At Victor Reppert's Blog My OTF is Called A "Dangerously Stupid Idea"
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Victor Reppert. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Victor Reppert. Sort by date Show all posts
Al Stefanelli's Review of My Book "Why I Became an Atheist"
Al and I were writers at Freethought Blogs. Since then we've kept in touch. He now stays on his own blog where wrote a very nice (and humbling) review of my book. He calls it "exhaustive" and says:
Thanks so much Al! I appreciate all you do as well. Link. It's a shame that William Lane Craig, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and many others who comment here have not read it, or won't. Maybe this might change their minds. I'd like to have an honest review by one or more of them. But no, they've heard it all before they'll say. ;-)
At first glance, John’s book seems daunting. I’ve written a couple, myself, and when you look at a five-hundred-plus page book, it can be off-putting. Don’t let this sway you, because when you pick it up and start reading, and begin to understand the detail and clarity that John uses, you will soon realize that this book could have been written no other way. It’s exhaustive in content because it has to be. Everything in it is important, and the range of topics covered offer the reader a collective of information that I have not been able to find in one volume, anywhere.Concerning the subjects in the first part of my book, Al writes:
John goes into such great detail on these subjects, tearing them apart, laying them out on a literary operating table, and surgically examining them with such a precision that this book has earned a spot on my shelf with the reference books.Concerning the second part, Al writes:
The wealth of information here is astounding, and the way it is presented offers the reader one of the most detailed breakdowns of the problems with apologetics, and the cognitive dissonance that comes with religious belief.He concludes: "To a theologian, he is a worthy adversary. To an armchair apologist, he is positively lethal."
Thanks so much Al! I appreciate all you do as well. Link. It's a shame that William Lane Craig, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, David Marshall and many others who comment here have not read it, or won't. Maybe this might change their minds. I'd like to have an honest review by one or more of them. But no, they've heard it all before they'll say. ;-)
On Definitions of Faith and Arguments Against It
Skeptics define "faith" differently than believers. It's hard to find a middle ground between us because we see faith differently. Here are a few skeptical definitions of faith:
Victor Reppert is "Irate" Claiming This is "Nonsense. Hogwash. BS."
To what did he respond to? This comment of mine:
I'm the one telling you the truth. No, you do not believe what your parents told you anymore. But they did give you your initial priors. Did they teach you to sing "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so," or not!
My claim is that without your Christian upbringing you would not have the priors that make you believe all of the things you do. I want you to think chronologically about your priors. Ignore your upbringing. What would be an adequate defense of your faith starting from your most basic prior? List them in some kind of order. My claim is that there is no way you can assess the historical evidence for the Bible and come away with a "faith prior" because you need faith prior to coming to your historical conclusions.
Now don't get irate with me on this. Think through my questions and answer them.
Vic, you get your "priors" from your upbringing. With different priors you would be defending something else. LinkAdmit it Vic. You get your "priors" from your upbringing. This is undeniable. We were all raised as believers. Whatever our parents told us we believed. That's your starting place. Sure, we question them as we go, but we don't upchuck them all.
I'm the one telling you the truth. No, you do not believe what your parents told you anymore. But they did give you your initial priors. Did they teach you to sing "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so," or not!
My claim is that without your Christian upbringing you would not have the priors that make you believe all of the things you do. I want you to think chronologically about your priors. Ignore your upbringing. What would be an adequate defense of your faith starting from your most basic prior? List them in some kind of order. My claim is that there is no way you can assess the historical evidence for the Bible and come away with a "faith prior" because you need faith prior to coming to your historical conclusions.
Now don't get irate with me on this. Think through my questions and answer them.
Victor Reppert Argues That Sufficient Evidence for Faith is a Bad Thing!
Vic commented saying that the perspective of the Outsider's Test for Faith unreasonably requires that "God would virtually have to write his name in the heavens in order to make any belief in him believable." No, not at all. I have previously indicated the kinds of evidence that would convince me Christianity is true. Vic goes on to say:
New Book, "The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing"
This new book is written by computational biologist John C. Wathey. LINK. According to one reviewer on Amazon, Wathey
...cuts to the heart of religion’s appeal: the strong emotional pull of belief and its promise to fill what has been called “the God-shaped vacuum in our hearts and minds.” As the author notes in his preface, the New Atheists have “largely ignored the real reason that most believers believe: their personal experience of the presence of God.” This book examines that subjective religious experience, offering a cogent description of its likely biological and psychological underpinnings.It looks like a fantastic book. I would prefer the book was titled The Delusion of God's Presence, but that's just me. Regardless, gone is the cockamamie notion of the authenticating private subjective witness of a god in our lives (i.e., the god named holy spirit). Anyone who takes it seriously is indeed deluded. There are Christian apologists like Norman Geisler and Victor Reppert (I think) who don't agree with it, like me. What they should see is the lengths Christian apologists will go to defend their evangelical faith. And since that's obviously the case here, they should reflect on the lengths they themselves go to defend their evangelical faith.
Robert Ingersoll On Thomas Paine On Reason & Science
The following is an excerpt from a lecture Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899) gave all over the country commending Thomas Paine. It can be found in full right here. To see more of Ingersoll's speeches and writings check out fellowfeather's site, The Ingersoll Times, from whom I first heard of this lecture. In the excerpt Ingersoll hails reason, knowledge, and science while excoriating belief. It's fantastic!
There are Christian apologists who argue that a god exists because reason can only be accounted for, and justified by a god. Even non-believers must acknowledge god's existence, they argue, for by using reason we acknowledge god as its foundation. This is the Argument from Reason, of which Victor Reppert is the leading defender, hitchhiking on what CS Lewis had previously written. What Ingersoll shows us, by contrast, is that Christians denigrate reason, knowledge, and science in favor of belief. Imagine that, there are people who reject reason who ironically argue that reason leads to god! What an astounding amount ignorance and hypocrisy! If reason leads to god they should be the champions of reason and science rather than belief. But they denigrate it every chance they get. They only use it when it suits them in this fallacious argument, but fail to apply reason across the board to the nature of nature, it's behavior, and whether there's a religion that has sufficient objective evidence for its miracles. In other words, to paraphrase accurately from Christian apologist Frank Turek, they steal reason from non-believers since nonbelievers are the people of reason.
There are Christian apologists who argue that a god exists because reason can only be accounted for, and justified by a god. Even non-believers must acknowledge god's existence, they argue, for by using reason we acknowledge god as its foundation. This is the Argument from Reason, of which Victor Reppert is the leading defender, hitchhiking on what CS Lewis had previously written. What Ingersoll shows us, by contrast, is that Christians denigrate reason, knowledge, and science in favor of belief. Imagine that, there are people who reject reason who ironically argue that reason leads to god! What an astounding amount ignorance and hypocrisy! If reason leads to god they should be the champions of reason and science rather than belief. But they denigrate it every chance they get. They only use it when it suits them in this fallacious argument, but fail to apply reason across the board to the nature of nature, it's behavior, and whether there's a religion that has sufficient objective evidence for its miracles. In other words, to paraphrase accurately from Christian apologist Frank Turek, they steal reason from non-believers since nonbelievers are the people of reason.
Another "Stupid Atheist Meme"
- Ed Brayton: This is fucking inane. Cat's don't pray! Some atheists (not me) are just stupid.
- Jeff Lowder: I agree. I consistently criticize atheists when I think they are being rude or straw manning theists or theistic arguments.
- Victor Reppert: Who's to say God answers all prayers anyway? He has his omniscient reasons.
"The Christian Delusion" Books are Being Shipped Now
My book can be ordered here. Amazon USA is shipping them beginning today. I received mine yesterday from Prometheus Books and it looks like everything I had pictured. The contributors did an excellent job on their chapters. It's sure to debunk Christianity and cause Christian apologists to scramble in defense of their faith.
Unbelief by Default and Selective Credulity
Chris Hallquist: "Recently, Victor Reppert claimed that, 'as the OTF [Outsider Test for Faith] is typically presented, it attempts to give a kind of special default status to the denial of religion, and in doing so it starts to engage in anti-religious special pleading.'"
"This sounds like a fair criticism...but it misses the point that...unbelief by default is already the attitude many Christians have to most religions. To be more specific: many Christians, when they hear non-Christian supernatural claims–or even Christian supernatural claims made outside the Christian canon–are skeptical by default. Some even say so explicitly." Link.
"This sounds like a fair criticism...but it misses the point that...unbelief by default is already the attitude many Christians have to most religions. To be more specific: many Christians, when they hear non-Christian supernatural claims–or even Christian supernatural claims made outside the Christian canon–are skeptical by default. Some even say so explicitly." Link.
Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?
This is the title to the very last chapter in my forthcoming book, The Outsider Test for Faith, some blurbs of which can be found here. That chapter is about faith, which I define as "an irrational leap over the probabilities." Victor Reppert is claiming that if this is what faith is then he doesn't have it. Here's what he said and my response below. I think this exchange cuts to the heart of the issue:
293 People Have Signed the Facebook Petition So Far
I want to thank Larry M from VCU for setting this petition up. Petitioners would like to see a debate between my former professor William Lane Craig and me. They include both Christians and nonbelievers. The only question you need to ask yourself is whether this would be entertaining and educational. If so, then sign up. Here is a list of people who have done so, and they include some well known names like Eddie Tabash, Richard Carrier, Victor Reppert, Reginald Finley, Ed Babinski, Jason Long and so on.
On Feeding One's Faith in the "Conceivably False"
I recently saw a church sign that said, "Feed your faith and it will starve your doubts."
The Mind/Brain Problem
Okay, Okay, I've been participating in a guilty pleasure by visiting Victor Reppert's Blog lately. Vic argued
I am suggesting on principled grounds that a careful reflection on the nature of mind and matter will invariably reveal that there is a logical gap between them that in principle cannot be bridged without fudging categories.My responses so far:
Our Debates Are Not Unproductive: I Recommend David Marshall's Chapter On "The Outsider Test For Faith" To My Critics
Who would ever think I would say this? But I do. Marshall and I have gone around on this test and I have harshly criticized him here at DC, on Amazon where he reviewed my book, and in the previous ebook edition of "True Reason," edited by Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer. But having received a paperback copy of this book and after reading Marshall's revised chapter in True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism,
I now report there is progress. The most ignorant criticisms of the OTF come from Christian scholars Matthew Flannagan and Mark Hanna. They are so bad, so delusional I only recommend them in so far as they show us how intelligent people with a delusion cannot even read with comprehension. The less ignorant criticisms of the OTF come from Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and Thomas Talbot (all of whom were instructional to me in many ways). Maybe I'm going soft, but I think rather than taking a hard-line approach against Marshall it would be counter-productive for me to do so, since he embraces the OTF (with some caveats). I adjure my critics to read Marshall's chapter even though he is still wrong to claim Christianity passes the OTF. All I'm saying is that this is progress. I'll comment later on where he's wrong, but for now I recommend his chapter to my critics. Hopefully they will listen to him.
I now report there is progress. The most ignorant criticisms of the OTF come from Christian scholars Matthew Flannagan and Mark Hanna. They are so bad, so delusional I only recommend them in so far as they show us how intelligent people with a delusion cannot even read with comprehension. The less ignorant criticisms of the OTF come from Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and Thomas Talbot (all of whom were instructional to me in many ways). Maybe I'm going soft, but I think rather than taking a hard-line approach against Marshall it would be counter-productive for me to do so, since he embraces the OTF (with some caveats). I adjure my critics to read Marshall's chapter even though he is still wrong to claim Christianity passes the OTF. All I'm saying is that this is progress. I'll comment later on where he's wrong, but for now I recommend his chapter to my critics. Hopefully they will listen to him.The God of the Gaps Reasoning
Victor Reppert and the folks at Christian Cadre are both highlighting an article by Robert Larmer on the God of the Gaps reasoning. It's an interesting discussion to me. Below are some of my brief comments:
Isn't it interesting that before the rise of modern science when people could not explain much at all, theists would often utilize the very god of the gaps argument that they now want to distance themselves from? Whatever could not previously be explained they resorted to saying, "God did it," or "God explains it." The list of such things is probably endless, from a healing, to the rain, to the birth of a child, to winning a war.
I admit that the the god of the gaps epistemology is a logical failure when used by either side. But if the standard of belief is logical proof, then there isn't much any of us can believe, because most all of the time we're only talking about probabilities. The real question is who must retreat more often to the "merely possible" in order to defend their views.
Christian philosopher W. Christopher Stewart objects to the “god of the gaps” epistemology because, as he says, “natural laws are not independent of God. For the Christian theist, God upholds nature in existence, sustaining it in a providential way.” From his perspective this is true. But his rationale is a bit strange. He says, “To do so is to make religious belief an easy target as the gaps in scientific understanding narrow with each scientific discovery,” in “Religion and Science,” Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael Murray (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., Co., 1999), p. 321-322. Why should he be concerned with this unless science truly is leaving less and less room for the supernatural? He’s admitting the evidence does not favor his faith. He’s trying to explain away the evidence. If he lived in a pre-scientific era before science could explain so much he’d still be arguing this is evidence that God exists!
The fact that Christians have abandoned the god of the gaps defense when they previously used it so often, it a testimony to the fact that the evidence in nature does not support the belief in God. The evidence from nature is that there is no active supernatural being in this world. Now God might exist anyway, but there is no evidence of his activity in our world. That's what Christians have learned to give up by abandoning the god of the gaps defense. Others like me simply say that if there is no evidence of God's activity in our world, then it's likely there is no God (given this information alone). This is a reasonable conclusion to make.
Okay I Confess, I've Been Over at Victor Reppert's Blog Again *Slap*
Somehow I just can't seem to stay away ;-)
The Arizona Atheist Defends the Outsider Test for Faith Against David Marshall
Previously I had written something brief in response to Marshall's chapter on the Outsider Test in the book True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism. I was thankful that at a minimum he embraces it (with caveats) against Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser, Matthew Flannagan, Norman Geisler, Mark Hanna, Thomas Talbot and some others. LINK I was planning on writing a longer response but didn't get around to it. Now I don't need to, for the Arizona Atheist has done so as he's reviewing each chapter in that book. He says:
Each of David Marshall’s arguments against the OTF fail. His next tactic, regardless of how illogical it may be, is to argue that Christianity has passed the OTF “billions of times.” (59) If an argument is by its nature “flawed,” as Marshall contends, how then, can he possibly believe arguing that “billions” allegedly passing this flawed test is proof that Christians have come to their faith in a rational manner? See more here.
Quote of the Day On Chronological Snobbery
I just read something that reminded me Victor Reppert. He has repeatedly used the "chronological snob" straw-man aphorism against me (coined by C.S. Lewis) simply because I say some belief is no longer respected in today's world. But this is a misuse of the aphorism, if it can ever be used at all. For I also provide reasons why said beliefs are no longer respected.
Chronological snobbery doesn’t apply to any criticism or rejection of thinking from previous eras. If that’s the case, we’re all chronological snobs. If your doctor tried to treat your cancer with leeches, you wouldn’t be snobbish to object because we now know better. If your neighbor told you that the biblical story of Noah’s son Ham proves that some races are superior, you wouldn’t be snobbish to reject that theology because we now know better.
Chronological snobbery refers to the notion that all ideas from previous eras are inferior because they are old and that modern ideas are superior because they are new. And, frankly, I don’t know anyone who actually believes this. I certainly don’t. --by Jonathan Merritt, "The truth about ‘chronological snobbery’"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)