What Would Happen If Christians Went On Strike?

This post was provoked by Walter earlier, in the quote of the day, who asked, "Aren’t Christians supposed to be guided to the truth by the Holy Spirit? Are John’s arguments more powerful than the Third Person of the Trinity?"

Workers go on strike when they are overworked and underpaid. So I got to thinking what would happen if Christian believers from around the world went on strike. This strike would be against having to do all of the evangelistic and apologetic work themselves. What if they stopped praying for others to be saved? What if they stopped telling others about Jesus? What if Christians stopped evangelizing and arguing on behalf of Christianity? What if all evangelists, missionaries, and apologists went on strike?

I'm serious! What would happen? Think about this. I know Christians think they have a commission mandate to do evangelistic work, so it'll never happen. Consider it a thought experiment instead. Can God do this work himself? If he can, then why does he need for anyone to do this work at all? If he cares, really cares for people, then he should do something himself. Would God step in and show he cares? Would he do what is right because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether Christians helped him? Would Christianity survive and even thrive into the future? Or, would Christianity die out as God lets the world and its people go to hell? If God sits back and does nothing while the world goes to hell then he cannot be a good God, or perhaps he's just too lazy. ;-) Read to the bottom where I make a reasonable prediction that could very well upset your apologetic cart for good.

The TSA screws up again: makes mother fill up empty bottles of breast milk

Link.

Quote of the Day, by Walter ;-)

Aren’t Christians supposed to be guided to the truth by the Holy Spirit? Are John’s arguments more powerful than the Third Person of the Trinity?

Jerry Coyne On Whether God Can Create Mutations

Philosopher Eliottt Sober says we can’t rule this possibility out. Look how Coyne responds. You see, if we cannot rule out a possibility then a possibility is all that's left. Once again folks, probabilities are all that matter. As far as I can tell Sober is a philosopher who is simply defending the relevance of his own discipline. ;-)

The Web's Best Videos on Evolution, Creationism, Atheism and More

Click here. Below are three of them by QualiaSoup about science and evidence:

The Bible's Buried Secrets: The Garden of Eden

A Decent Review of My Revised Book, WIBA

Several people have told me they plan on reviewing my revised and expanded book, Why I Became an Atheist, and comparing it to the first edition. I've been waiting. Until then here's one:

the best popular level atheist book:

John's massively revised book surpasses the original in just about every way (the original was very good, so this is saying something). The sections on explaining faith, the cumulative method, and the reasons why theists reject the classical arguments for god greatly surpass anything in Hitchens, Dawkins, or Harris. Like in the first edition, he also does an excellent job explaining the way apologists use worldview and how his Outsider Test plays into this. On top of these more academic investigations, John explores the Bible (both Old and New Testament) and the historical Jesus. These will probably be more helpful in a casual level discussion of these issues.

If one seeks a good introduction to the arguments and nuances of "the God debates", this book is probably the best starting point because it goes over all of the relevant material but is not as technical as something like JL Mackie's classic The Miracle of Theism. Link.

I'm flattered and humbled of course. I've wondered if Richard Dawkins doesn't recommend it because of these kinds of blurbs. Who knows? But I don't say these kinds of things. Others do. So it's not my fault. ;-)

Quote of the Day, by Professor James East

This suggests a kind of "dual" of the OTF - an Insider Test for Other Faiths: Try and defend against your own criticisms of other religions with the same kind of excuses you'd use to defend your own religion. Link.

There Isn't Anything I Haven't Considered Before

I have talked to many believers face to face and online for about six years. Not one of them believes me when I say there isn't anything important they can tell me that I haven't considered before. Almost to a person they speak and write as if they can share something new that would cause me to change my mind. It's pathetic to me, and frustrating. I have to start all over with each new believer to convince them of this. Even now some believer just may comment below with what is perceived as something new, or a new approach to reaching me. Many have tried arguing with me. Others have ridiculed me--remember, it's supposed to have an effect when we do it to believers!? Some have tried being kind to me. A few have asked me to come "experience God" at their worship service.

Prayer: What Does The Science Say?

Old Yearbook Pictures When at Great Lakes Christian College

I liked my guitar. I only played it for Jesus.

Dr. James East and Articulet on Prayer, the OTF, and Rejecting Religion

There has been an interesting discussion between Dr. East and our own Articulet which I'd like to highlight. East says he rejected Christianity because of the OTF. It begins with a discussion on prayer where East says:

Ignorant Quote of the Day, by Keith R on Scientism

Scientism is self-refuting because it can’t be scientifically proven that we should only believe scientific facts, and since scientism isn't a scientifically proven fact it should be rejected. Scientism destroys science because it rejects presuppositions that science relies upon. Science makes several assumptions such as there is an observable universe outside of our minds and that universe behaves in a uniform and repeatable way. These assumptions can’t be scientifically proven true so without the justification of philosophy these assumptions would have no logical merit. Inductive reasoning, which is the epistemological heart of science, can’t be scientifically proven. Inductive reasoning says that events will probably proceed as they have in the past, but there is no way to support this presupposition as events could change at any time. Also, scientism invalidates the mathematics which science relies upon since math can’t be scenically proven. Mathematic proofs such as 2+2=4 are taken to be necessarily true. If scientism invalidates inductive reasoning and mathematics then it destroys the only source of truth that it claims is true. Link

Jerry Coyne has written a response to this kind of stuff right here. If nothing else, all reasonable people can agree with Michael Shermer when he says, the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to detect baloney. Come on now, what's the problem, and more importantly, answer this simple question: What's the alternative?

A New Meme, The Oblivious Christian Apologist

See also here, and here.

Quote of the Day, by Andreas Schueler on Matthew Flannagan

People might think I was hard on Christian philosopher and apologist Matthew Flannagan when he argued against the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). But Andreas quoted from him and then summed it up by saying: "Calling this 'stupid' is an insult to stupid people." Here's the comment by Andreas. He first quoted from Flannagan, who said:

The reason you [me, John Loftus] gave for being sceptical about religious beliefs was the religious diversity that exists across cultures and time. People brought up within a Muslim society tend to be Muslim. If they were brought up in a different time and place they would not be. The same features apply to science, if you had been brought up in the 14 century you would not believe in evolution or relativity. If you were brought up in NZ maori culture in the 1700’s you would not accept scientific methodology at all. So by the OTF you should be sceptical of science, yet you claim its childish to be so.

Andreas: "Calling this "stupid" is an insult to stupid people. I think this response would be appropriate:"



Then Andreas offers another quote from Flannagan, saying it "...might be even dumber than the last one:"

Finally, note you [me, John Loftus] reintroduce the problem at a new level. Because you state “Science has produced the goods in an overwhelming number of areas” two problems with this. First, how do you know its produced the goods, presumably by a scientific survey of the past results of science. So your using science to vindicate science. Great, then one can argue the bible is the word of God because the bible says so.

Andreas again: "If he would have just said this in a debate, it would already be incredibly stupid. But using a computer and the internet to communicate this message is just stupidity of truly epic proportions..." Link.

-------
 
Anyone who needs this explained to them is ignorant. There are some people who simply cannot be helped. They are impervious to reason. Flannagan is one of them. Since believers like him cannot be helped I highlight what he must say in order to defend his faith. I do this in order to show more reasonable believers how their top-notch apologists reason with non-believers. Hint: It is stupider than stupid. This has ALL the markings of a brainwashed person who needs an intervention. Now you might think Flannagan is an aberration, but I assure you their name is Legion.

Apologists Are Made to be Stupid Because of Their Delusion

Do I even need to comment further? Let me just highlight what Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan wrote in response to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Some people simply cannot be helped. Sophisticated theology is bankrupt if he is one of it's defenders, and I mean it. All I have to do is link to the discussion, let him have the last word and laugh at his ignorant, utterly ignorant, responses. Join with me folks, in laughing. Like most apologists he is impervious to reason. Like most of them I must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will see it as improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard. Take note of how Matt doesn't need to provide a better method than science, which forms the basis for the OTF. Come on Matt, are you stupid or what? I no longer care what Christian apologists think if this is how they reason. If this is the best they can do then the good ship "Christian" will certainly sink eventually. They are on the wrong side of history. Of that I am certain.

Skeptical Books On Jesus

There are several books published in the last few years by skeptics. The most well-known ones are by Bart Ehrman and Robert M. Price. But there are some lesser known books that this post is intended to draw your attention to, some of which I have not read.

Jerry Coyne Compares World Religions to Science

Link. I love the two world maps he used, one of world religions and the other of world-wide scientific conclusions. I've used the first map before but I really love the second one. I'm planning on tracking down the source for both of them. The first map comes from Warren Matthew's book, World Religions (Wadsworth Publishing), seen here in the first link. The second map I'm trying to locate with no success. Is there a generic copyright-free world map that someone could doctor up to look like this one for my book on the OTF?

First Look At The Cover to "God or Godless"

Baker Books is putting together their 2013 catalog. This is the cover for our co-written book. Don't judge it by it's cover though!

What's inside is pretty damn good.

I'm told they are excited about this book. I don't understand why. They have invited me into their house and will be introducing me to Christians in their bookstores. They shouldn't oughta do that. ;-)

Isn't God Good? Praise Jesus For This Kill

Here's another look at God's wonderful ways.

Former Pastor Turned Atheist Writes a Letter to the Skeptical Community

Bruce Gerencser is a member of the Clergy Project, as am I. What follows is an excerpt of what he wrote. See what you think:

If the goal is for skeptics to move the United States towards becoming a true secular society where science, reason, and rationality are the norms, then they MUST change their approach.

Sam Harris On Eyewitness Accounts of Miracles

Doctors Fight to Save the Life of a Six-Legged Baby

Intelligent design anyone? Where is it? And what is your God doing about this situation and numerous others that don't get this kind of world attention? Even if your God couldn't get it right the first time then at least he could do something miraculous. Oh, that's right. You have a holy book written by pre-scientific ancient superstitious myth-makers that tells you babies deserve this kind of treatment, that it's their fault, or Adam and Eve's fault. Let's see, what do I choose? My brain which tells me any father would not treat babies this way, especially if that father is omnibenelovent and omnipotent, or believe an ancient superstitious myth. Choices. Choices. Link.

Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief

Scientific interest in the cognitive underpinnings of religious belief has grown in recent years. However, to date, little experimental research has focused on the cognitive processes that may promote religious disbelief. The present studies apply a dual-process model of cognitive processing to this problem, testing the hypothesis that analytic processing promotes religious disbelief. Individual differences in the tendency to analytically override initially flawed intuitions in reasoning were associated with increased religious disbelief. Four additional experiments provided evidence of causation, as subtle manipulations known to trigger analytic processing also encouraged religious disbelief. Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief. Although these findings do not speak directly to conversations about the inherent rationality, value, or truth of religious beliefs, they illuminate one cognitive factor that may influence such discussions. Link.

On the Existence of Jesus, Again and Again

Update: Jerry Coyne links to William Lane Craig's dismissal of Stephen Law, and Richard Carrier again responds to Bart Ehrman. Enjoy and discuss.

The Freethought Festival Was Fantastic!

I just returned from this wonderful model of a freethought convention. The speakers were lined up by Chris Calvey who did a wonderful job of getting top-notch speakers in a wide diversity of topics. If you go to the "schedule" link they will be putting up audio and video of the talks. For now let me recommend Veronica Drantz's talk, "The Gender Binary & LGBTI People - Myth and Medical Malpractice." I wonder how effective her talk will be without the video, since she used a number of very helpful charts. I was aghast at how doctors have treated Intersex people. Richard Carrier's talk on "The Historicity of Jesus" was superb. If he documents his arguments extensively, as I know he will, then I can easily endorse his next book on the topic. It will advance the discussion, I guarantee it. Sean Faircloth is traveling around the country promoting a Ten Point Plan for Secularizing America, which I am excited about. It was good meeting Valerie Tarico, JB Eberhard, PZ Myers (who is coming out with a book titled, "The Happy Atheist"), and DJ Grothe, for starters, people I hadn't met before. Annie Laurie Gaylor sent personal greetings from Dan Barker who was in Pennsylvania this past weekend. She said to me that Dan had asked her to say hello to everyone, especially to Richard Carrier and me, which I thought was nice. While I wasn't a speaker I was interviewed on a radio program where I was asked what I thought of the Festival. When that is made available I'll link to it.

I got back and received the good news that Prometheus Books has accepted my proposal for a book on "The Outsider Test for Faith." Yep, I'm excited. Now to finish up the manuscript.

The Christian Reaction to Jesus Mythicism

Evangelical Christian apologist David Marshall, who has written several books and comments here under fire, provides for us the typical reaction to the atheist claim that there is no man behind the Jesus we find in the four canonical gospels. Writing to me he said:

Biblical Scholar Thom Stark Weighs In On Richard Carrier

I do not enjoy this at all, but since it's a hot topic Thom Stark has joined the fray concerning Jesus Mythicism. One thing we should be thankful for is that the Ehrman/Carrier exchange has brought the issue to a head so we can see the arguments pro and con. Link. In the second paragraph Stark links to criticisms of Carrier by biblical scholar James McGrath.

Bart D. Ehrman Responds to Richard Carrier *Sigh*

Link. Damn, aren't there better issues to deal with? Hey, I know, let's take aim at believers. What a novel idea? That's what I do here at DC.

Did Jesus Exist? An All Out War Is Going On

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? weighed in by arguing along with me that Jesus existed, although I have not had the time to read his book yet. Actually, my argument is a bit more nuanced than that, as seen in chapter 12 of my anthology The Christian Delusion, that "at best Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet." Well, my friend Richard Carrier rips Ehrman a new one, and I mean he rips into him in a fashion that is unbecoming of the cool headed detached scholar that he is. Then PZ Myers, a scientist with no specialty in biblical studies, endorsed what Carrier had written. Jerry Coyne, another scientist, one who recognizes he's no expert in the matter also weighed in, saying something I think is important:

One Reason Why the Angry Atheist Approach Doesn't Work

Previously I argued the the angry atheist era is over. Now it's true that most believers will see angry atheists no matter what atheists say. But there are atheists who rant against religion, who refuse to treat it respectfully. There is room for venting. I understand that. Sometimes it can even be effective. But generally speaking if we want to reach out to believers we'll have to respect their beliefs to the extent that we can. Here is a recent review of my book WIBA from a doubting Christian who says it best:

*Sigh* There are Just Too Many Ways to Be Christian

Christians cannot agree with themselves. So why should I take any of them seriously? Believers have no method to settle their own disputes because faith has no method. Can you at least try to understand this? Here is an example. Evangelical Christians will bristle when they read what a liberal wrote about the resurrection, which I'll quote below. But this is the same type of reasoning skeptics see when we read of your own defenses of the resurrection.

The Era of The Angry Atheist is Over!

This post in July of 2010 by Steve Zara closes with:

I propose a new strident atheism. No playing the games of theists. No concessions. No talk of evidence that can change minds, when their beliefs are deliberately placed beyond logic, beyond evidence. Let's not get taken in by the fraud of religion. Let's not play their shell-game. Link

He carries on a tradition started by Richard Dawkins himself. In February 2002, four years before his book The God Delusion was released in 2006, Dawkins called atheists to arms in a TED talk. His talk wasn’t aired until April of 2007. He makes it clear he wants a campaign much like the gays used to gain acceptability in American society. His final sentence was, "let's all stop being so damned respectful."

Grief Best Explains The Resurrection Hypothesis

Gerd Lüdemann is a scholar many of us are familiar with, having written important books like: Resurrection of Jesus; The Resurrection Of Christ; and What Really Happened to Jesus? He argues in a recent piece:

By a bold if unconscious leap, Peter entered the world of his wishes. As a result he “saw” Jesus, concluded that his Lord had risen from the dead, and by witnessing to his vision made it possible for the other disciples to “see” Jesus in the same way. It would therefore seem all but certain that the Christian church is to some extent the historical result of the disciples’ grief. Link

My Counterpart, Ibn Warraq on Islam

I've met Ibn. He's doing to Islam what I'm attempting to do with Christianity. Check out his books: Why I Am Not a Muslim; Virgins? What Virgins?; Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out; What the Koran Really Says;The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. He has a much more dangerous task than I do since Christians have been tamed by the Enlightenment. He gets the same tired responses I do too, most notably, "You just hate Allah," or "You aren't dealing with my kind of Muslim faith." Hint Folks: That's because there are too many ways to be Muslim just as there are too many ways to be Christian. What I find funny is that Christians and Orthodox Jews can like Ibn's books, just like Muslims and Orthodox Jews can like mine. So, tell us once again how Natural Theology grants a Christian anything? It's all empty rhetoric from the emperor who has no clothes on.