My next book, to be published by Pitchstone Publishing in the Fall, is provocatively titled: "How To Defend The Christian Faith: Advice From an Atheist." Dr. Avalos kindly read it for a blurb and graciously wrote one:
I don't know anyone who can match the High Definition clarity of John Loftus when it comes to navigating the labyrinthine world of Christian evangelical apologetics for the general public. This is a relentless and incisive critique of the pseudo-scholarship that passes for genuine intellectual inquiry under the name of Christian apologetics.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace
to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man
against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law.And a person’s enemies will
be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or
mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more
than me is not worthy of me.” (Matt. 10: 34 – 37) News Video:Pastor Shot By Police
I must keep this short, so I want to say from the outset that Jeff Lowder is a valued atheist intellectual, even if I'm right about everything I write below. I am most grateful that he used his B.S. degree in computer science to co-create Internet Infidels, a huge repository of scholarly essays debating the merits of religious propositions. But Jeff Lowder and I have had a series of fights, which I wrote about previously in An Open Letter to Jeffery Jay Lowder. Anyone interested should read that post. We made a bit of a truce for a time then it started bursting out in the last few months. It came to a head with something he posted on his popular blog. [Click on the above image]. He wrote a post titled "Loftus Says I'm not Making an Impact." After a day he deleted it when I called him out on it. Then he apologized. Them's the facts. Lowder says it was an honest mistake. I don't believe that for a minute. I'm sure his fan boys do. Cognitive bias theory predicts they would too. So let me explain.
Since his book is such a bestseller I also appreciate his high endorsement of the Outsider Test for Faith.
He described it and wrote, "This rational and quasi-scientific approach is promoted by the ex-preacher John Loftus...Given that beliefs matter, the wisdom of this approach is unquestionable. But if it's used honestly, its outcome is inevitable." (pp. 85-86)
I'm opposed to Jeffery Jay Lowder claiming he's a philosopher, which he does. This is a screenshot of his Twitter profile claiming he's a Philosopher of Religion. He only has a B.A. in Computer Science earned in 1995 from Seattle Pacific University. I have a great deal more qualifications to claim I'm a philosopher, but I don't do so. It's for others to say, and they say that of me once-in-a-while. I rarely even see a real philosopher claim he/she's a philosopher. It's an accolade others bestow on you, and/or given to you by the university you teach at. So Lowder is arrogant to say so. It does not matter what others say or how many of them say it.
One of the responses from his echo-chamber of a blog is to compare Lowder to Socrates. If Socrates was a philosopher without credentials then Lowder can be one too. Lowder even "liked" such comments! *cough* Lowder is someone who, as far as I can tell, never read a paper at a philosophical conference, much less published in a philosophical journal. And he never taught a philosophy class either. He doesn't even have a Wikipedia page! ;-) At best he's self-taught, which isn't bad, but there is a big difference between a directed philosophical program taught by experts and being self-taught. It's much worse than this when it comes to Socrates. He not only didn't have any academic credentials, or write anything, he was rejected by the scholars of his day. More than this, if Socrates came to life he wouldn't be able to write a philosophical paper that would pass peer review. If you look at his reasoning--brilliant and original that it was for his day and the reason we hail him as a philosopher--his arguments in Plato's Dialogues are at an introductory college/university level, not the highly technical philosophical level demanded by today's philosophers. In fact, Socrates probably wouldn't even be able to understand most philosophy today. He wouldn't know anything about Oriental philosophy, that's for sure. Nor would he understand a great deal about either the Continental or Analytic traditions in philosophy. He wouldn't be able to understand much of the Philosophy of Religion, since a great deal of it is based on the new religion (to him anyway) of Christianity. And modern discussions of ethics and justice have by-passed his brilliant and original contributions significantly, as they have to his arguments on behalf of immortality and the afterlife. Socrates would have to catch up on the history of philosophy before he could even make a contribution. For surely one cannot understand Immanuel Kant without first understanding David Hume who awoke him from his dogmatic slumbers, as but just one of many examples. And Socrates didn't know anything about modern science either.
My point is that the era of Socrates is long past. This is a new era with better levels of argumentation by those recognized to be scholars. It's been said that Aristotle was the last person who knew everything that could be known. That day is gone too. We now live in an era of specialization and in this era there are recognized standards requiring credentials along with a certain quality of work. My claim is that Lowder doesn't meet these rigorous standards, and even if he did he should keep silent about it. Otherwise, doing so makes him look bad.
The reason why this matters and that our disagreements are important to be forthcoming.
I find it very interesting that when disagreeing with each other we fail to mention any good in that other person. That's not what we would do in person and it does not fairly represent the total contributions we each make. It's also why I get upset when being nitpicked to death by people who have not done what I have accomplished so far. Sometimes it's just a pissing contest though. For people who think the Secular Outpost and I aren't on the same team as atheists, you would be wrong. Here, see for yourselves:
I've read the comboxes of a lot of atheist and Christian blogs, and I can say without fear of contradiction that the people who comment here at DC are, over-all, some of the most educated, intelligent and respectful ones you'll see out there. Kudos to them. This is the case even though I have vigorously defended the value of ridicule. Yes, my commenters will ridicule from time to time, as I do. But it still is as I say. Think otherwise? Then let's have a head to head faceoff. ;-) Join us. Comment. Both Christians and non-Christians. See for yourselves. Come away from those other blogs you regularly visit. [Bible thumpers need not apply. If all you do is mindlessly quote-mine the Bible you deserve any ridicule we throw at you. Someone on your side of our debates needs to properly inform you how to deal with us.]
The word is getting out! Here's a message I just received on Facebook:
"Your Outsider Test For Faith was the final straw that showed me the error in my thinking. Thank you! I had to submit my Christianity card and join the irreligious." LINK.
I have allowed Christian scholars to post here at DC without my initial comments. [See tag below]. The following is one single comment left by Dr. Reppert in my combox. I thought it was worthy of further consideration. Dig in. I expect he'll defend what he wrote. I've taken the liberty to number his paragraphs for ease, should you wish to discuss them. Please, no ridicule.
The "ad" got the producer convicted in an English court for harassment. See below. I'm sure the publicity from this ad forced some believers to re-examine why they believe. The question for them would be "How can anyone be so cocksure they aren't going to hell that they would do such a thing?" Am I right or am I right?
The saying at left is an example of ridicule, in case it isn't obvious. The same goes for this post of mine. The saying was submitted by a person named Chris to a committee of three seeking permission to use it on his Facebook page. The members of the committee include Victor Reppert, Jeff Lowder and John Loftus. Reppert demanded this committee should exist and wanted to be on it. He argued that a person who uses ridicule must be able to defend the basis of the ridicule before using it. Lowder cannot recognize some kinds of ridicule and argued it isn't as effective at changing minds as a reasoned debate. Loftus didn't want on this committee but in order to break any deadlock, he begrudgingly agreed under protest.
Let's listen in as they discuss this submitted piece of ridicule.
Vic complains about the commenters here at DC, saying they attack him. They most certainly attack his ideas. By contrast his commenters personally attack atheists and have little substance beyond that. So compare them to what sir_russ wrote below. There is some snark going on in it, but his reasoning and writing are very good.
This anthology of counter-Apologetic essays merits a place on the bookshelf of every atheist, lay-student of comparative religion or Christian coming to question his belief. (Or just seeking to understand the worldviews of non-Christians.) In cataloguing the harms done by this religion, and the scope for addressing them, it is close to encyclopaedic. Crucially, it is an anthology of specialist and often scholarly contributions from writers addressing a particular field, and thus avoids a trap into which much humanist literature falls: The cult of the individual ego. Finally, the book indicates how atheism and humanism provide a model better suited for ameliorating the harms done by Christian belief. Click here to read the rest.
Reppert still doesn't get it and it stuns me. Maybe he refuses to consider anything I say because I'm, well, an atheist, and he knows atheists are wrong about everything! ;-) He thinks one must come up with a argument and be able to defend it--on the Harvard Yard or something?--before being entitled to ridicule a belief. For one must be careful not to end up ridiculing a true belief. Of course, Reppert surely wants to be on the committee that decides which beliefs are false and deserving of ridicule, I'll bet.
Dear Christian . . . if you
thought that faith in Christ alone will get you to Heaven, you haven’t got the
whole truth. Based on what Father Tom told me over the phone (see link below) and from a brochure handed out by the tour guide at St.
George Greek Orthodox Cathedral at this past week’s Greek Festival; you’re
screwed, big time! You
see, when Jesus made this famous statement in Matthew 16: 18, Jesus assumed the
reader knew the context; that he (Jesus) was speaking in Greek on behalf of His Greek Orthodox Church; thus Jesus never meant for his teachings to be perverted by the many false Christianities.
Previously Professor Keith Parsons advocated the use of ridicule, saying:
A single belly-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms” said H.L. Mencken. Fundamentalism and fundamentalists should be ridiculed in the media, by comedians, or wherever. You don’t have to worry about fairness, since, as Poe’s Law famously notes, no satire can possibly be more absurd than the real thing. Come on. You just can’t come up with anything more ridiculous than someone who honestly thinks that all human woes stem from an incident in which a talking snake accosted a naked woman in a primeval garden and talked her into eating a piece of fruit. Again, most ridicule would consist of pointedly drawing attention to what they really believe. Nothing could be fairer than that. As a sign admonished on The Simpsons, put the fun back in fundamentalism. Laugh it to death. LINK.
Now I present for your consideration his rules for ridicule:
Let's put ridicule into perspective. Faisal Saeed Al Mutar lectures on Muslim issues around the world. His focus is on Islamic problems in the Middle East and how they can be solved. On Facebook he wrote: "If you hold ridiculous beliefs, your beliefs deserve to be ridiculed. You have rights, your beliefs don't."
Now Victor Reppert has gone on record as stressing ridicule is unwarranted. So what does he advocate when it comes to Muslim militancy? A lot of us, me included, don't know that much about Islam. But we know killing and maiming others is wrong. Does Vic really think ridicule should not be used by us against these Muslims? Most of us don't really know any other way to express ourselves. I think ridicule can open the Muslim mind up to consider arguments to the contrary. It can be the grease that helps unscrew the mental bolts that shut off a reasoned discussion of their faith. And if Reppert can see this with regard to the faith of others, then he should have no principled objection to the use of ridicule itself.
The list of people who advocate and/or use ridicule effectively should be more than enough to convince the deniers. British atheist and Freethinker George William Foote (1850-1915) wrote:
Goldsmith said there are two classes of people who dread ridicule–priests and fools. They cry out that it is no argument, but they know it is. It has been found the most potent form of argument. Euclid used it in his immortal Geometry; for what else is the reductio ad absurdum which he sometimes employs? Elijah used it against the priests of Baal. The Christian fathers found it effective against the Pagan superstitions, and in turn it was adopted as the best weapon of attack on them by Lucian and Celsus. Ridicule has been used by Bruno, Erasmus, Luther, Rabelais, Swift, and Voltaire, by nearly all the great emancipators of the human mind. ["On Ridicule" Seasons of Freethought, 2013, page 260. See the tag "Ridicule" below for others who embrace it.]
To see what Socrates, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Erasmus, and modern thinkers like Keith Parsons, Richard Carrier and Stephen Law said about ridicule click here. There are more people who advocate it, or use it, than can be named, including Bertrand Russell.
If you have ever read Plato's Dialogues you know Socrates ridiculed his opponents. Anyone who has read the ending of the Euthyphro dilemma sees this plainly:
(Disclaimer: Let me say from the start, I’m an atheist . . . I consider the Bible a literary fraud and that the characters
discussed below never existed.)
Based on a general reading of the Bible, especially the
section labeled the Old Testament, the Hebrew god Yahweh (given the Christian title God from the LXX) is portraited as a debauched immoral character, often lacking
any ethical conscious while theologically (not Biblically), the figure of Satan unjustly condemned.
To illustrate my point, I’ll breakdown the Bible’s own characterizations God and Satan so the reader can see for him or herself who is really morally debauched (I have left out the Book of Revelation due to the fact that the narratives in this Biblical Book have not taken place, being projected to some apocalyptic future which is theological speculation). Below, is a short list, though any student of the Bible who has a concordance or Bible dictionary will be able to find many more.
Groucho Marx, one of my favorite comedians of all time, famously wrote a telegram to a Hollywood club he had joined, that said: “Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” I have recently considered sending such a letter to the skeptic and atheist movements (henceforth, SAM), but I couldn’t find the address. LINK
When it comes to miracles, at best they are virtually impossible events (not necessarily impossible). This is the case even if they have occurred on rare occasions throughout history, and even if the resurrection of Jesus was one of them. But an improbable event is always going to be more likely than a virtually impossible one, always! So while I am not a mythicist with regard to the existence of Jesus, it's still more probable Jesus never existed than that Jesus arose from the dead. Even if we lowered the odds that Dr. Richard Carrier arrived at in his magisterial book, On the Historicity of Jesus, from 33% to 5%, it's still more probable Jesus didn't exist than that he arose from the dead.
It would take an overwhelming amount of strong historical evidence to overcome our concrete personal experience that dead men stay dead, the kind of evidence that convinces reasonable people George Washington was the first President of the US. There's little doubt about Washington's Presidency. Why is there so much doubt about the resurrection of Jesus?
“Between 2007 and 2014, when Pew conducted two
major surveys of U.S. religious life, Americans who described themselves as
atheist, agnostic or of no particular faith grew from 16 percent to nearly 23
percent. At the same time, Christians dropped from about 78 percent to just
under 71 percent of the population. Protestants now comprise 46.5 percent of
what was once a predominantly Protestant country.”
I received an email from a specialist at one of the leading hospitals in America who said this:
I´ve read many books on the topic and all of your anthologies - I'm reading the last one right now. I'm very puzzled how they aren't more famous. Anyway, I'm writing to you just because I appreciate your work at a very high level, it's really impressive.
I've heard this from others. What do I make of it? Here are some of my thoughts.
The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics is a 461 page monster of a book written by biblical scholar Dr. Hector Avalos. It's unlike any other scholarly book on the market today. It tells us the rest of the story of the Jesus we find in the four gospels, the dark side, the raw side that biblical scholars try to whitewash over because they think Jesus deserves special treatment. Dr. Avalos by contrast takes off the blinders, forcing readers to see what Jesus was really like.
My guess is that people won't like Jesus after reading his book. I don't. He's not a guy I would want living next to me, or being around my children, or writing a column in a magazine, or politically involved in America that's for sure. No one should. Let's even have done with the notion Jesus was an over-all good person. I would want little to do with him. You might too after reading this wonderfully researched, one-of-a-kind book on an essential issue in disabusing Christians of their faith.
In the future when someone says Jesus was sinless, respond by saying "Bad Jesus." If someone holds up Jesus as an example of a good life, hold up Hector's book "Bad Jesus" in response. If someone asks, "What would Jesus do?," respond by asking them to read "Bad Jesus." It is the antidote to people who indefensibly think Jesus was a perfect human being. It is the corrective to believers who think we need a red-letter edition of the New Testament. It tells us the rest of the story, a story that most people and most Christians have never heard before.
Having said this I want readers to take a look at the contents of his book below, including selected quotes I've chosen from what Avalos writes in each chapter. Keep in mind I make no pretense to summarizing these chapters, only providing a few quotes that might provoke you to read it, which you should. See for yourselves:
The prolific and indefatigable Dr. Hector Avalos, who is a giant of a man, a scholar's scholar, just released a new book, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics. In it he continues with a main theme of two of his previous books, the theological, ethical and political irrelevance of the Bible for the modern world. In The End of Biblical Studies (2007), he masterfully showed how biblical scholars are preoccupied with maintaining the relevance of the Bible for the modern world, even though their own research actually shows the opposite. In Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (2011), he expertly showed how modern biblical scholars are still unjustifiably defending the indefensible ethics of biblical slavery. In this new book Avalos takes on the over-all ethics of Jesus himself---Oh My---as represented in the four canonical gospels (irrespective of whether Jesus existed or not, which he remains an agnostic about). Avalos skillfully shows how the Jesus depicted in the New Testament has a bad side, a side permeated by a “religiocentric, ethnocentric and imperialistic orientation.” He reveals the bad side of Jesus that modern biblical scholars unjustifiably try to hide from view.
Here is how he states it:
If one relied on most modern treatises of New Testament ethics, Jesus had no bad ideas, and never committed any bad deed. This cannot possibly be sustained if Jesus is viewed as a real historical human figure. If Jesus was a human being, he must have had some ideas that are ethically objectionable, or, at least, morally questionable. If Jesus was a human being, he must have had flaws, inconsistencies and hypocrisy in his moral system, just as does every other human being. If his followers, ancient or modern, believe that those ideas are applicable to their lives and to the lives of others, then it also raises the question of whether any of Jesus’ bad ideas also had bad consequences. If Jesus had some bad ideas, then imitating Jesus’ bad ideas could be a bad practice today. Given how much time historically has been spent on lauding the Good Jesus, this book centers on illuminating ‘the Bad Jesus’. (pp. 29-30)
One thing about conservative Christians is that they seem to do a good job dealing with the social liberals, as far as I know. This program by David Wood is well-done and informative:
This story about Dr. David Wood, whom I recently debated on the resurrection, is shocking! [Debate to be posted soon]. David's testimony describing his life before he converted to Christ can be seen in the video below. He's describing himself even though at times he seems to be describing someone else. He descends into the subway as he tells his dark past. Then he emerges topside when describing his conversion. David tells me this video was all shot in one take. Again, his story is shocking. He once told me he could never reject Christ because he might return to his former way of life. Now I know what he means. [He sent me this link on December 11th last year, before we were set up to debate].
For anyone who thinks my deconversion story away from faith is a bit shocking (it isn't much at all) just compare David's conversion story towards faith, as seen in the video link below. If someone wants to discount my deconversion story due to my personal experiences, then how much more should they discount David's conversion story due to his personal experiences. After all, if personal experiences led us each to adopt different conclusions about God, then the personal experiences leading me to change my mind pale by comparison to his. If David adopted his faith due to the experiences he describes in the video--experiences which show him to be an irrational angry young man--then how rational could this irrational angry young man have been when he adopting his faith at that time?
It would seem David just could not stand looking at himself in the mirror any longer. His brain was in meltdown mode and needed to find some escape from the pain of it all. Usually this would lead to even more anger, but in David's case it was the anger that caused the meltdown in the first place. So another escape was needed. The escape of faith he adopted, without actually studying Christianity out first, was the one he was most familiar with, and that's it. Now he conducts an apologetics ministry to help Muslims become Christians. Had David been more familiar with Islam he would be a Muslim today. For when the brain is in meltdown mode any escape will do.
Professor Jerry Coyne's long awaited new book, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible, will be available in a few weeks.I have eagerly awaited this book. Jerry tells me that he recommends my Outsider Test for Faith in it. Help make it a #1 book by ordering it now. You know you want it. Order it today!
A broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures. People process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set. Even what they count as evidence is different. And they are motivated differently, based on what they conclude. LINK.
I'm starting to work on another anthology on Science and Christianity. I already have three submitted chapters and nearly ten authors who have agreed to write chapters for it. I'm looking for authors to write chapters on topics like cosmology, evolution, how evolution impacts Christianity, the scientific method, the Bethlehem star, biblical archeology, the genetics of the virgin birth, the shroud of Turin, science and miracles, the tasks of science and theology, the origins of the religious impulse, philology and the texts of the Bible, and other things like that. The late Victor Stenger left me one chapter I'll use describing religious views of the center of the earth. If you think of other areas where science comes into direct conflict with Christianity let me know. What topics are relevant and who should write them? Remember, I cannot get just anyone I want.
It is a great pleasure to announce the publication of my new book, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics, which, to my knowledge, is the most complete scholarly critique of the ethics of Jesus from an openly atheist biblical scholar (and just in time for Openly Secular Day!). It is available from the publisher, Sheffield Phoenix Press, and on Amazon.
One of the main problems in discussing religion is that while
each religion wants to define itself, I’ve yet to come across a complete
universal definition that encompassed all religions from Hinduism to Scientology; from new formed religious belief systems to an ancient orthodox traditions and herein is the problem. There is no one defined
exchange in discussing this term apart from its context. Of course, as a
secular humanist, I also have a context, but my quest was for a short
intelligent definition which could be used as a basis for all future
discussions, which usually have a nature of being both defensive and apologetic
(religion’s basic true nature of survival).
Here are three blurbs for my next book to be released in the Fall. It's provocatively titled, "How To Defend The Christian Faith: Advice From an Atheist."
The Hebrew Bible has achieved a remarkable feat; it has justified, in the minds of billions, what is seemingly unjustifiable—genocide. Much of the Old Testament is dedicated to defending the territorial rights of Israel, a right conferred by her deity.
One of the important Bible reading skills to hone is catching the Biblical writers when they are unwittingly revealing an important truth. Since these truths are generally embedded within polemics wrapped in a fabricated story to support that polemic, it is important to read cautiously.
Depending on the nature and strength of an individual’s pre-existing beliefs, willful ignorance can manifest itself in different ways. The practice can entail completely disregarding established facts, evidence and/or reasonable opinions if they fail to meet one’s expectations. Often excuses will be made, stating that the source is unreliable, that the experiment was flawed or the opinion is too biased…In other…more extreme cases, willful ignorance can involve outright refusal to read, hear or study, in any way, anything that does not conform to the person’s worldview. Rational Wiki.
On Monday April 20th from 7-9 PM to be exact. At the Reston Bible Church, 45650 Oakbrook Court, Dulles, Virginia. Be there or be square. I figured today would be a good day to announce it, what, with Christians celebrating an event than never took place and all.
(2007), Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship
(2011), and The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics
(2015).
