This comment was posted recently on one of my articles:
“In what year did you become not just an atheist but a crusader against Christianity?
In what year did you acknowledge yourself as a homosexual?”
I found these questions about chronology a bit puzzling, but then it struck me that there was another agenda: to identify me as a zealot, and to make sure people know that I am gay. After all, what could be worse than an outspoken gay atheist?
[Sorry about all the ads. I think I got rid of them. Wait for it.]
As we know by now Donald Trump is a narcissistic sociopath. Not only can we tell by watching and listening to him speak about his rating "numbers, and his lack of empathy for the victims of Covid-19, two people who should know have come out in public saying so. His niece Mary Trump, as we should all know by now. But also Trump's ghostwriter for the book "The Art of the Deal." Tony Schwartz has written a devastating piece on Trump, warning us all about him, titled The Psychopath in Chief. He says,
Understanding what we’re truly up against — the reign of terror that Trump will almost surely wage the moment he believes he can completely prevail — makes the upcoming presidential election a true Armageddon. Vote as if your life depends on it, because it does.
The Atlantic Monthly has put out a few great articles on Trump, Evangelicals, and the Coronavirus. The most important one is a theme of mine about cognitive bias with regard to faith and religion:
Finally! 110 years after he died, my great grandfather's efforts in the early years of baseball has been acknowledged and noted! Here is a picture of him I hadn't seen before.
The recent Spring 2020 issue of the Baseball Research Journal has a story written by John T. Pregler titled, "Tom Loftus: The American League's Forgotten Founding Father." He was famous in his day, very much so!
Tom's son was named John. His son's name was Tom, my dad. From Tom to John to Tom to you know who! My older brother's name was Tom. Cool, eh?
To read the article Click Here. To see a photo of the Journal cover and first page of the article see below. Yes. it's exciting!
I wonder how often Christians rate themselves; that is, do they reflect on how they measure up as followers of Jesus? What standards do they use? How often do they embrace the apostle Paul’s claim, as stated in his letter to the Galatians?
“And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (5:24)
Most laypeople are probably stumped at the claim that there is no proof that Jesus existed. How can that be? If you get yourself to Israel you can visit the places where Jesus was born and baptized. Catholics know about the relics of Jesus, e.g., fragments of the cross, thorns from the Crown of Thorns—even the foreskin of Jesus is venerated: “At various points in history, a number of churches in Europe have claimed to possess Jesus’s foreskin, sometimes at the same time. Various miraculous powers have been ascribed to it.” (Wikipedia)
I marvel that I was sheltered from Christian extremism, even as I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s in a conservative Christian home in rural Indiana. My devout mother couldn’t stand Billy Graham, which, it turns out, was a big clue why I wasn’t aware of the hateful Christianity that had been in vogue in the decades before my birth.
Here's a nice book review on my anthology, "Christianity is Not Great", if you were thinking of getting it.
"A Must Read for ALL Truth Seekers!" by Bradley Dalton, who says, "This
is one of my favorite books. It’s the go to book regarding the
pragmatism of Christianity."
Regarding my chapter 8 on Christianity and the Savagery of Slavery, the reviewer writes:
"This is my favorite chapter in the book. In it Loftus discusses the
topic of slavery in the Bible. I recommend referring Christians to this
chapter if they try to say that the slavery in the Bible wasn’t that
bad. Loftus goes through the Bible passages and debunks the common
apologetics used to defend biblical slavery. He also shows how the Bible
was interpreted to justify slavery in the United States."
I was born just about fifteen years after Edwin Hubble determined that Andromeda is a galaxy outside the Milky Way; this disproved the argument of some astronomers that our galaxy was the extent of the universe. What a gift this was for our understanding of who and where we are! For the first time humans had insight into the inconceivable vastness of the Cosmos.
Here is the link to the long awaited article: Tom Loftus: The American League’s Forgotten Founding Father. This is my Great Grandfather Tom Loftus! I've written about him before. He's finally getting the
recognition he deserves. He was widely hailed in his day as important to
Major League Baseball, especially his role in helping to start the
American League and in navigating through the baseball wars of
1899-1903. I'm so thankful to have lived long enough to see this day! Here are a few snippets:
Recently Jerry Coyne wrote about the Philosophy of Religion:
Insofar as "theology" includes courses that presuppose the existence of the divine, take seriously the existence of God or Jesus, or prepare people for the ministry or to promulgate religious beliefs, then those courses not only have no place in a University, but are exercises in delusion. Now I think the higher-class divinity schools, like Chicago's and Harvard's, have very few of those courses, but there are some. They should not be part of a secular university.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that Hitchens's razor is correct: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." That applies to any form of theology that takes gods or superstitions as real. Universities should not be in the business of taking seriously those myths that have no evidence behind them. They can, of course, teach myths, but at no point should they imply that there is evidence for their truth. LINK
I've written on this topic several times before, collected here. But I don't think I've articulated my viewpoint in any single post better than I do in this one. I'm not surprised there is still a lot of misunderstanding about what I'm talking about. So here's another attempt--a book may need to be written on it.
My position seems to be the same as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay when it comes to ending the Philosophy of Religion (PoR) discipline in the secular universities. The classes covered could be taught under the umbrella of the Philosophy discipline itself (with no need for a subdivision of PoR) or in the Comparative Religion departments, and especially science classes. Just think of it this way. We don't have PoR classes on Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, Norse theology, Haitian Voodoo, Paganism etc., in any secular university that I know about. We don't see this for good reasons. Now think real hard about why, okay? The main purpose of the PoR discipline is to examine the evidence and the arguments for religion. Evidence. Arguments. Its main purpose is not merely to get students to understand religion. Rather, it seeks to assess the claims of religion by looking at the evidence (if there is any) and the arguments (if there are any good ones based on the evidence). By contrast, the main purpose of classes in Comparative Religions departments is to understand religion.
What does devotion to the Ancient Jesus Mystery Cult look like today? As is clear from comments made on this blog a few days ago by one of the cult devotees, it still embraces magical thinking in its refusal to accept death:
Not too long ago I read the claim by a Christian apologist that Luke was a first-rate historian. Such confidence is no doubt based on the first four verses of that gospel:
“Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”
This Wednesday I'll be Skyping into a class of PhD students majoring in Apologetics under Dr. Gary Habermas. I'll be interacting with the students who were assigned to read my new anthology, "The Case against Miracles." These are the future apologists! It's a good opportunity! What points would you make if you were me?
I gave up on Christianity because it claims too much and explains too little. We know so little about the Cosmos we’re floating in—our home is one solar system among trillions—yet theologians brag and posture about God, as if they had some way of knowing: they claim too much. And when they brag about how good the Christian God is, they can’t tell us—in any even remotely convincing way—why there is colossal human and animal suffering: they explain too little. Even as I served two parishes in the Methodist Church, and plodded along on my PhD program in Biblical Studies, these deficiencies kept haunting me. Finally, I walked away.
My wife and I protested peacefully in Fort Wayne, Indiana, over the murder
of George Floyd. I unequivocally without qualification condemn systematic
institutional racism! That being said, I neither condone nor condemn the
violence of a few people who protested across the country. There's a lot of
anger from decades and decades of systematic institutional racism that have
not been adequately solved. The black community and those who seek justice
are fed up. If you were born black you would feel this injustice. You might
conclude property owners and society itself are to blame. We are all
complicit to some degree as this situation continues to exist. Peaceful
protests don't work, you might conclude. So you too might consider burning
it all down. No worries here since it's all covered by insurance anyway. I
understand this sentiment. You should too. While I understand the need for
law and order. I also understand the outrage, and I'm on the side of the
outrage right now. We might simply ask ourselves what level of priority is
systematic institutional racism on the agenda. From my perspective it hasn't
been high on my list of priorities, I'm so sorry to say. To be silent is to
be complicit.
Discuss. I know good people disagree. WATCH THESE TWO EXCELLENT VIDEOS
FIRST!!
I was recently involved in an online discussion in which a reason I hadn't previously seen was offered for preferring negative to positive atheism. (By negative atheism, I mean the mere lack of belief in any gods, and by positive atheism, the belief that there are no gods. And the fact that one usually needs to explain this is one reason I prefer the traditional terminology.)
There are better and worse reasons for being only a negative atheist. But the one that was argued by my opponent in the discussion was pretty weak — and if it is accepted by others who call themselves atheists, they really should be aware of that.
Briefly, my opponent's argument was that one should only believe when there is evidence; that there is no evidence that there are no gods; and therefore that to positively disbelieve in such beings is completely unjustified.
Religious folks have a vested interest in managing expectations about miracles. Taking them at their word, that God is powerful and good—and has our wellbeing in mind—secularists can suggest miracles that should have happened. A year before the Sandy Hook School massacre, Richard Carrier wrote this:
Benjamin Blade Speed Watkins, Host/Producer at Real Atheology - A Philosophy of Religion Podcast, posted something for discussion: "Faith without reason is blind, but reason without faith is impotent. I’m came up with this little gem, or at least I like to thing I did. Who have I unknowingly ripped off? How unoriginal am I actually being? Philosophy friends, ASSEMBLE!" [For my response see below. For a more robust defense see this on Facebook].
Loftus:
There is only blind faith, that is, faith without reason. So reason doesn't need faith at all. *Why do I bother* There is reasoning based on faith, but that's equivalent to reasoning based on the conclusions of delusions and wishful thinking. By contrast, reasoning about the nature of nature, its workings, and origins is based on logic and objective evidence.
I have a chapter in my book, "How To Defend the Christian Faith:
Advice From An Atheist" titled, "When All Else Fails Lie". [Get my book while you're here!] Well now,
here's a big one. Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. “Roe” in Roe v Wade) received
about a quarter of a million dollars from Christian organizations to be
an outspoken opponent of abortion! Liar liar pants on fire! The Friendly Atheist broke this story!
On 10 May 1941, Rudolph Hess flew alone in a Messerschmitt-110 fighter plane from Germany to Scotland. He was one of Adolf Hitler’s inner circle, and was “under the delusion that he could arrange a peace settlement,” according to William L. Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), who offered this assessment: “For a German who had got so far in the jungle warfare within the Third Reich, Rudolf Hess, as all who knew him could testify, was singularly naïve.” Hitler was outraged: “…he gave orders to have Hess shot at once if he returned…the Fuehrer hoped the bizarre episode would be forgotten as soon as possible…” The British didn’t take Hess seriously for a moment.
The Global Center for Religious Research (GCRR) is hosting the 2020 International eConference on Atheism,
which is open to believers and nonbelievers alike. The purpose of this
multidisciplinary virtual conference is to advance the scientific and philosophical understanding of atheism, nonreligion, agnosticism, and
counterapologetics today. The eConference will provide an
interdisciplinary platform for scholars, educators, and practitioners to
present their research into recent innovations, trends, and concerns in
contemporary atheism. Moreover, this 3-day event will promote dialogue
and understanding among nonbelievers, as well as those who interact with
them.
And because the conference is held online, scholars and students can
attend from the comfort and safety of their own home at lower costs
without having to worry about travel and lodging expenses. I am one of the keynote speakers! Plan to join us September 3rd-5th! International eConference on Atheism.
I think Anselm's dictum "faith seeking understanding" is to be understood in the history of theology and philosophy to be equivalent to "Faith Seeking Confirmation." If that's how it's historically used then that's what it means. Below is an updated edit from chapter 2 of my my book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End.
There is a common theme among St. Anselm's work and the work of other obfuscationist theologians and philosophers that needs to be highlighted. It’s called faith seeking confirmation. We see this in Anselm with regard to his new atonement theory and his ontological argument.
Anselm therefore is exhibit “A” in defense of what atheist philosopher Stephen Law said: “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.”1 If I could pick one sentence, one aphorism, one proverb that highlights the main reason philosophy of religion (PoR) must end, it’s Law’s. I’ll call it Law’s law of faith.
I just asked my former professor William Lane Craig the following question on his website:
Hi Dr. Craig. I hope you are well.
With the relatively recent work in establishing the strong tendency of
human beings toward cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, (which
is the mother of all cognitive biases), along with many others like
selection bias, the ostrich effect, omission bias, verbatim effect, and
so on, what advice do you offer honest inquirers to overcome these
biases when searching for the true religious sect? I haven't seen you
address this question before.
What perspective do you suggest
for honest inquirers when searching for which religious sect is true, if
there is one? Surely you don't endorse one of faith seeking
confirmation (i.e. Anselm!), as that is the epitome of a known cognitive
bias, which leads inquirers to embrace whatever they were raised to
believe.
We can appreciate the urge of Christians to distance themselves from the Old Testament. The pathological anger of Yahweh doesn’t sit well with folks who rank high for empathy; his brutal laws are especially chilling, e.g. rebellious sons and sabbath breakers are to be stoned to death—and The Book of Numbers, one of five in the sacred Torah, describes the revolting ordeal that women accused of adultery must undergo, supervised by priests under the watchful eye of the Lord (5:11-31).
Yes, we’re ready to Just Say No to the Old Testament—except for some of its famous stories, I suppose. Christians are proud that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, for example, sets the tone for much better religion—or so they think. Although if they actually read the Sermon on the Mount carefully, they’d find quite a few lines to cross out; e.g., those who have pension plans—even ministers—need to find a way to finesse, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth…”
LINK. As one might guess I like what the reviewer said about my Chapter 3: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: "Loftus writes this chapter and does a great job of defending Hume and the title of the chapter. I don’t know how anybody could refute what Loftus argues for after reading it." The reviewer's favorite chapter is Dr. Madison's, saying, "I love how David Madison debunks the idea that the Bible was inspired by God." See other recommendations here.
It’s hardly a secret that reading the Bible is not a favorite pastime even among Christians—especially when there are so many other options, e.g., movies, TV (binge watching is now a thing), sports, hobbies. God’s Holy Word doesn’t stand a chance. When was the last time you heard a Christian say, “I’m going to spend my evening reading the gospel of Mark, all of it, then tomorrow—I can’t wait!—I’ll dive into the book of Ezekiel”?
I reviewed Dr. Vanderburgh's book in defense of David Hume in the Appendix to my anthology, "The Case against Miracles." [Click on his book image to find out more.] Amazingly, Vanderburgh sums up his conclusion in one short Tweet! Tim McGrew, supposedly an "international expert" on miracles (but not my expert!), is in the dark on how to understand David Hume on miracles.
LINK. If this isn't proof that miracle mongering is a sham then what is? No matter which cognitive bias affects believers at any given time, realities like Covid-19 make it clear there are no miracles today.
There are several good resources showing Moses did not exist, LINK. Here's my take on it all from my 2012 book, Why I Became an Atheist, pp. 302-307:
Archaeology, Exodus, and the Canaanite Conquest
If we assume the story of Exodus is correct, there should be some archaeological evidence for the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, the camping of the Israelites at Mount Sinai, their wilderness wanderings, and their Canaanite conquest. And this archaeological evidence should correspond to the biblical account. But what we find instead is a complete lack of it, and the story itself doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
"Atheist scholar, author, and former minister John W. Loftus shares his story of de-conversion from religious faith and presents arguments for assuming an outsider perspective toward one's ideology." LINK. There is a long 1 hour 13 minute interview and several shorter discussions.
A few years back a devout Catholic woman assured me that there was a sound, practical reason she held so firmly to her faith: she wanted to see her mother again in heaven. It would happen, she was sure, all in good time. But another Catholic woman I knew wasn’t so patient—she wanted to get through to folks in heaven in real time. As her mother lay dying, she whispered messages for mom to deliver to dead relatives on the other side. I wondered if this blatant opportunism would sit well with those in charge of border security.
Watch this TED talk video below, from cognitive scientist Philip Fernbach. We are tribal people. We have a very strong propensity to accept as knowledge what people in our own tribe accepts, which means we all claim to know things that are false.
I am a nonbeliever because of this research. I'm skeptical of people who have all the answers. I am skeptical of apologists who claim to have an impossible grasp of a whole range of disciplines of learning, like quantum mechanics, cosmology, astronomy, evolutionary science, neurology, psychology, cognitive biases, philosophy, theology, philology, Old Testament and New Testament studies, Jesus studies, church history, ethics, politics, and so on, and so on, which they use to argue for their faith. No one has such a wide grasp of it all. But far too many of them act as if they do! So they are inauthentic people, unjustly arrogant people, who are pretending to know that which they cannot know, like the Sophists in the days of Socrates.
This is why doubt is the only reasonable position to take about the objective world, its nature, its workings, and its origins (including which religion is true, if there is one) until such time as there's sufficient objective evidence leading to a confident conclusion.
The highest degree of confidence in a conclusion about the objective world is the consensus of scientists working in a field. The lowest degree of confidence in a conclusion about the objective world is one's own subjective feelings. Another conclusion about the objective world that has a very low confidence level is 2nd 3rd 4th-handed down ancient conflicting testimony debated by theologians down through history about extraordinary miraculous claims such as snakes and donkeys that talked, rocks that floated, a bush that didn't burn up, a sun that stood still (and even backed up!), great fish that swallowed a person, a god born of a virgin (based at best on 2nd handed testimony from the mother alone!), resurrecting people, levitating people, a few of which ascended back into heaven where it's claimed God's throne is, along with a 2000 year old prophecy that one of them will come back to a flat earth from which every person on earth will see him.
A miracle must be an event caused by a supernatural force or being, a god. Such an event could not take place on its own in the natural world without the action of a god. It must be an event which involves the interfering, or suspension, or transgressing, or breaching, or contravening, or violating of natural law. Such an event could not be explainable by science because it would be an event impossible to occur by natural processes alone. A miracle is therefore an extraordinary event of the highest kind.
Dr. Randall Heskett interviews John Loftus on his book, The Case Against Miracles. Loftus speaks about David Hume's critique on miracles and turns the interview on Heskett about his chapter in the book. The two come to a consensus that apologetics is not a field, nor is it honest, nor fair but damaging to both Christianity and intellectual discourse. Loftus speaks about the dangers of faith and the "deplorables" who are bringing down American Society.
One Bible text that can stop the God-Is-Good crowd dead in its tracks is Genesis 15:13-14:
Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.”
Was this promise of “great possessions” tacked on as an enticement? Back in Abraham’s day there were many tribal gods, so why would he choose a god who promised that his descendants would become slaves and be oppressed for four hundred years? Why wouldn’t that be a deal-breaker—no matter how many possessions? Moreover, how does any sound, respectable theology absorb, adjust to, this concept of God: A deity who allows such suffering, whose plan encompasses inexplicable delay.
This "New Testament Review" podcast is fantastic! Listen in as two Christian PhD candidates at Duke University discuss Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for Christ." While they treat the general outline of the gospels as historical to some degree, they destroy the argument that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. At least listen up to the 21:30 minute mark! Then keep listening to the end to hear them rip into apologetics itself! The whole discussion is good!
Ian says Strobel's book isn't just bad. He says, "This book will make you dumber. No matter how much you already know...you will almost certainly know less by the time you finish this book. It is profoundly deceptive..." (25:45).
The podcasters call Strobel's book dishonest and deceptive from the get-go. It's a textbook case of deceptive apologetics. If this is so, why accept apologetics at all? Ian says it plainly, "Don't read apologetics!" That is, not if your primary goal is to understand the gospels.
[Since we are all stuck at home right now and cannot visit museums, here is an updated version of a post about my visit to Ken Ham's sad excuse for one. I hope this helps fill a void until you can actually go there and see all of its wonders for yourself.]
Ken Ham's “unnatural history” museum in Petersburg, Kentucky is, as you probably know, devoted to a literal interpretation of the Bible. It claims to present evidence that the earth is about 6000 years old, that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, that there was a worldwide flood around 2350 BCE, and so on.
It is a bizarre experience from the moment you walk in.
Good news! I've learned that my anthology, The Case against Miracles, published by Hypatia Press, is going to come out as an audio book! I don't know how soon. If the chapters have different readers for effect, and why not, let my chapters be read by Seth Andrews. ;-) It's the book Timothy McGrew needs to consider before saying anything more about miracles.
This is an excellent presentation by Dr. Darren Slade on how pandemics change history, especially the Justinian Pandemic in the 6th century! Fascinating!
So if western Christians believe their version of Christianity is the true one, they also have to thank their god for the Justinian Pandemic! He no longer works in mysterious ways! His methods are being exposed little by little.
I've said repeatedly that I might be wrong, but no one can say I'm ignorant. After all, I have nearly the equivalent educational background of Dr. Paul Copan, the former President of the Evangelical Society. David Madison can say the same thing by the tenfold, especially seen in his fantastic book, online writings, podcasts and exhaustive reading list of atheist books in The Cure-For-Christianity Library. In his esteemed judgment, after years of studying it out, the evidence conclusively shows the Bible and any religion or theology or philosophy based on it, "deserves the same respect as astrology, alchemy, and belief in a flat earth." His most succinct case is made in a chapter for my recent anthology, The Case against Miracles.
Dr. Robert M. Price and I have co-edited a new anthology, titled "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism", published by Hypatia Press.
-------
The essays contained
within this anthology draw their readers out on a provocative adventure, a
quest certain to yield many treasures. Yet, this quest is altogether different
than that described by Albert Schweitzer in his landmark work The Quest of the
Historical Jesus over a century ago. Despite the seeming nobility, such an
academic pilgrimage to uncover the originary kernel of the Gospels, now having
played out for decades in the halls of academia, has proven little more than a
fool’s errand. We now face the obvious: these cultic tales are not and were
never given as historiographical “footage” of live first-century events in time
and space.
-- Richard C. Miller, Ph,D, author of Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity, 2014.
-------
The New Testament Jesus did not exist, but was there a historical figure on whom the legend was based? This anthology will adjust your assessment of the probability. It's a rollicking ride through a biblical battlefield.
-- Dan Barker, co-president of Freedom from Religion Foundation and author of Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists.
-------
For a long time mainstream Bible scholars have known that the gospels are not, in fact, reliable histories of Jesus. Even so, there is a consensus that Jesus existed, and doubting that he was a real person is seen as eccentric or fringe. But respected secular scholars—not beholden to what Hector Avalos has called the ecclesial-academic complex—have questioned that consensus. This new anthology is a welcome addition to the growing library of works that invite close inspection of the issue. These essays explore the diverse amalgam of theologies and superstitions in the ancient world, showing that the origins of Jesus-belief are far more complex than devout scholars have been willing to grant. The previous Loftus anthologies have thoroughly documented the falsification of Christianity—and this one adds dramatically to the case against it.
-- Dr. David Madison, author of Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief.
-------
The expert arguments in this book seek to understand how Christianity could have begun without a historical Jesus. All these Mythicist authorities; make very compelling arguments for their respective theories. Which one is correct? Can all of them be correct? Let us think of each contribution as being a description of an evolving thread of religious traditions. If each thread intertwined—at various times and in various places--with all the other threads of tradition described in this book, it should be possible to produce a “grand unifying theory” of how the various forms of earliest Christianity began. Reading this book will be sine qua non for any scholar seeking to trigger a paradigm shift by showing how all these threads braided together to create a Christianity that did not begin at any single point in space or time. This book will be absolutely necessary for any future Jesus mythicist scholar.
-- Frank R. Zindler, author of The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (2003).
-------
Mainstream experts mostly already agree the miraculous Jesus didn’t exist, but what about a merely human Jesus? This anthology usefully exhibits the full gamut of doubting even that, from the absurd to the sound. Some contributions are not credible, but some are worth considering, and several are brilliant, indeed required reading for anyone exploring the subject. The book will be absolutely necessary for any future Jesus mythicist scholar.
- Richard Carrier, Ph.D., author of On the Historicity of Jesus.
-------
This is an important and intellectually adventuresome collection of articles, well worth considering, reflecting the wide spectrum of views of those challenging the traditional conservative paradigm on the historicity of Jesus.
-- Russell Gmirkin, author of Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible.
-------
Of all the books written on Jesus mythicism, there are just a rare few that are scholarly and that hope to contribute something new to your understanding of the new testament texts. This book checks both boxes, and is definitely a must read for all those who want to keep up with mythicist thinking today.
-- Nicholas Ryan Covington (on Amazon) 5.0 out of 5 stars Must Read Mythicist Anthology.
-------
When Dr. Price was asked about our book at the the GCRR e-Conference on the Historical Jesus, he said, "it's sure to be a classic."
Here’s a surprising headline from 2014: “Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates.” This is the opening paragraph of the article: “Despite their strong pro-family values, evangelical Christians have higher than average divorce rates—in fact, being more likely to be divorced than Americans who claim no religion, according to findings as cited by researchers from Baylor University.”
Wait a minute. Isn’t this the crowd that always wants to know What Would Jesus Do? These are the words of Jesus in Mark 10:
Christian apologist Tom Gilson said: "Timothy McGrew is an international expert on epistemology and miracles. If Loftus has come up with a better defense than Tim has already encountered, that would be a miracle all its own."
John Loftus: If Timothy McGrew is considered an international expert on miracles and concluded a virgin named Mary gave birth to the second person of the Trinity, then he's not really an expert. He's certainly not a historian using the standards of the historical method, which is the kind of expert we should turn to for miracle claims in the past, not philosophers. Let's see him respond to this link to show that he's an expert. Can he respond or not? If not, then what atheist Michael Levine says is dead on.
Despite the condescending attitude of Jonathan McLatchie and the McGrews, I think they stand to learn from me. If you know anything about me you know I'm well-read. So I'm telling you there are plenty of critical things said in my book on miracles that I don't think they have considered before. See one of them below.
If you're reading more books due to spending more time at home, perhaps now is the time to read my latest anthology, The Case against Miracles. It just may be the crowning work of my publishing career. It should be interesting to watch apologists deal with it. Here are links to the paperback edition, and the Kindle edition. Some recommendations of it are below:
Christian apologists Tom Gilson, Jonathan McLatchie, Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew participated in panel discussing the resurrection of Jesus recently, and invited questions beforehand. So I obliged with two questions:
1. Would you comment on this quote: "The minimal facts approach is not a fair approach the data, to say the least. By virtue of any disagreements it’s not fair for their side to take off the table any “facts” the other side objects to. That is special pleading, pure and simple, in favor of Christian scholarship. So what is offered are “minimal facts, not all the facts”. What is needed is a sound argument for why apologists can arbitrarily exclude certain things from the discussion. Only if both sides agree to this can apologists Habermas and Licona go ahead and make their case. But skeptics atheists and agnostics don't.
Before the panel discussion Jonathan McLatchie responded:
John W. Loftus I find your objection to the minimal facts approach quite bizarre. The whole point of the approach is that it is tying one's arm deliberately behind one's back and limiting themselves to data that is granted by the skeptics -- i.e. starting from common ground assumptions. How is that "special pleading in favor of Christian scholarship"?
I replied:
Jonathan McLatchie WL Craig and others have said it frees the apologist from first having to defend the authority of the Bible. But defending the authority of the Bible is the major task of theirs. So it allows them to escape from the major task of theirs, which is special pleading.
My reply was not mentioned in the discussion. You can watch the video below.
Christianity is stuck with its miracles—they’re an integral part of scripture—and Christian apologists are stuck with their obligation to defend them. Of course serious Christian thinkers—by which I mean those tuned in to how the real world works—have made the adjustment: miracle tales are part of folklore across a very diverse religious spectrum. So, no, Jesus didn’t walk on water, still the storm, or feed the five thousand. Given the era in which the New Testament was written, these are special effects that increase the wow-factor—“Just look at what gods can do!” Supposedly, of course, there is residual “spiritual value” in the miracle stories, so preachers can make the most of them.
A friend of mine said on Facebook: "I’ve been a dedicated Bernie Sanders supporter for years. Two campaigns. I don’t love Biden, but I will support him, and hope that he chooses to take the ideas of Warren, Sanders, and Yang to the White House with him." My response: "I agree, but unlike my support for Bernie, all I'll do is vote for Biden. I have no enthusiasm for Biden or the democratic party as an entity."
What else can we do? One response, the wrong one, is anger, based on feeling marginalized and even victimized by the democratic establishment (DNC), and responding by refusing to vote for Biden. I won't lie. I have sympathies for this view. And the arguments are there, especially for the millions of young people Bernie Sanders has brought into the political process for the first time in their lives! They would not be involved if it wasn't for Sanders. So it would be easy to stick it to the DNC, for sticking it to their man. They had no stake in politics in the first place. They can leave it. "Let people in power go back to screwing the world up, since there's no hope for changing the establishment except for a complete revolution, as shown twice now when it came to Sanders." That was precisely the anti-establishment revolutionary message Bernie offered them as the only way to change politics. That was what got them involved in the first place. With the prospect of four more years of sameness in politics, why bother? Besides, Trump has already done most of the damage in appointing a slew of conservative judges who will be in power for the rest of their lives.
