The End of Biblical Studies continues to be taken seriously in
graduate courses in biblical studies. One example is at Marquette University, a
Catholic institution where Dr. Julian Hills, a highly respected New Testament scholar,is teaching a course on New Testament Method. Here is the course description: “In 1973, a young Walter
Wink wrote, ‘Historical biblical criticism is bankrupt’ (The Bible in Human
Transformation, p. 1). More recently a new young firebrand, Hector Avalos, has
published a book announcing The End of Biblical Studies (2007) as an academic
discipline with any sort of integrity — suggesting that scholars employ ‘a
variety of flawed and specious techniques that are aimed at maintaining the
illusion that the Bible is still relevant in today's world’ (cover blurb).
This course will be, I
hope, a vigorous re-affirmation of the necessity and the rich fruit of
appropriate method, or methods, in biblical studies. Of course, we shall want
to hear what Wink and Avalos have to say; but not in a purely defensive
posture. Instead, we shall examine a host of first-rate examples of biblical
criticism well employed, and each student will write several exegetical papers
that will correspond to the best canons of scholarly research and writing. In
addition, we shall discuss the role of biblical studies in the academy (say, in
a religious or secular university setting) and in the service of the Church.”
I've found it to be the case that most atheists just talk to themselves, as most Christians just talk to themselves. I can't back those statements up with any scientific polls, I know. But it seems true for all I know. If true, I have one answer as to why this is true. When people identify with a group, any group, they want to influence that group and want the recognition of that group. So atheists write about issues of concern to atheists and Christians write about issues of concern to Christians. There will always be fewer people reaching out to others because of this. Your thoughts please. *People have recently told me they cannot comment here, and I don't know what to do about it*
The Ted Radio Hour on NPR is really good! I heard this program recently on the Brand Over Brain. There were some startling findings. We can be fooled, all of us, about which products are the best ones for the best price. We can be convinced that drinking an average cup of coffee is the best glass of coffee we ever drank. It's called branding. I think this hits religious beliefs hard, very hard. It's because one's own adopted religion was branded as having more value than the other religions in the world. Just like that cup of coffee, with branding people can come to believe their own religion is the best one in the world, the true one. The antidote to this cognitive bias is for young adults who leave the homes of their parents to demand hard cold objective sufficient evidence for what they were indoctrinated to believe. It's to take the Outsider Test for Faith.
As a former believer, he knows how believers think. As an academically trained biblical scholar (PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University), he knows how to detect the defects of apologetic arguments.
“An all-powerful God who permits unspeakable horrors and sent a Son who threatened more to come, forever, to those who don’t believe in him. An inspired holy book that turns out to be full of archaic nonsense, moral failures, and contradictions. A world of disagreement not just between Christians and other religions, but within Christianity itself. Blood sacrifice and a tale of the walking dead as the very foundation of faith. These are just a few aspects of Ten very Tough Problems that David Madison describes in this wonderfully deep yet humorous dismantling of his former faith. Combining rigorous scholarship with engaging personal reflections and refreshing wit, he offers understanding and even some laughs while walking with readers past the gravestones of Christian thought and belief.”
This is a needed children's book on evolution, and it sounds fantastic!
In this inspirational storybook written in rhyme, Annabelle asks,
"Why do we look, the way that we do?
With hands and feet, in neat sets of two?
What made my eyes? And what made my nose?
And the shape of my body, from my head to my toes?"
A wise owl answers by taking the characters on an incredible journey through Darwinian evolution. Join our characters as they visit outer space, watch the Earth go through its earliest stages, and gaze in wonder at the earliest forms of life. Young readers will gain a basic understanding of evolution, and perhaps more importantly, what we can learn from it: to be kind to one another, as we are all related in the same family tree. LINK
On July 21st I was elected to the board of Atheist Alliance of America (AAoA). On that night we elected Aron Ra as our new president. What is AAoA? Read about us at the Ra man's page right here. Yes, I'm very excited. It's a great organization. We have some visionary and talented officers and board members who have adopted some great goals. Since I may be done writing and editing books (who knows?), I'm now entering an activist stage. Stay tuned.
Soon after becoming a board member of AAoA I was quickly given some speaking engagements on Labor Day Weekend at the 2016 Dragoncon, in Atlanta, Georgia, September 2-5th. Dragoncon is the "largest multi-media, popular culture convention focusing on science fiction & fantasy, gaming, comics, literature, art, music, and film in the universe!" I've heard they're projecting 60,000 convention goers this year! You can see the schedule of skeptic events right here. The problem is the 2016 AAoA budget didn't include money for me to go, so I'm paying my own way from Fort Wayne, Indiana. Any help that allows me to go comfortably to Dragoncon without a big drain on my own limited resources at will surely be appreciated. If you care to do so, donate to me at PayPal by using my email address, loftusjohnw@gmail.com. Over the years I've been truly grateful to my peeps, who have financially helped me from time to time do what I do best. This will be no exception. Thank you, no matter how small your donation is, or how small the total amount comes to be.
Dr. John Goldingay of Fuller Theological Seminary is not a scholar that I would expect
to agree with me on biblical ethics. He is a well-known evangelical biblical
scholar and I am an openly atheist biblical scholar.
“What
difference did Jesus’ coming make to the world? It has been argued that ‘The
Church has made more changes on earth for good than any other movements of
force in history,’ including the growth of hospitals, universities, literacy
and education, capitalism and free enterprise, representative government,
separation of political powers, civil liberty, the abolition of slavery, modern
science, the discovery of the Americas, the elevation of women, the civilizing
of primitive cultures, and the setting of languages to writing.
It is
easy to dispute this claim. The church resisted some of these developments just
listed, some are not particularly Christian, and all were encouraged by
humanistic forces and reflect Greek thinking
as much as gospel thinking.
[Footnote
10]: On slavery in particular (even when one allows for overstatement) Hector
Avalos, Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2011).”
Of course, Dr. Goldingay still thinks the Bible is generally a good set of books. But Dr.
Goldingay’s comments show that even evangelical biblical scholars can
acknowledge the powerful evidence that atheist biblical scholars have presented to refute the claim that biblical ethics led to abolition.
Steve
King (R-Iowa) is a congressman from the fourth congressional district in Iowa. In other
words, he is my congressman. I have written a newspaper column about his belief that white
Christian culture is superior to all others. His first remarks of note on this
issue were on MSNBC.
Terrorism is one of the most salient problems facing Western civilization today. And it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon. As the director of the FBI James Comey recently stated (echoing claims by terrorism scholars), as the Islamic State’s territory shrinks, we should expect a “terrorist diaspora” into the West. We’ve already seen evidence of the Islamic State shifting its strategy from building a robust caliphate (according to a prophetic hadith) in Iraq and Syria to attacking the West.
Nate Christensen took this photo when visiting his local Barnes & Noble store. It's of the atheism bookshelf. I never expected this when I started writing and editing books, but it sure looks good to me. My magnum opus is on the left and my four anthologies in the middle. Every one of my books does something that few other atheist books have done before them (to my knowledge anyway). [See below for why I say this.] This isn't about me though. It's about arguing the Christian delusion into the ground. Most Christians are not paying attention but they should.
I have published a new articleat the Bible and Interpretation website that is based on my most recent book, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of new Testament Ethics (2015). Here is the abstract:
Many scholars of New Testament ethics claim that Jesus brought an innovative teaching when he urged his followers to love their enemies. Hector Avalos, author of The Bad Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), argues that such a claim is historically untrue, and reflects the parochialism of New Testament ethics, which often degrades the ethical accomplishments of pre-Christian Near Eastern cultures in order to enhance the ethical “advances” of the putative founder of Christianity. As such, New Testament ethics is still situated within an ecclesial-academic complex that is more engaged in apologetics than it is in historical-critical scholarship.
As mentioned by Hemant Mehta today, this debate took place in 2010. Apparently it was just released. It’s a debate between Brown and Ehrman on "Does the Bible provide an adequate answer to the problem of suffering?" Quick answer? No! Hell No! It was written in a barbaric era where God-concepts were modeled on what they knew about their kings. No one expected kings to be kind and humble or even good. They were sometimes cruel and vindictive. In the tale of Job we find the lead character complaining about his suffering. He could not find a reasonable answer for it. Yet his god-king basically told him to shut up and believe despite the evidence. What secret knowledge did Michael Brown receive that Job didn't receive, even though Job actually talked with God? *wink* Again, God said Job should trust him despite the evidence. Or, to personalize it, "trust me despite the evidence!" This cannot be an adequate answer to suffering unless you're a dolt. See below:
Here's a guest post on the death of Tim LaHaye, who was a false prophet, written by Robert Connor:
Baptist preacher, weapons grade homophobe, conspiracy theorist—of course the Illuminati wrote your local school’s curriculum! Don’t be silly!—founder of the Institute of Creation Research, and co-author of the Left Behind novels, Timothy “Moonbat” LaHaye has (finally) died. But there’s more Good News: Jesus Didn’t Come Back again. And again. And some more times. Many, many more times. Like all the other times Jesus Didn’t Come Back.
"In this indispensable volume, Christianity in the Light of Science, John Loftus and his colleagues demonstrate all the different ways in which science undermines and threatens religious belief. The only way you can rescue God from this book is if you force him to retreat so far that you might as well stop believing in him. I defy you to read this volume and still believe that religion and science shall ever meet. John Loftus will never receive the Templeton Prize, but he should. This collection alone will further our understanding of science and religion more than all the previous winners combined." —Dr. Maarten Boudry, philosopher, Ghent University.
According to the gospels, Rome in the person of Pontius Pilate found Jesus guilty of something and had him crucified. However, the specific charges against Jesus are never explicitly stated in the New Testament, an omission that might lead a cynic to suspect the charge that led to Jesus’ hasty execution was even more embarrassing to the early church than the fact its founder died an ignominious death reserved for heinous felons. Indeed, the judicial procedure described in the gospels contains so many incongruities and is so historically implausible that its accuracy overall can be safely dismissed, but if it is conceded that Jesus existed and that some basic elements of his career are preserved in the gospels, we are left to ponder what charges led to him being so summarily and brutally dispatched.
I could write a daily devotional, well, advice for the day anyway. I even have a title in mind! Here's a potential entry:
There's something to be said for having naysayers and critics in our lives (the "loyal opposition"). They help keep us away from false ideas and unethical actions to the degree they are reasonable and right. But if they truly desire to help us, rather than tear us down, we must first be friends!
I only want friends around me, people who encourage and support me, even when it comes to naysayers and critics. Get it? I can accept reasonable criticism, but I first need to know my critics are trying to be helpful as friends. Would anyone want something different?
Hoosiers have their religions. I met this girl at the annual Fort Wayne Three Rivers Festival yesterday, with some extra time to waste as I waited for a concert to begin. She said God told her to preach on the sidewalk to us. How did she know this? By faith. I noticed she brought throat lozenges and had just put one in her mouth. So I asked her whether she brought them because she reasoned they might be needed, or if God told her to bring them. At what point is reason called for as opposed to faith? I said I used to do what she's doing, then I challenged her with a few things and left.
I just happened to enter a food tent and noticed several different religions represented. So I went around and took pictures of these people. Then I took the pictures to her and asked what's the difference between them and her. Faith doesn't help us know the truth I said. She proceeded to quote John 14:6 to me and I finished it for her. Then I asked her to name a few popular book chapter and verses and I would quote them to her. I had memorized a great many of them and said I probably only remember the most popular ones now. She started down the Romans Road of evangelism. I could still quote a few of them correctly. I told her I was a former preacher and was ordained by a church in Fort Wayne. Of course, we extended our conversation at that point, and I left again, handing her my card
I returned another time, waited until she acknowledged me, then I asked if she needed some water. She politely said no. She said her husband just brought her some. I sincerely said her voice was sounding hoarse, and left.
I returned one last time, waited till she acknowledged me, and handed her a "Sikh Faith" pamphlet. She smiled and said thank you. I got a smile out of her. I consider that a victory! Pictures are below (sorry about the poor quality):
Given his background, John Loftus is uniquely qualified to demand the long-overdue fall from grace befitting the philosophy of religion as an academic discipline in secular universities. In Unapologetic, he explains thoroughly and lucidly why it is time both atheists and secular philosophy departments step away from the discipline forever, exposing it for the religious evangelism it merely pretends not to be. Recommended for anyone who still believes in the value of the philosophy of religion, so that they can see their error.
While I said a few things that hadn't been said the way I did, I didn't expect this high praise:
Unapologetic is a wonderfully entertaining read. With masterful erudition, John Loftus presents a compelling case for why the philosophy of religion contains nothing but sophistry and illusion and should, therefore, be committed to the flames. It has no more right to exist than the philosophy of fairies, or the study of Superman. One might be skeptical of this claim—as I was before starting the book—but the arguments are so well-crafted and persuasive that I bet you’ll walk away nodding your head in agreement. Of Loftus’ many critiques of Christianity, this is the best yet. I highly recommend it to anyone with a fondness for great writing and the truth!
It's been a while since I last posted on Debunking Christianity, I know! Readers may recall that my central project right now (since my book came out) is trying to initiate a desperately-needed, extremely important conversation between the secular movement and the existential risk community. In sum, the former is far, far more important than it even realizes because of the latter, and the latter is failing in its effort to keep the world safe because it ignores the target of the former (namely religion). In a forthcoming "Technical Report" from my fledgling organization, the X-Risks Institute, I try a new strategy for getting existential riskologists and new atheists to talk about the future of humanity. But readers will have to wait another week for more details!
John Loftus is philosophy of religion’s—or what we would both probably prefer to call “Christian philosophy’s”—worst nightmare. He was inside in the whole bankrupt enterprise, earning a Master of Theology degree and studying toward a PhD under august teachers like William Lane Craig. He has moved from insider to outsider, even punishing theology with his “outsider test for faith.” He has written or edited powerful texts on the failings of Christianity and theism more generally, using philosophy of religion’s own tools against it. This new book, in honor of the recent decision of British voters to secede from the European Union, we might dub his Apologexit....what parades as philosophy of religion today is a dismal and embarrassing abdication of intellectual discipline. No other scholarly field falls as short of its calling, and no one is more qualified than that turncoat Loftus to induce philosophers of religion to snap out of their dogmatic slumber or else shut the whole business down. LINK.
Dr. Hebert Marbury, Associate Professor of Hebrew
Bible at Vanderbilt University, has written a review of my book on Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (2011), which argues that biblical ethics were not
responsible for the abolition of slavery in western civilization. On the contrary, reliance on the Bible spread and maintained slavery for about 1800 years in Christianity. Dr. Marbury’s review shows that Christian biblical scholars
can appreciate the work of atheist biblical scholars who are critical of
biblical ethics. I provide an extract of
the review below for those who do not have access to the website of the Review of Biblical Literature:
I love these types of memes. They're funny, intelligent and provoking.
I don't think there is a better chapter on petitionary prayer than the one Dr. Valerie Tarico wrote for Christianity in the Light of Science. Check it out yourselves. It puts an end to prayer. Prayer does not work. Period! Those who think it does live in a childish fantasy-land.
I have written a newspaper column about Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s proclamation encouraging a Bible reading marathon at all 99 Iowa county courthouses. Most people who participate in these Bible readings are probably not even aware that religious groups don’t always agree on what “THE Bible” means for them. You can see the complete text of the Proclamation here.
I am pleased to say I just sent my digital book files for "Unapologetic" off to Pitchstone Publishing to be printed. This was the hardest book I have written since I know it'll be the most hotly contested one. I hope many readers like it. LINK.
Now I have about a month of things to catch up on that I let slide. Cheers.
Let me give you some indicators when faith is on the hook. Faith is certain. It doesn’t entertain much doubt at all. Faith refuses to change its mind in the face of good solid evidence. Faith seems to always find that small little hole through which it can still maintain it was not obliterated by the evidence. It has a deer in the headlights look when encountering a good argument to the contrary for the first time.
Probably the best way to figure out if an idea is held by faith, rather than because of the probabilities based on good evidence, is the intersection where faith and science meet. If there is overwhelming support for an idea in the global scientific community then that idea has the backing of very strong objective evidence. It’s faith if it objects to that idea. Evolution is one of them. The present crisis of human caused climate change is another one. That vaccines save lives is yet another one. Science delivers the goods. Period. Faith does not.
By contrast to the assured results of the consensus of scientists, if an idea is not agreed upon by religious believers, then to that same degree of disagreement the idea is faith-based, false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. Moreover, if an idea is only—or largely—held by people in one part of the globe, then to that same degree of global separation the idea is faith-based, false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If that idea is only contained in one religious book, or only held by a sect within a sect of a religion, then to that same degree the idea is faith-based, false and probably unworthy of serious consideration.
Furthermore, if any religion has taught, or still teaches, its church, mosque, temple, shine or holy place sits at the center of the earth, then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If any religion has taught, or still teaches, it’s okay to enslave people against their will, or mistreat and rape women, then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If any religion has taught, or still teaches, it’s mandatory—or even permissible—to kill homosexuals, witches, heretics, apostates and/or people who hold another religion, then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If any religion has taught, or still teaches, that it’s okay to brutalize animals due to some kind of dominion mandate, or dash babies against the rocks as the last acts of genocide, then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration. If any religion has taught, or still teaches, their God approves and/or commands a holy war in defense of its sacred truths, or to convert people by force, or to steal land from others then that faith is false and probably unworthy of serious consideration.
And Herod heard of it, for [Jesus’] name became known and they were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead and be-cause of this the powers are at work in him.”But others said, “He is Elijah,” but others said, “A prophet, like one of the former prophets.” But when Herod heard, he said, “John, the one I beheaded, this one has been raised!”[1]
I posted this on Facebook and got the usual unthinking response. A Christian said: "Actually, Allah is the Arabic word for the God of all the Abrahamic religions and Arab Christians also call him Allah. So that meme above is a mistake." Listen up, next time Christians respond like that ask if they believe in the deity who inspired the Koran. Yes or no?
