Philosophy of religion must end. If the philosophy of religion is using reason to examine the the claims of religion, and if religion is based on faith, then philosophy of religion must end. For faith has no justification nor merit. A reasonable faith does not exist, nor can faith be a guide for reasoning to any objective conclusion.
Religion is indeed based on faith in supernatural forces and/or entities. Faith is indeed an unreliable way to gain objective knowledge about the world. And faith-based reasoning cannot justify any claim concerning matters of fact like the nature of nature and its workings. So philosophy of religion is reasoning about that which is unreasonable. It takes the utterly unwarranted conclusions of faith seriously. To reason about religion requires granting more than a philosopher worthy of the name should do, since the very first principle of religion is faith. There are some things philosophers should not take seriously and still remain as intellectuals. A faith-based claim is one of them. There are other ways to deal with those types of claims. The proper discipline to determine if a claim is faith-based or not is to be found in the sciences.
Robert Conner studied Greek, Hebrew, some Aramaic and even Coptic back in the mid-70's at Western Kentucky University. He's written nine books, including
Jesus the Sorcerer,
The Secret Gospel of Mark and
Magic in Christianity, as well as a number of articles and essays. If you want a primer on what the earliest critics of Christianity had to say about this new cult then I'm publishing an essay he wrote in several parts, with approval. This is Part 2. To get up to speed
Part 1 can be found here.
Sophisticated theology/philosophy is argumentation used by delusional people to defend the indefensible. It is pure sophistry, empty rhetoric without substance, fallacious reasoning, ungrounded assertions lacking sufficient evidence. Sophisticated theology/philosophy is a kind of red-herring argumentation used as a smoke screen to hide the fact that faith lacks sufficient evidence. Follow its trail and you will be led down the rabbit hole of definitions used to obfuscate the lack of evidence. Sophisticated theology/philosophy confuses people who don't share that sophistication. At its most fundamental level sophisticated theology/philosophy is nothing more than special pleading.
Here is Bernie Sander's closing at last night's debate. The crowd chanted his name afterward! That's amazing for a debate where initially the crowd was largely in favor of Hillary Clinton.
An atheologian is a non-theologian, an atheist opposed to theology. That's a good description of Parsons on his good days. A hypocrite might be better one, according to sir_russ in his letter to him below. Over at the Secular Outpost I'm being judged by my commenters, and also by who I have banned. As an example of one of my commenters let me introduce you to sir_russ, someone I personally know. As to my banning people, every online blog writer devoted to topics like atheism or theism bans people. I guarantee you I have never banned anyone merely because they disagreed with me, ever. In a few rare cases over the past decade I've banned a disagreeable person when the ignorance was just too great to tolerate and when that person would not give it a rest. After banning people they never say they were banned for good reasons, either. So that just about covers everything except the substance of our recent disagreement. Here's sir_russ:
The whole reason sophisticated Christian argumentation exists in the first place is because it takes sophistication to make the Christian faith palatable. The more the sophistication then the more the obfuscation, since their faith can only be defended by confusing people who don't share that sophistication. Defenses of Christianity are nothing but special pleading hiding underneath several layers of obfuscation with a sophistication to make it appear otherwise. It's nothing less than special pleading all the way down, and it doesn't take sophistication to see this or to call it out. Even a child can recognize what it is.
The red headings represent PowerPoint slides. Here we go...
I’m very honored to be here and happy people actually showed up to listen to this debate. I have a lot of ground to cover so I must begin.
John Loftus: When it comes to the objective world of matters of fact, science is the only game in town.
Mr. Green: Hm, interesting. Can you describe the experiment you performed to arrive at that conclusion, so I can reproduce it?
John Loftus: Would you tell us what the alternative is to science?, and/or, What else in addition to science is as good of an alternative?
Mr. Green: I'd rather focus on the question that was actually asked, despite your attempt to dodge it like a seasoned politician.
Victor Reppert is at it again.
I don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to methodological naturalism. Science cannot work without it. The problem comes when one draws the conclusion from it that metaphysical naturalism is the case. So you're opposed to it only if people conclude nature is all there is, that is, only if it's used as an argument to atheism.
Your faith-based arguments are that there is either a reliable source of knowledge about the world other than science, or that your god lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge, or both. But those arguments of yours go against the probabilities.
Why don't you tell us what that other source of knowledge is, and compare its merits to the scientific enterprise? Why don't you admit how many times science has forced you to move the goal posts, such that for centuries when theologians didn't think science could solve a problem science marched past it?
Why don't you address why your god set the world up this way, such that reasonable people will follow the probabilities? Even if for some reason your god could not create the world like this, why don't you admit your God failed to provide the necessary objective evidence that would overcome the methodological predisposition to naturalism?
If you want a serious discussion you must address these issues.
Paul de Vries described the difference between “methodological naturalism,” which is a disciplinary method that says nothing about God’s existence, from “metaphysical naturalism,” which “denies the existence of a transcendent God.” [Paul de Vries, “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences,” Christian Scholar’s Review 15(1986): 388–96]. The method of naturalism assumes that for everything we experience there is a natural explanation, whereas metaphysical naturalism is a worldview that denies the supernatural realm exists. [For discussions of this see Alvin Plantinga’s essay “Methodological Naturalism?” parts 1 and 2, which can be found at www.arn.org, and in the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (49 [1997]). Barbara Forrest’s “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection,” Philo 3, no. 2 (Fall–Winter 2000): 7–29, along with Michael Martin’s “Justifying Methodological Naturalism,” both found at www.infidels.org/library.]
I myself have written a few things about it. Now for a few new thoughts.
I was asked this question. My answer:
I have no worries. What would I be worried about if so? The possibility there is a wicked god who would torture me in hell is infinitesimal on my calculations. We should think exclusively in terms of the objective probabilities and proportion our conclusions to the evidence. When we do so, there is no reason to think any one of the many god-concepts exists.
I have a book to copy-edit, another one to write (due June 1st) and then I'm taking a break, hopefully a long one. If I like my break I may not come back. Don't hold me to this since I may change my mind. "Don't say I didn't say, I didn't warn ya."
As far as I can tell, the Islamic State could make the same moral argument to the existence of their god, using their own morality, where it’s okay to rape women, own slaves, chop off heads and burn people alive. Christians like Wallace Marshall would have to agree with their Moral Argument, but disagree with their morals. However, their morals are used as evidence that their god exists, just as his morals are used as evidence his god exists. So certain kinds of morals lead to certain kinds of gods. Or certain kinds of gods are used to justify certain kinds of morals. Which comes first? I’m as sure as sure can be that the morals come first. Where do believers get their morals from? That’s as tricky of a question as it is for me. But I can guarantee you Marshall does not get his morals from the Bible. For if he did, his morals would look much like the morals of the Islamic State. For in the Bible we see much of the same things, like slavery, holy wars, genocide or ethnic cleansing, and Inquisitions.
Regardless, there is no time in the history of ethics where Marshall could not make this argument based on the morals of his day. He could own slaves, offer up his child to Yahweh or have sex slaves and be heard to argue at the local pub that his god is the source of objective morals. This argument to god from morals is empty rhetoric without any content.
Since morals come first, I think Philosopher Raymond Bradley has produced a good counter-argument. Bradley: “If there are universal objective moral truths, then there is no God of the Bible. He then provides some universal objective moral truths that are counter to biblical morality: 1) “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing”; 2) “It is morally wrong to provide one’s troops with young women captive with the prospect of their being used as sex slaves”; 3) “It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family”; 4) “It is morally wrong to practice human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise”; 5) “It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.” He argues that “if we take these moral principles as objective ones, as Christians themselves do, then since we find them commanded and permitted by the God of the Bible, he does not exist.”
