible. They claim ownership of true, unchanging morality and yet the Bible they revere sends conflicting messages. Consider these examples:

Debating With Christians is Like Abbott & Costello's "Who's On First"

This is funny!

Is the Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Better Than Mohammed's Miracles?

No. All Christians have is ancient testimony which is the same evidence as those who claim Mohammed flew through the night, or that Balaam's ass talked, or that Jonah was swallowed by a great mythical fish, or that an axehead floated, or that a pillar of fire directed the Israelites by night, or that the Red Sea parted, or that the pool of Siloam healed people, and so on. But ancient testimony ain't worth *shit* when it comes to any of these things. It doesn't matter how believers dress them up either. ;-)

Am I Over-Shooting My Target Audience?

After polling my readers it looks like I'm over-shooting my target audience, or something. My target audience is the college student, the educated person in the pew, the Pastor, and even the Bible College instructor. I try to bring the arguments of the scholars down to their level.

But it looks like I have the attention of the scholars too. ;-)

William Lane Craig: Master Debater?

Hey, listen in at about 2:45. ;-)

Even a Child Can Do It!

Let’s say a recognized expert on cats claims one of them talked. People do not have to be experts in cats to say they need to see the evidence. Nor do any of us need a theory of knowledge to doubt it. But if you believed the cat talked you would. You'd have to come up with a whole lot of intellectual gymnastics in order to make such a claim seem respectable to others. Lesson: It does not require understanding a whole lot of epistemology or sophisticated theology to doubt the existence of God either. In fact, even a child can do it.

Dr. Matt McCormick On "Bias and Heuristics in Religious Thinking"

Quote of the Day, by articulett

The bible is history? So a snake really talked? And god turned a woman into a pillar of salt? And appeared as a burning bush? And carved commandments on breakable stones? And sent "she-bears" to maul 42 kids for calling a guy bald? (defying the laws of the physical universe) And this god magically impregnated a virgin to become his own son? And temporarily died? And then became a sort of zombie? And then whisked off to heaven? And now sits in judgement of everyone in trinity fashion (whatever that means)? Really? Who knew? Or is just some of that historical? How do you know which magic is the "true woo"? If you don't believe that the bible is history does the god of the bible punish you for all eternity?

Christians Are Slowly Deconverting

Hi John, I've been an atheist for over one year now, and both your books were a major influence to deconvert me from Christianity, WIBA and The Christian Delusion. I am also a regular reader of your blog, so thanks a million for helping to open my eyes, the truth has set me free! Keep up the good work. -- David Sapo via email, with permission.

Recommendations of This Blog From Opposite Sides of the Fence

EricRC is Ph.D. student majoring in philosophy, and I take it a Roman Catholic (hence RC). He's one of the most intelligent and respectful commenters to hang out in these halls, that is, unless he perceives utter ignorance or is personally attacked, which sounds just like me. As a Christian intellectual he recommends my work on this blog:

Quote of the Day, by gooddogbaddog01

Christians think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their faith based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is "possible", and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely "posslble". Short of providing real evidence for the existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the necessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.

Quote of the Day, by extian

Almost everything in the Bible reads like a product of its time and culture. The ancient Israelites just borrowed their gods from the Canaanites (El, Asheroth, and Baal all used to be on the same team), then made El the primary (and later, only) god, merged him with another god, Yahweh, and developed an entire religious and ritualistic system around these plagiarizations. Centuries later, the gospel writers drew on these same OT fabrications while borrowing extensively from their time and culture, incorporating god-man resurrection stories (i.e. Romulus) to create the Jesus narrative. If you start your epistemology with the Bible, you've built your foundation on falsehoods. Ignorance is bliss. Willful ignorance is faith.

The Jews Didn't Believe So Why Should We?

The Jews of Jesus’ day believed in Yahweh and that he performed miracles, and they knew their Old Testament prophecies, and yet the overwhelming majority of them did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead by Yahweh. The most plausible estimate of the first-century Jewish population comes from a census of the Roman Empire during the reign of Claudius (48 CE) that counted nearly 7 million Jews. If we add in the Jews outside the Roman Empire in places like Babylon, the total first century Jewish population could have been 8 million. It’s estimated that there may have been as many as 2.5 million Jews in Palestine. By contrast, as Catholic New Testament scholar David C. Sim argues, “Throughout the first century the total number of Jews in the Christian movement probably never exceeded 1,000 and by the end of the century the Christian church was largely Gentile.” (Link) Since the Jews didn't believe why should we? No really. Why should we?

Quote of the Day, by AdamHazzard

Had Constantine established some religion other than Christianity -- say, Mithraism -- we would no doubt be celebrating the Tauroctony every spring and the birth of Mithras at the winter solstice. And if Mithraic scholars were to unearth copies of Mark or Luke from the Judean desert, the scrolls would be treated as cultic mystery stories of purely historical interest. Religion is as contingent and mutable as any other human cultural invention.

Christians SHOULD be Ashamed of the Gospel

There are a lot of Christians who know me when I was a believer, a college/seminary student, a teacher, and a minister in several churches. So when they find this site they have different reactions. Some of them send me spam Jesus emails. One guy has sent them several times a week for months, even though I have told him to stop and even though I have not even acknowledged them for months. Many of these believers think they can reach me because we have a special connection in the past. Others just like engaging me. My best friend from Seminary has started to comment here. His name is Gary and he's a great guy. He goes by "unashamedofthegospel," and like me, he was also trained as an apologist under James D. Strauss. Strauss is an amazing man, the one I credit with my anti-apologetical approach, but in reverse. To see what I mean read the first few paragraphs of my essay for the Secular Web, Why I Am Not a Christian, where I said:

Articulett on the OTF

Do you think someone of another faith-- say a Mormon-- could look at their faith the way you (an outsider) would and still maintain that faith? Or would they not really be seeing it as the outsider does? What would it take for you to accept their faith? Do you have that kind of evidence for your own supernatural beliefs? Do you think the reincarnationist has the kind of evidence you'd require to believe in reincarnation? Do you think you should have the same kind of evidence to believe whatever you believe happens after death that you'd require to believe in reincarnation?

Professor Matt McCormick's Definition of Faith

I've been discussing the reasonableness of faith lately ending here. Having read through the uncorrected advance reading copy of Dr. Matt McCormick's book, Atheism and the Case Against Christ, he has a chapter on faith that agrees with me (or should I say I agree with him).

On Definitions of Faith and Arguments Against It

Skeptics define "faith" differently than believers. It's hard to find a middle ground between us because we see faith differently. Here are a few skeptical definitions of faith:

WIBA Will Be Available in Four Weeks

I just received word that my extensively revised book, Why I Became an Atheist, was sent off to be printed today. It'll be available in four weeks. You can pre-order it off Amazon.com. This is my magnum opus. If you get only one of my books then get this one. Yes, there will be a Kindle or ebook version of it coming out, but when I don't know.

A Reasonable Faith is an Oxymoron

This is what I think. I’ve previously argued for this in a different way when I quipped, Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities.

Jerry Coyne on the "Sophisticated Theology" of Plantinga

While Coyne is attempting to deal with so-called "Sophisticated Theology," something the New Atheists don't do, even he doesn't get it. Plantinga is not trying to prove God, and the essay he's criticizing is from Plantinga's old school version. For a better critique read Jaco Gericke's Fundamentalism on Stilts. Yet Coyne is right when he says:

To paraphrase Orwell, one has to be a theologian to believe things like this: no ordinary man could be such a fool...It is apologetics: the practice of making stuff up post facto to buttress what you already know must be true. And, at bottom—and despite all the intellectual gymnastics of Dr. Plantinga—it all comes down to revelation, to what a particular group of people happens to find amenable as a "basic belief."

Quote of the Day, by articulett

It's not that science has ever been wrong... it's that religion has never been right. Science has an error correcting mechanism; faith does not. That's why there is one science-- and it's the same for everybody no matter what they believe.

Biola University is “fundamentally at odds with the entire direction of modern biology.”

This spring semester the Center for Christian Thought opens at California’s Biola University. The center is the result of a $3 million John Templeton Foundation Award. But based on the doctrinal statement of Biola, this sectarian institution is "fundamentally at odds with the entire direction of modern biology,” so notes Thomas Albert Howard and Karl W. Giberson. Why? Because "Common ancestry today is, quite simply, as well-established in biology as the motion of the earth about the sun is in astronomy. To attempt to exclude faculty who might hold this view is tantamount to closing one's eyes in the face of an encyclopedia of genetic information." Link. Their Apologetics Faculty includes:

Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities

You can quote me on this. Probability is all that matters. Faith is irrational. I want to drive this point into the ground once and for all.

The problem is that practically nothing is certain. So the word "faith" is used to describe any conclusion of ours that leaves room for doubt. Is it possible I'm dreaming right now? I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility. Is it possible a material world does not exist? I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility too. Is it possible a good omnipotent God exists given the world-wide massive and ubiquitous suffering in it? Again, I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility.

So what? Probability is all that matters. Accepting some conclusion because it's merely possible is irrational. We should never ever do that.

"Herding Cats?" by Secular Planet

It's said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. We're implicitly compared to believers, who have acknowledged leaders, authoritative texts, and formal organizations. The reason usually advanced to account for this phenomenon is that we atheists are generally rather individualistic and thus reluctant to follow someone else's lead on such matters. But there's another reason which I've never seen presented in the context of explaining the herding-cats idea: atheism is much too broad a concept under which to seek to organize. The proper comparison is not to individual religious sects but to theists as a whole.

"Reports of My Death Are Greatly Exaggerated"

I'm just relaxing a bit, taking a small break. I'm wondering if I have anything more to say that I haven't said before. I can revisit my arguments, review another book, link to a new site, do another podcast interview or other such things. But what additional things can I say if what I've already said doesn't change the minds of many believers? Most of them won't be able to even consider their faith is a delusion until they face a personal crisis. That's the power of the delusion. A crisis can and will force them to do what they should've been doing all along, critically examining their faith as outsiders. All I have to do is wait. ;-)

"The End of Christianity" Nominated Favorite Atheist Book of 2011

This is one of a few good atheist books in the yearly Readers' Choice Awards of About.com Agnosticism/Atheism. Last year The Christian Delusion won. Just to be nominated is pretty cool. I'm hoping The End of Christianity does well this year too. You can vote right here.

The Relationship of Religious Diversity to Moral Diversity

Religious diversity is one of the main reasons why there is moral diversity (next to gender, race, age, economic, and national differences). Religious diversity ultimately stands in the way of a healthy world society by pitting various religious groups against each other, each one claiming the exclusive privilege of possessing the divine moral truth.

The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics

I have run across not a few evangelical Christian apologists who have argued that their religion is "superior" because Jesus preached the Golden Rule, "All things therefore that you want people to DO to you, DO thus to them" (Matthew 7:12), while other ancient teachers merely taught the negative version of that rule: "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT like done to yourself."