Do Christians Worship the Same God As Muslims and Jews Do? The Larycia Hawkins Test Case

Jack Cottrell is a Christian professor and author of many books and articles. I know him personally as a professor within the Christian Church and Churches of Christ (non)-denomination of which I was a part of before my deconversion. I've run into a lot of defenders of Christianity like Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and others who have said what Cottrell disputes. They have said they worship the same god as Muslims do, by a different name. The aforementioned defenders do so to de-fang the bite of religious diversity. This is typical of what they say.

Well forget them all, Cottrell argues differently right here, and strange as it sounds I agree with him. Now enters Wheaton College, the college that is home to the Billy Graham Center for Evangelism. They agree with Cottrell since they're planning on firing professor Larycia Hawkins for saying Muslims and Christians worship the same God, what Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, and Randal Rauser have all said! Strange isn't it?

Perhaps Cottrell and Wheaton College are forgetting the problem of religious diversity which I stress, which these Christian defenders are responding to when making that claim? Religious diversity is real and deep and world-wide. To say they worship the same God helps minimize the problem of religious diversity but it's disingenuous coming from people who are not honest in defending their faith. To honestly admit they don't worship the same God raises the bar of religious diversity where it rightfully belongs. I see this as a stubborn dilemma Christians must face. Are they worshiping the same God, or not? If so, see what professor Cottrell says. If not, then admit the problem of religious diversity is real and deep and worldwide, and that it's a powerful defeater to the epistemology of a sect-specific Christian faith. Here is Paul K. Moser's response to this news:

Read more »

Phil Torres: "Is this how World War III begins? Religion, end times, terror and the frightening new Middle East tinderbox"

Phil Torres writes for DC and now also writes for Salon. This is his recent essay: LINK.

Political columnist H.A. Goodman, writer for The Baltimore Sun, The Hill, Salon, and Huffington Post explains in an article what the polls are missing in the current presidential race, and names who he believes will clearly win the next election.

I'm linking to an updated post that now includes a video discussion. In the video the claim is made that the millennials are under-represented by the polls when showing Hillary Clinton's poll numbers to be higher than Bernie Sanders's poll numbers. The fascinating thing is that land lines are used for these polls and pollsters call "likely voters." Those two factors alone disqualify them from being good measurements for which candidate is ahead in the polls, since millennials don't use landlines and historically they haven't voted very much, and yet they overwhelmingly support Sanders. Am I right or am I right? LINK.

David Marshall Not Only Lies, He's Mastered the Art Of Mischaracterization

Somebody Please Stop ME!! David Marshall has dogged my steps on at least a weekly basis for several years now. I don't do that with him. I have hardly ever commented on his blog and have not reviewed any of his books [Edit: Correction, I reviewed one of them, see comments below for explanation]. If it wasn't for the fact that Marshall dogs my steps (which means he thinks what I do is important), and that Christians believe whatever a person with a doctorate says about my books without reading them to know for themselves, and that Marshall somehow has earned a doctorate and asserts without being fully informed that they are bad, I could have saved 100's of hours by not responding to him. He's relentless and indefatigable. Surely he'll consider that a compliment. He's also stubborn, which can be a compliment. But he's also ignorant, deluded and even a liar for Jesus. He's like the proverbial sophomore in college, who has gained just enough knowledge to be overly confident in his intellectual acumen, but still ignorant and not know it. Or, someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. I dislike having to deal with the likes of him. But I must do so.

This is to preface what David Marshall is doing once again, reviewing my recently released book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.He's doing it on his blog and getting almost everything wrong. He did get it right that I wrote the book though. *Whew*

Read more »

David Marshall: Liar, Lunatic or Legend in His Own Mind? I Think I Know!

David Marshall is not your average bear. I have heard a few people I respect say there is something mentally wrong with Marshall. Not the usual delusionary stuff found among all believers to different degrees, which evangelicals have to the highest degree. Nope, something else is going on. What it is, hasn't been clear to me until now. I've wondered if it's because Marshall has lived in the Orient so long he thinks like an oriental person rather than an occidental one like ourselves [Readers can disambiguate these differences in the comments if they so desire]. He doesn't think like the rest of us, that's for sure. At the very least Marshall is another liar for Jesus, a person who is unjustifiably certain his faith is true and has mentally absorbed a whole host of lies as truths because of a false assumption he was raised to believe despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. With him the force is additionally strong, since there's no doubt he also suffers from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Maybe though, he's just a boldfaced unashamed liar?

Read more »

Quote of the Day On The Value of Philosophy

Philosophy revels in argument substitution, according to which, whenever there isn't sufficient evidence then philosophers can substitute an argument instead. This must stop. If there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, then an argument on behalf of one way or another is a waste of time. Making an argument without the requisite evidence is unnecessary and earns philosophy its recognized irrelevance and subsequently its derisiveness. Where there isn't sufficient evidence for an idea then a truly wise lover of truth would simply say "I don't know" and not write an article on it. It's this lack of authenticity among philosophers that galls so many non-philosophers, especially when believing philosophers muck up the discipline by writing in defense of their sect specific religious beliefs that by their very virtue have little or no evidence for them.

Happy New Years And Good Wishes to All

I hope the next year is better than the last year. I especially hope for the continuing secularization of the world. Place links and comment below on the the best of 2015, and with it the hopes you have for the future. Have at it. Hope is good.

Circle of Insight's Dr. Carlos Vazquez Interviews Me

If the video below doesn't work here is the link.

Quote of the Day By Kenneth Winsmann In Defense of Lil 'O Me

Kenneth Winsmann responded to a really bad post objecting to the arguments in my book. With people like him I don't have to respond myself, which is a relief since more and more Christians are doing so.

This rebuttal is awful. Appealing to the historical setting and culture is meaningless. These laws were inspired by God. They should embody perfect justice. Killing a rape victim for not crying out? Forcing her to marry her attacker? A woman loses her hubby in war, but don’t worry! The God of the universe is with the conquerors and he has incredible moral guidelines. As a favor to the widow, she will be forced to marry whoever chooses her! How polite! What if no one chooses her? Oh. Too bad. God won’t get around to making women equal for another few thousand years. Can’t you see why these responses are so weak? God’s inspired word should transcend culture, place, and time. Gods laws should be the standard for all civilization. There should be absolutely no way to improve upon them. Epic fail. LINK.

My Answer To An Interview Request About Jesus Mythicism

I was asked this question by Stephen J. Bedard: "Hello John. I am writing a column on Jesus mythicism. I was wondering if you could share your thoughts on why atheists seem to be more and more attracted to this theory? My interest is on what drives skepticism about God to skepticism about Jesus. Even a couple of sentences would be great."

Well, I'm always honored when someone wants my opinion, so I obliged him. I wrote:

Atheists all agree that the miraculous Jesus we read in the gospels never existed. His virgin birth was not unlike Hercules and Plato, and his life had a very striking resemblance to Apollonius of Tyana. In addition there is no corroboration of Jesus found in contemporaneous writers, nor of events at his birth like the Star of Bethlehem, or events at the end of his story like eclipses and earthquakes and saints being resurrected with him.

So it stands to reason atheists would doubt his existence.

My guess is that eventually agnosticism about Jesus will become the dominant atheist view. This is what Ralphael Lataster and Hector Avalos think, that we can’t know whether the man behind the myths existed or not, even though I’m still of the opinion he did.

He probably won't use everything I wrote but here it is. Could you do better? Can you document what I wrote?

Heavy Metal Rock Star Lemmy From the Band Motorhead Died Yesterday At 70

The Guardian tells us about it. Keith Preston on Facebook told me about it. He said Lemmy "was an outspoken atheist, and this is one of his songs with the lyrics. I consider this to be a true atheist anthem." Indeed!



It took me until the middle of the song to like it, then I listened a few more times. It's now my new favorite song! Here's a link to their top ten songs. It's not my style of music but I do admire his outspokenness as an atheist.

David Marshall's Number One Deepity: "All scientific knowledge depends upon human testimony."

In what follows is a smack-down of the entire edifice of David Marshall's apologetics (not that he will be convinced of course). Christian apologist David Marshall has repeatedly argued that "All scientific knowledge depends upon human testimony." He does so to put the vinyl siding of scientific respectability over the rotting wood of his faith. He rhetorically asks, "How many eyewitness testimonies were confirmed by DNA evidence?" His point is that DNA evidence doesn't confirm eyewitness testimonies, but rather that the human testimonies of scientists confirm the DNA evidence. That's because they saw it and they interpret it for the rest of us. This is crucial for Marshall's defense of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, and the claims of miracles in today's world. Human testimony is what both science and his faith depend on for truth. If we can know from the human testimonies of scientists the truth about the world, then we can also know from human testimonies the truth about the Easter Event and miracles in the modern world.

What's there not to understand atheists? Checkmate!!

Read more »

Quote of the Day by Articulett

Religion is associated more closely with societal dysfunction than societal health. Although religionists imagine themselves and their spawn as being more moral, tolerant, and generous-- when you actually measure such things, you find that the opposite is true. Again and again, the more secular the society, the healthier... the religious are only moral in their minds.

If you want to know what is actually true, you might try getting your information from scientists and other peer reviewed sources-- not people who imagine themselves saved for what they believe: Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the Christian Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full of chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on earth.

So what are we supposed to be applauding the Christians for again? Is there any measurable evidence whatsoever that they are better, righter, or that their beliefs are more true or useful to society than conflicting religions/myths/superstitions? Because all I find in peer reviewed sources is tons of evidence showing the that religion is associated with dysfunction while secularism is associated with more tolerance and more prosocial behavior.

Huffington Post Calls For Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Ouster

Miles Mogulescu of the Huffington Post Calls for Debbie Wasserman Schultz's ouster!

It's increasingly clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, isn't acting as a neutral party Chair, trying to insure a fair and democratic primary and building the Democratic Party in the states.

Rather, she's acting as a shill for Hillary Clinton, doing everything in her power to ensure that no one will effectively challenge Hillary's coronation as the nominee.

Wasserman Schultz is committing political malpractice and should be removed. LINK

Is There Really A War On Christianity?

This so-called war is not what you think, according to Jay Michaelson writing for The Daily Beast. It's more likely the declining numbers of self-identifying Christians who aren't necessarily at war with Christianity. They just don't believe for a variety of factors. The demographics look bad for Christianity in the United States:

According to a Pew Research Report released earlier this year, the percentage of the U.S. population that identifies as Christian has dropped from 78.4 percent in 2007 to 70.6 percent in 2014. Evangelical, Catholic, and mainline Protestant affiliations have all declined. Meanwhile, 30 percent of Americans ages 18-29 list “none” as their religious affiliation (the figure for all ages is about 23 percent).

This represents almost 1/4 of people in the United States which would be the second largest denomination by the numbers only. Whose fault is this state of affairs? According to the very first Christian it is his follower's fault. They are not very effective in their job of recruitment. Do Christians still want to complain about any so-called war when they are to blame? Most of these "nones" just don't give a hoot about the Christian faith. They are about as concerned with Christianity as Buddhists in Thailand or Hindus in India would be. So this attitude of theirs shows up in our culture too, in a variety of ways, especially when it comes to Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter.

These changes are taking place for a constellation of reasons: greater secular education (college degrees), multiculturalism, shifting social mores, the secular space of consumer capitalism and celebrity culture, the sexual revolution (including feminism and LGBT equality), legal and constitutional changes (like the banning of prayer in public school, and the finding of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), the breakdown of the nuclear family, the decline of certain forms of family and group identification, and the association of religion in general with nonsensical and outdated dogmas. LINK.

My word of advice to Christians is to learn to live in an increasingly non-Christian culture. Your faith is not to be inexplicably tied up with your culture anyway. In fact, living in a non-Christian culture may be a reason to rejoice--using some twisted kind of logic--for there would be no reason for people to play the hypocrite to gain social rewards from the pretense. As a result, only true believers will remain in the fold. Like the Amish today! Living in their own sect-specific communities! Voluntarily! ;-)

Lennart Green: Close-Up Card Magic With a Twist

Happy X-Mas Everyone! Thanks for Your Support!

I'm very thankful at this season for the support I've received over the years from my readers in terms of comments from which I've learned from you, and the moral and financial support given. I'm just a starving artist without a job right now, who is trying to change the world and who thinks my efforts are worth the sacrifices I've made, even if few others agree or support my causes. I've sacrificed most everything for what I do and live alone on a pauper's income because of it. If you desire to do so, and can afford it, please consider making a donation to what I do. A few people have done so and it helps.

Merry Christmas! Joyous Kwanzaa! Happy Festivus! Feliz Navidad! Merry Humanist HumanLight! Happy Hanukkah!

Christmas Day in 1837

On Christmas day in 1837, the Africans and Native Americans who formed Florida’s Seminole Nation defeated a vastly superior U.S. invading army bent on cracking this early rainbow coalition and returning the Africans to slavery. Some textbooks such as Holt McDougal’s U.S. History (2012) reference the Seminole Wars. However they classify them not as anticolonial, liberation struggles, but as minor impediments in Manifest Destiny’s "triumphant march." -- from an essay by William Loren Katz.on the history left out of the textbooks.

So This is Christmas, eh?

Christianity’s Own War On Christmas, by Valerie Tarico

"Guess who has been calling Christmas a pagan holiday for the last 500 years? Christians." LINK.

Happy Grinch Day To One and All! ;-)

Dean Martin to the Rescue for a Snowless Indiana

Another Festivus Favorite

The DNC Must Fire Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Restore Credibility to the Democratic Party Whose Goals Are To Fight for Minorities. NOW! Every Day She Remains the Chair More and More Bernie Supporters Are Feeling Disenfranchised

LINK.

Money Quote to the Left.

The original war on Christmas was fought by Christians themselves!

LINK.

What About the Bethlehem Star?

The answer can be found in an interview The Washington Post did with physicist Aaron Adair, who is skeptical of the supposed star of Bethlehem. LINK. Dr. Adair wrote the book, The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View, and a chapter for my upcoming anthology, Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion. I am doubly thankful for Adair's work. He not only used his expertise in science to debunk the faith-based claim of The Star of Bethlehem miracle, he also took the time to understand both the theology behind the supposed Bethlehem star and the apologetical gerrymandering surrounding that claim. His work is highly recommended.

New Apologetics Book, "The Physics and Philosophy of the Bible"

Believers give lip service to science. Science has been very powerful as an knowledge provider such that they have to dress their faith up in it to give it some semblance of credibility. Wow! Only people of faith who are gullible will like this book. LINK.

Another Favorite Festivus song!

My Book Made It To the Front Page of Amazon Apologetics eBooks!

Looks like the Kindle edition of my book How To Defend the Christian Faith made it to the front page of Christian Apologetics bestselling books by authors like Timothy Keller, Norman Geisler, Lee Stobel, Gregory Boyd and others. This happened in no small part because of Dawkins linking to it.

Another Favorite Festivus Song of Mine!

A lovesick friend of mine named Barry sang this for Karaoke many times.

The RDFRS Facebook Page Recommends My Latest Book!

The Official Facebook Page for The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science just recommended my book. LINK. For those of you not on Facebook *gasp* I put a screenshot of it below. No doubt there are naysayers (both Christian and atheist) who'll claim Dawkins doesn't know enough about sophisticated theology to recommend my work. Maybe not. But he doesn't need to since he knows Christianity is a delusion from his own field of expertise. And he can read the blurbs from people who do. So about the naysayers I say this: If they had written a book--which they almost never do--wouldn't they be pleased with the exposure this gives their work? It's quite an honor! There is a lot of discussion taking place on his Facebook page too.

Read more »

Another of My Favorite Festivus Songs!

Dr. David Marshall is Well-Read. Wow! Serious?

Dr. David Marshall is well read. Wow! Serious?

He tells us...

Read more »

Okay, this bad boy is finally printed off and ready to be published!

I know readers hear me say with each new anthology the latest one is the best one. But that's what I think. Here it is ready to be unleashed on the English speaking world, titled "Christianity in Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion." It's in honor of Victor Stenger. Pre-order it on Amazon by clicking here. I see Prometheus Books put up some blurbs of my other works there. Enjoy.

Krampus, The Christmas Devil

I've seen the newly released movie "Krampus." It's good up until the last quarter of it when it gets too crazy for me. Then it ends well, something I should have guessed. But think about how cruel parents were in earlier days not too distant in the past. Not only did children have the threat of Santa reading their minds and not giving them any gifts, or worse, a black coal in their stockings, each culture had a different gruesome threat beyond that, powerful evil creatures who would punish and torture children if they were naughty. The most feared and widely believed evil creature was Krampus, the Christmas devil. He's caught on camera here. ;-) But seriously. Wasn't the threat of a devil and an eternal conscious torment in hell enough? Makes me wonder how these beliefs didn't make thoroughly dysfunctional adults when they grew up.

Peter Boghossian On Critical Thinking, Atheism, and Faith

Another Favorite Song of the Season!

Tonight is Friday. Here's another one of my favorite songs of the season! Get your partner and your dancing shoes on!



Live version below, although they all sound live!

Read more »

Bart Ehrman and Robert Price to Debate the Historicity of Jesus

This debate is being put on by Mythicist Milwaukee. Since there is a supply and demand feature to anything with a price tag on it, given the ticket costs they expect a high demand (from General Admission of $30.00 to VIP $160.00). Bart will donate his proceeds to charity while it'll be a needed financial relief for Bob. I know a few of us who barely make enough to survive. So that's good for him. The debate will take place as part of a Mythinformation Conference III in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on Friday, October 21, 2016 - 6-9 PM. Earth shattering stuff here folks, sure to convince a Christian one way or another. Or, is this just another example of atheists talking to each other? LINK.

I'm on record as saying debates don't really solve that much. But they are both educational and entertaining. So no one should have any fear if one side or the other loses the debate (although I doubt that will happen). I am curious though, why scientists don't solve their disputes this way. I can imagine it now. One scientist thinks the notion of a holographic universe is nonsense while another thinks otherwise. So they get sponsors and debate the issue. Tickets are costly because there is a high demand for the debate. Afterward both sides declare victory. One college graduate in computer science, who rejects the holographic theory, is unhappy with the debate performance of his guy so he writes a blog post saying his guy does not represent everyone who rejects the holographic theory! [But doesn't every thinking person already know that, which indicates the ignorance of that blog writer? The only reason he would say such a thing is for self-promotion because that's his modus operandi (Just think Jeff Lowder)].

If atheists cannot agree on the evidence then how does anyone expect to convince Christians Jesus never existed? I think we must first approach Christians as Bart Ehrman does before they can be open enough to entertain the idea that Jesus never existed. Yes, a tiny number of Christians have gone from believer to mythicist in one fell swoop, but what kind of believers they were beforehand is another question. This debate is yet another example of people who will eventually find something to disagree with if given enough time. I have witnessed this phenomena myself. People meet. They talk a bit. They agree quite a lot. But eventually they find a disagreement. They almost always do. That disagreement bothers them. They each want agreement so they argue over the disagreement. It eventually leads to anger. They part ways. In my view this is yet another divisive issue among atheists. Granted, I think it's a worthy issue, one that merits careful consideration. But as for me, I'll keep majoring on the majors, the issues that can and do actually help change the minds of believers. Do as you wish though. To each his or her own. Cheers.

Barbara Walters 10 Most Fascinating People of 2015

Barbara Walters 10 Most Fascinating People of 2015 airs tonight on ABC (check times in your area). One of them is Bernie Sanders! Here's a clip LINK. Don't forget to watch the Democratic Presidential Debate tomorrow.

Michael Bolton's Rendition of "Silent Night" is the Best Ever!

Seasons Greetings one and all. I'm going to share a few of my favorite songs for the season. Michael Bolton's rendition of "Silent Night" tops my chart. This CD came out in 1996 and every year since I listen to it. It brings tears to my eyes just as it did the first year, and every year since that time. It recalls the memories and regrets of years gone by. I was in a deep crisis of faith when it came out. I listened to it hoping it could give me hope through my crisis. I liked how he sang it with such conviction, the kind I wanted to have again, but couldn't muster no matter how many times I listened to it, and I listened to it over and over and over again. I really wanted Christianity to be true. I knew nothing else. But it isn't true. I had to admit I was deluded. Everything I had hoped for was dashed. Regardless of my back-story, Bolton's rendition of "Silent Night" is the best one ever made.

Richard Carrier's Lecture On "Acts as Historical Fiction"

[Redated post from March 2014 in light of the recent flurry of comments about the mythicist position].

Last night Richard gave a talk at Purdue in West Lafayette, Indiana, based on his book On the Historicity of Jesus. It's to be published by Sheffield-Phoenix Press in a few months. Professor James McGrath has described Richard Carrier as "the last, best hope for mythicism." He goes on to say that "Having an academic book of this sort published does not prove that one is right. It means that one is approaching a question in a rigorous scholarly manner. And to have a mythicist do that is indeed a big deal. Those of us interested in this question will undoubtedly be delighted to finally have a serious academic work to serve as a conversation partner on the topic." Link. Yes, this is a big deal!

Below you can watch his lecture and see a few pictures of us together. If you haven't encountered the evidence that the Book of Acts is historical fiction you need to see this. [Edit: If you can see the case for Acts as fiction why can't you see the evidence that the Jesus story itself could be fiction?] Here, ladies and gentlemen, Carrier presents some good strong evidence that the author of the canonical book of Acts is another liar for Jesus. Enjoy.

Read more »

Quote of the Day, On Science and Religious Beliefs

Historically scientists didn’t set out to test religious beliefs. They just wanted to understand the world they live in. As they did they discovered evidence that questioned religious beliefs.

Did Jesus Exist? Harry McCall vs James McGrath vs Valerie Tarico

Not long ago Harry McCall wrote a post titled, Why Atheists Must Assert Jesus Never Existed, and proceeded to tell us. Being someone who refuses to march to the beat of any drum unless persuaded to do so, I was disappointed since I was unpersuaded, and still am. Liberal Christian Dr. James McGrath saw Harry's post as yet another example of atheist dogmatism so he highlighted two of Harry's posts on this issue as examples. In the comments I told McGrath I was disappointed. The reason is because the credibility of DC is something I take seriously. Today Dr. Valerie Tarico weighed in on the historical vs mythical Jesus debate in a post reasonably titled, Here are 5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed. I don't think she was aware of the McCall/McGrath exchange. Her post is a much more reasonable one that I can recommend. Readers might disagree with her and still see a big difference in how a scholar like Tarico deals with this issue.

What Does the Islamic State Actually Believe?

By now, many people are aware that the Islamic State is an apocalyptic death cult that wants to provoke an Armageddon-like battle in a small town in northern Syria. A profusion of articles have been written about this aspect of the Islamic State's mission since it rose to prominence in the summer of 2014. In fact, the most read article ever published in The Atlantic, by Graeme Wood, dedicates considerable space to the apocalyptic motivations behind the largest and best-funded terrorist organization in human history. The Islamic State actively wants the world to end, because this is what it believes the prophet Muhammad said is supposed to happen.

Read more »

Stop Being a Victim. Stop Being Offended. Grow Up.

There is a lot of talk about maintaining safe spaces at our colleges. And many atheists seem to be accepting that logic. Why would they do that? They would end up disallowing their own ideas being presented in an open forum, since atheist arguments offend many believers. That's self-defeating atheist crazy talk! Some ideas are so wrong and so bad we would not want to give them an audience. But the principle of unequivocally adopting a safe space is crazy! [I just looked up the guy who said this, but I don't really care who he is. What he said is good regardless if someone shows me he's a bigot, which I hope he's not.]

Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start World War III … to Speed Up the Second Coming!

In my day we worried about communism leading to Armageddon.

Abundant evidence makes clear that millions of Americans — upwards of 40 percent, according to some widely publicized national polls — do, indeed, believe that Bible prophecies detail a specific sequence of end-times events. According to the most popular prophetic system, premillennial dispensationalism … the Islamic world is allied against God and faces annihilation in the last days. That view is actually a very ancient one in Christian eschatology. Medieval prophecy expounders saw Islam as the demonic force whose doom is foretold in Scripture. LINK

Eureka! A Square Circle!

For decades I've bought the line that we cannot create a square circle, for to do so would be logically contradictory. Nope, not anymore. Chuck Johnson drew one and wrote: "Such a circle has some of the characteristics of a circle, and some characteristics of a square. But on an absolute basis, it is neither a square nor a circle." And herein lies the rub. Whether or not we can create a square circle depends entirely on the definition of a square and a circle. Language matters. In my opinion the drawing in red is a square circle. It's likewise the case that A does not equal A.

Dan Barker: "Does the Bible Call for the Death of Nonbelievers?"

LINK.

Answering Two Objections To My Book

In a rambling review of my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist,titled, "Who's brain should I trust?", two objections were leveled at it. The first objects to statements about free will, where I wrote, "Science is also teaching us that sin and the need for salvation are quite likely based on the illusion of free will...In fact, neuroscience is destroying the notions of free will..." "At the very least neuroscience is making it extremely difficult for believers to still claim that we freely choose to sin, that we can freely choose to be saved, and that there is a wrathful God who will judge us on the last day."

Objection: "What a very confusing statement for someone to make who, I assume, chose to write a book trying to convince Christian apologists to change their minds."

My "biggest blunder" he said, is my advice not to trust your brains. "Your brain does not work well at getting to the truth." "The nearer and dearer to your heart then the less you can trust your brain without the hard evidence."

Objection: "I notice that he trusts his brain, which is why he wrote the book...and yet he somehow thinks he has gotten to the truth. How do I determine what the hard evidence is without using my brain which I cannot trust?"

Below are my answers. Can you do better?

Read more »

More From Loftus On Science and Morality

Whether science can determine moral truths is being hotly debated in recent years. Most people say science cannot do so. But a growing number of philosophers and scientists are saying otherwise. Philosopher Erik Wielenberg called for an “ethical revolution.” While it’s true he says, that “scientific progress has hardly brought moral progress” it’s also true “that science has not so far been used explicitly for that purpose.” But since science has the ability to help us “live longer and healthier lives than at any point in human history” it consequentially “makes sense to put science…to work in the service…of finding a reliable method of making people virtuous.” (Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (Cambridge, 2005, pp. 129, 155).Others have supported this type of position, such as the late Paul Kurtz and contributors to his anthology, Science and Ethics: Can Science Help Us Make Wise Moral Judgments? (Prometheus Books, 2007).The authors in it “maintain that science can help us make wise choices and that an increase in scientific knowledge can help modify our ethical values and bring new ethical principles into social awareness.” Others are saying similar things, such as Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (Free Press, 2010),Michael Shermer in The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People (Henry Holt and Co., 2015),and the impressive list of people who have recommended these books with blurbs, including scientists Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, Lawrence M. Krauss, and Bill Nye.