Hermione Granger or the Apostle Paul? Take Your Pick
The enduring appeal of magical thinking
The morning after his rescue, Hagrid mentioned the Ministry of Magic, and Harry wanted to know what the Ministry of Magic did.
The morning after his rescue, Hagrid mentioned the Ministry of Magic, and Harry wanted to know what the Ministry of Magic did.
Does God Drive a Mercedes Benz or Take the Bus?
[Written by Teresa Roberts] Throughout modern history humans have denounced materialism for a variety of reasons. Whether as a path to non attachment as part of the Buddhist philosophy or from a need to find fulfillment outside the confines of mainstream life, the drive to obtain material things has often been painted in an unflattering light.
I was a child of the 60s and can easily remember a time period in America when the hippie revolution flourished upon such notions as shared living, back-to-the-earth lifestyles and the glorious goal of breaking the chains of a greed-driven world. We see this theme recycling even today with the tiny house movement and community gardens. Redefining what makes life worthwhile has driven many to form alliances. Standing alongside these soul-searching-radical lifestyles is Christianity, at least in the western world.
I was a child of the 60s and can easily remember a time period in America when the hippie revolution flourished upon such notions as shared living, back-to-the-earth lifestyles and the glorious goal of breaking the chains of a greed-driven world. We see this theme recycling even today with the tiny house movement and community gardens. Redefining what makes life worthwhile has driven many to form alliances. Standing alongside these soul-searching-radical lifestyles is Christianity, at least in the western world.
Dr. William L. Vanderburgh's Book Now Available, "David Hume On Miracles, Evidence, and Probability"
A major scholarly defense of David Hume's arguments against miracles has just been published by atheist philosopher William Vanderburgh. It's especially needed since John Earman's objections.
It's expensive but important. Knowing what I already know about it, any serious discussion of miracles must deal with it. LINK.
Here is a summation on the back cover:
The Jesus Nobody Wants
Or do they?
Am I allowed to indulge my fantasy that there are normal Christians? By which I mean folks who love their families, go to work every day, plan their careers, save for retirement, look forward to vacations, mom and dad enjoy consenting-adult time alone together, and they show up at church. All of these pursuits—except for showing up for church—take a hit in the New Testament.
Love their families: Luke 14:26, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”
“Ought” and “Is” Revisited
It’s nearly as predictable as if it were a law of nature: Every few years, someone argues with me online that Hume’s Law (that one cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”) is wrong. And usually, the challenge comes from an atheist who is convinced that they must set this law aside in order to defend moral realism — and thus answer critics who say that atheism cannot justify morality.
There are two basic points such people should learn about this. First, that Hume’s Law is a simple matter of logic; in the sense Hume was talking about, an “ought” cannot be derived from an “is,” period. Second, that in itself this does not show there are no moral truths. It doesn’t even show that ethical naturalism (the view that there are “natural” — and thus in principle scientifically discoverable — moral truths) is false. Anyone who wishes to maintain that there are moral facts discoverable by science is therefore welcome to attempt to do so some other way, in spite of Hume’s Law.
Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?
I wish Christian apologists would get their stories straight on this question. Apologists who seek to soften the problem of religious diversity, and who want to explain why a diverse number of religious believers have their prayers answered, will say Yahweh and Allah are the same god by different names. So say Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and many others.
Christians who seek to be honest however, will say no they're not the same god! Interestingly enough, William Lane Craig says they are not the same god! Jack Cottrell agrees with Craig. Roger Olsen's answer is both yes and no! Olsen:
--Who Answers Prayers?
--The Empty Rhetoric of Christian Apologists.
--Do Christians Worship the Same God As Muslims and Jews Do? The Larycia Hawkins Test Case.
--It's Preposterous That Victor Reppert and David Marshall Believe in Allah.
Again, let me stress it's about being honest. Honesty has it's price though.
Christians who seek to be honest however, will say no they're not the same god! Interestingly enough, William Lane Craig says they are not the same god! Jack Cottrell agrees with Craig. Roger Olsen's answer is both yes and no! Olsen:
Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? It’s not as simple a question as it appears and therefore no simple, straightforward answer should be given. The question itself begs analysis—before any answer can be given. I worry that people who jump to answer “yes” may be motivated more by political correctness and/or fear of persecution (of Muslims) than by clear thinking about the theological differences between Islam and Christianity. I also worry that people who jump to answer “no” may be motivated more by Christian fundamentalism and/or fear of terrorists than by clear thinking about the historical-theological roots of Islam in Jewish and Christian monotheism.I've laid out what's at stake in several posts:
--Who Answers Prayers?
--The Empty Rhetoric of Christian Apologists.
--Do Christians Worship the Same God As Muslims and Jews Do? The Larycia Hawkins Test Case.
--It's Preposterous That Victor Reppert and David Marshall Believe in Allah.
Again, let me stress it's about being honest. Honesty has it's price though.
Neil Godfrey on "The Faith Trick"
Neil Godfrey asks why we need a middle man (or god) to do what we can do for ourselves. The answer? We don't. LINK.
How Do Theologians Learn to Talk Like This?
Fine-Tuning Christianity…Until It Vanishes
One of my seminary professors—a bit more cynical than most—wisecracked about Karl Barth’s 12-volume magnum opus on Christian theology, “Nobody knows 8,000 pages about God—not even in German.” The key word here is knows. Just how does anyone figure out God—has anyone actually done it?—based on hard evidence? It would be greatly appreciated if the legions of Christian theologians and apologists could provide just one page of bona fide God knowledge.
Hence, long ago I got into the habit of scrawling in the margins of theology books, “How does he know this?” And when I came across especially florid sentences: “How do theologians learn to talk like this?” But often I simply wrote, “Theobabble!” in response to nonsense and obfuscation.
More Blurbs for "The Case Against Miracles"
My anthology is coming out in the Fall! To see the contents click here.
-Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine:
I thought I knew a lot on these topics—inasmuch as I was once a born-again Christian myself and made these arguments, then became a born-again Skeptic debating believers—but I learned more from reading this one book than all other works combined. The Case against Miracles belongs in every library and personal bookcase of both believers and skeptics.--Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists:
The Case Against Miracles is the most important anthology to ever be written about miracles.--Christian apologist Dr. Gary Habermas:
Christians need be aware of what non-Christian scholars are saying. In this thoughtful and stimulating volume, editor John Loftus brings together a number of the most accomplished atheists and other skeptics to deal with the crucial topic of miracles, an issue that is important on all sides.
--Assistant Professor of History at Arkansas Tech University, Dr. Gregory Michna:
The assorted contributors who provided essays for The Case Against Miracles offer a range of arguments—from the philosophical and intellectual to specific historic deconstructions—suggesting that miracles fly in the face of reason and should be met with credulity. They provide a wide survey of issues inherent in miraculous claims that will give any reader much to consider.
While some entries are stronger than others, The Case against Miracles represents a powerful critique of the miraculous. Its central arguments demand the attention of any serious defender of the Christian faith.--David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed, Jesus: Mything in Action, and The Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion series:
Every John W. Loftus book is a must-read; he continues to assemble some of the finest and most insightful minds in contemporary counter-apologetics. Putting biblical miracle claims under the magnifying lens, it weighs the evidence and finds them wanting. The Case against Miracles is a superb resource and a handy field guide for anyone forced to traipse through the treacherous jungles of the miraculous.Dr. David Madison:
The previous four Loftus anthologies have left little of Christianity intact. Of course, apologists continue to flail, but the case against miracles—so massively documented in this new 562-page book—wipes out all vestiges of this primitive, magical thinking.--Dan Barker Co-President of Freedom From Religion Foundation and author of Godless, Mere Morality, Free Will Explained, GOD: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, and Life Driven Purpose:
This book is a secular miracle! An extremely rare event. There are hundreds of pro-miracle books, but when was the last time you saw a comprehensive anthology by such eloquent critics of miracles? For gathering this well-reasoned material into such an accessible volume, John Loftus should be canonized.--Karen L. Garst, PhD, Editor of Women Beyond Belief:
In this book much shorter than the Bible itself, Loftus has marshaled all the key arguments to prove that people should seriously doubt all religious miracle claims. It should be required reading in all seminaries.--Mark W. Gura, president of Atheist Alliance of America, author, and atheist activist:
The Case against Miracles is a must read go-to book for showing the key flaws in the arguments Christian apologists use to convince people that miracles are real. It covers the Old Testament and New Testament miracles, and everything from the alleged virgin birth, to Jesus’ mythic resurrection and the failures of Christian apologetics. It’s the best book ever written on miracles.
John Loftus’ The Case Against Miracles is a must read for anyone who truly and honestly wonders whether a miracle has ever occurred. Especially useful is its treatment of Craig Keener and his reports of the miraculous. Not only is the speciousness of Keener’s stories exposed, and the myriad faults of his investigate approach laid bare, but the details of how investigation into the miraculous must be approached is clearly articulated.
Knowledge is the Greatest Sin of All
[Written by Teresa Roberts] In Christian theology, eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the sin that caused the downfall of humankind. Apparently, the worst thing a human can do in the eyes of god is to acquire knowledge. Every tree bearing fruit in the garden was available to Adam and Eve except the one, the big tall tree bearing answers to their questions. That tree was strictly forbidden.
Can’t Christians Find a Better Religion?
God himself might not forgive their nasty history
Jesus : His Life - Did Jesus Exist?
Having reviewed the television program I wanted to address some of the content from the Jesus : His Life website as well, namely the page that addresses the historicity of Jesus. I do find it significant that they address the existence of Jesus at all, at least acknowledging the growing number of people who doubt that Jesus was a real person. This is my last post covering the His Life series.
The website for the program includes several pages that address various aspects of Jesus lore. One such page addresses the question of whether Jesus existed at all. The page notes that a survey by the Church of England found that 22 percent of Brits didn't believe that Jesus was a real person.
We are then told, however, that of course the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars (the majority of whom are Christians) do believe that Jesus was a real person. So what evidence does the site put forward to support the existence of Jesus? When God Despises Our Humanness
A Review of Vitaly Malkin’s Dangerous Illusions: How Religion Deprives Us of Happiness
Jesus : His Life - The Crucifixion
In a prior post I reviewed the first three episodes of the History Channel program Jesus : His Life. I've skipped the 4th through 6th episodes and will here be reviewing the final double episode that covers the Crucifixion.
The Crucifixion episode also focuses on Mary Magdalene - leading with misinformation right out of the gate.
The Crucifixion episode also focuses on Mary Magdalene - leading with misinformation right out of the gate.
You Too Might Be Kneeling On The Holy Stairs Jesus Climbed...
...if you were raised a Catholic and gullible enough to believe a medieval legend that the Scala Santa, also known as the Holy Stairs, were brought from Jerusalem to Rome circa 326 AD by St. Helena, mother of Constantine the Great. It's believed Jesus climbed them on the day of his crucifixion. In a second picture look how worn these stairs are after centuries of pilgrims. "This is the first time in 300 years that the walnut wood covering over the steps has been removed. It first was placed on the steps at Pope Innocent XIII’s request in 1723 to preserve the marble. The staircase was uncovered on Thursday and will remain that way through June 9, allowing visitors to ascend the steps on their knees, as is tradition. After the two-month window, the wood covering will be replaced, meaning this will likely be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Christians to see the steps in their original form." You'd better book your trip today!!! More Religion Pics of the week here.
Jesus : His Life – A review
When I heard about the History Channel’s new TV special, Jesus : His Life, I was quite interested to see how they were going to handle the subject. As the author of the recently published book, Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed, obviously I knew that my perspective on the subject would be different than whatever might be presented, but I was still quite interested to see how they were going to present the subject matter. Comic Book Fantasy in the New Testament
Its oldest document delivers….
This was brought home to me recently when I had a conversation with a Christian on Facebook. Here’s what I heard from him: “Love is the main theme throughout the New Testament.” “Love is the primary message of Jesus.” Christianity’s “primary tenet is love for all humanity.” See, John 3:16 works! I suggested some of the texts that show this is not the case at all, far from it, but these made no dent in his uber-confidence about love. I might as well have been shooting arrows at a tank.
On the Evidence for the Resurrection
That the disciples risked their lives, and in the majority of cases ended up being executed, shows they really believed in Jesus’ resurrection, for who would be willing to take things that far for something they did not believe? That women were the ones who found the empty tomb shows that the story wasn’t made up, since women weren’t trusted as sources of information in those days — and thus, if anyone were making up the story, they would have said it was men who made the discovery.
These arguments are, of course, extremely weak. But rather than criticizing them directly (for that, see for example my book The Truth about God, pp. 68-72), I’d like to pose a question regarding miracle claims in other religions. Let’s take Buddhism and Islam as examples.
The State of Scholarly Mythicism
After publishing Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed in late 2018 I have become increasingly engaged in the field of biblical studies and Christian origins. The subject of mythicism is a complex one that is fraught with problems, as is the entire subject of Christian origins, because of the vast array of competing claims in the field, some of which are of dubious academic quality. Nevertheless, I believe that the field is maturing and has reached a point of growing consensus around a model for Christian origins without the existence of a human Jesus. Why Religion and Sex are Uncomfortable Bedfellows
[Written by Teresa Roberts] Growing up in a genuine American cult, I soon learned that my body created a problem for the men in the church. Even as a young girl, I was expected to dress modestly and conduct myself in a way that would become a woman of god — with shamefacedness and sobriety. Except for my neck, hands and head, all else must be covered. Bare skin, even the shape of my body beneath my clothes could be used by the devil to cause a man to sin. According to the brethren, sexual thoughts were as bad as sexual deeds. If I shirked my duty as the sexual gate keeper, I could be the cause of god sending men's souls to hell.
Of course, I'd end up in the burning lake of fire, too, as a great seductress.
Of course, I'd end up in the burning lake of fire, too, as a great seductress.
Dr. Karen Garst's Pre-Publication Review of "The Case against Miracles"
Here is the first review of my anthology "The Case against Miracles"! Thanks so much Dr. Karen Garst! LINK. She wrote:
In a book much shorter than the Bible itself, Loftus has marshalled all the key arguments to prove that people should seriously doubt all religious miracle claims. This book should be required reading in all seminaries.
You Too Could Be a Shiite Commemorating the Death of Imam Moussa al-Kadhim
Linda LaScola of "Rational Doubts" published an essay of mine on the moral rules for our debates
I'm very happy she did. Thanks so much! Enjoy.
We all have different perspectives on this issue and mine are not meant to tell others what to do, but are merely for consideration. I suspect how we deal with believers depends on factors like 1) how much religion has hurt us, 2) how much we know about the religion under examination, as well as 3) what we think of the apologists we are dealing with, 4) the kind of venue in which the discussion is taking place (i.e., person to person, comedy, lecture, online blog, podcast, vblog, or book), 5) the nature of our target audience, and 6) whether we think staunch believers can be convinced and consequently whether our goal is to convince them, or to convince others who are on their way out, or already out the door.
We all have different perspectives on this issue and mine are not meant to tell others what to do, but are merely for consideration. I suspect how we deal with believers depends on factors like 1) how much religion has hurt us, 2) how much we know about the religion under examination, as well as 3) what we think of the apologists we are dealing with, 4) the kind of venue in which the discussion is taking place (i.e., person to person, comedy, lecture, online blog, podcast, vblog, or book), 5) the nature of our target audience, and 6) whether we think staunch believers can be convinced and consequently whether our goal is to convince them, or to convince others who are on their way out, or already out the door.
Here We Go Again with “He Is Risen!”
Wait…just how many resurrections were there?
The supreme killer text in the New Testament—the one that wipes out the story that Jesus rose from the dead—is a gift to us from the author of Matthew’s gospel. This is worth noting as Easter is upon us, but I wonder how many believers notice this text; or, for that matter, how many have done even a little due diligence on the gospel accounts of Easter morning.
My colleague at the Debunking Christianity Blog, Robert Conner, has offered a solid analysis in this book, Apparitions of Jesus: The Resurrection as Ghost Story—and his sharp wit as well:
“I've long suspected that what the majority of people know about Christianity derives from its major holidays. They get their religion from Christmas cards and Easter imagery—thinking the Easter Bunny was one of the twelve apostles and candy eggs were on the menu at the Last Supper.” (Conner, Debunking Christianity Blog, 16 November 2018)
Why Do We Need A Book Against Miracles After Hume?
I received a recent comment about my forthcoming anthology against miracles: "I’m eagerly looking forward to this book even though, after Hume, I’m not sure what more needs to be said."
This is nice to hear! I think it's my best anthology yet, but then I've thought that about each one as they were published. Probably no one is more eager to see this book published than me, as I've put so many many hours into it. Still, it's a legitimate issue as to why such a book is needed at all, especially after Hume's arguments.
I agree with you about David Hume. He's regarded as the most important English speaking philosopher, except that there are some powerful objections against what he wrote against miracles, even coming from atheists themselves. Since Christians keep writing books in defense of miracles as if Hume never wrote a thing, they need answered. This is a book that defends Hume and responds to specific miracle claims in the bible and in today's world. There hasn't been a book length treatment of miracles like this written by atheists in, I don't know, forever, and it's long overdue. Actually, it's Hume plus Strauss plus Darwin equals the destruction of Christianity and religions in general.
David Hume's influence over others is towering, and rightly so. In 1748 he wrote a pioneering chapter of objections against miracles in his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (chapter 10). This changed the course of theology, since he had a great influence on Friedrich Schleiermacher, considered to be the father of modern theology.
David Friedrich Strauss in turn was greatly influenced by Friedrich Schleiermacher at the University of Tübingen (1825-1831), who regularly attended his life of Jesus lectures. In 1835–36, at the age of 27, Strauss published his magnum opus--a mammoth of a work--titled The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 2 vols. In it he denied the historical value of the Gospels and rejected their supernatural claims, describing them as historical myths.
Then in 1859 Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was published which destroyed the Christianity believed at that time, along with others that were built on the rubble afterward. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "David Hume" says, "Charles Darwin regarded his work as a central influence on the theory of evolution." Bet you didn't know that!
This is nice to hear! I think it's my best anthology yet, but then I've thought that about each one as they were published. Probably no one is more eager to see this book published than me, as I've put so many many hours into it. Still, it's a legitimate issue as to why such a book is needed at all, especially after Hume's arguments.
I agree with you about David Hume. He's regarded as the most important English speaking philosopher, except that there are some powerful objections against what he wrote against miracles, even coming from atheists themselves. Since Christians keep writing books in defense of miracles as if Hume never wrote a thing, they need answered. This is a book that defends Hume and responds to specific miracle claims in the bible and in today's world. There hasn't been a book length treatment of miracles like this written by atheists in, I don't know, forever, and it's long overdue. Actually, it's Hume plus Strauss plus Darwin equals the destruction of Christianity and religions in general.
David Hume's influence over others is towering, and rightly so. In 1748 he wrote a pioneering chapter of objections against miracles in his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (chapter 10). This changed the course of theology, since he had a great influence on Friedrich Schleiermacher, considered to be the father of modern theology.
David Friedrich Strauss in turn was greatly influenced by Friedrich Schleiermacher at the University of Tübingen (1825-1831), who regularly attended his life of Jesus lectures. In 1835–36, at the age of 27, Strauss published his magnum opus--a mammoth of a work--titled The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 2 vols. In it he denied the historical value of the Gospels and rejected their supernatural claims, describing them as historical myths.
Then in 1859 Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was published which destroyed the Christianity believed at that time, along with others that were built on the rubble afterward. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "David Hume" says, "Charles Darwin regarded his work as a central influence on the theory of evolution." Bet you didn't know that!
Was Mohammad Real?
"We can't be certain how the Arabs became Muslim", says researcher Tom Holland. Fascinating! Was Mohammad ("the Praised One") originally Jesus? Was Islam originally a non-trinitarian Christian sect that rejected the need for an atonement on the cross? The evidence from coins don't lie. People do. This is extremely interesting and new to me. Makes sense. The first video is by the Atheistic Republic, who got me thinking. The others back it up.
Do You Believe In Karma? You Could If..
...you were born somewhere else in the world. You might even pay to have bad karma removed! Which shows corruption abounds. So let me put it to you, to the degree there is corruption in a religious organization then to that same degree it's not from a caring god or a supernatural power. If so, say goodbye to all religions! For more religion photos of the week, see this LINK.
Giving Up Jesus for Lent
Five Flash Podcasts
Each one under 5 minutes:
...on why the gospel resurrection stories don't work.
1. What to do with the Body? The Ascension story kills the Resurrection story.
2. Bad theology: What is the value of a 40-day resurrection?
3. The Empty Tomb: Why couldn’t they get the story straight?
4. The Empty Tomb: The apostle Paul didn’t know the story.
5. How can we trust anything in the gospels?
The next series of Flash Podcasts I’m working on: Things We Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said.
David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His book, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, was reissued last year by Tellectual Press with a new Foreword by John Loftus.
The Cure-for-Christianity Library is here.
Bible Fables Are Not the Problem
Core Christianity is the big nuisance
There are countless memes going around that ridicule talking snakes and donkeys, the ark full of animals, and a woman created from a rib. Who really cares about any of these? Any more than we care about fables describing floating axes, the sun standing still, or bears mauling boys who ridiculed a prophet. Aside from those who insist that the Bible is inerrant, ordinary devout folks don’t get too bent out of shape by the folklore.
But the ordinary devout folks also somehow manage to evade the grimmer, weirder ‘important’ teachings of the New Testament. If churchgoers spent as much time reading the Bible—really digging in—as they do watching movies, there would be more discomfort than they bargained for—and maybe quite a few would take their pastor aside to whisper, “Hey, Rev, this Bible chapter is really freaking me out.” Or do they just shrug their shoulders? They want to love their Jesus. It’s up to the minister to understand ‘all that Bible stuff.’
Claiming to Know God is the Highest Form of Elitism
When I hear someone say that a god is responsible for something that happened or a decision that they've made, I cringe. Most things about religion have become cringe worthy to me. The more I explore the deeply entrenched mythologies of my own culture, the harder it becomes for me to take much of what humans do seriously. Little by little, I've realized that when it comes to our world view, most people simply embrace the one they've inherited. Religion is easy to pick on, however, because it's so full of blatant fairy tales.
Yet, it's equally difficult to dispel, because the religious are such elitists.
To break through their privileged exterior takes a sledge hammer, blow torch and chainsaw. They're not only blind to reason but they honestly seem to believe that they have a personal connection to the most powerful being in the universe.
Yet, it's equally difficult to dispel, because the religious are such elitists.
To break through their privileged exterior takes a sledge hammer, blow torch and chainsaw. They're not only blind to reason but they honestly seem to believe that they have a personal connection to the most powerful being in the universe.
Two Early Blurbs For My Upcoming Anthology On Miracles
I previously announced this anthology here. Two early blurbs have come in. One is by Michael Shermer and the other by Dan Lambert. See below:
You Too Could Be Wearing These Hats and Participating in this Festival!
Yay! ‘Nones’ Now as Big as Evangelicals, Catholics in the US
In a shift that stands to impact both religion and politics, survey data suggests that the percentage of Americans who don’t affiliate with any specific religious tradition is now roughly the same as those who identify as evangelical or Catholic.
According to newly released General Social Survey data analyzed by Ryan P. Burge of Eastern Illinois University, Americans claiming “no religion” — sometimes referred to as “nones” because of how they answer the question “what is your religious tradition?” — now represent about 23.1 percent of the population, up from 21.6 percent in 2016. People claiming evangelicalism, by contrast, now represent 22.5 percent of Americans, a slight dip from 23.9 percent in 2016.
That makes the two groups statistically tied with Catholics (23 percent) as the largest religious — or nonreligious — groupings in the country.
“Nones have been on the march for a long time now,” Burge said. “It’s been a constant, steady increase for 20 years now. If the trend line kept up, we knew this was going to happen.” LINK.
Making Excuses for God: The Erosion of Decency
Stretching and Breaking the Truth
“God inhabits eternity, outside of time and space.” So a pastor friend once told me, perhaps without realizing how much hard work was required for theologians to make God sound so good; they’ve been at it for centuries, redesigning God endlessly: an endless quest for respectability.
It’s just a fact, however, that the god who rampages through both the Old and New Testaments is a nasty-tempered tribal deity. Those who protest this assessment would do well to remember the story of Noah: “drown ‘em all” was old Yahweh’s approach to cleaning up sin—and getting even. And when Jesus ‘returns’ there’ll be a repeat—so Jesus himself promised (Matthew 24:38-39).
Valerie Tarico interviews David Fitzgerald about Christian apologist Lee Strobel's personal conversion story and his books.
Excellent interview!
The story that Evangelicals find so convincing and delicious is this: Strobel, a tough-as-nails atheist journalist and his atheist family are out to dinner when his daughter is saved from choking to death by an evangelical nurse who felt called by God to go to the restaurant that night. Strobel’s wife converts, and Strobel sets out to prove her wrong, using the same strategy that made him a fearsome investigative journalist. He lines up scholars and theologians and confronts them with the hardest possible questions about their faith—and comes away convinced that the Evangelical view of the Bible and Jesus is true. He accepts Jesus as his savior and proceeds to lay out those persuasive interviews in his book, which goes on, as I said, to become a religion best-seller.
The problem, according to author and religion critic David Fitzgerald (and others), is that key parts of this story are distorted at best and fabricated at worst.
A CSI Quote and David Marshall's Response
I posted this quote on Facebook from a recent CSI episode:
This should be obvious and non-controversial, right? The evidence never lies. Only people do. But Christian apologist David Marshall felt threatened by the quote. Listen up, when apologists feel threatened by talk of evidence it should alert the rest of us they're not being honest about the truth. He responded:
"People lie. The only thing we
can count on is the evidence."
This should be obvious and non-controversial, right? The evidence never lies. Only people do. But Christian apologist David Marshall felt threatened by the quote. Listen up, when apologists feel threatened by talk of evidence it should alert the rest of us they're not being honest about the truth. He responded:
From Alvin Plantinga who doesn't believe Christians need objective evidence for their faith, to William Lane Craig who claims the Holy Spirit trumps all objective evidence to the contrary, to David Marshall who dogs my steps, Christian apologists must denigrate science to believe. Here are a few other gems to look at from DMarshall:
DM: "All scientific knowledge depends upon human testimony."
DM: “Those who make wild claims about the scientific method often base their arguments not on good human evidence, but rumor, wild guesses, and extrapolations that would embarrass a shaman.”
DM: Actually, John, I would say that almost all scientific evidence COMES TO US as historical evidence. Science is, in effect, almost a branch of history, as it transmits knowable and systematically collected and interpreted facts to our brains.
It takes ignorance to defend the Christian faith; ignorance of science. I'd rest my case here but it'll flare up again and again since this is so important for faith.
Bob Seidensticker's List of 10 Skeptical Principles for Evaluating the Bible
It's a good list with a bonus principle. Principles 1-5 are here.
Principles 6-11 are here.
Another principle which I advocate is to read between the lines. Ask yourselves what the opponents of Jesus and Paul said in response. Were the Pharisees that bad as a people? After all, they were the people's party. What arguments did most Jews have against the resurrection claim? They were there, they believed in God, they knew their OT prophecies, yet they didn't believe. What did early Christians say in response to Paul? What did they think of him, and why? Do you think these opponents were convinced by the sheer logic of what Paul said? If not, how did Paul's Christianity come to dominate?
Principles 6-11 are here.
Another principle which I advocate is to read between the lines. Ask yourselves what the opponents of Jesus and Paul said in response. Were the Pharisees that bad as a people? After all, they were the people's party. What arguments did most Jews have against the resurrection claim? They were there, they believed in God, they knew their OT prophecies, yet they didn't believe. What did early Christians say in response to Paul? What did they think of him, and why? Do you think these opponents were convinced by the sheer logic of what Paul said? If not, how did Paul's Christianity come to dominate?
John Gray’s Criticism of the New Atheists, Part 2
The way he sees it, religion gives us insights into the human condition. In this, it performs much the same function as certain works of fiction. The myth of the forbidden fruit, for example, teaches us, according to Gray, about the “ambiguous impact of knowledge on human freedom” — which he tells us is more realistic than the myth found in Greek philosophy “that knowledge and goodness are inseparably connected.”
If the Bible Had a Sewer...
…that’s where this chapter should be floating
It’s easy to avoid the landmines in Leviticus or the Book of Revelation: just ignore them. Not too many laypeople—outside of diehard evangelical Bible fanatics—bother with the less-trafficked books. Stand outside any church as people are filing out and ask, “Don’t you just love the prophet Ezekiel?” Yet, despite lack of interest about what’s actually in it, they dutifully carry their Bibles; what could surpass this holy artifact?
Believing In God Produces More Pain Than Otherwise
When life gets difficult, really difficult, it's better if you didn't believe in a god. Take it from me. I've been on both sides of the fence. When someone loses a 10 year old son to leukemia, or a daughter to a car accident, or a spouse who goes missing and is never found again, AND you pray for comfort or peace or a solution, which falls on deaf divine ears, I'm telling you it's better not to believe. For your pain is doubled at that point. The first pain is the suffering from the loss itself. The second pain is feeling abandoned by your god.
Over the years believing minds will convince themselves the loss was for the best, when they eventually ignore what should've been the case but was robbed by death. Or they'll read the obfuscations of some apologists who say Jesus carried them through their sufferings, or that he suffered with them. What does that even mean when one stops to actually think about it? But even by believing standards most of their petitionary prayers go without being divinely answered the way they were prayed. So it stands to reason believers are constantly, more often than not, disappointed from the lack of divine help, to say the least.
Me? Not so much...never to be exact! I never have to worry about any lack of divine help, and I never have to get frustrated over it either. In other words, I never have the added pain that comes from the lack of divine guidance, help, or comfort. Ever! So from my perspective, I say, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me...and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” [Matthew 11:28-30; NIV] Now do you understand?
Over the years believing minds will convince themselves the loss was for the best, when they eventually ignore what should've been the case but was robbed by death. Or they'll read the obfuscations of some apologists who say Jesus carried them through their sufferings, or that he suffered with them. What does that even mean when one stops to actually think about it? But even by believing standards most of their petitionary prayers go without being divinely answered the way they were prayed. So it stands to reason believers are constantly, more often than not, disappointed from the lack of divine help, to say the least.
Me? Not so much...never to be exact! I never have to worry about any lack of divine help, and I never have to get frustrated over it either. In other words, I never have the added pain that comes from the lack of divine guidance, help, or comfort. Ever! So from my perspective, I say, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me...and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” [Matthew 11:28-30; NIV] Now do you understand?
Why Do We Suffer from the Invisible Man Syndrome?
“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
―
―
I was born with a vivid imagination. It was both a blessing and a curse. As a child, I wrote plays, stories, poems, songs and loved to pretend. Role playing was my favorite pastime. I could get into character better than any other child I knew. Until quite late in life, well past preteen, I dreaded growing up. The real world didn't hold the same allure and fascination of my pretend world. Unlike many of my peers, "adulting" didn't seem all that appealing to me. Whereas they were anxious, even excited, to date, get their first jobs and mimic the grownups in their lives, I was skeptical. The real world looked a bit grim and the faces of most of the adults that I knew were often work worn, worried, anxious or depressed.
What Good Is Christianity?
Who needs it, really?
Since humans began to walk upright, thousands of religions have come and gone. Many hundreds of gods have fallen out of favor: even many Christians themselves can’t stand the nasty god who stalks the Old Testament, although—hint, hint—it’s the same god in the New Testament. Christianity is now so splintered—the faithful have quarreled endlessly about it—even its most devout followers can’t agree on what True Christianity is. Millions of the faithful are holed up in their own defensive denominations, clinging to fragments of the faith they hold dear.
So what’s the point? Dan Barker has mentioned the elephant in the room: “I did not want to lose my faith, but I became painfully aware that Christianity has no case. I discovered there is no evidence for Christianity. And I also found out, to my astonishment, that there is no need for it.” (Losing Faith in Faith)
Hypothesis: Since Bayes Theorem Cannot Help Us It Should be Abandoned
Here is the full title to this post:
Bayes is a mathematical wasteland when applies to these issues. The only merit it offers is the discussion of the evidence and the ensuing arguments in defense of the inputs, which could be done without the math. So atheist apologists who argue for the use of Bayes Theorem in an area with no promise or hope of a consensus, are merely arguing for their own special status in these debates, and dividing people unnecessarily between Bayes users and non-Bayes users. The most extreme case of this is atheist apologist Richard Carrier, who thinks the rest of us are ignorant, stupid, and irrational to disagree. This only makes him feel relevant by arguing for his own irrelevancy. This is not to throw a bone at Christian apologists. I think Carrier is brilliant and has already dealt some significant death blows to the Christian faith. But on this issue his brilliancy, and undeserved superior ego, has led him to defend an irrelevant wasteland, a dead end, one that has no promise of accomplishing or solving anything.
The better tools? Science; requiring sufficient collaborative objective evidence commensurate with the type of claim; requiring claimants to shoulder the burden of proof; arguing from inference to the best explanation; using the standard of the Outsider Test for Faith; ridicule (after all, we know faith-based arguments are special pleading all the way down), and more. Carrier will respond just as believers do when it comes to their faith-based doctrines, by forcing these tools into the grid of Bayes Theorem and calling me a doofus another dozen times or more. So let's see this in practice, a friend comes up to you and says his wife gave birth to a deity. You say show me some objective evidence. We don't need Bayes at all there, do you see? I can understand why Bayesian reasoning without the math is much better when it comes to more complicated issues, but at rock bottom it's all about the evidence, just as apologist Vincent Torley was convinced by it, even though he had previously done his own Bayesian calculations. I see no reason why hammering home the lack of objective evidence won't work as well, or better than using Bayesian math. Bayes is probably worse off in terms of convincing others, for the only people who would slough through it are far less likely to be convinced by it. I've written a book on why responding to fundamentalist arguments in kind gives their beliefs a certain undeserved respectability. So my arguments against the use of Bayes are rooted there, but not found exclusively there. For as you can see I have other arguments that Bayes just doesn't help us (i.e., the math, the equation, the formula). [See Tag for more]
Hypothesis: Since Bayes Theorem (i.e., the math, the equation, the formula) cannot help bring us to a consensus concerning something accepted on faith, or assess specific miracles and theistic based religions, and because it is ripe for abuse in the hands of Christian apologists who dress up their delusion with undeserved respectability, it should be abandoned for better alternative methods, by people who really want to know the truth.This is not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is no miracle baby to be found in the dirty bathwater. Bayes is used by people in this debate who wish to look superior than others. It's a rite of passage into a specific club of intellectuals who like the status of being considered above the rest of us. But it solves nothing, clarifies nothing, and will be thrust into the dustbin of elite faddishness as one after another intellectual wannabe comes up with their own calculations without reaching a consensus between believers and non-believers on the inputs or the resulting probabilities. As philosopher Godfrey-Smith put it, “The probabilities” in Bayes’ Theorem “that are more controversial are the prior probabilities of hypotheses, like P(h).” He asks, “What could this number possibly be measuring?” He says, we cannot “make sense of prior probabilities” [Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (University of Chicago Press, 2003), p. 205]. He is dead on in the area I'm arguing, faith-based claims of virgin birthed deities and resurrections from the dead. And while I'm at it, gods themselves, who are supposed to exponentially increase the prior probabilities.
Bayes is a mathematical wasteland when applies to these issues. The only merit it offers is the discussion of the evidence and the ensuing arguments in defense of the inputs, which could be done without the math. So atheist apologists who argue for the use of Bayes Theorem in an area with no promise or hope of a consensus, are merely arguing for their own special status in these debates, and dividing people unnecessarily between Bayes users and non-Bayes users. The most extreme case of this is atheist apologist Richard Carrier, who thinks the rest of us are ignorant, stupid, and irrational to disagree. This only makes him feel relevant by arguing for his own irrelevancy. This is not to throw a bone at Christian apologists. I think Carrier is brilliant and has already dealt some significant death blows to the Christian faith. But on this issue his brilliancy, and undeserved superior ego, has led him to defend an irrelevant wasteland, a dead end, one that has no promise of accomplishing or solving anything.
The better tools? Science; requiring sufficient collaborative objective evidence commensurate with the type of claim; requiring claimants to shoulder the burden of proof; arguing from inference to the best explanation; using the standard of the Outsider Test for Faith; ridicule (after all, we know faith-based arguments are special pleading all the way down), and more. Carrier will respond just as believers do when it comes to their faith-based doctrines, by forcing these tools into the grid of Bayes Theorem and calling me a doofus another dozen times or more. So let's see this in practice, a friend comes up to you and says his wife gave birth to a deity. You say show me some objective evidence. We don't need Bayes at all there, do you see? I can understand why Bayesian reasoning without the math is much better when it comes to more complicated issues, but at rock bottom it's all about the evidence, just as apologist Vincent Torley was convinced by it, even though he had previously done his own Bayesian calculations. I see no reason why hammering home the lack of objective evidence won't work as well, or better than using Bayesian math. Bayes is probably worse off in terms of convincing others, for the only people who would slough through it are far less likely to be convinced by it. I've written a book on why responding to fundamentalist arguments in kind gives their beliefs a certain undeserved respectability. So my arguments against the use of Bayes are rooted there, but not found exclusively there. For as you can see I have other arguments that Bayes just doesn't help us (i.e., the math, the equation, the formula). [See Tag for more]
How Not to Be a Doofus about Bayes’ Theorem From Someone Who "Doesn't Really Understand Bayesianism"
The title is a response to two posts Richard Carrier wrote here, and recently here. If anyone disagrees with Carrier we're irrational, ignorant, foolish, and now with a newly released super-bad description, doofus/doofuses.
I would like to catalog the variety of responses apologists and atheists have toward Bayes, but I won't. What I do know is apart from the people he mentions who "don't understand Bayes" he should also include David Hume, Apologist Michael Licona and Dan Lambert. One wonders if anyone could have argued for anything before Bayes given Carrier's praise. Pffft. What I know is that those who use Bayes come up with wildly different results with regard to the resurrection of Jesus.
--Apologist Richard Swinburne calculates the probability of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, given the existence of a god, is 97%. Swinburne should run that past a peer-review panel including Muslims Jews and Hindu's to see how that goes over. ;-) We know from a historian's perspective that's utterly idiotic!
--Apologist Vincent Torley calculated that "there’s about a 60-65% chance that Jesus rose from the dead." Of course, that was before he read Michael Alter's book on the resurrection, which I recommended, that had no math in it at all! How could this happen without Bayes? Oh my! But it did. Apparently the shear evidence Alter presented was enough. Wow! Who would have thunk it.
--Apologists Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew calculated the odds of the resurrection of Jesus to be 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. *Silence* *Awe* *Respect* Christians must revere them for coming up with the highest calculation any intellectual *cough* has done so far. Can anyone do better here? They need to go see a doctor and get some meds, quickly. Richard Carrier thinks Bayes helps. Okay then. Please tell us how such a useful tool can produce these wide diverse results. Tools are supposed to help. But even among apologists themselves it does no such thing. Carrier says Bayes helps us clarify where we disagree and by how much. Really? We already know this! Dressing up a delusion in math is still a delusion. Responding in kind only gives a delusion an undeserved respectability. This is a major point of mine in Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Who's the doofus again?
I would like to catalog the variety of responses apologists and atheists have toward Bayes, but I won't. What I do know is apart from the people he mentions who "don't understand Bayes" he should also include David Hume, Apologist Michael Licona and Dan Lambert. One wonders if anyone could have argued for anything before Bayes given Carrier's praise. Pffft. What I know is that those who use Bayes come up with wildly different results with regard to the resurrection of Jesus.
--Apologist Richard Swinburne calculates the probability of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, given the existence of a god, is 97%. Swinburne should run that past a peer-review panel including Muslims Jews and Hindu's to see how that goes over. ;-) We know from a historian's perspective that's utterly idiotic!
--Apologist Vincent Torley calculated that "there’s about a 60-65% chance that Jesus rose from the dead." Of course, that was before he read Michael Alter's book on the resurrection, which I recommended, that had no math in it at all! How could this happen without Bayes? Oh my! But it did. Apparently the shear evidence Alter presented was enough. Wow! Who would have thunk it.
--Apologists Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew calculated the odds of the resurrection of Jesus to be 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. *Silence* *Awe* *Respect* Christians must revere them for coming up with the highest calculation any intellectual *cough* has done so far. Can anyone do better here? They need to go see a doctor and get some meds, quickly. Richard Carrier thinks Bayes helps. Okay then. Please tell us how such a useful tool can produce these wide diverse results. Tools are supposed to help. But even among apologists themselves it does no such thing. Carrier says Bayes helps us clarify where we disagree and by how much. Really? We already know this! Dressing up a delusion in math is still a delusion. Responding in kind only gives a delusion an undeserved respectability. This is a major point of mine in Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. Who's the doofus again?
Introducing My Next Anthology "The Case against Miracles"
[Update on 11/18/19: This Introduction has been significantly lengthened].
I finally submitted the digital book files to my publisher Hypatia Press, an imprint of Ockham Publishing out of the UK. David G. McAffe is the editor. It has been seven months since I started working on it. Getting authors, working with them, and writing my own chapters while on the road for the last two months has wore me out. I'm glad that hard phase is over. I'm told it should be published by September or October, just in time for year end holiday shopping. How good is it? Well, I consider it the best anthology yet, and they've all been good! You can see the chapter contents right here. To whet your appetites my Introduction is below:
I finally submitted the digital book files to my publisher Hypatia Press, an imprint of Ockham Publishing out of the UK. David G. McAffe is the editor. It has been seven months since I started working on it. Getting authors, working with them, and writing my own chapters while on the road for the last two months has wore me out. I'm glad that hard phase is over. I'm told it should be published by September or October, just in time for year end holiday shopping. How good is it? Well, I consider it the best anthology yet, and they've all been good! You can see the chapter contents right here. To whet your appetites my Introduction is below:
A Challenge for Churches
Here's a post that I endorse by my friend Bob Seidensticker at Cross Examined. Churches should step up and do this. LINK
John Gray’s Criticism of the New Atheists, Part 1
Christian Corruption Deserves Scorn and Ridicule
Let the satirists and cartoonist sharpen their knives
At the end of God Comes Out of Retirement to Distance Self from Catholic Church we find this quote:
“I mean honestly,” continued God, “who’s going to believe you’re the arbiter of all that is good in the world if you can’t even see that being on the side that’s defending pedophiles is bad. Really it makes me want to smite the lot of them and let Satan sort them out, but I think that would probably be more a punishment for Satan.”
How did the Catholic Church manager to combine the ultimate misogynistic Old Boys Network (the Vatican) and the World’s Largest Gay Community in strident denial (the Vatican)? That is a formula for disaster on so many levels, including blaming pedophile on homosexuality. Here's an eyeopener:
In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy
This 550-page book by Frédéric Martel was published last month in eight languages, based on four years of research and interviews with Vatican insiders.
Of course Christian corruption is not confined to Catholics. How about those Baptists (Southern or otherwise) and mean-spirited Methodists.
Maybe the most corrupt practice of all, however, is blatantly selling a product you don’t have: the promise of eternal life. When you’ve got that gimmick you can get away with a lot and still hold your audience. The faithful don’t even notice, don’t even care, that the concept of God peddled by the churches doesn’t make sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)