The Power of the Delusion

I argue that the more often Christians are forced into arguing their faith is merely possible in the face of contrary evidence, rather than probable, then the less likely their faith is true. Every time they do this they are explaining the evidence away by admitting the evidence does not support what they believe. Probability is what matters.

When we take an inventory of the times Christians argue that the evidence supports their faith, and compare them to the times where they are forced into explaining the evidence away, we find something very interesting. Most of the evidence they claim supports their faith doesn’t actually support their particular faith. It is only consistent with their particular faith. The same evidence can be used by other believers to support their faiths too. And of the remaining so-called supportive evidence, at some point along the way Christians must play either the Faith Trump Card or use the Omniscience Escape Clause, or both. That’s all they’ve got when it comes to supporting their particular faith. The rest of what they do is to explain the contrary evidence away by claiming it's still possible to believe despite that evidence.

So in the end, Christians demand that I prove their faith is impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, since most of their arguments are possibility ones rather than probability ones. This demand of theirs allows them to believe in the midst of many powerful arguments to the contrary. But it's an utterly unreasonable demand. That's the power of their delusion.

Daylight Atheism did a parody of what I'm talking about ;-)

Let the Mystery Be, Why Conclude More Than the Evidence Calls For?

Quote of the Day, by Jerry Coyne

If, as liberal theologians tell us, the “necessary” evils of this world are exactly what God would produce given his penchant for human free will and for physical “freedom” like the movement of tectonic plates, then would a nicer world disprove the God Hypothesis? Don’t hold your breath, for the nature of the God Hypothesis is that no observation could ever disprove it. That’s why it’s not scientific at all, and why religion and science will never find an amiable concordat. Link.

Site of the Day, Clergy Gone Wild

Enjoy. What does this prove?

I'll Be Less Active Here This Month

I'm involved the copy-editing phase of my anthology, The End of Christianity, and I'm teaching an online class on What is Atheism? for the CFI Institute. I'm pumped. For now use the comments below for anything you wish to argue. Don't get crazy on me. ;-) I'll be in and out.

Are Christian Apologetics Getting Better and Better?

That's what I heard William Lane Craig say (although I can't remember where). I think the truth lies elsewhere. Christian apologists have been forced into gerrymandering around the evidence against their faith, that's what has happened. And yes, they do this very well. So it sounds like they're getting better only to the deluded. Take for instance the scientific mysteries of today, like the puzzle of quantum mechanics, the physics of black holes, the possibility of wormholes, the possibility of life on another planet, of the multiverse theory, and so on. I think it's just that science has created a greater number of new mysteries that they are in the process of solving, for one thing. Back a thousand years they had mysteries to solve too, but they pale in comparison to the number of gigantic mysteries today. And faith always finds a foothold in mystery. The point is that it was science, not faith, that solved the mysteries of the past, and it's science, not faith, that has opened up the number of new and greater mysteries today. What do you think?

Quote of the Day, by Russ

If Bible-god was real wouldn't it know best how I would accept its reality? If it was real wouldn't its message be free to anyone and everyone? So why does it send it's message through people we have to pay for it, the Christian clergy? If god was real it would speak to me with full understanding of what I know and understand; it wouldn't work in mysterious ways. It would be very clear and its actions would make its reality obvious. It amazes me that I'm told that Bible-god is my father, but everything I can know about him comes through third party clerics and theologians. If Bible-god was real, I would know because it would tell me, its son, in a way that I could understand and know was real.

The Anatomy of a Conversion: Richard Morgan, From Atheist to Christian

I read with some interest Richard Morgan's conversion to Christianity. I wanted to know how deeply committed he was as an atheist and what caused him to change his mind. I'd like to know more about him, but all we have is this article he wrote for a publication called The Monthly Record, beginning on page 8 and highlighted by several Christian websites. Morgan seems to have been a committed atheist, who was a frequent visitor on Richard Dawkin's site forum. There was a Christian guy named David Robertson who also posted there who was kind and thoughtful. And what he said and how he said it had an impact on Morgan, when everyone else there ridiculed this guy. Then for some reason the atheists began to belittle Morgan, perhaps because he was becoming sympathetic to David Robertson and his views. So Morgan defected to a theistic site where he encountered two questions that changed his life, as he tells us:

Read more »

Surprise, Evangelicals Are Divided!

Yep, see what it's about this time. Where is the Holy Spirit? Again it looks like he's failing to do his job. Par for the course. He should be fired! ;-)

Quote of the Day, by Bart Ehrman

Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books “pseudepigrapha.” Link. This is based on his book Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.

Quote of the Day, by Richard Swinburne on Faith ;-)

I suggest that, if the probability of the existence of God on someone’s evidence is not too low after adequate investigation, it would indeed be a best act to worship and repent before God. After all, if you receive a very expensive and much-desired present and it is unclear who has sent it, it would be bad not to write a very grateful letter to the person most likely to have sent it (even if it is not very likely that that person has sent it). You might express your gratitude in a conditional way (‘I’m assuming that you sent this’), but not to express any gratitude at all would be a bad thing. And if you have damaged the present, it would be bad not to apologize. A fortiori, if—although it is unclear who (if anyone) gave you life but the most likely candidate is a God—it would be very bad indeed not to express a very great amount of gratitude, and very considerable repentance.

--From the 2nd edition of Faith and Reason, page 223.

What's this about sending a letter to thank someone for a gift who is not very likely to have sent it, but the most likely to have done so? What's that mean? What does it mean to think the probability is "not too low"? How low can you go? Is this considered good apologetics? Oh, and one more thing, since we're talking about god here, which one? Usually believers will just conclude that they should thank the culturally dominant one. ;-)

Dr. Mano Singham on Why Atheism is Winning

I met Professor Singham in my travels recently. He is a delightful man. We traded books. He has a great deal to share and I look forward to reading his blog as often as I can. He has written eleven blog posts on why atheism is winning that I think are great (seen in reverse chronological order). In his concluding post he writes:

Why atheism is winning is because when a belief structure has no empirical basis, it only survives by everyone agreeing to maintain the illusion that it makes sense. It is the emperor's new clothes syndrome. But such beliefs are highly prone to sudden collapse as soon as it begins to be pointed out that there is nothing there. Once a tipping point is reached, changes in unsupported beliefs (whether it be god or racism and homophobia) can occur very rapidly.

The communication revolution, in addition to spreading the ideas of modernity to an ever-widening audience, will create a greater awareness, especially among young people, that one's religious beliefs are largely a product of where one is born and brought up, and not because they are self-evidently true.. Once you give up the idea that your own religion is obviously true, it is a short step to not viewing religion as a source of truth at all.

On the level of simply ideas, religion is losing because fewer are converting into religion than are converting out, especially amongst the young. That is the demographic time bomb that is going to doom religion

Religion is clearly on the defensive partly because the new atheists have taken the arguments against god out of the academic and philosophical and theological arenas and put them out in the public sphere and into the hands of ordinary people, and they are able to confront believers much more confidently.

My Interview With "Think Atheist Radio Show"

I was told the interview will air at 5 PM PST (or 8 PM EST) today. I have the honor of being their first guest. This is where you will find the episode. Enjoy.

Professor Matt McCormick's Morality Test for God

If a human did what God is allegedly doing right now, would we consider that a morally good action?...If God is good, then why doesn’t he do the things that we consider to be good?...The failure of God on the morality test gives us strong prima facie evidence against God’s existence that weighs heavily against these alleged independent grounds. Link

Sooooo, we have The Outsider Test, The Morality Test, and The Defeasibility Test. Faith fails!

Leaving Amish Paradise

There are so many lessons here about the mind of the believer. Enjoy.

A Challenge to Theists

Great Reading While I'm Away

I'll be back Sunday but in the meantime some of the best stuff here at DC is from Dr. Hector Avalos and Dr. Jaco Gericke. (On Hector's posts click at the bottom of the first page for "Older Posts" to see more). Enjoy and comment below at will.

The Thing That Made the Things for Which There is No Known Maker

Surely this can make us all laugh, right?

Time For Some Fun

Fun Bible Questions, by my friend Matt Hensley:

So, I thought I would help John with his blog and add a little humor today. I mean let’s face it: It’s been WAYYYY to serious around here lately. So I put together a list of fun questions to ask about the Bible. Feel free to cut loose and answer them in a fun way. After all, even super serious all knowing Atheists like us need to cut loose a little, right? Here we go:

Read more »

"Christianity is Not Great": My New Proposed Book is Taking Shape

Yes, we're pretty excited. Check it out. It'll be a humdinger. ;-)

Poll on The Tea Party and Religion

It must be Poll day here at DC!

...they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues. And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants. Link

Notice the distinction between white and minority evangelicals? There is one, most definitely.

How Religious is Your State?

Check this out and then get busy! ;-)

"Religion May Become Extinct in Nine Nations, Study Says"

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers. The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation. Link

The countries? Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

"America Becoming Less Christian, Survey Finds"

America is a less Christian nation than it was 20 years ago, and Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether, a survey published Monday found. Link

In searching for this poll I'm having a bit of trouble. Perhaps it's this one done by the Pew Forum called U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. See what you think. One conclusion is that it's more socially acceptable than ever to admit having no religion.

A Few Observations About Evangelicalism

I know beyond a shadow of doubt that evangelical (or conservative) Christianity is wrong, false, and that only deluded people think otherwise. I have to be. For I'm risking their particular hellfire, so to speak. Almost everyone agrees with me too. Global religious diversity shows us this. Even among people claiming to be Christians most of them are not evangelicals. Evangelicalism is a small slice of the religious pie, and even they have disputes between themselves over who are true Christians, so for them it's even a smaller slice of the pie. These are all well-known facts from which we can make a few observations.

Read more »

One of the Most Asinine Christian Claims I've Heard

It's claimed that people like Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Harris don't know enough to reject Christianity. How much should a person know about a religion or the various branches of it in order to reject it? Really. I'd like to know. These very Christians do not know much about other branches of their own religion, so how can they reject them? And they do not know much about the various other religions around the world or the branches within them, so how can they reject them? Most Christians do not know enough about their own religion! All a person has to do to reject their own inherited religion is to subject it to the same level of skepticism they use when rejecting all other religions. This represents The Outsider Test for Faith I argue for. Just think what Christians are saying. They're saying that in order to reject any given religion a person must know a lot about it. How much, I ask? Should we spend our lives getting doctorates in them one by one? How reasonable is that? How long would it take to learn enough about all religions in order to reject them all? Wouldn't Jesus himself be opposed to granting salvation only to people who knew a lot about the religions of the world? Wouldn't he be opposed to the idea that human beings must gain the proper amount of knowledge that Christians require in order to find the correct one, if there is one? Didn't Jesus come for the lowly, the outcasts, and the babes? Such inconsistency knows no bounds. No wonder my claim is that Christians demand that we prove their faith is impossible before they will see it as improbable.

Upcoming Events: I'll Be Speaking in Louisiana, Ohio, and New York

I spoke at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette last week. This Thursday, March 24th, I'll be speaking for the CFI of Northeast Ohio, then on Friday the 25th for the CFI of Amherst, New York, then I'll be speaking at the CFI group at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH on the 26th. I hope to see some of you at one of these events.

CFI Memo: "E Pluribus Unum" Rather Than "In God We Trust"

As you may have heard, religious conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives have introduced a divisive and disrespectful resolution "reaffirming" In God We Trust as the national motto....This obvious ploy to divide the nation along religious lines is utterly shameful. It excludes the millions of American non-believers, as well as the millions of Americans of minority religions that do not believe in a monotheistic god. The resolution also distracts Congress's attention from the many pressing national issues confronting it.

Congress only adopted "In God We Trust" as the national motto in 1956, when American leaders sought to distinguish the United States from the communist Soviet Union. By invoking belief in a monotheistic divinity, however, Congress divided the American populace along religious lines by reinforcing the outsider status of the nation's many nonbelievers, as well as members of minority religions that do not recognize a monotheistic god (including, for example, Buddhists and Hindus). Polls show that 16% of Americans have no religious identity, while over 40 million Americans do not identify with the motto's monotheistic God.

A far better motto for the nation is the Latin motto adopted in 1782 as part of the national seal: "E Pluribus Unum," or "Out of many, one." America's original motto accurately describes the nation as a unity comprising people from many religious perspectives. Link

"A" Week is This Week

Tell others you’re an atheist and proud of it this week. Start some discussions with people about your atheism.

A Week is not about being disrespectful to religion or people who have religious views, it’s about quietly showing that there are more people than may be realised who are ‘Good without God’ and who don’t need religion to influence their lives. Link

My Interview With Minnesota Atheists

Enjoy

Why Are You An Atheist?

Jerry Coyne asked a good starter question so let me repeat it here:

Why are you an atheist? Does it have anything to do with a lack of evidence for god, or are there other factors involved?

Link

Quote of the Day, by The Maverick Jester

It was one of my children that pushed me toward atheism. He did something that I didn't approve. In the bible, we learn that if one of god's children disappoints him and refuses to beg for forgiveness, he sends them to an eternity of torture. Until that incident with my son, I didn't understand how insane the concept of hell was. Never would I want my son to suffer. He could spit on me or hate me and I would still seek his good. There is nothing that he could do that would make me want him to be tortured forever-or even a minute. Once I began to question god about hell, I began to question him about everything. I didn't want to ask questions. I wanted to believe. But once the ball started rolling, I couldn't stop it. Link

And the Winner is...James McGrath

There is a clear winner for my T-Shirt slogan contest with the most votes, and it's James F. McGrath. His slogan: "Atheists: Disbelieving in gods without getting struck by lightning for more than 2000 years." He said he would like to blog his way through the book by Earl Doherty that I'll send him. I look forward to that. There were many other great slogans. The ones I liked the best are below, and I may use a few of them on my shirts:

Read more »

Why I Am Not a Christian

You can read essays with this title on the Secular Web from Richard Carrier, Graham Oppy, Keith Parsons, Ken Daniels, and myself. Enjoy.

A World Without Atheists

A nice short video...

Read more »

Quote of the Day, by Russ

Simply being able to imagine something is no reason to think that it's possible for it to exist. All gods so far are imaginary. You are forced to agree with me that all gods are imaginary with you taking exception only for your particular incarnation of a Christian god. But, your god is no more real than Rama or Vishnu or Thor. Until it can be shown that a god, any god, can do something there is no reason to think it's even possible for one to exist. Until we can see a god acting on its own rather than being credited with things achieved by other means, we are fully justified in treating them like we treat trolls and flying dragons: they are the stuff of myth. Link

Let's Talk Turkey About the Evidence for Christianity

Tell me if I'm missing something. It's time to sum up the evidence for Christianity and see what it is.

Read more »

About.com Reader's Choice Awards Are Now Posted

The Christian Delusion was chosen as the Best Atheist Book of 2010. To see other choices in other categories click on the image in the sidebar to the right, or the one below:

Read more »

Quote of the Day

When people quote the bible at me, they may as well be telling me they're crazy. It probably has the same effect as people quoting the Quo'ran, Book of Mormon, or Dianetics at me-- or even the Big Book of Greek Myths-- or casting a spell upon me. I think it's crazy that people believe in magic books in the 21st century. -- articulett

Another Mark of a Deluded Person

[Written by John Loftus] Previously I wrote on the Ten Marks of a Deluded Person. Here's another one. Many Christians treat skeptics like me as if we are enemies to be debated rather then fellow human beings interested in the truth. That is surely one of the marks of a brainwashed or deluded person too. Dr. Randal Rauser in his book, You're Not As Crazy As I Think, would seem to agree. Rauser: "The single most effective way to protect a core set of ideological claims from critical introspection is by positing a simplistic binary opposition between two sides while placing the views we seek to protect on the correct or true side and all views hostile to the core ideology on the incorrect side." (p. 58) "For too long we have objectified the dissenting voice at the other end of the battlefield as nothing more than a target of conquest." (p. 12) However, "The real person of truth is one who expresses a genuine willingness to listen to the other as as equal conversation partner." (p. 8) As a corrective to this Rauser endorses a resolution "...to engage with the other--the liberal, the Dawinist, the animal rights activist, and the atheist--as an equal partner in dialogue and so to treat each one as a person we can learn from and need to listen to." (p. 11)

God and The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)

Christian, if your faith does not meet the skeptical standard of the OTF then people who are born into different cultures cannot be rationally convinced to believe by virtue of being raised in their respective cultures as outsiders. Don’t tell me people in the Southern Hemisphere are converting. That’s not the point. The point is that God had to make Christianity pass the OTF, and if that’s so, why kick against the goads? Why not apply its standard against what you were raised to believe? Examine your own faith with the same level of skepticism you use when examining the other religious faiths you reject.

A Shirt Slogan Contest For a Free Copy of Earl Doherty's Book

Some generous person sent me Earl's book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus. Since I already had a copy of it I'm going to send this $40 book via Media Mail to the person within the US who comes up with the best shirt slogan (front side only). A friend of mine will design it just as he did for my Outsider Test for Faith shirt, which can be seen and bought right here. I'll be the final judge of the winner but I'll take into consideration any slogan that receives a high number of "Like" clicks next to it, so be sure to vote even if you don't suggest a slogan yourself. I'm looking for one that people will actually buy and wear.

The Delusional Mind At Work

[Written by John Loftus] Let's take a look at what a Christian named fonsoc wrote:

One of us is wrong. You can prove me wrong when you can prove the non-existence of God and let me know where the very first cell came from at the base of Darwin's tree. I have never heard on credible answer to that question yet. You will know that I am right or wrong after you die. We will all die someday - and there is no argument against that. I am not just guessing, I am sure that there is life on the other side of death because of my personal relationship with God. I don't have to wait until I die to see that. He has given me that assurance in the here and now. Link.

Read more »

Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne

Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about the details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. - Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True

For more see the DC Evolution Smackdown.

I'll Be Speaking on "The Christian Delusion" in Lafayette, Louisiana

This event is organized by the University of Louisiana-Lafayette Philosophy Club. It'll take place Thursday, March 17, from 5-8 PM in room 522n of Griffin Hall. See campus map. I'll not be as active here as I prepare and while I'm gone.

I No More Worship Science As I Do My Wife

The deluded mind of a believer says I worship science. What utter buffoonery! I no more do so than I worship my wife, although I trust her implicitly. I do not pray to her in hopes that by waving her magic wand she will grant my requests, nor do I light votive candles to her, nor do I build expensive cathedrals in her name and evangelize people to join me once a week to sing her praises, nor do I accept everything she says without evidence since sometimes she's wrong, nor do I read with devotion what she has written, nor will I pray to her when she dies, nor do I have any hope of being with her in heaven, nor will people be sent by her to hell if they think otherwise. No wonder skeptics think believers are brainwashed. No wonder many skeptics are adopting the Courtier's Reply in responding to believers. If believers actually think this then there is nothing left to do but laugh! ;-) And I'm serious! Point. Get. The.

Devastating Tsunami Hits Japan. You Want Evidence There Isn't a Good Omnipotent God? Here it is.

Here it is. Try explaining this rather than explaining it away.

I'll Be Teaching an Online Class for CFI on "What is Atheism?"

Yep, this will take place in April with Dr. John Shook, see announcement below:

Read more »

People Don’t Know When They’re Lying to Themselves

I've said these kinds of things before but I need to say them again and again and again, this time in reference to two notorious people in the headlines. The lesson of Muammar Gaddafi and Charlie Sheen is that they're lying to themselves and don't know it. They've convinced themselves they are right. But then, this is what we as human do, most all of us. It takes a special kind of skepticism to stop ourselves from doing this. And this applies equally when it comes to our religious debates. My claim is that Christians are delusional. They simply believe despite the overwhelming evidence against their faith. They are in denial just like Gaddafi and Sheen. We can see it plainly in others. What we cannot do is see the same thing in ourselves. So I'm against faith-based reasoning, which is best defined as "belief in search of data." Gaddafi and Sheen have a belief in themselves so they have found the relevant data and convinced themselves they are in the right. You cannot convince them otherwise. That makes skepticism, an adult attitude, a virtue. So I won't believe anything for which there isn't good solid evidence for it. And I won't believe anything for which there are no reasonable answers to basic questions. What's not to understand about this?

Read more »

Plantinga’s Latest EAAN Refuted, by Dr. Stephen Law

Here's the money quote:

Read more »