Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural

A Christian commented on a recent post having to do with how science could know the supernatural:

Let's posit for a moment that the supernatural does exist. It then follows that science, which by definition focuses on the natural, would have absolutely no means to measure it or detect it. It could thus never serve as a method and no scientific protocol could ever be established to rule it out, regardless of how real the supernatural would be.

Oh my gosh, believers have just pawned us god-hating atheists now, haven't they? *Throws in the towel in defeat.* Wait, on second thought, this is utter hogwash and it should be easily seen. So here goes.

Peter Boghossian's Challenge to William Lane Craig

If you want to know why I think William Lane Craig is deluded rather than dishonest, as atheists who lack a basic understanding of the deluded mind claim, it's because of this video:



To hear what might be considered a response to Craig, although not intended as such, watch Peter Boghossian's talk at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) National Convention:

Superstition by Robert Ingersoll, Part 4 the Conclusion

This final part was sent to me by my friend Julian Haydon. Enjoy. If you want to learn more about Ingersoll get Susan Jacoby's new book The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought.

Lindsay's Book Delivers the Goods With Both Knowledge and Passion

If I were to write a blurb for Dr. James A. Lindsay’s God Doesn't; We Do: Only Humans Can Solve Human Challenges,it would be,

This book offers a passionate and erudite set of important challenges to people of faith, complete with a nice touch of humor and a sense of urgency that we don’t see often in similar books by intellectuals. In it most readers will find some fresh arguments that provoke thought and deserve our attention. Unlike the four "New Atheists" Lindsay, who holds degrees in physics and a Ph.D. in mathematics, understands Christian theology much better than they do. In the end, Lindsay is correct; God doesn’t do anything because he doesn’t exist. Only we can solve our problems.

Lindsay has a blog where he sums up his wonderful book:

Dr. David Heddle, "Shit Happens"

Dr. David Heddle, an associate professor of physics and the Chair of the Mathematics Department at Christopher Newport University, has recently been dogging my steps. He's a Christian. As far as I know he has not read any of my books. He seems to like me better than some other critics, saying, "John Loftus is a much easier to take (I mean that as a genuine compliment) critic of Christianity (and, by leaps and bounds, a far better writer) than the detestable Richard Carrier." That's nice, I guess, even though for every person who might say this, another would say it's the exact reverse. Oh well, you can't piss off everyone after all, even though I try at times. Let's see what he thinks of me when I'm done here. I just cannot let Richard have all the glory. ;-)

What brings Heddle to say "shit happens" has to do with my comment regarding last month's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where I wrote:

In a godless universe shit happens without rhyme nor reason. Life is predatory from the ground up. Creatures eat one another by trapping unsuspecting victims in unusual ways, launching surprise attacks out of the blue, and hunting in packs by overpowering prey with brute force and numbers. Sometimes a creature just goes wacko for no reason at all. Humans are not exempt. Sometimes the wiring in our brains goes haywire and we snap. We too are violent and we inherited this trait from our animal predecessors. We also show care and concern to our kith and kin but we can lash out in horrific ways at what we consider an uncaring world.

Heddle actually agrees, saying I am

Is Evolution a "Belief," or is it "Knowledge"?

I've heard many times, especially from scientists, that scientists don't "believe" evolution, they "know" it. I think this involves a bit of terminological confusion, and I think this confusion is bad for the overall discussion about evolution in the public arena. In this article, I'll briefly discuss why scientists do indeed believe in evolution and, in the process, say a few things about the nature of (religious) faith and its relation to knowledge.

Tiger & Gibbon, A Funny Act

NFL Football, I Love It!

But since the Colts didn't progress to the Super Bowl and the season is almost over, take this:

A Challenge to Christian Apologists, by J.M. Green

Look, debates are all well and good, but being such fervent supporters of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God, why not settle things the good, old-fashioned biblical way?

"Here it Comes" My Book is Going to Print Today

This clip from "The Wrath of Khan" expresses my thoughts as I ponder the impact of my book, The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True:

On Justifying the Use of Ridicule and Mockery

Hey, I KNOW Christians don't like being mocked. I get that. So it's no surprise they would object to it by saying it doesn't cause them to change their minds, that it makes them dig their heels in deeper, and that it just makes them think less of the one doing the mocking. You would expect them to say this. The facts however are different. Ridicule and mockery have been very effective in any cultural war and they will forever be effective and necessary, despite Jeffrey Jay Lowder, the lone atheist holdout.

Professor Keith Parsons joins with others in advocating ridicule. He advocates this as one response to fundamentalism. He writes:

“A single belly-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms” said H.L. Mencken. Fundamentalism and fundamentalists should be ridiculed in the media, by comedians, or wherever. You don’t have to worry about fairness, since, as Poe’s Law famously notes, no satire can possibly be more absurd than the real thing. Come on. You just can’t come up with anything more ridiculous than someone who honestly thinks that all human woes stem from an incident in which a talking snake accosted a naked woman in a primeval garden and talked her into eating a piece of fruit. Again, most ridicule would consist of pointedly drawing attention to what they really believe. Nothing could be fairer than that. As a sign admonished on The Simpsons, put the fun back in fundamentalism. Laugh it to death. LINK.

It's not just the so-called "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and PZ Myers who advocate ridicule. I do too (see below). So does Richard Carrier, as does Stephen Law. Keep in mind we don't advocate this as the only response.

Craig, the Kalam, and Quantum Indeterminacy

William Lane Craig, as we all know, is an apologist with a predilection for the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which goes like this:

1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2) The universe has a beginning of its existence;
C) Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.

The point I want to make today is about quantum indeterminacy. This is the notion that, at the quantum, microscopic level, things could be indeterminate, or 'uncaused'. This potentially invalidates the first premise.

Why the Classification of Christianity as a Disease is Necessary

First, let’s established an objective definition:

Disease: 1. An abnormal condition of an organism or part, especially as a consequence of infection, inherent weakness, or environmental stress, that impairs normal physiological functioning. 2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful. (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2ed. 1985)

My Inaugural Speech, On the State of the Case for Christianity

Ladies and gentlemen, dignitaries and non-dignitaries, believers and nonbelievers, I am honored to briefly speak to you tonight on the inaugural of my next year's term as president and owner of this blog. About seven years ago, almost to the day, I started this Blog. Each year you have reelected me to another term. I have posted something about 1.5 times a day ever since. I have fought many battles with both believers and nonbelievers in order to stay on track with my goal of debunking Christianity in all of its forms. It's been very time consuming but very rewarding work. You already know my goals and what I have to offer, and you also know I have critics on both sides of these debates, but you still reelected me for yet another term here at DC, for which I am very grateful.

So my heartfelt thanks goes out to the various writers who have been team members at DC over the years, most notably Hector Avalos, Harry McCall, and more recently Jonathan Pearce. Thanks also to my readers for seven years of comments and debate, especially my peeps, including the amazing and indefatigable articulett, also a team member. You have helped to make this blog one of the top places to discuss the best arguments for and against Christianity. This means a great deal to me personally. Without you I would've thrown in the towel a long time ago out of fatigue, discouragement and/or financial ruin.

Part 3 of 4 "Superstition" by Robert Ingersoll

Sent to me by Julian Haydon, enjoy:

Just How Human Was Jesus?, by J.M. Green

Johnnie Moore, vice president at Liberty University, writes of how he astounded his colleagues by suggesting that Jesus may have stopped to take a crap by the side of the road, on the way to Jerusalem. Granted, he didn’t use the word ‘crap’ but more provocatively, he also posited that Jesus may even have suffered the ravages of diarrhea. His article goes on to point out that Christians often don’t think of Jesus as fully human. I would heartily agree.

Now I suppose that Professor Moore’s musings might seem edgy and possibly even blasphemous to the average evangelical fundamentalist, but I would like to suggest that he is playing it way too safe.

Richard Carrier on the Argument From the Scale of the Universe

For what it's worth, at least I'm not the only one who thinks Jeff Lowder's arguments don't work against my particular case. Here's Carrier from page 290 of my anthology, The End of Christianity:

An Open Letter to Jeffery Jay Lowder

Lowder and I are at odds with each other. I don't like it. He may not either. But we are. Perhaps he's liking the attention. I, however, don't need it. People who don't blog have no idea how that by using Ads it increases the desire for more hits, but it does. In a few recent posts and comments I have repeatedly said I respect Lowder. Not once has he said that of me. So let me use Lowder as a potential example of how badly people reason, all of us, and how that ulterior motivations can cloud our judgments. Then I'll issue a challenge to him.

Sadly for Christians, The Bible’s Theology is Nothing More Than Warmed-Over Ancient Myths

The irony of this is perhaps best noted in the Hebrew Bible itself:

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1: 9)

I have selected two books dealing with ancient Sumerian and Akkadian myths dating back over 2,000 years BCE as recycled in New Testament .

The Monster Upstairs, by J.M. Green

On August 29th, 1984, Austrian Josef Fritzl drugged his eighteen- year-old daughter Elisabeth and imprisoned her in a secret dungeon beneath his home. Over the next twenty-four years, he physically and sexually abused her. Repeated rapes resulted in one miscarriage and the birth of seven children. The details of this nightmarish and horrific story can be read here. The indomitable human spirit and will to survive, under the most extreme circumstances is truly amazing. When one of her daughters became ill and had to be hospitalized, Elisabeth managed to convince her father to allow her out of her subterranean prison. Shortly thereafter, the truth was uncovered and Josef was arrested.

Jesus' Crucifixion: It Could Have Been Worse

Like so many around the world, I've been deeply saddened by the unfathomable, horrific gang rape that recently occurred in India. After the initial shock wore off, I got to thinking once again about how much worse Jesus' suffering and death, as described in the Gospels, could have been. I have a brief discussion about this at the end of A Crisis of Faith -- it's a point that I've heard few atheists make, but it seems to me quite compelling.[1]

Richard Carrier, James Lindsay, on the OTF

Richard Carrier writes:

James Lindsay has been doing some great blogging on how to apply Bayesian reasoning to model John Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith (or OTF).

Formulating and extensively defending the OTF is Loftus’ greatest contribution to the philosophy of religion and atheism. His best and most thorough treatment appears as chapter four in The Christian Delusion (a book I always recommend anyway as it contains lots of great chapters by great authors; and two by me). He is writing a whole book on it now. It should be out this year (I’ve seen advanced drafts and it’s good; I’ll blog it when you can buy it). The OTF is featured at Iron Chariots (which provides examples of looser expressions of the concept throughout history) and Loftus discusses it often at Debunking Christianity.

The basic idea is that you can only have a rational faith if you test it by the same standards you apply to all other competing faiths; yet when you do that, your religion tests as false as the others, and the same reasons you use to reject those become equally valid reasons to reject yours. Though this idea has been voiced before, Loftus is the first to name it, rigorize it, and give it an extensive philosophical defense; moreover, by doing so, he is the first to cause a concerted apologetic to arise attempting to dodge it, to which he could then respond. The end result is one of the most effective and powerful arguments for atheism there is. It is, in effect, a covering argument that subsumes all other arguments for atheism into a common framework. Link

Stephen Law On the Use of Mockery

[Redated, originally posted on 10/31/12] I really recommend Dr. Law's book, Believing Bullshit. In it he lays out eight key strategies that immunize believers in weird things from rational criticism by creating "a veneer of faux reasonableness." Number 6 is pseudoprofundity, which is "the art of sounding profound while taking nonsense." One of the most effective methods of disarming pseudoprofundity "is to translate what is said into plain English...clarity is likely to unmask them." Mockery and satire can have a role to play too. He writes:

How the Gospel of Luke Transformed Jesus’ Spoiled Brat Image

In the earliest Synoptic Gospel of Mark 11: 12 - 13 ( = Matt. 21: 18 – 22) we are informed that, after leaving Bethany with his disciples, a hungry Jesus sees a fig tree in the distance. Jesus (followed by his disciples) makes a beeline to it thinking he’s going to get some tasty figs for lunch. But ironically, this all knowing Son of God has screwed up big time! The fig tree has no delicious figs to feed his ravenous appetite; but only leaves. Mark even amplifies Jesus’ mistake in noting that: Hey, it’s not the season for figs, Jesus (you dummy)!

Quote of the Day On Christian Logic, by Steven Carr

For a long time Carr was focused on arguments for a mythical Jesus. It was his one note song. I am so happy to report he's using his wit and intelligence on other issues. A Christian recently said we atheists cannot condemn anything or anyone. Here is how Carr responded, that it's

A bit like somebody saying that, as nobody can say that passing plays in football are more effective than running plays (football plays are a matter of subjective opinion), you are in no position to condemn a quarterback who fumbles the ball on every play. After all, if one coach likes one system, and another coach likes another system, neither can condemn a linebacker who never makes a single tackle.

Richard Dawkins On Religion

On How to Answer a Presuppositionalist

Tim Shaughnessy is posting at DC a one note song. It doesn't matter what tune we sing, his song remains the same:

Christianity only has ONE presupposition. We presuppose the truth of the bible. God and his word cannot be divorced and are synonymous with one another so we could also say that we presuppose the God of the bible as true.

Okay then, let's sing this note. Let's presuppose the Bible and the God in it, yes! But let's first understand the Bible and the God in it. Q.E.D.

World Distribution of Religion and Science

The following two maps have been placed in the Appendix of my book, The Outsider Test for Faith:

The 2015 Debunking Christianity Challenge

Seven years ago I challenged Christians to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge and I've been doing so ever since. Just like previous years I'm proposing twelve reasonably priced college level books to read, one per month. You can read them in any order you like but read them!

My challenge is for Christians to read our books and test their faith to see if it can withstand our arguments. As I have argued most believers do not seriously question their faith. Do you want to be different than other believers? Do you want to do what most of them don't do? Then take the 2013 DC Challenge. I challenge you! Hey, what do you have to lose? If the books cause you to become stronger in your faith that's good, right? But if your faith cannot survive our assault then we've done you a favor. No more soundbites. No more reading one blog post at a time. Sit down for yourselves and read through whole books written by the skeptics.

Jeff Lowder is the Devil in Disguise

[Edited in November of 2015: Read the following link to see how my disputes with Jeffery Jay Lowder ended up. I finally came to the opinion that Jeff Lowder is a dishonest person and a hypocrite. Other posts of mine about him can be read by clicking on the tag "Lowder" below. I think people should beware of him. You can see these traits only partially in what I wrote in the post below. I know he appears to be a nice guy. But appearances are deceiving. He's not. He will step on people to get his way. I never expected how true it was to say Lowder is the devil in disguise. He disguises himself for the purposes of almost pure self-promotion and financial gain. It took a personal conflict between us for me to see who he really is, but sometimes it takes that when someone such as he disguises himself so well as to persuade intellectuals that his motives are pure and that he's their equal when he is not.]

Jeff Lowder has been dogging my steps so to speak, first by commenting on Vincent Torley's response to a post of mine, saying: "It seems to me that Torley clearly has the upper hand in this exchange so far. As a debate judge, I would 'flow' the entire 'debate' to Torley up to this point." What exchange? An exchange demands a response then counter-response. Up until that point I had merely written one blog post. And just as I counter-responded that Torley couldn't even read, neither could Lowder. What gives? Now he's over at Randal Rauser's blog playing the "devil's advocate" against me. Let me state for the record that I despise the devil and his advocates. The devil should advocate for himself.

So I want to respond to Lowder and issue an open challenge to him. Victor Reppert once placed my approach between the extremes of PZ Myers (a new angry atheist) and Jeff Lowder (an old respectful atheist). I think Reppert is right. I am the golden mean between two extremes. I'm golden ya see. ;-) And I want to pull Lowder in my direction in what follows.

John and Charles Wesley on “the lesser Breeds” (Indians and Negroes)

While moving my library, I came across a booklet containing the 1987 lecture for the Inaugurating of The LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professorship of Religious Studies at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga by Professor Thor Hall (PhD, Duke University) entitled Tradition Criticism: A New View of Wesley

Does the Size of the Universe Lead to Atheism?

Take a look at this video posted by Randal Rauser, who argues that the size of the universe does not lead to atheism:

How do you solve a problem like Herod?

I've been absent from here for some time. Let me re-enter the fray with a seasonally topical post. Over on a previous post and thread at SIN, one (Christian) commenter declared that the likes of JP Holding and Jason Engwer had basically dealt with all of the harmonisation issues within the context of the historical problems in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and their infancy accounts. I will now, as Randal Rauser did in our recent debate, refer to the accounts as M and L.

In my book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination, I did not really deal with the work of Holding and Engwer other than a few passing comments and a reference to Engwer in relation to the spectrum of Christian approaches to the exegesis of these accounts, from the literal and historic approach of Engwer (and Holding) to the more theological approach of scholars like Raymond Brown.

Engwer, on his Triablogue blog, carries many posts and articles which seek to solve the insoluble. I would like to look at the issue of Herod, and see what Derek, from the other thread, has to offer in rebuttal. So what are the issues with Herod, in the context of M and L.

With Mounting Debt and Declining Enrollment, Bob Jones University is Giving Up on God

Since 1948, the conservative Christian station in the Up State of SC has been Bob Jones University’s WMUU. The station’s call letters stood for World's Most Unusual University.

Superstition, Part 2 by Robert Ingersoll

As before, Julian Haydon is sending me these excellent excerpts. Enjoy.

On Leaving Christianity...All Religion

That was the title of an email from Casey S. Smith. With his permission here is what he wrote:

Since April 6th, 1997 I've been serving Christ. I have studied and visited just about every Church in Christendom. I went to Criswell Seminary for three years, studied Church History, but my main passion was textual criticism. However after almost 16 years of trying to find "The Truth" I'm done. There are apologists for every Christian denomination including those considered "cults" or "heresy". Every denomination says they have the truth using the same Bible. My question to you however is how does one live at peace or in tranquility without a God? What meaning does life have? Or worse, what if we're wrong and there is a resurrection and us "wicked" are separated from this loving God?

Sincerely: One who is scared and burnt out!
Mr. Casey S. Smith

I responded as follows.

Dr. Vincent Torley, Please Learn to Read!

I had previously argued that given a godless universe the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting is What We'd Expect Would Happen. Dr. Vincent Torley over at the Intelligent Design blog Uncommon Descent wrote a long response to it. Now it's my turn.

The Fallacy of Understated Evidence

Jeff Lowder has produced a helpful chart that illustrates Paul Draper's "fallacy of understated evidence." According to Draper, proponents of a theistic arguments are guilty of this fallacy if they "successfully identify some general fact about a topic that is antecedently more likely on theism than on naturalism, but they ignore more specific facts about the topic, facts that are more likely on naturalism than on theism. Check it out.

Christians Debunk Themselves! There's Nothing Left for Me To Do But Report What They Say!

What is there about ancient documents that can be interpreted in so many different ways by people who think they are divinely inspired? If Christians cannot agree with each other inside the house of faith, how can they possibly expect the textual evidence of the Bible to lead anyone outside the faith to accept the resurrection of Jesus? I recommend every Christian get all of the following books. Read them for yourselves. Opposing Christian scholars dismantle and effectively critique each others views leaving no reason to believe any of them. All. Get. Them. Now!

Happy New Year Everyone!

Here's to the people who made it into 2013 alive. A few of the ones who didn't make it fell short by just one day. At this time I like looking back into previous years, so you might start with CBS's review of 2012. It was a good year. It was a bad year. Aren't they all? Then to see other years in review click here and enjoy. I also like to predict what will take place this year in advance, so without further ado here are my predictions:

Sin: An Imaginary Problem with an Invented Solution

Picture right is the typical Salvation Gospel Tract found at bank ATM’s, left on tables at restaurants and ironically, in restrooms. This one was left under a wiper blade on my wife’s car at work by Freedom Baptist Church (as stamped on the back) located just a quarter mile from where she works.

The Irony of Faith And Serving God

Evangelist Dr. Oliver B. Green (Feb. 14, 1915 – July 26, 1976) was the president and founder of The Gospel Hour (still on many Christian stations today) who loved good fundamentalist Bible theology and defended the King James’ Version of Bible. Rev. Green preached solid Baptist's truth backed by eternal salvation for all true believers and eternal Hell fire for all non-believers. (I used to listen to him in the early ‘70s on my way to college where, as a Christian, I majored in Bible.) His website states:

What is Superstition? by Robert Ingersoll Part 1 of 4

Again I thank Julian Haydon for sending me these items from Ingersoll.

Lawrence Krauss on Caveman Common Sense

Prayer is NOT the Answer to Gun Violence

The Des Moines Register has published my latest editorial on the relationship of prayer to gun violence: Des Moines Register editorial.

Jerry Coyne on the Odd Couple: Why Science and Religion Shouldn't Cohabit

Why Randal Rauser is Impervious to Reason

To the left is a typical discussion with Dr. Randal Rauser on his blog (click to enlarge). It concerns how poorly he defended the historicity of the nativity narratives in the gospels against Jonathan Pearce. This isn't to deny he did a superior job of it, because he did. It's to say that at even at its very best this was a poor attempt. So I asked him why he really believes and you can see the result. At the end I linked to what he's doing, which can be found here.

Rauser is an epistemological solipsist just as I argued with regard to William Lane Craig, a second post of which can be read here. I had previously argued Rauser is impervious to reason. This is why. If anyone is living in a house of delusion they are. They are both impervious to reason. They are epistemological solipsists. I don't really care if they are, and I like them both, but so long as this is true I'll keep pointing it out to more reasonable people.

Too bad for Christianity if this represents its best defenders.

William Lane Craig, The Last Great Christian Apologist We'll Ever See!

The Trouble with Christmas

At this season let me leave you with some study material on Christmas.

For great reading on the history of Christmas see Thomas Flynn's book, Trouble with Christmas.
See also the Wikipedia Article on it. Check out Richard Carrier's essays on The Date of the Nativity, and The Problem of the Virgin Birth Prophecy at the Secular Web. Happy 25th!

Jonathan Pearce vs Randal Rauser Debate the Nativity Narratives

Jonathan Pearce debated Randal Rauser who co-wrote God or Godless?with me. They debated the historicity of the birth narratives found the gospels. The format was a 20 minute opening, 15 minute rebuttals, and so on. To the left is the amusing picture that Justin Schieber did at Reasonable Doubts, who hosted it. The link to the debate is right here! Jonathan writes at Skeptic Ink Network and wrote a good book on this topic: The Nativity: A Critical Examination.