Southern Baptists lost 200,000 members over the past year!
Conservatism is losing and that's good enough news for today. LINK.
The Top Fifty Humanist/Atheist Books
There are many humanists and atheists working on behalf of reason and science that most of us will never hear about. When at the Reason Rally I was invited to a Humanist celebration hosted by Ellen Sutliff at a yacht club in Washington, DC. She is the President of Humanists & Freethinkers of New Bern, NC. She was a sheer delight. When Ellen learned I was the author of Why I Became an Atheist she told me something pretty cool. Her group went through a list of humanist/atheist authors and chose the top 50 books to donate to the Craven Community College Library in New Bern, NC. Among the best of the best they chose my book as one of them! You can see the list alphabetized below. It's very impressive. I was very happy to learn mine was one of them. Reason Rally 2016 Here I Come
I'm leaving tomorrow to go to the 2016 Reason Rally! I'm pretty pumped about it. I hope to see lots of people I have known only by emails and Facebook messages. LINK. It's way to sad to hear Johnny Depp backed out of the speaking lineup. If you're paying attention to the news then you know why.
New Report: There Are Staggering Numbers of Enslaved People in Today's World
This new report on where slaves live in today's world breaks me up. I feel helpless. I wish I could pray but praying does no good. If there was a god I wouldn't need to pray for these staggering numbers of enslaved human beings anyway. Wow. I think there's human progress, I do. But then there's this.
A new report estimates 45.8 million people live in contemporary slavery in 167 countries. Nearly 60 percent of those live in just five nations: India, the country with the highest number of slaves, followed by China (3.4 million), Pakistan (2.1 million), Bangladesh (1.5 million), and Uzbekistan (1.2 million). North Korea has the most people enslaved in proportion to population, with 4.4 percent of the country’s people living in conditions of slavery. Slavery is illegal in every country, but it still exists and is common in some poor countries with oppressive governments or few human-rights protections. LINK.I've written a chapter on slavery for my anthology Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails, which I think readers may find very informative.
My Letter to a Doubting Preacher in the Pulpit
I received an email from a preacher in the pulpit who is doubting. He said he first reached out to a prominent apologetics preacher, but he had no time for him. So he reached out to me. I agreed to correspond with him. This is what I wrote:
Hi,
Glad to hear from you! How did you find my email address since it's not exactly easy to find? I have published a few books. Have you read them, or my blog?
Usually I tell people I'll only correspond with them after they've read one or more of my books. But since you're a preacher in the pulpit I'll make an exception in your case. That being said, I have a book deadline to meet by June 15th, and must concentrate on that for now.
I'm sorry to tell you that I've read hundreds of personal stories, and have my own as well, so unfortunately I'm not interested in reading your story. Don't hate me for this. Just tell me the issue or issues you are struggling with. I will attempt to answer your questions as best as I can. These answers may take the form of links to my blog or copies of sections from my books, but I will try.
I don't want to talk to anyone playing the devil's advocate. The devil can advocate for himself. And I don't want to argue with you either. If you disagree, then realize I'm only trying to help. Try to learn from me and we'll be fine. If this turns into a series of arguments I'll bow out, for I'm not interested in changing your mind about anything. I write very passionately on my blog and books to convince believers, but on a personal one-on-one basis I really don't care what any given individual believes enough to bother, except that they are kind and empathetic people.
Jean Paul Sartre argued we seek counseling from people we know in advance what they might advise us to do. You first tried a Christian believer so that was one side of the aisle. It's what I did myself when I started doubting. Then at some point the scales tipped to the other side and you now seek the advice of that side. You are already there!
How can I help you?
Best wishes on your intellectual journey,
John W. Loftus
Mark Twain, "Concerning the character of the real God"
From Mark Twain's Autiobiography, Volume II, Saturday, June 23, 1906
Concerning the character of the real God.
Let us now consider the real God, the genuine God, the great God, the sublime and supreme God, the authentic Creator of the real universe, whose remotenesses are visited by comets only—comets unto which incredibly distant Neptune is merely an outpost, a Sandy Hook to homeward bound spectres of the deeps of space that have not glimpsed it before for generations—a universe not made with hands and suited to an astronomical nursery, but spread abroad through the illimitable reaches of space by the fiat of the real God just mentioned; that God of unthinkable grandeur and majesty, by comparison with whom all the other gods whose myriads infest the feeble imaginations of men are as a swarm of gnats scattered and lost in the infinitudes of the empty sky.
When we think of such a God as this, we cannot associate with Him anything trivial, anything lacking dignity, anything lacking grandeur. We cannot conceive of His passing by Sirius to choose our potato for a footstool. We cannot conceive of His interesting Himself in the affairs of the microscopic human race and enjoying its Sunday flatteries, and experiencing pangs of jealousy when the flatteries grow lax or fail, any more than we can conceive of the Emperor of China being interested in a bottle of microbes and pathetically anxious to stand well with them and harvest their impertinent compliments. If we could conceive of the Emperor of China taking an intemperate interest in his bottle of microbes, we should have to draw the line there; we could not, by any stretch of imagination, conceive of his selecting from these innumerable millions a quarter of a thimbleful of Jew microbes—the least attractive of the whole swarm—and making pets of them and nominating them as his chosen germs, and carrying his infatuation for them so far as to resolve to keep and coddle them alone, and damn all the rest.
Concerning the character of the real God.
Let us now consider the real God, the genuine God, the great God, the sublime and supreme God, the authentic Creator of the real universe, whose remotenesses are visited by comets only—comets unto which incredibly distant Neptune is merely an outpost, a Sandy Hook to homeward bound spectres of the deeps of space that have not glimpsed it before for generations—a universe not made with hands and suited to an astronomical nursery, but spread abroad through the illimitable reaches of space by the fiat of the real God just mentioned; that God of unthinkable grandeur and majesty, by comparison with whom all the other gods whose myriads infest the feeble imaginations of men are as a swarm of gnats scattered and lost in the infinitudes of the empty sky.
When we think of such a God as this, we cannot associate with Him anything trivial, anything lacking dignity, anything lacking grandeur. We cannot conceive of His passing by Sirius to choose our potato for a footstool. We cannot conceive of His interesting Himself in the affairs of the microscopic human race and enjoying its Sunday flatteries, and experiencing pangs of jealousy when the flatteries grow lax or fail, any more than we can conceive of the Emperor of China being interested in a bottle of microbes and pathetically anxious to stand well with them and harvest their impertinent compliments. If we could conceive of the Emperor of China taking an intemperate interest in his bottle of microbes, we should have to draw the line there; we could not, by any stretch of imagination, conceive of his selecting from these innumerable millions a quarter of a thimbleful of Jew microbes—the least attractive of the whole swarm—and making pets of them and nominating them as his chosen germs, and carrying his infatuation for them so far as to resolve to keep and coddle them alone, and damn all the rest.
Thoughts of God by Mark Twain
Thoughts of God by Mark Twain, from Fables of Man.
How often we are moved to admit the intelligence exhibited in both the designing and the execution of some of His works. Take the fly, for instance. The planning of the fly was an application of pure intelligence, morals not being concerned. Not one of us could have planned the fly, not one of us could have constructed him; and no one would have considered it wise to try, except under an assumed name.
It is believed by some that the fly was introduced to meet a long-felt want. In the course of ages, for some reason or other, there have been millions of these persons, but out of this vast multitude there has not been one who has been willing to explain what the want was. At least satisfactorily. A few have explained that there was need of a creature to remove disease-breeding garbage; but these being then asked to explain what long-felt want the disease-breeding garbage was introduced to supply, they have not been willing to undertake the contract.
England and Wales Are Now Predominantly Nonreligious
LINK. Any day now the guillotines will be erected and used to chop off the heads of believers. Still anxiously waiting...
Arguing for the End of Philosophy of Religion is Not Being Inconsistent
I find criticisms of James Lindsay's book Everybody is Wrong About God, and of Peter Boghossian, to be misguided. We're told the rejection of philosophy of religion (PoR) "seems to be expressing views in the philosophy of religion." This reminds me of the criticism thrown at atheists that we believe even though we don't, or that we're religious because we take a position on religion. Not! Using reason to reject the PoR is not the same thing as doing PoR. It’s reasoning, not PoR. Using scientific reasoning to reject creation science is not doing creation science. If one cannot argue for the end of PoR without doing PoR then this catch-22 problem is not the fault of the person arguing for the end of PoR. It’s the fault of the one laying down such a rule. The only other alternative is to stop saying anything at all about the PoR, which is an unreasonable demand if one wants to end the PoR.
Dr. Timothy McGrew's Sermon Response To Me About Prophecy
In my recent debate with Abdu Murray I had said:
Throughout this "sermon" of his (really, this is not a lecture where students can ask questions!) he repeatedly says that I disagree with something, or that I say something different. I do yes. But I'm sure as sure can be he's special pleading based on the mother of all cognitive biases, confirmation bias. Surely as an outsider he would not treat any other holy book containing alleged prophecies this way. No, siree bob!
Where’s the Prophetic Evidence?Looks like people were asking how I could say that, which in turn promoted Timothy McGrew to respond. It's long. One thing though. He did not deal with my arguments in chapter 17 of Why I Became an Atheist. McGrew said he has my book (1st edition I presume) but he shows no awareness of it, and he doesn't deal with the force of my arguments.
There is none! I defy someone to come up with one statement in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today’s historical-grammatical hermeneutical method. It cannot be done. An expressed hope for a future savior is not to be considered a prediction, unless along with that hope are specific details whereby we can check to see if it was fulfilled in a specific person.
Throughout this "sermon" of his (really, this is not a lecture where students can ask questions!) he repeatedly says that I disagree with something, or that I say something different. I do yes. But I'm sure as sure can be he's special pleading based on the mother of all cognitive biases, confirmation bias. Surely as an outsider he would not treat any other holy book containing alleged prophecies this way. No, siree bob!
Resurrection or Ghost Story? by Robert Conner
According to Paul, arguably Christianity’s foremost spokesman, belief in the resurrection is the sine qua non of Christian belief and the basis of Christian hope:
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.[1]
I've Changed My Mind Many Times, Especially About Religion
I've changed my mind a lot of times. I should be so lucky to have gotten everything correct from the time I was a young adult. I wonder if it's even possible for people never to change their minds if they have any longevity in life at all. Let's imagine for a second that at the age of 20 years old I held the same opinions as I do now, which is to say I was correct about everything I had an opinion about. Now don't get me wrong here. While I think I'm correct about everything I have an opinion about--to the appropriate degrees of probability--I also know with a very high degree of certainty I must be wrong about some of them. I just cannot see that I'm wrong right now. Back to being 20 years old. Even if at the age of 20 I agreed with my older current self about everything, I know I'd change some of my opinions as I grew older. So I don't think changing one's mind is any indicator of ignorance or instability or gullibility or anything like that. It can mean this is just what thinking people do, given time, thought and the experiences of life.
What have I changed my mind about? Too many things to say here, for sure. I've changed my opinions about lots of people as I got to know them better, about foods I like, about drinks I like, about which sports I like, about the sports teams I root for, about music I listen to, about art, politics, and religion.
When it comes to religion I began as a Catholic. In my earlier years I went through a paradigm shift of sorts. At the age of 17 I became a "Born Again" Pentecostal who was also taught to believe Dispensationalism and Calvinism. Then I started going to a Church of Christ and had to unlearn what I was converted to. I learned to reject Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism and Calvinist theology. Then I was taught that adult baptism by immersion was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, and that Arminianism and amillennial eschatology were biblically correct. Friends, all of this religious change took place in just 2-3 years of my young adult life. Soon I was set in my ways and stayed that way for two decades on major issues, although with more and more education I changed my mind slowly and gradually on lots of other minor ones.
From 1990 to 2005 I went though a second paradigm shift of sorts. I went from being a conservative to a moderate to a liberal to a deist to an agnostic and finally to an atheist, a weak or agnostic atheist.
Recently in the last 2-3 years to date, I have gone though third paradigm shift of sorts. I am now a strong atheist who has come to the conclusion there is no need to take the obfuscations of Christian philosophers seriously because all philosophical apologetics is special pleading, all of it. Philosophy itself is used to obfuscate the Bible and the theology based on it not to clarify them, because if they were truly clarified believers would see clearly the Christian emperor has no clothes on. Clarifying the Bible and the theology based on it rather than obfuscating them would strip away the blinders from the eyes of believers. Then believers could see the evidence-based truth. They would see their faith is a delusion on a par with Mormonism, Hinduism, Orthodox Judaism and even Scientology, as well as seeing they’ve been indoctrinated and/or brainwashed to believe.
I have changed my mind about faith because I’ve become better informed about it. I should not believe anything. Belief isn’t something any reasonable person should do when it comes to gaining knowledge about matters of fact like the nature of nature, its workings and its origins. Faith adds nothing to the probabilities. It has no method and solves no problems. If faith is trust we should not trust faith. It’s a cognitive bias keeping believers away from understanding the truth rather than strictly going with the probabilities based upon the objective evidence.
I have also changed my mind about the Courtier’s Reply. I now agree it's an appropriate and reasonable response to believers who claim to have evidence for their faith. I say this as someone trained in the philosophy of religion who has changed his mind about his own field of study. Furthermore, while I previously desired a respectful discussion with believers, I no longer think it's of the up-most importance. I have embraced the need for and the value of ridicule.
I get attacked for my present views. People do so, even atheists, not realizing I have been where they are now. I just want them to know I was once where they are now. They may attack me but they cannot claim I'm ignorant, just as Christians may attack me not realizing I was once where they are now. I might be wrong. But again, I'm not ignorant. You should take the fact that I've changed my mind as evidence I'm open-minded enough to consider different views. I have a lot to teach my atheist critics precisely because I have changed my views. For at one time I rejected the views of Dawkins and the subsequent Courtier's Reply as philosophically naive, but I now value them. My atheist critics are playing a pretend game when they take the obfuscations of Christian pseudo-philosophers seriously. They do so because they enjoy an intellectually challenging game, much like chess. While it may be fun and interesting to play the game called "Christian" and want to win at it, by playing the game they grant intellectual respectability to that which is bizarre and absurd.
What have I changed my mind about? Too many things to say here, for sure. I've changed my opinions about lots of people as I got to know them better, about foods I like, about drinks I like, about which sports I like, about the sports teams I root for, about music I listen to, about art, politics, and religion.
When it comes to religion I began as a Catholic. In my earlier years I went through a paradigm shift of sorts. At the age of 17 I became a "Born Again" Pentecostal who was also taught to believe Dispensationalism and Calvinism. Then I started going to a Church of Christ and had to unlearn what I was converted to. I learned to reject Pentecostalism, Dispensationalism and Calvinist theology. Then I was taught that adult baptism by immersion was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, and that Arminianism and amillennial eschatology were biblically correct. Friends, all of this religious change took place in just 2-3 years of my young adult life. Soon I was set in my ways and stayed that way for two decades on major issues, although with more and more education I changed my mind slowly and gradually on lots of other minor ones.
From 1990 to 2005 I went though a second paradigm shift of sorts. I went from being a conservative to a moderate to a liberal to a deist to an agnostic and finally to an atheist, a weak or agnostic atheist.
Recently in the last 2-3 years to date, I have gone though third paradigm shift of sorts. I am now a strong atheist who has come to the conclusion there is no need to take the obfuscations of Christian philosophers seriously because all philosophical apologetics is special pleading, all of it. Philosophy itself is used to obfuscate the Bible and the theology based on it not to clarify them, because if they were truly clarified believers would see clearly the Christian emperor has no clothes on. Clarifying the Bible and the theology based on it rather than obfuscating them would strip away the blinders from the eyes of believers. Then believers could see the evidence-based truth. They would see their faith is a delusion on a par with Mormonism, Hinduism, Orthodox Judaism and even Scientology, as well as seeing they’ve been indoctrinated and/or brainwashed to believe.
I have changed my mind about faith because I’ve become better informed about it. I should not believe anything. Belief isn’t something any reasonable person should do when it comes to gaining knowledge about matters of fact like the nature of nature, its workings and its origins. Faith adds nothing to the probabilities. It has no method and solves no problems. If faith is trust we should not trust faith. It’s a cognitive bias keeping believers away from understanding the truth rather than strictly going with the probabilities based upon the objective evidence.
I have also changed my mind about the Courtier’s Reply. I now agree it's an appropriate and reasonable response to believers who claim to have evidence for their faith. I say this as someone trained in the philosophy of religion who has changed his mind about his own field of study. Furthermore, while I previously desired a respectful discussion with believers, I no longer think it's of the up-most importance. I have embraced the need for and the value of ridicule.
I get attacked for my present views. People do so, even atheists, not realizing I have been where they are now. I just want them to know I was once where they are now. They may attack me but they cannot claim I'm ignorant, just as Christians may attack me not realizing I was once where they are now. I might be wrong. But again, I'm not ignorant. You should take the fact that I've changed my mind as evidence I'm open-minded enough to consider different views. I have a lot to teach my atheist critics precisely because I have changed my views. For at one time I rejected the views of Dawkins and the subsequent Courtier's Reply as philosophically naive, but I now value them. My atheist critics are playing a pretend game when they take the obfuscations of Christian pseudo-philosophers seriously. They do so because they enjoy an intellectually challenging game, much like chess. While it may be fun and interesting to play the game called "Christian" and want to win at it, by playing the game they grant intellectual respectability to that which is bizarre and absurd.
Concluding Paragraph To Chapter 3
This is the final paragraph of Chapter 3 in Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End:
Moser is crazy as is Craig, as is Plantinga. They have lost touch with reality. People who believe as they do should not be at the adult table. They should stay at the children’s table. They must grow up before we should listen to them. They are disqualified from teaching us. People like them should not be teaching in any secular university. They are all faith peddlers. Faith is an unreliable way to gain knowledge. Let this be a litmus test for anyone who wants to teach the philosophy of religion. Ask them what they think of Plantinga, Craig and Moser, and if they embrace these ideas do not hire them. If they are in your department get them fired. I’m serious. They are crazy people who should not be teaching our students.To read some of what I wrote in the chapter see here.
Concluding Thoughts For Chapter 2
Here are the concluding thoughts from chapter 2 of my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End:
Anselm of Canterbury’s key theological contributions for philosophical theology highlight what reasonable people see as the need for philosophy of religion to end. He holds a preeminent place among the best philosophical theologians the church ever produced. And yet, as we’ve seen, even among one the best of the best there’s nothing here but rhetoric without substance based on his faith, and the social climate of his day. His best contributions didn’t solve anything. Almost no one accepts his atonement theory today. His idiosyncratic perfect being conception was based on nothing more than special pleading on behalf of his parochial western concept of god. His ontological argument does not work either. Further, we’ve found that when Anselm’s perfect being is compared to the biblical god Yahweh and his supposed son, it doesn’t make any sense nor can it be reconciled. So the only reason to study Anselm seems to be one of historical curiosity. Anselm’s key contributions did not advance anything since we are no closer at getting to objective knowledge about anything than we would be if he never wrote a thing. When it came to the history of philosophy he made no contributions that furthered understanding, the very thing he sought to do.
Anselm of Canterbury’s key theological contributions for philosophical theology highlight what reasonable people see as the need for philosophy of religion to end. He holds a preeminent place among the best philosophical theologians the church ever produced. And yet, as we’ve seen, even among one the best of the best there’s nothing here but rhetoric without substance based on his faith, and the social climate of his day. His best contributions didn’t solve anything. Almost no one accepts his atonement theory today. His idiosyncratic perfect being conception was based on nothing more than special pleading on behalf of his parochial western concept of god. His ontological argument does not work either. Further, we’ve found that when Anselm’s perfect being is compared to the biblical god Yahweh and his supposed son, it doesn’t make any sense nor can it be reconciled. So the only reason to study Anselm seems to be one of historical curiosity. Anselm’s key contributions did not advance anything since we are no closer at getting to objective knowledge about anything than we would be if he never wrote a thing. When it came to the history of philosophy he made no contributions that furthered understanding, the very thing he sought to do.
Karl Barth, considered one of the greatest theologians of the last century who rejected natural theology with a big fat “Nein”, argued Anselm’s ontological argument was based in a faith seeking understanding, not one that leads to any logical conclusion that his God existed. Anselm did not seek to “prove” the truth of the Christian faith, Barth argued, but to understand it.[i] Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence in chapter 2 of the Proslogion, comes after asking God for help in understand his faith in chapter 1. There he prays, “I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, – that unless I believed, I should not understand.” Then just before developing the argument in chapter 2 Anselm prays, “Lord, do you, who do give understanding to faith, give me, so far as you know it to be profitable, to understand that you are as we believe; and that you are that which we believe.” So while there is disagreement about what he was doing, Anselm at least tacitly acknowledges his argument comes from faith rather than leading to faith. And that’s exactly what we find. The ontological argument depends on his Christian faith which seeks to understand what he already believes about his parochial god. There’s a recognized informal fallacy here. It’s called special pleading.
Philosophers of religion who have dealt with Anselm’s argument and developed their own versions of it, such as Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne and Alvin Plantinga should take note. They don’t know their own theology. Or, perhaps more correctly and importantly, they fail to realize that they’re doing the same thing Anselm honestly admitted doing, special pleading.
What we’re led to conclude is that the problem of philosophical theology stems from faith. If faith is trust then there is no reason to trust faith. Anything based on faith has lower probabilities to it by definition. Christian pseudo-philosophers do no more than build intellectual castles in the sky without any solid grounding to them. There doesn’t seem to be any good principled reason for not getting fed up with the pretend game of faith with its ever receding theology.
[i] Karl Barth, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991), p.14.
By Definition Faith Is Always About That Which Has Low Probabilities
Believers will always argue in the same fashion in order to stay as believers. No matter what we say they always seem to have an answer. What they never produce is any hard cold objective evidence, convincing evidence, for their faith claims. Ever. They are not only impervious to reason. They are impervious to the evidence. They see evidence where it doesn’t exist because they take the lack of evidence as evidence for their faith. When it comes to prayer they count the hits and discount the misses.
There is only so much a person can take when dealing with people who have lost touch with reality. Must we always maintain a patient attitude when we already know their arguments? Must we always respond in a dispassionate manner to people who are persuaded against reason to believe something delusional? We know this about them based on everything we know (i.e., our background knowledge). They are pretending to know that which they don’t know when they pretend to know with some degree of certainty their faith is true. If it’s faith, how then can something be known with any degree of probability at all, much less certainty? No one says we must have a sure faith that there is solid ground in front of us before going out for a walk. No one says we must have a sure faith before grabbing the handle of a door to open it. No one says we must have a sure faith before we eat the food put in front of us by a loved one. Faith by definition always concerns itself with that which is unsure. Something unsure involves lower probabilities. So faith is always about that which has lower probabilities to it. So again, how can something based on faith be known with any degree of certainty? It can’t, and only deluded minds think otherwise, minds that are impervious to reason and evidence. We can only hope they can function in life. It can be quite surprising they can.
There is only so much a person can take when dealing with people who have lost touch with reality. Must we always maintain a patient attitude when we already know their arguments? Must we always respond in a dispassionate manner to people who are persuaded against reason to believe something delusional? We know this about them based on everything we know (i.e., our background knowledge). They are pretending to know that which they don’t know when they pretend to know with some degree of certainty their faith is true. If it’s faith, how then can something be known with any degree of probability at all, much less certainty? No one says we must have a sure faith that there is solid ground in front of us before going out for a walk. No one says we must have a sure faith before grabbing the handle of a door to open it. No one says we must have a sure faith before we eat the food put in front of us by a loved one. Faith by definition always concerns itself with that which is unsure. Something unsure involves lower probabilities. So faith is always about that which has lower probabilities to it. So again, how can something based on faith be known with any degree of certainty? It can’t, and only deluded minds think otherwise, minds that are impervious to reason and evidence. We can only hope they can function in life. It can be quite surprising they can.
My New Book Went to Print Today! "Here It Comes"
My latest anthology was just sent off to be printed! Thanks to everyone who contributed or helped in one way or another. The following clip from "The Wrath of Khan" expresses my thoughts as I ponder the impact of this new anthology titled, Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion (to be labelled CLS).
No violence is intended. It's purely metaphorical. We do battle against ideas. For a look at the front and back covers see below.
No violence is intended. It's purely metaphorical. We do battle against ideas. For a look at the front and back covers see below.
Sir_Russ On Confidence In Science
Kenneth Winsmann is a Roman Catholic who does not have a science degree, much less one in neuroscience. But he seems to think he can solve the problem of metaphysical free will for his faith. You see, his is a faith seeking understanding. He already has faith. Now he's seeking data. He's in confirmation bias mode. So he'll reject science whenever needed to confirm what he believes. Now I don't mind having a respectful discussion. I prefer it actually. But when someone repeatedly and knowingly rejects science then he needs a swift kick in the butt. Enter Sir_Russ:
Kenneth,
Those of us who place our confidence in science do so knowing that every single time science and religion have been at odds, it is science which has been correct. Not just once or twice. Not just the majority of the time. No, it's every single time. All those thousands of Christianities, including that inhuman horror story which is your personal favorite [i.e., Catholicism], have been wrong each and every time they have conflicted with science. It's exactly as if the religious people are just making shit up to suit their own purposes, controlling you emotionally and financially, for instance.
Who knows how many times some religious somebody or other has pronounced some dumbass religious notion to be true -- geocentrism, demon possession being real, witches, demon possession being the cause of disease (which your house of holy horseshit, Roman Catholicism, still endorses), and so much more -- only to have science show it for the ignorance-loving lie that it is despite all those deep insights having been revealed to some cleric, frequently some Roman Catholic elitist bit of scum, by the Creator of the Universe. Who knows?
It makes good sense for everyone with a normal functioning brain to give Christianity, and all the other religions, a fully erect middle finger and a hearty "fuck you" as they walk away. Ignorance, superstition, and barbarism do not deserve to be supported by anyone.
And, anyone who supports an enterprise which has shown itself to ALWAYS be wrong on the facts is a complete fool.
Just Another Reminder About the Need to Overcome Confirmation Bias
LINK. I've argued that the only way to overcome confirmation bias when it comes to religious diversity is to test one's faith by the outsider test. What's a better alternative and how can that alternative solve this problem? If you think there's a better alternative, please, do tell.
Robert Conner, Christianity’s Critics: The Romans Meet Jesus, Part 7
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 the final part, number 7. To get up to speed follow this tag.
There is no ghost in the machine
In neuroscience, few single discoveries have the ability to stay news for long. However, in the aggregate, all lead to the emergence of perhaps the greatest developing news story: the widespread understanding that human thought and behavior are the products of biological processes. There is no ghost in the machine. In the public sphere, this understanding is dawning. LINK.
Anslem’s Ontological Argument Revisited
Anselm’s argument:
(1) On the assumption that that than which nothing greater can be conceived is only in a mind, something greater can be conceived, because
(2) Something greater can be thought to exist in reality as well.
(3) The assumption is therefore contradictory: either there is no such thing even in the intellect, or it exists also in reality;
(4) But it does exist in the mind of the fool, or doubter;
(5) Therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as in the mind.
(1) On the assumption that that than which nothing greater can be conceived is only in a mind, something greater can be conceived, because
(2) Something greater can be thought to exist in reality as well.
(3) The assumption is therefore contradictory: either there is no such thing even in the intellect, or it exists also in reality;
(4) But it does exist in the mind of the fool, or doubter;
(5) Therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as in the mind.
The 10 Worst Old Testament Verses by Dan Barker
There are so many to choose from. LINK. I would add two stories, the Levite and his Concubine (Judges 19-21) and Two Adulterous Sisters (Ezekiel 23). Dan is the author of the recently released book, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. It's really good.
Robert Conner, Christianity’s Critics: The Romans Meet Jesus, Part 6
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 6. To get up to speed follow this tag.
Karen Gorder Garst: Why Every Woman Knows Her Body Was NOT the Creation of an Intelligent Designer
This is an excellent essay by Dr. Garst. She writes concerning childbirth, the menstrual cycle, clitoris, and breasts. Here's a money quote concerning childbirth:
"The reason for the pain in childbirth is understandable with a quick lesson in evolution. When our ancestors started to walk upright, the shape of the pelvis began to change to accommodate a walking gait. Specifically, a narrower pelvis developed. Over hundreds of thousands of years, human brains gradually became more complex and grew bigger to accommodate a higher level of intelligence. The coincidence of these two changes resulted in a baby with a larger head being delivered through a narrower pelvis. Pain, therefore, results as the mother pushes a bigger baby through a smaller opening. (Today, where a child cannot be delivered through this opening, a caesarean section must be performed.)" LINK.At the end of her essay Garst recommends a book I blurbed which was written by Dr. Abby Hafer, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not. Hafer wrote a chapter for my soon to be released anthology Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion. Garst wrote a blurb for that anthology. There, that about covers everything. ;-) Enjoy. Go read it. Now. Read and learn.
Michael Moore On His New Film "Where to Invade Next"
I've recommended this film before right here. He sent out fundraising email saying you'll get a free DVD of it if you send the progressive MoveOn organization 27 bucks. Here's what he said about his film:
My latest film, "Where to Invade Next," comes out on DVD today!
OK, let me tell you a little about the film—and why I think it's a great fit for MoveOn members like you and me. "Where to Invade Next" is, as one critic pointed out, my “most dangerous and subversive film.”
You Don't Need a PhD to Criticize Religion
Hemant Mehta nails this subject. It goes right along with what I'm writing in my book Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. The full text of his talk can be found below.
Robert Conner, Christianity’s Critics: The Romans Meet Jesus, Part 5
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 5. To get up to speed follow this tag.
Animated map shows how religion spread around the world
Here's how five major world religions spread. If you look into it you'll find they spread by conquest. That's a nice way to get people to believe, isn't it? Those of us raised in a particular culture are taught to believe what was forced on our ancestors by killing and the threat of sword. You believe what you were taught to believe and that's it.
Galileo, The Bible, and Science
 |
| Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) |
Robert Conner, Christianity’s Critics: The Romans Meet Jesus, Part 4
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 4. To get up to speed follow this tag.
The Introduction To My Last Book, "Unapologetic"
Introduction
This
will probably be the last book I’ll write on the topic of religion. I think
I’ve said all I need to say. I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian
faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it. Mine has
been a publishing career that stretches back ten years and ends with this, my
tenth book.
Bernie's Full Speech Today In Fort Wayne, Indiana
Watch it! Become informed. Vote for him. He's what we need in America.
Do you know who is the biggest welfare recipient? It's the Walton family, owners of Walmart. Keep in mind their net worth is 149 billion dollars. They own more wealth than the bottom 40% of the people in America. But they don't pay their employees a decent wage so many of them have to get food stamps and depend on Medicare to the tune of $3 billion dollars a year. You know who pays for that? The taxpayer.
We learned this today from Bernie. We need Bernie! Now! He will make the filthy rich pay their fair share. We're tired of supporting them. Right? Right!
Do you know who is the biggest welfare recipient? It's the Walton family, owners of Walmart. Keep in mind their net worth is 149 billion dollars. They own more wealth than the bottom 40% of the people in America. But they don't pay their employees a decent wage so many of them have to get food stamps and depend on Medicare to the tune of $3 billion dollars a year. You know who pays for that? The taxpayer.
We learned this today from Bernie. We need Bernie! Now! He will make the filthy rich pay their fair share. We're tired of supporting them. Right? Right!
Raymond D. Bradley's Book "God's Gravediggers" is Fantastic
But wait? Haven't we heard of God's death before, from Nietzsche and many others? And isn't he/she/it still alive as a concept in the minds of millions of believers? Yes. But he's really dead. Believers just don't know it yet. As I will argue in my upcoming book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, just like Norm Bates in the Hitchcock thriller Psycho, who continued believing his mother was still alive when she was dead, so also believers have propped up a dead God upstairs in a rocking chair and believe he's alive and talks to them too. I say good riddance.
This book of Bradley's is one I compare to the late Michael Martin's book, "The Case Against Christianity" (1995). I highly recommend them both, although I prefer "God's Gravedigger" since Bradley shares his own personal journey in it, and since he interacts with current literature. LINK.
Robert Price's Debate Opener Against William Lane Craig Eviscerates Craig's Apologetics
Robert M. Price's debate opener against William Lane Craig was so good that Craig could only respond by using that which Price had already eviscerated to make his case! He mainly responded by appealing to the majority of scholars and the text of the Bible.
The Last Sermon Atheist John W. Loftus Ever Preached
This sermon was delivered on February 15th 1998, at the Fairview Missionary Church in Angola, Indiana, for Laity Sunday. I was not an atheist at the time. I was a liberal in an evangelical church who was about to become an agnostic in just a few months. After reading a passage in Exodus about Moses, I said: "Moses was perhaps the greatest figure in the Old Testament." I used the word "figure" intentionally. At the time I believed Moses was largely a fictionalized character, a "figure" that we could learn important lessons about living, as I did about some of the other characters I mentioned from the Bible. I remember thinking I didn't say anything I didn't believe. But that didn't mean I thought the story about Moses or the others were actually true.
Valerie Tarico On How Religion Can Be As Addictive As Heroin and How It Should Be Treated
This is another fine essay by Valerie Tarico. Here's a quote with the link:
In the end, the issue of whether religion is addictive for you comes down to similar questions to the ones you might ask yourself about your drug use: Has your religion eaten your life? Does it feel freely chosen or compulsive (and how would you know)? What are the good things about it? And what price are you or others around you paying for the good stuff you get? LINK.
Robert Conner, Christianity’s Critics: The Romans Meet Jesus, Part 3
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 3. To get up to speed Part 1 can be found here.
Christianity’s Critics:
The Romans Meet Jesus
Extended and Revised, 04/2016
Robert Conner
PART THREE
Christianity is a Jewish heresy.
The Jesus of primitive tradition cares not a whit for Gentiles—“Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news: the kingdom of heaven is almost here.”[1] “Jesus traveled through the small, often anonymous towns of Galilee, seemingly avoiding the major cities. Citizens of Sepphoris, Tiberius, the coastal plain and the Decapolis heard none of his sermons. When Jesus did enter the territory of cities in the Decapolis, he remained outside the walls (Mk 5:1; 7:31; 8:27).”[2] “Jesus’ preaching reflects the village”[3]—Jesus’ parables accordingly speak of sowers and fields,[4] shepherds and flocks,[5] and birds and flowers.[6] Before his fateful trip to Jerusalem, it ap-pears Jesus had little to do with any major city.
Donald Trump Is Coming to My Home Town On Sunday May 1st
He'll be at the Allen County War Memorial Coliseum at 4:00 P.M. Doors open at 12:30 P.M. Yes I'm going. Any questions? ;-) LINK. Several of us are talking about protesting outside. What kinds of signs should we make? I also plan on going inside to see the circus!
Bernie Sanders Is Coming To My Home Town On Monday May 2nd
It's official. Bernie Sanders is coming to Fort Wayne! This Monday! May 2nd. At the IPFW Gates Sports Center. Doors open at 11am. He speaks at 2:30 PM. I'm super pumped. If you can make it then come. Take off work if you can. This is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate, and Indiana counts this year so it's doubly exciting! It's called A Future to Believe In GOTV Rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana on 5/2.
Mark Twain: The Character of God As Represented in the Old and New Testaments
Mark Twain: The Character of God as Represented in the Old and New Testaments, Dictated June, 19, 1906. Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume II, page 128:
Our bible reveals to us the character of our God with minute and remorseless exactitude. The portrait is substantially that of a man -- if one can imagine a man charged and overcharged with evil impulses far beyond the human limit; a personage whom no one would desire to associate with, now that Nero and Caligula are dead.
In the Old Testament His acts expose His vindictive, unjust, ungenerous, pitiless, and thousand-fold severity; punishing innocent children for the misdeeds of their parents; punishing unoffending populations for the misdeeds of their rulers; even descending to wreak bloody vengeance upon harmless calves and lambs and sheep and bullocks, as punishment for inconsequential trespasses committed by their proprietors.
It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere; it makes Nero an angel of light and leading, by contrast.
On the Value of the Philosophy of Religion Compared to Science
My next anthology, Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion, is on schedule to be out late in July as announced. I've tried to make each one of my anthologies as good or better than the one before. Many readers will think this is the best one yet.
If you look at the contributors who wrote the chapters you'll see something interesting. Here are the disciplines represented: 1 psychology, 1 engineer, 1 physicist, 1 theoretical physicist, 1 physics, 2 archaeology, 2 biblical scholar, 1 paranormal detective, 1 biology, 1 geology, 1 astronomy, 1 cognitive science, 2 anthropology, and 1 zoology. There is just one author who has a masters degree in philosophy, Johnathan Pearce, and he is scientifically informed. Seems as though we don't need philosophy of religion to debunk Christianity. Just science along with biblical scholars. Don't think so? Read the blurbs for now! For anyone claiming the authors are actually doing philosophy of religion just because we're reasoning about the evidence, think again. On this issue see my post Professor Keith Parsons On Darwin the Philosopher.
If you look at the contributors who wrote the chapters you'll see something interesting. Here are the disciplines represented: 1 psychology, 1 engineer, 1 physicist, 1 theoretical physicist, 1 physics, 2 archaeology, 2 biblical scholar, 1 paranormal detective, 1 biology, 1 geology, 1 astronomy, 1 cognitive science, 2 anthropology, and 1 zoology. There is just one author who has a masters degree in philosophy, Johnathan Pearce, and he is scientifically informed. Seems as though we don't need philosophy of religion to debunk Christianity. Just science along with biblical scholars. Don't think so? Read the blurbs for now! For anyone claiming the authors are actually doing philosophy of religion just because we're reasoning about the evidence, think again. On this issue see my post Professor Keith Parsons On Darwin the Philosopher.
The Philosophical Elitism of Keith Parsons
I'm going to try showing Keith Parsons that he stands a lot to gain by listening to me, that I know what I'm talking about, and that he's wrong about the New Atheism. While I probably won't convince him, keep in mind that an argument doesn't need to be convincing for it to be a good one. I'm going to argue his problem is philosophical elitism. I will do so respectably, although it's that same attitude that may keep him from responding. First, here's a quote from Eric MacDonald endorsing Parsons:
My specialties are theology, philosophical theology and especially apologetics. I am an expert on these subjects even though it's very hard to have a good grasp of them all. Now it's one thing for theologically unsophisticated intellectuals like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Stenger to argue against religion. It's quite another thing for a theologically sophisticated intellectual like myself to say the "New Atheists" were within their epistemic rights to denounce religion from their perspectives. And I do. I can admit they lack the sophistication to understand and respond point for point to sophisticated theology. But it doesn't matter. The reason is because all sophisticated theology is based in faith: faith in the Bible (or Koran) as the word of God, and/or faith in the Nicene creed (or other creeds), and/or faith in a church, synagogue or temple. No amount of sophistication changes this. Even an informed ten year old can come to the correct conclusions about faith without any sophistication at all.
Let's take a serious look at what Parsons said:
The problem is precisely that the New Atheists think it appropriate to dismiss theology and philosophy of religion without understanding the first thing about it. Some New Atheists say, "I know enough about it. I was brought up as a Catholic or an Anglican or ...." But that's not qualification enough. Arguing from this point of view, where you really do not know what your opponent is arguing, because you have made no attempt to find out, is a simple informal fallacy known as special pleading. And the New Atheism is full of it. That's where Keith Parsons is way ahead of the New Atheists. Be an unbeliever by all means. But don't say that you know that there is no God or that theology is all make believe until you have really tried to understand what theologians are saying. And when you have done so, you will, I think, qualify your dismissal. --Eric MacDonaldI think this criticism of the New Atheism fails to understand the very phenomena being criticized. Let's just re-purpose MacDonald's quote: "The problem is precisely that the New Atheists think it appropriate to dismiss Scientology, or Mormonism, or militant Islam, or Hindu theology, or Haitian Catholic voodoo without understanding the first thing about it..." Need I go on? If anyone is special pleading it is MacDonald, for it didn't enter his mind to consider the many other religious faiths out there he easily dismisses without knowing that much about them. So I think reasonable people don't have to know a lot about religious faiths to reject them. We can dismiss these and other faiths precisely because they are faiths. The evidence is not there and even runs contrary to them. The moralities of these faiths also count against them. Do we need to know something about them to dismiss them? Sure, we should know something about them. In fact, to reject one of them we should at least hear about it. But even a rudimentary level of knowledge is enough for that, since faith is the problem. As outsiders we don't need to look into the many varieties of faith to know the results of faith are not likely to be true. We can do this simply by generalizing from the many mutually inconsistent false faiths to the probability that any given particular faith is false, even before getting an in-depth knowledge about it.
My specialties are theology, philosophical theology and especially apologetics. I am an expert on these subjects even though it's very hard to have a good grasp of them all. Now it's one thing for theologically unsophisticated intellectuals like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Stenger to argue against religion. It's quite another thing for a theologically sophisticated intellectual like myself to say the "New Atheists" were within their epistemic rights to denounce religion from their perspectives. And I do. I can admit they lack the sophistication to understand and respond point for point to sophisticated theology. But it doesn't matter. The reason is because all sophisticated theology is based in faith: faith in the Bible (or Koran) as the word of God, and/or faith in the Nicene creed (or other creeds), and/or faith in a church, synagogue or temple. No amount of sophistication changes this. Even an informed ten year old can come to the correct conclusions about faith without any sophistication at all.
Let's take a serious look at what Parsons said:
Do you need a Ph.D. in philosophy to be a legitimate and respectable participant in the theism/atheism debate or the science/religion debate? Of course not. But you do need to know what you are talking about. Those, however accomplished in other fields, who leap into the debate philosophically uninformed inevitably commit freshman mistakes that expose them to the scorn of sophisticated opponents. LINK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)