Objective Evidence Trumps Subjective Experiences Every Time

Q: What about someone who believes God exists wholly apart from evidence, say, on the basis of their religious experience, like William Alston and William Lane Craig argue, who claim the existence of God can be immediately known and experienced wholly apart from objective evidence?

A: I'd say such a claim itself is not based on objective evidence, which is the only reality check we can have against false subjective claims. For the evidence of subjective religious experiences is trumped by the objective evidence that the Christian god, the one they claim to have subjectively experienced, does not exist. That kind of objective evidence abounds. Objective evidence is also the reality check for all people of faith who claim similar subjective experiences are veridical. People of faith who reverse this by claiming subjective religious experiences trump all objective evidence are not thinking like adults, so they must go to the children's table. They are deluded. They are Epistemological Solipsists.

Quote of the Day On The Philosophy of Religion, by Loftus

Secularists should teach the Philosophy of Religion in the classroom the same way they write their books, although they should allow for student interaction and debate. If the discipline is to be taught then this is one of the ways to do it right.

Dr. Hector Avalos Calls For Ending Religionist Philosophy of Religion

I've been wondering what Hector thinks of my call for ending the Philosophy of Religion, since I'm basing it on his call to end biblical studies. So I asked him. He has not followed the discussion that much but enough to say this (per email):

My proposal is "to end biblical studies as we know it" (The End of Biblical Studies, p. 15),which means in its current religionist and apologetic orientation. So I am for ending the philosophy of religion if its only mission is to defend religion and theism. So, akin to my vision of the end of biblical studies, I would say that the only mission of the philosophy of religion is to end the philosophy of religion as we know it.

He also provided a progress report so far on his call to end biblical studies:

There is No Better Method Than Science

On Ending the Philosophy of Religion Discipline

[First published 7/31/14] I intend to do a series of posts on my call to end the philosophy of religion (PoR) discipline in secular universities, by answering the following questions: 1) Why do I propose ending PoR as a subdiscipline of Philosophy proper in the secular universities?; 2) What should we know when it comes to ending the PoR?; 3) What exactly is my proposal?; 4) What are the best ways to examine the claims of religion?; 5) What are some practical steps to help facilitate this proposal?; and 6) Why do secular philosophers of religion object to this proposal? In this post I intend to answer question #1. To read further posts in this series click on the tag below, "Ending Philosophy of Religion."

I Recommend Dr. James Lindsay's Blog "God Doesn't; We Do"

Look on his front page right here, especially the post titled "William Lane Craig talking bizarro."

Can religion be destroyed?

This is something I have posted in one form or another before, but I thought it would be interesting to see what you think about it here at DC. Before I set out, this is not a post to be confused with "should religion be destroyed" as that is an entirely different question.

Dr. Paul Draper on "What is Philosophy of Religion?"

Earlier I linked to what philosophers of religion think of Philosophy of Religion (PoR). Paul Draper, offers four suggestions on how to best approach the discipline in hopes of reforming it. I want to examine these suggestions in a little detail here.

How A Doctorate in Bible or Christianity Can Stop Scholastic Objectivity

So you decided to go for the big one  . . . that earned doctorate in Christian studies; you know the one that is suppose to prove to the world you really know the real objective truth behind the Christian tradition.  You strongly believe that that a doctorate demands respect in the religion field, especially in Christianity.  Though you know that many churches have signs stating that the minister is Rev. Dr. Egghead, but your earned PhD will vindicate you as a master of objective truth. 

My Thought on the Blood Atonement of Jesus

If Jesus had been slain (shed his blood) by King Herod as an infant, there would have been totally no need for the New Testament with all its theological Bull Shit; the Hebrew God’s need of blood sacrifice would have been eternally but quietly satisfied and all humanity could have forgotten this finished Judeo-Christian religion forever! The fact the crucifixion must be continually re-enacted and preached on really proves this whole theological story never happened and is condemned by its own core theology as a hypocritical lie.

When considering the continuing value of the Bible, it is best summed up a by Jesus himself: “It is finished!” 

Jerry Coyne: Let’s stop teaching philosophy of religion in secular colleges

I'm pleased he links to me. He's now expanded the debate by going after Divinity Schools in secular universities, which I also applaud. Let's have done with them too.

What we don’t need are entire Divinity Schools or Schools of Theology in secular universities. This privileges an entire discipline based on a human endeavor that itself rests on dubious and unsubstantiated claims. Further, they concentrate largely (but not exclusively) on active Abrahamic religions. There are few, if any, courses on atheism in divinity schools, but they should be at least as prominent as courses in religious apologetics. That is distasteful in a country that officially favors no religion in particular. If we are to have such schools, let us then have Ethical Schools, or Schools of Moral Thinking, or The School of Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy. But all of these can simply be subsumed in departments of philosophy or history. LINK.

Christopher Hitchens - Christianity is Immoral

I'm Very Pleased My Call To End the Philosophy of Religion Made The Richard Dawkins Foundation Site

LINK. In a similar vein Matt DeStefano, a Ph.D. student, weighs in on this issue over at the "Secular Outpost" with a fair and balanced review, which I responded to. And Keith Parsons offered a major statement in agreement with me, saying "If proclaiming the 'death of PoR' only means the death of a certain way of doing it, then I would certainly applaud this...I think that we have had enough of theistic apologetics. It's over." But then he advocates "a post-Christian POR." LINK. However, the death of Christian apologetics posing as the POR means the death of the POR itself as a discipline. For when faith and apologetics are removed from the secular universities the secular professors would be undermining the discipline by arguing against faith and apologetics, at least if Peter Boghossian and Hector Avalos's proposals are accepted, and I think they should be. There would eventually be no arguments to take seriously enough to have classes on them. Answer me this Keith, which Christian theistic arguments merit discussing in a secular university? That would be the question and secular professors would have to decide, but in deciding they would be saying these arguments are worth discussing, which legitimizes them somewhat, I think. You could no longer teach this discipline because you just couldn't stomach it. Which secular POR professors would continue to bother at that point is the question. Other classes in the university should take over at that point, or soon afterward.

In the end, with secular professors alone arguing against religionist POR they would undermine the discipline by arguing against it and convincing students of this. So eventually students wouldn't bother nor would secular professors. This program, if kept up long enough, would render the POR useless and irrelevant to people who are atheists living in an atheist society. The discipline would eventually run out of material and die. At least we're getting somewhere. Progress is still progress.

Sam Harris on "Why Don't I Criticize Israel?"

LINK. I wonder how many Christians will agree with what he says?

Edward Babinski On the Conversions of C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel

Ed Babinski agrees with me that very few Christians, if any, have converted after being intellectually committed atheists who fully accepted evolution and its implications, and none as far as I can tell, have converted to being card-carrying inerrantist evangelicals. I consider Ed to be the expert in conversion/deconversion testimonies, having written a fantastic chapter on The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience, and having edited a book of deconversion stories titled, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Here's what Ed wrote:

Is This Christianity? A Bizarre Experience I Had Yesterday

Yesterday I was sitting on my gay friend's porch, drinking talking and laughing. Along comes a guy who asked if he could join us. We said okay and invited him to have a beer. He said he didn't drink. His shirt was a billboard for Christianity, you know the kind. So I asked him if he didn't drink because it was against his church teachings and he said yes. Okay, I said. When it got around to why he wanted to join us, he said he'd like to suck, er, have oral sex. When asked which one of us he would prefer he pointed to me. My friend was offended but laughed because he was off the hook. I merely told the guy I was not interested. Then I asked him if homosexuality was condemned by his church teachings and he said it was, but that he disagreed with them. Well, he left and we laughed. Nonetheless, is this Christianity? He agrees with his church when it comes to drinking but disagrees with it about homosexuality. And I'm equally sure his church would not approve of his wanton promiscuity. These are a few of the people who answer they believe in God and are Christians in those polls we've seen. This once again illustrates that Christianity is a pick and choose religion with a wide diversity among its adherents. Funny. We're still laughing.

I'm Calling For An End to the Philosophy of Religion As A Discipline In Secular Universities

Dr. Graham Oppy just published a book titled, Reinventing Philosophy of Religion. Below is an interview he did about it, where he both defended the philosophy of religion as a discipline and expressed a way to reinvent it.

Oppy rightly mentions that philosophy gave birth to the sciences. Philosophers discussed issues before there was any evidence for them, but once evidence was found then a new discipline was born. After all, the sciences we call physics, cosmology, and psychology were at one time considered the domain of philosophy. What Oppy doesn't talk about is whether this process can be reversed. What if philosophy spawned a discipline that, after a few centuries or decades, science has shown us it doesn't deserve to be a separate discipline? That's the argument of Richard Dawkins, Peter Boghossian, Jerry Coyne and myself. The discipline is so bad that Dr. Keith Parsons decided to quit teaching it because he could not take it seriously any longer. If he decided to quit teaching it then he agrees it should end as a discipline of learning (I look forward to him weighing in on this dispute).

Oppy tells us: "Philosophy of religion as a discipline, I would think, probably doesn't date much earlier than the second World War." This historical lesson is significant, I think, for we did without it for centuries and we can do without it again. Later Oppy offers his criticism, saying, "Most of the people who have done philosophy of religion have been theists." So it stands to reason "it has had an extremely narrow focus...It hasn't really been the philosophy of religion but rather Christianity with a very great emphasis on theism," and even apologetics/Christian theology. Okay then, as it stands today the philosophy of religion is dominated by Christian theists who discuss concepts and arguments germane to Christianity, and even defending it. Given what he said, the philosophy of religion needs reinvented if it is to survive. The unaddressed question is why we should have a discipline in any secular university where theism, or Christian theism, Christian theology or Christian apologetics is privileged and considered to the exclusion of all other religions or apologetics? It shouldn't. If this is the state of affairs then the only reasonable response is to call for the end of that discipline. NOW!

Oppy offers a solution to this malaise. He argues the discipline must be reinvented. I have a different solution based on the arguments of Dr. Hector Avalos, who has called for the end of biblical studies (see below). My position is that the philosophy of religion (and to be sure I have three master's degrees in that discipline) should end as a discipline in secular universities. This is not exactly a change from what I've stated before. This is based on further thought and reflection, for almost everyone does the philosophy of religion whenever we think about religion. Although, I find his criticism of Boghossian to be misguided, for Oppy says his rejection of the philosophy of religion "seems to be expressing views in the philosophy of religion." Boghossian's views are "just a position in the philosophy of religion," he said. The reason this criticism of Oppy's is misguided is because by the same token someone who rejects legitimate science by doing pseudoscience is doing science, or someone who does science badly is doing science, and so forth. It reminds me of the criticism thrown at atheists that we believe even though we don't, or that we're religious because we take a position on religion. Not!

Children Exposed to Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction

Researchers took 66 children between the ages of five and six and asked them questions about stories — some of which were drawn from fairy tales, others from the Old Testament — in order to determine whether the children believed the characters in them were real or fictional.

“Children with exposure to religion — via church attendance, parochial schooling, or both — judged [characters in religious stories] to be real,” the authors wrote. “By contrast, children with no such exposure judged them to be pretend,” just as they had the characters in fairy tales. But children with exposure to religion judged many characters in fantastical, but not explicitly religious stories, to also be real — the equivalent of being incapable of differentiating between Mark Twain’s character Tom Sawyer and an account of George Washington’s life. LINK.

Quote of the Day, By ORAXX

"A god that needs to be worshiped isn't much of a god."

More Liars for Jesus, This Time About Church Attendance

Two in five Americans say they regularly attend religious services. Upward of 90 percent of all Americans believe in God, pollsters report, and more than 70 percent have absolutely no doubt that God exists. There is only one conclusion to draw from these numbers: Americans are significantly more religious than the citizens of other industrialized nations.

Except they are not.

Beyond the polls, social scientists have conducted more rigorous analyses of religious behavior. Rather than ask people how often they attend church, the better studies measure what people actually do. The results are surprising. Americans are hardly more religious than people living in other industrialized countries. Yet they consistently—and more or less uniquely—want others to believe they are more religious than they really are.

Even as pundits theorized about why Americans were so much more religious than Europeans, quiet voices on the ground asked how, if so many Americans were attending services, the pews of so many churches could be deserted. LINK.

The fact is that Americans are leaving religion behind.

An Ad For My Book in the Free Inquiry Magazine

I was told that a full page advertisement for my book Why I Became an Atheist appeared in the current issue of the Free Inquiry magazine. It's pretty cool, see what you think:

Steven Pinker - The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity

The History of Satan the Devil

So As An Atheist I'm Not Crazy After All? Cool! My 5 Star Review of Randal Rauser's Book, "You're Not As Crazy As I Think: Dialogue in a World of Loud Voices and Hardened Opinions"

Since Randal Rauser is reviewing my book, Why I Became an Atheist,I thought readers should see how I reviewed one of his books on Amazon three and a half years ago. It's a fair, generous review, don't you think? This is the case even though I stand in opposition to his faith and even though it's very brief. So once again, as a reminder to him and anyone else who wants a place at the adult table, if you want to properly review an argumentative book, this is how to do it. Cheers.

"9 Sinister Things the Christian Right Does in the Name of God," by Valerie Tarico

Here's the money quote for my readers:

I realize that many Christians are not Bible believers, but rather people who glean through the Christian tradition to claim what seems timeless and wise. I also realize that most Bible believers aren’t trying to do harm—in fact the opposite. I know because I’ve been there. But, when you treat the words of our Iron Age ancestors as if they flowed straight from the mouth of God, you end up putting your life energy, whether you see it that way or not, into bringing back the Iron Age.

The Iron Age was a time of incredible brutality—tribalism, warfare, destitution, disease, murder, misogyny, sexual slavery and superstition of biblical proportions. Most of us would rather not go back, thank you very much. Christians who want a better future are welcome to join in the inquiry and teamwork it will take to get there, and many do. For the rest of you: please forgive the fact that your Iron Age fantasies trigger some of us to experience wry Iron Age fantasies of our own. LINK.

How To Properly Review a Book: A Guide for Bloggers

[Written by John W. Loftus on 4/27/2010] Let me offer some advice on how to properly review an argumentative type book on your blogs and/or on Amazon. It's annoying that so many people don't know how to do it right.

I have read several reviews of my book now. Most all of them aren't written very well at all. Two of them proceeded to argue with it chapter by chapter. A couple others went hodgepodge through it, pointing out things they liked and didn't like. Several others nitpick at it without dealing with the over-all thrust of the cumulative case I present in it. But good reviews will first summarize the book, tell what the author is attempting to do, tell who would benefit the most from reading the book, compare it with other books on the same topic, and offer a generalized statement about how effective the book is in attaining those stated goals. Are there any comparable books? If so, was this one better or worse than the others? As a reviewer you might even want to mention why you read the book in the first place. Then at that point you can write about some specifics in the book as examples that support your generalized statement. This is High School stuff here.

Who Are Atheist Fundamentalists?

If I am an atheist fundamentalist because I criticize Christian fundamentalists, then are liberal Christians fundamentalists when they do the same thing?

Instantly Turn Any Object into God with a Simple Formula

Now you can choose your own God.  Simply pick any ancient object; then substitute this object everywhere in the Bible you find either the words Lord or God.  Next, support your substitution apologetically and, voila!   You’ll have a deified God Object no atheist can debunk.  Try it . . . it works!  Here’s the formula  you’ll need to create your own personal God Object:

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

Q.E.D.

Skeptic Ink Network's New Book, "13 Reasons to Doubt"

This is a very good book, edited by Edward Clint, Jonathan Pearce and Beth Ann Erickson, 13 Reasons To Doubt: Essays from the Writers of Skeptic Ink.My chapter is called "Science is Predicated on the Non-Magical Natural World Order."

Bart Ehrman vs Richard Swinburne on Suffering

The discussion/debate begins at the 10 minute mark.

The Tales About Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Paul Show They Had Psychotic Disorders

Evan D. Murray, M.D.; Miles G. Cunningham, M.D., Ph.D.; and Bruce H. Price, M.D. in the The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences "analyzed the religious figures Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul from a behavioral, neurologic, and neuropsychiatric perspective to determine whether new insights can be achieved about the nature of their revelations. Analysis reveals that these individuals had experiences that resemble those now defined as psychotic symptoms, suggesting that their experiences may have been manifestations of primary or mood disorder-associated psychotic disorders." LINK.

Putting Godly Fear Into a Child: Taken From a Christian School Discipline Manual

Click on pictures to enlarge

"He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently."  Proverbs 13: 24

"Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die."  Proverbs 23: 13  (This You Tube video will prove God is a liar!)

I've Never Seen the Israel/Palestine Conflict Illustrated More Uniquely

Yep, Jesus Feeds the Birds!

Jesus reportedly said: "Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?" (Matthew 6:26)