Indianapolis - The Bible, It Turns Out, Is Too Liberal
Yepper, let's do something about that, right?
Dr. Gericke on How He Got Over the Difficulty of Losing His Faith
Previously today I posted his well-written deconversion story here. Now he wishes to explain how he came through that dark period in his life.
Dr. Jaco Gericke's Deconversion Story: "Autobiography of a 'Died-Again Christian'"
This is an appendix to his Ph.D. dissertation written in 2003, which he has granted me permission to share. Dr. Gericke is also writing a chapter for my work in progress. Listen up Christian, does this sound like a person who wanted to reject God? No way in hell! It is the story of us all. We wanted the gospel to be true. We put our whole lives into serving God. It is quite literally life shattering to find out we were wrong. What you'll read below also describes why it's so damned hard to help Christians see their faith for the delusion it is. It's because you want it to be true. It's because it would be life-shattering for you to admit you're wrong.
A New Book I'm Working On: The End of Christianity
To see the website I just made for it click here.
Very Interesting Lists You'll Want to Check Out
Luke over at Common Sense Atheism says he's a list freak. Here's an index of his lists:
* Best Atheism Books of the Decade, 2000-2009
* Top 20 Evil Bible Stories
* Top 10 Atheism Blogs
* 6 Responses to Religious Diversity
* Top 10 Atheist Songs
* 100+ Living Philosophers of Religion and Their Best Work
* 50+ Christian vs. Muslim Debates
* 90+ Free Audiobooks About Religion
* 400+ Atheism vs. Theism Debates
Become Informed: The History of Christmas
In a history of the holidays video, learn about the origins of Christmas. Although many of us only associate the birth of Christ with the holiday, most of us do not realize that many aspects of Christmas come from different winter celebrations. See this link to several "History Channel" videosThere's more out there but this is a start.
The Basis for the Uniformity of Regular Laws of Nature
It is said that if metaphysical naturalism is true there is no ultimate meaning, ultimate morality, nor is there a basis for the uniformity of regular laws of nature. It's correct there is no ultimate meaning nor is there any ultimate morality, even if there is meaning and there is morality. Meaning and morality do not depend on anything ultimate. I should still love my wife for consequentialist reasons even if there are no ultimate reasons. I even find the notion of "ultimate" to be a bit meaningless. Based on this and as a non-scientist let me throw out one suggestion about the uniformity of nature to see the reaction. In the same way there is no ultimate uniformity of nature either. There is uniformity which we can rely on for science. But there is no ultimate uniformity, whatever that is, because of the quagmire of quantum mechanics. On a microscopic level it's a bizarre world.
Anyone With Knowledge and Passion Want to Take Over the Debunking Creationism Blog?
If so, here it is. Just let me know. You already have some contributors and followers.
Richard Carrier On the Use of Ridicule (via email)
By and large the minds of the ridiculous can't be changed. It's their flock we're talking to. But even the ridiculous change under ridicule some respond by getting more ridiculous (and those are the ones who could never be swayed even by the politest methods), but others accumulate shame until they see the error of their ways (I've met many ex-evangelicals who have told me exactly that). Thus, ridicule converts the convertible and marginalizes the untouchable. There is no more effective strategy in a culture war.I like what he said.
D.M. Bennett: The Truth Seeker, to Be Released Shortly
This new one-hour HD (High Definition) video chronicles the life of D.M. Bennett, the nineteenth century’s most controversial publisher and American free-speech martyr. Link
Dinesh D'Souza vs Peter Singer Debate
Since I'll be debating D'Souza on February 10th at the University of Illinois I'm studying his debates. Check this out. The other parts can be found there as well.
The Power of the Internet on the Younger Generation
Parents beware! The younger generation is rejecting the faith of their fathers and the rise of the internet is making a great impact on them. Today's music, movies, and video games are also making an impact.
Join the War on Christmas: Court Rules No Religious Christmas Songs in the Schools.
Get over it Christian. Your reign is over. This is a more diverse population. Be happy that your child isn't forced to sing Jewish Hanaka songs. And since you so often want to ignorantly claim that atheism is a religion then be happy your child doesn't have to sing songs written by Dan Barker.
Where Does the Soul Fit?
Check out this article that demonstrates the incoherence of the idea of the soul at QuIRP.
Read more >>
Abstract: The concepts of the "Soul" and "Free Will" are tightly coupled and are misunderstandings of emergent properties of complex biological systems due to fallacious causal oversimplifications and are, in effect, a phenomena analogous to a rainbow. In the case of a soul that is separate from the self it would be judged by God for actions it did not condone. In the case of the soul as the self, the soul is locked into the body every night during REM sleep and is catastrophically impaired by malfunctions of the body it resides in. While religions are divided on whether animals have souls and/or spirits, with or without them, animals have some of the same types of cognitive abilities as humans and they get along well within their biological limitations. The philosophical soulless zombie as the null hypothesis for souls fits with established knowledge better than the "soul" described in unauthenticated bronze age "divinely revealed" texts.
Read more >>
What's So Great About Dinesh D'Souza, by Advocate Atheist
Dinesh D’Souza in his book What’s so Great About Christianity takes great effort to misrepresent Darwinian theory and atheism nearly every chance he gets. In this critique I’m going to reveal D’Souza’s bag of tricks, expose his rhetoric, and show how he does a great job of running in circles, shifting the blame, and avoiding having to offer any real tangible answers to the atheist’s inquiries concerning religion. Link
Skeptics and the Question of Audience: Who Are We Writing To?
So far I have not been able to get the attention of many skeptics, including Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers. Yes, I have tried, several times. Sure, they are very busy. But I just learned why I probably haven’t, which is what I had suspected. For the record I have purposely not criticized Richard Dawkins or the other New Atheists, either in my book or on this blog. In fact, I recently defended Dawkins and the other New Atheists, including Bill Maher for his movie Religulous, in a talk I did at the Society of Biblical Literature against a few scholars who thought their arguments lacked substance. You can read what I said here. I also defended Dawkins in a long series of email exchanges that took place last year between skeptic James Lazarus and me, which were copied to Jeffrey Lowder, Steve Hays, David Wood and some others. It got heated since I did not back down in my defense of Dawkins.
"The Best Way to Combat Christianity is...From Within"
So says the Sexy Atheist, who thinks I know something about doing this:
An Explanation and Critique of Substance Dualism
Substance dualism is defended by Christian apologist J.P. Moreland. Watch this:
Special Investigation: 20th Century Killers, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler.
You've got to watch the video below until the end. Brilliant!
Headline: John Loftus Pleads Guilty to Third Degree Murder and Sentenced to 25 to 50 Years in Prison
Wow! Some theists will go to extreme lengths in order to malign me. They'll even kill in my name. Link. Now I know what God must feel like when believers kill in his name...right? ;-)
The First Endorsement For My Upcoming Debate with Dinesh D'Souza
John W. Loftus, author of Why I Became an Atheist and a previous visitor to this forum will be debating Dinesh D'Souza at the University of Illinois on February 10. The topic will be "Does the Christian God Exist."
DC's First Time on the Biblioblogger List Made it Into the Top Ten!
Link. That's pretty good in a list of mostly Bible believing Blogs.
A Brief Report on a Secular Criticism of the Bible Group for the SBL
Hector Avalos reports on the meeting in what follows:
My Comments at The SBL On Bill Maher's Movie Religulous
Religulous written by John W. Loftus
I intend to defend this movie from most of the criticisms made against it today. If you don’t think this can be done then please stay tuned.
Combining the words Religion and Ridiculous, Bill Maher’s movie Religulous is a fascinating documentary comedy about the perils of religion in a world that has weapons of mass destruction. As an atheist, I found his movie to be funny, educational, and helpful, and I appreciate being able to respond to the excellent papers read today.
Professor Randy Reed describes the New Atheism as a cultural moment, a promising one, but not without its faults. It was thrust into center stage by the mass killings of innocent human beings on 9/11 by suicidal people of faith. As such, professor Hector Avalos accurately pinpoints what is missed most often as the hallmark of New Atheism, a secular apocalyptic. On that day Sam Harris began writing his book, The End of Faith, calling upon thoughtful people to cease granting religion a free pass from criticism. And although these terrorists did not use weapons of mass destruction, we learned on that day they would if they could. We live in an unprecedented era of weapons of mass destruction before we’ve outgrown infantile and ignorant religious beliefs.
In February 2002, two years before Sam Harris’ book was published, and four years before The God Delusion was published, Richard Dawkins called for an atheist campaign against religion much like homosexuals used to gain acceptability in American society. He did so in a talk given for TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design). His final sentence was this: "Let's all stop being so damned respectful." Just like the civil rights and the gay/lesbian movements before them, so also Dawkins argued that atheists must follow in their steps. The New Atheists are tired of being patient and respectful with believers while religion marches onward, wreaking havoc with the world. Enough is enough. We live in a modern world. It’s time to give religion in all of its forms a swift kick in the butt.
That’s exactly what Maher is doing in his movie using his stock and trade, comedy. On the Larry King show Maher told us he was poking fun at religion in order to, in his words, “rouse the atheists so they would stand up and make themselves heard.” He’s making fun of the sacred in order to call atheists into action. This kind of disrespectful extremism has the power to incite a social movement among those who agree, and it gets people’s attention. It is the hallmark of the New Atheism, the kind Dawkins first proposed. People do not tend to hear moderates. But we listen to extremists. They grab our attention. Every social movement needs these kinds of initial voices if it expects to change the cultural zeitgeist.
What followed on the heels of each of these preceding movements were the scholars in their respective fields of research who won the day for their causes. So it’s no different with the New Atheism. Biblical scholars like professor Avalos are taking up their cause by calling for an end to Biblical studies as we know them. I, for one, hope his impressive efforts succeed. And I hope my meager efforts help to bridge the gap between the New Atheists and secular Biblical scholarship as well.
While professor Reed is correct that the New Atheists need to become better informed by secular Biblical scholars, I myself question how much scholarship it really takes to reject any given religion. The Joe six-pack’s of our world do not have the time to research into any given religion, much less all of them, nor even become literate enough to read the scholarly works. And yet they can still be justified in rejecting one, or more, or all religions based upon all that they know. That best explains why Dawkins probably thought it was a waste of time researching into religion for his book. He already knew from the fact of evolution, his stock and trade, that religion is a delusion. Until someone can show him that evolution does not explain everything in the biological world, he has no need for the God hypothesis, and no need to put a great deal of time researching into it.
People only need to place all religions on an equal playing field and then critically examine them as outsiders do. All they must do is apply the same level of skepticism to their own religion that they do to the religions of others. This adequately describes what I call the Outsider Test for Faith. I find the Christian religion to be ridiculous for the same reasons Christians find the beliefs of Scientology, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims ridiculous. If believers refuse to examine their own faith as they do to the other religions they reject, when it’s clear that an overwhelming number of people adopt the religion of their parents and culture, then I merely ask them why the double standard? Why treat other religions differently than you do your own? I don’t find any way around this test. In my opinion this is the test by which to assess the various religions that Maher uses in his movie, despite professor Dennis MacDonald’s claim that his movie lacks such a test. And I think Maher did a good job of it.
If anyone is troubled by the movie Religulous, then perhaps one reason why has been described best by cultural anthropologist David Eller: “Nothing is more destructive to religion than other religions; it is like meeting one’s own anti-matter twin. Other religions represent alternatives to one’s own religion: other people believe in them just as fervently as we do, and they live their lives just as successfully as we do. The diversity of religions forces us to see religion as a culturally relative phenomenon; different groups have different religions that appear adapted to their unique social and even environmental conditions.” Eller goes on to ask the problematic question: “But if their religion is relative, then why is ours not? [Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker, p. 233].
And to think, Religulous didn’t even attempt to deal with the myriad number of eastern and tribal religions found around the globe, which would only magnify this whole problem.
A key question in Religulous is what it means to say someone is ignorant, as professor Avalos said. The wise person, Socrates first told us, is someone who knows that s/he is ignorant. But in this movie we see religious believers claiming to know that their God exists and what he wants them to do, with a kind of certainty that is simply unattainable. We see this kind of religious certainty expressed throughout the movie, best expressed by the trucker who said: “When I’ve seen what I’ve seen, I know there’s a God. You can’t change my mind. Nobody can change my mind.” So if Socrates is right, religious believers like these are ignorant, all of them, and equally ridiculous.
But they are not the only ones ignorant. Daniel Dennett informs us that "One of the surprising discoveries of modern psychology is how easy it is to be ignorant of your own ignorance.” [Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, p. 31]. Even smart, educated people may be ignorant and not know it. How else can you explain the fact that there are Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars all arguing for different and mutually exclusive religions? Since I don’t see much by way of evidence for any religion, it seems that religious scholarship is little more than special pleading on behalf of prior held conclusions arrived at before someone first entered the college of his or her choice.
Bill Maher’s message throughout the movie is doubt: “My big thing is I don’t know. That’s what I preach. I preach the gospel of I don’t know.” But this was not something he was raised to accept, because later in the car Maher says, “I wasn’t born skeptical.” The fact is that none of us were. We were all raised as believers. We were taught to believe what our parents told us. If they said there is a Santa Claus, then he existed until they said otherwise. Whatever we were told by them we initially believed. If we were told there was a god named Zeus we would’ve believed it. Skepticism is an acquired trait that comes by questioning that which we were taught to believe.
Professor MacDonald faults the movie for it’s own kind of dogmatism, especially the ending. But I think there is a huge epistemological difference between rejecting a metaphysical answer to the riddle of our existence, and affirming the correct one, since affirming an answer demands verifiable positive evidence that excludes other answers. The rejection is the easy part. We all do it, sometimes without even examining a proffered answer because it just sounds ridiculous, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Victor Paul Wierwille’s The Way International, or the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. The hard part after the rejection is to affirm the correct answer. That’s the distinction Maher is making here. He doesn’t think anyone can be certain when it comes to affirming the correct answer to the riddle of existence. That’s agnosticism, and it’s adopted through the process of elimination. None of us can know with certainty about these questions. None of us. He has every reason to be dogmatic about this.
I appreciate professor Cheryl Exum’s feminist stance against sexist language. She’s right, it is important. But I would like to see an equal stance taken with religious language in our Christian dominated culture. David Eller calls upon atheists to eliminate our use of words and phrases like “heaven,” “hell,” “sin,” “angel,” “devil,” “bless,” “soul,” “saint,” “pray,” “sacred,” “divine,” “baptism,” “purgatory,” “gospel” “the Mark of Cain” “Garden of Eden” “patience of Job” “a voice crying in the wilderness” “wolf in sheep’s clothing” “wars and rumors of wars” “lost sheep” and others. They have no corresponding referent in other non-Christian parts of the globe. This Christian language only serves to continue the cultural domination that Christianity has in western society; much like chauvinistic language does with respect to women.
Professors Exum and MacDonald’s main problems with the movie seem to be the same ones that John Haught wrote about the New Atheists in his book, God and the New Atheism, and the same ones Karen Armstrong wrote about in her book, The Case for God.
Professor Exum makes the claim that in Maher’s segment on Christianity he mostly interviews “people on the fringes of Christianity.” That is a common complaint with the movie. But from my perspective I see little difference between Christianities. It doesn’t matter much how many people believe in a particular religion. Maher said “Even if a billion people believe something it can still be ridiculous.” This is patently obvious since there are billions of Muslims and Christians whose religions cannot both be true.
This raises the question of “who speaks for Christianity?” There isn’t a consensus. There only seems to be a rabble number of voices each claiming to know the truth. The truth is that Christianity has evolved and will continue to evolve into the future. The Christianities practiced and believed by any denomination today are not something early Christianities would embrace. And future Christianities will be almost as different. The trouble we atheists have when attempting to debunk Christianity is that we have a moving and nebulous target which evolves in each generation. So how can any of us be faulted for not knowing which specific sect to take aim at if there is no consensus between believers on what best represents their views? There are intense debates between them. For my part I agree with the Protestant criticisms of the Catholics as well as the Catholic criticisms of the Protestants. And I also agree with the fundamentalist criticisms of the liberals as well as the liberal criticisms of the fundamentalists. When they criticize each other I think they’re all right! What’s left is the demise of Christianity as a whole.
The fundamentalist criticism centers on why liberals even bother with the Bible. Why not the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures? This is also the atheist criticism. Professor Avalos has shown us that the liberal deconstruction of the Bible has put an end to Biblical studies. So why bother with it at all? If someone no longer accepts the historical underpinnings of her faith she should look for a different one, or none at all. It’s the intellectually honest thing to do. To me, liberalism is like a pretend game much like M. Night Shyamalan’s movie, The Village. In my opinion they should stop pretending.
Let me remind the liberals that they did not come to their conclusions gleefully. No, they were forced against their prior preferences into accepting what science and Biblical criticism led them to think. Now all they do is pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe with no solid criteria for distinguishing the believable parts from the unbelievable parts except their shared evolving consensus. God is love, it says, but it also says God is a vengeful warrior who commanded genocide and was pleased with impregnatory prayers for babies to be dashed against the rocks. Liberals don’t accept anything the Bible says just because it says it, so they can quite easily dispense with it altogether as irrelevant for their lives.
Professor MacDonald argues that “one learns as much about religion watching Larry Charles’ “Religulous” as one learns about the American family by watching ‘The Simpsons.’” I think differently. Why are we here in the first place if Religulous doesn’t teach us something important about religion? He claims Maher is ignorant about religion because true religion has beauty, flexibility, and humility in it. While I do agree there are benign religions, at least non-violent ones, I don’t think Maher is that ignorant, nor are any of the other New Atheists. I respectfully challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. Maher even interviewed liberal Catholics. Perhaps they just don’t know how to respond to people who continually undercut the historical foundations for their beliefs and yet continue to affirm them anyway.
MacDonald argued that “Maher and Charles share a fundamental misunderstanding of religion insofar as they equate religious people as those who hear the voice of God or those who trust those who claim to have done so as the sine qua non of religion.” But the Abrahamic faiths ALL started out this way. Without people who claimed to hear the voice of God the three great monotheistic faiths would not even exist in the first place! Without people claiming to hear the voice of God there would be no canonized Biblical texts to study and consequently no Biblical studies departments in the universities.
Professors Exum, MacDonald, Haught and Karen Armstrong all fault both sides in this war of words and bombs. They claim to stand in the gap between them with the voice of reason. “Come see,” they argue, “a properly understood religion is benign and filled with wonder.” Armstrong argues against both sides by claiming religion is not a set of doctrines to be believed but rather something practiced in ritual and experienced through introspection, art, and music. Haught argues the essence of religion is Tillich’s “ultimate concern" which for Exum, is her feminism.
But I find it inconsistent for liberals like Armstrong to fault the New Atheists for treating religion as a scientific hypothesis who then turn around and use the scientific findings of archaeology and Biblical criticism when deconstructing the Biblical texts. Can they really have it both ways? I think not. Even so, what method does religion offer us? Introspection? Art? Music? What kind of method is that? Such a method would never have allowed Armstrong to come to the conclusions she's reached about religion in general, and of Christian fundamentalism in particular.
Suffice it for me to say that I find liberalism metaphysically unfulfilling and deeply inadequate. At best this god is a distant god, and as such, can be safely ignored as having no relevance for one's life, and at worst an unnecessary hypothesis we can do without. Feminism, for instance, needs no goddess. They’re all practically atheists. With an irrelevant Bible and an irrelevant god why not just give up on the pretense of faith as irrelevant as well? Why not admit they rely entirely on reason and science?
Even if the liberals are correct about religion I think theirs is a misplaced concern when they attack the New Atheists. There is nothing to fear from the New Atheist’s when compared to the fundamentalists in our world. We strongly affirm the separation of church and state in a free democracy, something all reasonable people should embrace. The New Atheists do not advocate the use of violence against people who oppose them. That’s the difference between us, and it’s a huge one. Despite all claims to the contrary, Maher does not want to forcibly ban religion. He simply wants to laugh it into the backwaters of our social and political life. How much harm is laughter by comparison to bombs?
Take fundamentalist Christianity for instance. A Gallup poll shows that 44% of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and who believe instead we were all created as distinct species not more than 10,000 years ago [“Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design” at www.gallup.com.; a 2008 Pew Forum poll had similar results at 42%; see “Public Divided on origins of life” www.pewforum.org]. Fundamentalism is the greatest hindrance to science, tolerance, and social progress, and it’s also the most prevalent form of Christianity to be found in America. It’s the religious right that holds the reigns of the Republican Party, if you haven’t noticed. It’s this brand of Christianity that makes the loudest, most obnoxious, most dangerous impact on the world today, giving us plenty of good reasons to direct the brunt of our attacks in its vicinity.
So who really cares if the New Atheists are attacking what liberal scholars don't consider true religion or true Christianity? They are attacking a real threat to world peace regardless! And who really cares if religion doesn't poison everything as Hitchens’ extreme rhetoric proclaims? Religion causes a great deal of suffering.
Bill Maher calls on moderates to resign in protest. To do otherwise “is to be an enabler.”
I agree.
In fact, as a former conservative, turned moderate, turned liberal, this is exactly what I did. Given the non-historical nature of much of the Bible, the barbaric God it reveals, the massive amount of suffering in the world, the advancement of science, and the history of an abusive church, it’s the reasonable thing to do.
I call on others to do likewise.
I intend to defend this movie from most of the criticisms made against it today. If you don’t think this can be done then please stay tuned.
Combining the words Religion and Ridiculous, Bill Maher’s movie Religulous is a fascinating documentary comedy about the perils of religion in a world that has weapons of mass destruction. As an atheist, I found his movie to be funny, educational, and helpful, and I appreciate being able to respond to the excellent papers read today.
Professor Randy Reed describes the New Atheism as a cultural moment, a promising one, but not without its faults. It was thrust into center stage by the mass killings of innocent human beings on 9/11 by suicidal people of faith. As such, professor Hector Avalos accurately pinpoints what is missed most often as the hallmark of New Atheism, a secular apocalyptic. On that day Sam Harris began writing his book, The End of Faith, calling upon thoughtful people to cease granting religion a free pass from criticism. And although these terrorists did not use weapons of mass destruction, we learned on that day they would if they could. We live in an unprecedented era of weapons of mass destruction before we’ve outgrown infantile and ignorant religious beliefs.
In February 2002, two years before Sam Harris’ book was published, and four years before The God Delusion was published, Richard Dawkins called for an atheist campaign against religion much like homosexuals used to gain acceptability in American society. He did so in a talk given for TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design). His final sentence was this: "Let's all stop being so damned respectful." Just like the civil rights and the gay/lesbian movements before them, so also Dawkins argued that atheists must follow in their steps. The New Atheists are tired of being patient and respectful with believers while religion marches onward, wreaking havoc with the world. Enough is enough. We live in a modern world. It’s time to give religion in all of its forms a swift kick in the butt.
That’s exactly what Maher is doing in his movie using his stock and trade, comedy. On the Larry King show Maher told us he was poking fun at religion in order to, in his words, “rouse the atheists so they would stand up and make themselves heard.” He’s making fun of the sacred in order to call atheists into action. This kind of disrespectful extremism has the power to incite a social movement among those who agree, and it gets people’s attention. It is the hallmark of the New Atheism, the kind Dawkins first proposed. People do not tend to hear moderates. But we listen to extremists. They grab our attention. Every social movement needs these kinds of initial voices if it expects to change the cultural zeitgeist.
What followed on the heels of each of these preceding movements were the scholars in their respective fields of research who won the day for their causes. So it’s no different with the New Atheism. Biblical scholars like professor Avalos are taking up their cause by calling for an end to Biblical studies as we know them. I, for one, hope his impressive efforts succeed. And I hope my meager efforts help to bridge the gap between the New Atheists and secular Biblical scholarship as well.
While professor Reed is correct that the New Atheists need to become better informed by secular Biblical scholars, I myself question how much scholarship it really takes to reject any given religion. The Joe six-pack’s of our world do not have the time to research into any given religion, much less all of them, nor even become literate enough to read the scholarly works. And yet they can still be justified in rejecting one, or more, or all religions based upon all that they know. That best explains why Dawkins probably thought it was a waste of time researching into religion for his book. He already knew from the fact of evolution, his stock and trade, that religion is a delusion. Until someone can show him that evolution does not explain everything in the biological world, he has no need for the God hypothesis, and no need to put a great deal of time researching into it.
People only need to place all religions on an equal playing field and then critically examine them as outsiders do. All they must do is apply the same level of skepticism to their own religion that they do to the religions of others. This adequately describes what I call the Outsider Test for Faith. I find the Christian religion to be ridiculous for the same reasons Christians find the beliefs of Scientology, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims ridiculous. If believers refuse to examine their own faith as they do to the other religions they reject, when it’s clear that an overwhelming number of people adopt the religion of their parents and culture, then I merely ask them why the double standard? Why treat other religions differently than you do your own? I don’t find any way around this test. In my opinion this is the test by which to assess the various religions that Maher uses in his movie, despite professor Dennis MacDonald’s claim that his movie lacks such a test. And I think Maher did a good job of it.
If anyone is troubled by the movie Religulous, then perhaps one reason why has been described best by cultural anthropologist David Eller: “Nothing is more destructive to religion than other religions; it is like meeting one’s own anti-matter twin. Other religions represent alternatives to one’s own religion: other people believe in them just as fervently as we do, and they live their lives just as successfully as we do. The diversity of religions forces us to see religion as a culturally relative phenomenon; different groups have different religions that appear adapted to their unique social and even environmental conditions.” Eller goes on to ask the problematic question: “But if their religion is relative, then why is ours not? [Atheism Advanced: Further Thoughts of a Freethinker, p. 233].
And to think, Religulous didn’t even attempt to deal with the myriad number of eastern and tribal religions found around the globe, which would only magnify this whole problem.
A key question in Religulous is what it means to say someone is ignorant, as professor Avalos said. The wise person, Socrates first told us, is someone who knows that s/he is ignorant. But in this movie we see religious believers claiming to know that their God exists and what he wants them to do, with a kind of certainty that is simply unattainable. We see this kind of religious certainty expressed throughout the movie, best expressed by the trucker who said: “When I’ve seen what I’ve seen, I know there’s a God. You can’t change my mind. Nobody can change my mind.” So if Socrates is right, religious believers like these are ignorant, all of them, and equally ridiculous.
But they are not the only ones ignorant. Daniel Dennett informs us that "One of the surprising discoveries of modern psychology is how easy it is to be ignorant of your own ignorance.” [Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, p. 31]. Even smart, educated people may be ignorant and not know it. How else can you explain the fact that there are Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars all arguing for different and mutually exclusive religions? Since I don’t see much by way of evidence for any religion, it seems that religious scholarship is little more than special pleading on behalf of prior held conclusions arrived at before someone first entered the college of his or her choice.
Bill Maher’s message throughout the movie is doubt: “My big thing is I don’t know. That’s what I preach. I preach the gospel of I don’t know.” But this was not something he was raised to accept, because later in the car Maher says, “I wasn’t born skeptical.” The fact is that none of us were. We were all raised as believers. We were taught to believe what our parents told us. If they said there is a Santa Claus, then he existed until they said otherwise. Whatever we were told by them we initially believed. If we were told there was a god named Zeus we would’ve believed it. Skepticism is an acquired trait that comes by questioning that which we were taught to believe.
Professor MacDonald faults the movie for it’s own kind of dogmatism, especially the ending. But I think there is a huge epistemological difference between rejecting a metaphysical answer to the riddle of our existence, and affirming the correct one, since affirming an answer demands verifiable positive evidence that excludes other answers. The rejection is the easy part. We all do it, sometimes without even examining a proffered answer because it just sounds ridiculous, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Victor Paul Wierwille’s The Way International, or the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. The hard part after the rejection is to affirm the correct answer. That’s the distinction Maher is making here. He doesn’t think anyone can be certain when it comes to affirming the correct answer to the riddle of existence. That’s agnosticism, and it’s adopted through the process of elimination. None of us can know with certainty about these questions. None of us. He has every reason to be dogmatic about this.
I appreciate professor Cheryl Exum’s feminist stance against sexist language. She’s right, it is important. But I would like to see an equal stance taken with religious language in our Christian dominated culture. David Eller calls upon atheists to eliminate our use of words and phrases like “heaven,” “hell,” “sin,” “angel,” “devil,” “bless,” “soul,” “saint,” “pray,” “sacred,” “divine,” “baptism,” “purgatory,” “gospel” “the Mark of Cain” “Garden of Eden” “patience of Job” “a voice crying in the wilderness” “wolf in sheep’s clothing” “wars and rumors of wars” “lost sheep” and others. They have no corresponding referent in other non-Christian parts of the globe. This Christian language only serves to continue the cultural domination that Christianity has in western society; much like chauvinistic language does with respect to women.
Professors Exum and MacDonald’s main problems with the movie seem to be the same ones that John Haught wrote about the New Atheists in his book, God and the New Atheism, and the same ones Karen Armstrong wrote about in her book, The Case for God.
Professor Exum makes the claim that in Maher’s segment on Christianity he mostly interviews “people on the fringes of Christianity.” That is a common complaint with the movie. But from my perspective I see little difference between Christianities. It doesn’t matter much how many people believe in a particular religion. Maher said “Even if a billion people believe something it can still be ridiculous.” This is patently obvious since there are billions of Muslims and Christians whose religions cannot both be true.
This raises the question of “who speaks for Christianity?” There isn’t a consensus. There only seems to be a rabble number of voices each claiming to know the truth. The truth is that Christianity has evolved and will continue to evolve into the future. The Christianities practiced and believed by any denomination today are not something early Christianities would embrace. And future Christianities will be almost as different. The trouble we atheists have when attempting to debunk Christianity is that we have a moving and nebulous target which evolves in each generation. So how can any of us be faulted for not knowing which specific sect to take aim at if there is no consensus between believers on what best represents their views? There are intense debates between them. For my part I agree with the Protestant criticisms of the Catholics as well as the Catholic criticisms of the Protestants. And I also agree with the fundamentalist criticisms of the liberals as well as the liberal criticisms of the fundamentalists. When they criticize each other I think they’re all right! What’s left is the demise of Christianity as a whole.
The fundamentalist criticism centers on why liberals even bother with the Bible. Why not the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures? This is also the atheist criticism. Professor Avalos has shown us that the liberal deconstruction of the Bible has put an end to Biblical studies. So why bother with it at all? If someone no longer accepts the historical underpinnings of her faith she should look for a different one, or none at all. It’s the intellectually honest thing to do. To me, liberalism is like a pretend game much like M. Night Shyamalan’s movie, The Village. In my opinion they should stop pretending.
Let me remind the liberals that they did not come to their conclusions gleefully. No, they were forced against their prior preferences into accepting what science and Biblical criticism led them to think. Now all they do is pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe with no solid criteria for distinguishing the believable parts from the unbelievable parts except their shared evolving consensus. God is love, it says, but it also says God is a vengeful warrior who commanded genocide and was pleased with impregnatory prayers for babies to be dashed against the rocks. Liberals don’t accept anything the Bible says just because it says it, so they can quite easily dispense with it altogether as irrelevant for their lives.
Professor MacDonald argues that “one learns as much about religion watching Larry Charles’ “Religulous” as one learns about the American family by watching ‘The Simpsons.’” I think differently. Why are we here in the first place if Religulous doesn’t teach us something important about religion? He claims Maher is ignorant about religion because true religion has beauty, flexibility, and humility in it. While I do agree there are benign religions, at least non-violent ones, I don’t think Maher is that ignorant, nor are any of the other New Atheists. I respectfully challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. Maher even interviewed liberal Catholics. Perhaps they just don’t know how to respond to people who continually undercut the historical foundations for their beliefs and yet continue to affirm them anyway.
MacDonald argued that “Maher and Charles share a fundamental misunderstanding of religion insofar as they equate religious people as those who hear the voice of God or those who trust those who claim to have done so as the sine qua non of religion.” But the Abrahamic faiths ALL started out this way. Without people who claimed to hear the voice of God the three great monotheistic faiths would not even exist in the first place! Without people claiming to hear the voice of God there would be no canonized Biblical texts to study and consequently no Biblical studies departments in the universities.
Professors Exum, MacDonald, Haught and Karen Armstrong all fault both sides in this war of words and bombs. They claim to stand in the gap between them with the voice of reason. “Come see,” they argue, “a properly understood religion is benign and filled with wonder.” Armstrong argues against both sides by claiming religion is not a set of doctrines to be believed but rather something practiced in ritual and experienced through introspection, art, and music. Haught argues the essence of religion is Tillich’s “ultimate concern" which for Exum, is her feminism.
But I find it inconsistent for liberals like Armstrong to fault the New Atheists for treating religion as a scientific hypothesis who then turn around and use the scientific findings of archaeology and Biblical criticism when deconstructing the Biblical texts. Can they really have it both ways? I think not. Even so, what method does religion offer us? Introspection? Art? Music? What kind of method is that? Such a method would never have allowed Armstrong to come to the conclusions she's reached about religion in general, and of Christian fundamentalism in particular.
Suffice it for me to say that I find liberalism metaphysically unfulfilling and deeply inadequate. At best this god is a distant god, and as such, can be safely ignored as having no relevance for one's life, and at worst an unnecessary hypothesis we can do without. Feminism, for instance, needs no goddess. They’re all practically atheists. With an irrelevant Bible and an irrelevant god why not just give up on the pretense of faith as irrelevant as well? Why not admit they rely entirely on reason and science?
Even if the liberals are correct about religion I think theirs is a misplaced concern when they attack the New Atheists. There is nothing to fear from the New Atheist’s when compared to the fundamentalists in our world. We strongly affirm the separation of church and state in a free democracy, something all reasonable people should embrace. The New Atheists do not advocate the use of violence against people who oppose them. That’s the difference between us, and it’s a huge one. Despite all claims to the contrary, Maher does not want to forcibly ban religion. He simply wants to laugh it into the backwaters of our social and political life. How much harm is laughter by comparison to bombs?
Take fundamentalist Christianity for instance. A Gallup poll shows that 44% of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and who believe instead we were all created as distinct species not more than 10,000 years ago [“Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design” at www.gallup.com.; a 2008 Pew Forum poll had similar results at 42%; see “Public Divided on origins of life” www.pewforum.org]. Fundamentalism is the greatest hindrance to science, tolerance, and social progress, and it’s also the most prevalent form of Christianity to be found in America. It’s the religious right that holds the reigns of the Republican Party, if you haven’t noticed. It’s this brand of Christianity that makes the loudest, most obnoxious, most dangerous impact on the world today, giving us plenty of good reasons to direct the brunt of our attacks in its vicinity.
So who really cares if the New Atheists are attacking what liberal scholars don't consider true religion or true Christianity? They are attacking a real threat to world peace regardless! And who really cares if religion doesn't poison everything as Hitchens’ extreme rhetoric proclaims? Religion causes a great deal of suffering.
Bill Maher calls on moderates to resign in protest. To do otherwise “is to be an enabler.”
I agree.
In fact, as a former conservative, turned moderate, turned liberal, this is exactly what I did. Given the non-historical nature of much of the Bible, the barbaric God it reveals, the massive amount of suffering in the world, the advancement of science, and the history of an abusive church, it’s the reasonable thing to do.
I call on others to do likewise.
An Interview With Loftus: 10 Questions With an Atheist
As an introduction to me read this interview done in May of 2009.
Edwin Curley: "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"
Here is an excellent presentation on the barbaric nature of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by Dr. Edwin Curley. This is a must see video! Peter Van Inwagen responds to him. To see the other parts just click on these subsequent links:
Curley 1 | Curley 2 | Curley 3 | Curley 4
Van Inwagen 1 | Van Inwagen 2 | Curley | Q&A 1 | Q&A 2
Curley 1 | Curley 2 | Curley 3 | Curley 4
Van Inwagen 1 | Van Inwagen 2 | Curley | Q&A 1 | Q&A 2
My Time in New Orleans at the SBL
I want to thank everyone who donated to help my wife and I go to New Orleans. We received about $630. Others sent me some nice books from my wish list at Amazon. Let me briefly tell you about our trip.
Dan Barker vs. Dinesh D'Souza Debate
Since I'll be debating Dinesh D'Souza on Februrary 10th at the University of Illinois, I'm interested in watching his previous debates. See what you think.
Behind the Veil of Ignorance
Let's look at Christianity from a different prespective. Let's ask ourselves what we could expect if that kind of God existed. Let's say we are placed behind a theological Rawlsian "veil of ignorance." Behind that veil we are to consider what world we should expect to find if God created that world. Behind that veil we must think about the kinds of things we could expect to find, based upon a full description of the God that is supposed to exist. What would you expect to find prior to experiencing such a world?
Now it's true we couldn't dream up the exact kind of world God should create with all of its details, for God is supposedly omniscient beyond our dreams. But we could have some ideas, broadly speaking, especally if humans are also supposed to be created in his "image." What kinds of things would we expect to find when the veil is removed?
Now it's true we couldn't dream up the exact kind of world God should create with all of its details, for God is supposedly omniscient beyond our dreams. But we could have some ideas, broadly speaking, especally if humans are also supposed to be created in his "image." What kinds of things would we expect to find when the veil is removed?
Is God a CEO?
I have devoted a lot of space to the obvious lack of effective communication from God to human beings about his supposed will, if he exists. Isn't God the CEO? If any company had the exact same lack of communication in it, from the top down, then the blame for the company doing wrong would be laid squarely at the top. You cannot deny this. How many Christians who visit here work for large companies where there is a lack of communication from the top about what to do? Who's fault is it if the company has no clear set of directives? The CEO's. This is obvious. So why don't you apply that same logic to the revelation God supposedly gave his people? God chose a poor medium to reveal himself, and as such was not clear about slavery, or the Inquisition, to name just two of hundreds of other theological, moral and scientific disputes the church had no clear direction about, which in turn caused so much pain, misery, tortures, and wars.
How Could God Reveal Himself to Us?
Elsewhere I have defended the notion that history is a poor medium for God to reveal himself to humanity, here, here, here, and here.
Many Christians argue that God has already verified his revelation in Jesus through miracles in the historical past, and as such it needs no further verification. But I argue against this whole notion in the above links. History is a poor medium to verify much of anything, especially miracles.
Someone recently asked me, "what else is there but human history for God to have revealed himself in?" I'll suggest a few ways here. I'd like to see some other suggestions of ways God could reveal himself to us, if he existed.
Many Christians argue that God has already verified his revelation in Jesus through miracles in the historical past, and as such it needs no further verification. But I argue against this whole notion in the above links. History is a poor medium to verify much of anything, especially miracles.
Someone recently asked me, "what else is there but human history for God to have revealed himself in?" I'll suggest a few ways here. I'd like to see some other suggestions of ways God could reveal himself to us, if he existed.
The Believers Reasoning Scheme
A fallacy is an argument (aka pattern of reasoning, reasoning scheme, argument scheme) that appears valid but upon analysis is shown to be invalid or misapplied. The phrase "Anything is possible" is an example of one of those reasoning schemes that seems valid but is not. Anything is not possible. This article will discuss why an appeal to possibility should be considered for refutation on its face. It will then go on to discuss the effects this fallacy has in a dialogue. Finally it will discuss the process of sound reasoning, and introduce the phenomenon I call the Believers Reasoning Scheme.
Godlessness Rare Behind Bars
Conditional Immortality or Annihilationism
Since I was able to question my Christian faith for the first time once I believed in Conditional Immortality or Annihilationism as the best Biblical description of hell, see here, I thought I'd offer a few brief notes on that view, from a Biblical perspective. I know there is a debate about this going on among Christian circles, but here are some of the things that those who dispute it must deal with:
A Corrupt and Scandalous Faith
By Joe E. Holman
Smith
The year was 1928. The place was Arkansas. Charles Lee Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was arrested “on charges of blasphemy.” His crime? Passing out atheist tracts in a local town. After spending one night in jail, Smith was released with one charge dismissed while the other was never set for trial. Just like the famous blasphemy trial of C.B. Reynolds decades earlier, Mr. Smith was just one more victim of the American legal system, hijacked by Christianity.
Smith
The year was 1928. The place was Arkansas. Charles Lee Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was arrested “on charges of blasphemy.” His crime? Passing out atheist tracts in a local town. After spending one night in jail, Smith was released with one charge dismissed while the other was never set for trial. Just like the famous blasphemy trial of C.B. Reynolds decades earlier, Mr. Smith was just one more victim of the American legal system, hijacked by Christianity.
The Beauty of God's Design?
Nature is red in tooth and claw. This is best explained by natural selection. If a good God exists then why didn't he create all animals as vegetarians?
First posted on 9/2/07
WWJD?
Christians claim that God is the basis of morality which we should exemplify. Jesus taught that we should be perfect as God is perfect. The early Christians argued that we should be holy as God is holy. It is straightforward that we should look to God, and what He does, and mimic it as exactly as possible.
However, Jesus further taught that we must love our enemies and forgive them. Jesus wouldn’t command a moral that God doesn’t ascribe to, would he? Give humans a higher calling, a greater duty than God Himself?
If we are to love and forgive our enemies, why can’t God love and forgive His enemies?
However, Jesus further taught that we must love our enemies and forgive them. Jesus wouldn’t command a moral that God doesn’t ascribe to, would he? Give humans a higher calling, a greater duty than God Himself?
If we are to love and forgive our enemies, why can’t God love and forgive His enemies?
The Soul--A Rational Belief?
Because this blog attracts readers of varying philosophical experience, I have chosen to summarize some of the philosophical concepts involved in the discussion of the mind rather than assume the reader's knowledge of them. More versed readers will forgive the often hasty generalizations of complex ideas (especially the many ideas regarding the philosophy of the mind).
Most Christians (and many other theists) believe in a dualistic human nature--i.e. that humans are both physical and spiritual beings. In this view, there is a brain and a spiritual consciousness. It is thought that the spiritual consciousness determines a person's identity, personality, and behavior. Many theists believe this spiritual consciousness can live on after the brain and physical body of a human is destroyed. They are committed to the idea that the brain and a spiritual consciousness are independent, yet somehow linked.
In this post, I will argue against the plausibility of a spiritual human consciousness separate from the human brain. I will argue that the brain alone is responsible for a person's identity, personality, and behavior. After constructing a few informal philosophical arguments that rely on what I will refer to as "brain-dependence"(hereafter, BD) and conclude that the existence of a spiritual consciousness separate from the brain is implausible, I will describe and give examples for BD.
Most Christians (and many other theists) believe in a dualistic human nature--i.e. that humans are both physical and spiritual beings. In this view, there is a brain and a spiritual consciousness. It is thought that the spiritual consciousness determines a person's identity, personality, and behavior. Many theists believe this spiritual consciousness can live on after the brain and physical body of a human is destroyed. They are committed to the idea that the brain and a spiritual consciousness are independent, yet somehow linked.
In this post, I will argue against the plausibility of a spiritual human consciousness separate from the human brain. I will argue that the brain alone is responsible for a person's identity, personality, and behavior. After constructing a few informal philosophical arguments that rely on what I will refer to as "brain-dependence"(hereafter, BD) and conclude that the existence of a spiritual consciousness separate from the brain is implausible, I will describe and give examples for BD.
Question: Does Religiosity Correlate Strongly to Charity?
Kaffinator gave us two questions in the comments section, which I am dealing with separately. One deals with health and religion, while the other deals with charity and religion.
Question 2:
Again, we ought to examine Kaffinator's premise for veracity before accepting his conclusion.
Question 2:
Mr. Atheist, if you had your wish and all of the Christians in the United States suddenly joined you, the result would be that many charities would starve for funds. Other charities, schools, local governments, and other volunteer-based organizations would suffer as well...
So here is my question. What kind of warped morality would wish this upon a nation?
Again, we ought to examine Kaffinator's premise for veracity before accepting his conclusion.
I Will Be Debating Dinesh D'Souza
I have been given a formal invitation to debate Dinesh D'Souza on Feburary 10th at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It's now official. The topic of the debate is this: Does the God of Christianity Exist? Dinesh will take the affirmative and I the negative. As you'd guess, I'm excited.
A Description of the Problem of Evil
Victor Reppert offered a great description of the problem of evil Here:
The problem is as old as Socrates’ Euthyphro. If...."good” must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that “Good” in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of Christianity goes by the boards. - Victor Reppert.
I've already commented on the Euthyphro dilemna Here.
First posted 2/1/06
The problem is as old as Socrates’ Euthyphro. If...."good” must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that “Good” in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of Christianity goes by the boards. - Victor Reppert.
I've already commented on the Euthyphro dilemna Here.
First posted 2/1/06
Why Are There So Many Disputes Between Bible Believers?
I want to highlight the problem of the huge differences between Evangelical Christians who believe the Bible is God's Word [The question concerning who or what is an Evangelical is vague, even though they have convened lectureships to help decide who or what is one]. I mean, come on, here are Christian people who claim to believe the Bible is divine guidance for all of life, ethics, and salvation. They claim atheists do not have such a standard and that theirs is firm as a rock. With such a standard you’d actually think that Christians all over the world would see things fairly uniformly, whether it’s the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Black Southern Churches; whether it’s the Lutheran Church of Germany, or Roman Catholics of Italy; whether it’s the Episcopal Church in England, or the Amish in Northern Indiana. There are Methodists, Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ Churches, Reformed Churches, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Assemblies of God, and a host of smaller groups including many groups that some others would call cults, like the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Moonies.
The Flood Story of Genesis 6-9
A universal Flood couldn't have happened for so many reasons that I don't know where to start. Let's start with the story itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)