Announcing A Special Screening of "Creator of God: A Brain Surgeon's Quest"
Lee Randolph's Blog
Some of you have asked me where some of the former DC Members have gone. They are Blogging on their own. Check Lee's Blog out. Look around and comment, it's a good Blog!
My Five No, Six No, Seven No TEN Published Books
[Written by John W. Loftus]
In case you want to know more about my TEN books, here are the links:
1) Why I Became An Atheist [Revised and Expanded](WIBA).
2) The Christian Delusion (TCD).
3) The End of Christianity (TEC).
4) The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion is True (OTF).
5) God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions. (GOG), co-written with Christian philosopher/theologian Dr. Randal Rauser.
6) Christianity is Not Great (CNG).
7) How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist (HDCH).
8) Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion (CLS).
9) Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End.
10) The Case Against Miracles (CaM)
As you can guess I'm excited and humbled to know they'll help change the religious landscape for years to come.
In case you want to know more about my TEN books, here are the links:
1) Why I Became An Atheist [Revised and Expanded](WIBA).
2) The Christian Delusion (TCD).
3) The End of Christianity (TEC).
4) The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion is True (OTF).
5) God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions. (GOG), co-written with Christian philosopher/theologian Dr. Randal Rauser.
6) Christianity is Not Great (CNG).
7) How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist (HDCH).
8) Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion (CLS).
9) Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End.
10) The Case Against Miracles (CaM)
As you can guess I'm excited and humbled to know they'll help change the religious landscape for years to come.
My Thoughts On the Poll About My Book After One Day
I'm going to stop it. I've learned what I wanted to learn. Here are the results after a bit more than a day:
Look for the Movie "Creator of God: A Brain Surgeon's Story"
I met neurosurgeon Vivekanand Palavali recently who has made a documentary movie about his quest to find out who God is. See the trailer below. This is gonna be good!
Joe Holman: "The Best Seat in the House"
Former blog member here at DC has his own Blog, like I recommended that they all start on their own. Joe's latest post starts off like this:
Look around and see what you think.
I want to introduce you to my friend Terri. She is a person of simplicity, and yet her depth of character has you looking down and not seeing bottom. Being a complicated person is not what I am talking about. Any chick – any dude, for that matter – can be complicated, conflicted, unpredictable, with “issues.” That’s not what I’m talking about at all. I’m talking about a person who is enough of an individual to have a personality you can nail down. You can predict them, and yet they can teach and surprise you in unforeseen ways. Such a friend is Terri.
Link.
Look around and see what you think.
Are Believers Ever Argued Into Faith, or Argued Out of It?
Eric asked some interesting questions in the com-box of a post of mine. Read my response below.
A Question About the Most Effective Way to Reach Believers and My Response
I was emailed the following question and I responded to it. See what you think:
Here's Another Exchange I Had With a Christian Scholar [Edited]
I had told him I was puzzled that he still believes. Here is what he said and my response:
Announcing a Meeting to Discuss a Non-Religious Group Within the Society of Biblical Literature
Read this announcement below. Come join us.
I'm Editing Another Book
There are a few unnamed Christian wannabe apologists out there who viciously attacked me when I first came online before starting this Blog. I was repeatedly told I was stupid, ignorant, and even brain-dead in so many ways it took me by surprise. I was lied about and verbally maligned with everything I said. The treatment I received from them was absolutely appalling. In fact, they still do that to me. But all I just wanted to do originally was to reasonably discuss the issues that separate us. I did not set out to debunk Christianity. I merely wanted to find a place to discuss the issues in a respectful atmosphere. Had they done this I'm almost certain I would not have started this Blog and I would not have become so passionate about debunking the very faith they use to justify their treatment of me. If you want to motivate me call me stupid. I told them that doing so was like pouring gas on the fires of my passion but they laughed some more. Even now they still laugh. I dare say that they would've lit the fires that burned me at the stake in a previous generation. So I got to thinking about the people who died so that I have the freedom to speak out, and I dedicated my life to making sure I did not trample on their blood by not doing so. I also realized that since I had the means to effectively argue against the Christian faith I could not simply walk away from what I've learned without also sharing it with others who can benefit from it. So there is no turning back.
Karen Armstrong's "The Case For God": An Intellectual Feast But in the End Very Little Help to the World's Problems
To read what I wrote about her book click here. As announced earlier, if you think this is a helpful review then a positive vote would be appreciated.
Ian Boyne of "The Jamaica Gleaner" Claims That Atheists/Agnostics are Winning the Debate
He's read my book along with several others and writes:
Dr. Jim Linville's Blog is Fast Becoming a Favorite of Mine
He's funny and intelligent. Recently he called for An Atheist and Agnostic Academic Association Affiliated with the Society of Biblical Literature. He also wrote about my work as well. Why wouldn't I like such a guy? ;-) Thanks Jim!
Iron Mike Tyson's Life Shows There is a Real Incompatibility With an Omniscient and a Wrathful God
That's my claim. I watched his interview on the Oprah show Monday, and while I think he'll continue to struggle with his past, I thought he was a complete jerk before watching it. He describes his life and I honestly felt for him deeply. He said that he's tired of failing and I believe him. There's a movie about his life that looks interesting. But here's my point. Once we understand someone and what made that person who he is, we can love him. If I only understood everything about a person and every experience he has ever had that made him who he is, then I could love him completely. An omniscient God supposedly has that understanding of all of us. Hence an omniscient God can never be angry with us. Q.E.D.
A Devastating Critique of the Penal Substitutionary Model for the Atonement
[Edited for Pulliam's newest post today where he comments on the discussion in my book]. Dr. Ken Pulliam is providing this on his blog (read his posts from the bottom up). Link.
Luke Over at Common Sense Atheism Hails My Book at the Best Atheist Book of the Decade
Whether it is or not you should be the judge. As you would guess I am flattered to no end and feel undeserving of anyone saying such a thing. Link.
An Initial Response to Timothy Keller's Book, The Reason for God
I have much more to say about this book than what you'll read below. These are my initial thoughts. How would you respond?
Timothy Keller, Pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, claims: “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternative beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B.” Writing to skeptics he claims that “The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.” (p. xviii). Faith, according to him, is anything we accept that is unprovable. As such, “All of us have fundamental, unprovable faith commitments that we think are superior to those of others.” (p. 20). Then by defining religion as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing,” he goes on to argue that even the most secular pragmatists have an “implicit religion.” Why? Because skeptics, just like religious believers, have “set of faith assumptions about the nature of things.” (p. 15-16). So he argues that skeptics likewise “must doubt your doubts.” [The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Riverhead Books, 2008), p. xix].
But even if I grant for the sake of argument that faith is what we have when we cannot prove something, then what method does Keller propose to distinguish between that which is provable from that which is unprovable? Surely he doesn’t mean to say that if we cannot be absolutely certain of something all we have left is blind faith, or that everything that is unprovable has an equal epistemological merit. Christians like him want to claim that skeptics too have beliefs which cannot be proven, and then try to drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice. If that’s what he’s doing then a Mormon or a Muslim could have written the same things he did, and then driven a whole truckload of Mormon or Muslim assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice too. And we would still be in no better position to judge between faiths, even granting that skeptics also have faith assumptions. What I’m proposing with the Outsider Test For Faith is a way to distinguish between what we should accept from what we should not. I’m arguing there isn’t a better test when it comes to religious beliefs. So again, what better method is there?
And even if I grant Keller’s definition of religion for the sake of argument such that everyone has one, including skeptics, then once again what better method is there but The Outsider Test to decide which one of them is correct, if any? When we all apply it to our respective religions we should all be agnostics about all metaphysical claims, all of them. We should all be agnostics. We should all doubt our doubts. Agnostics already do this. This double negative way of expressing things does not lead to faith. It leads to agnosticism.
Keep in mind that the choices in front of us are emphatically NOT between any one particular situated cultural form of Christianity and atheism. The choices are Legion. This fact makes agnosticism the default position. Anyone, and I mean anyone including myself, who leaves the default position and affirms an answer, any answer, has the burden of proof. The denial is the easy part. We deny the beliefs of nearly everyone else, sometimes without even considering them. The hard part is in affirming the correct set of beliefs. I am an atheist because that’s the direction agnosticism pushes me. My atheism is due to the process of elimination. One supernatural entity, being, or force after another was rejected by me leaving the only reasonable answer to be atheism.
But in fact, I do not accept Keller’s definition of faith or of religion. He’s manipulating the debate by using a language game in his favor here. I refuse to play this game. I know as sure as I can know anything that there is a material world, and that I can trust my senses. Therefore I know the scientific method is our only sure way for assessing truth claims. Words like hope and faith and trust just don’t do these things justice. The word faith must be reserved to apply in this context to beliefs about that which cannot be sensed or empirically tested, like ghosts, angels, demons and gods. And likewise the word religion must be based upon beliefs about those kinds of entities if it’s to have any separate meaning at all.
What Keller is doing is descibing a worldview anyway. Everyone has one but that does not make everyone religious. An atheist worldview is not a religion. That is a language game I refuse to accept. If by denying all religions this makes the atheist worldview a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby!
Timothy Keller, Pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, claims: “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternative beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B.” Writing to skeptics he claims that “The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.” (p. xviii). Faith, according to him, is anything we accept that is unprovable. As such, “All of us have fundamental, unprovable faith commitments that we think are superior to those of others.” (p. 20). Then by defining religion as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing,” he goes on to argue that even the most secular pragmatists have an “implicit religion.” Why? Because skeptics, just like religious believers, have “set of faith assumptions about the nature of things.” (p. 15-16). So he argues that skeptics likewise “must doubt your doubts.” [The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Riverhead Books, 2008), p. xix].
But even if I grant for the sake of argument that faith is what we have when we cannot prove something, then what method does Keller propose to distinguish between that which is provable from that which is unprovable? Surely he doesn’t mean to say that if we cannot be absolutely certain of something all we have left is blind faith, or that everything that is unprovable has an equal epistemological merit. Christians like him want to claim that skeptics too have beliefs which cannot be proven, and then try to drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice. If that’s what he’s doing then a Mormon or a Muslim could have written the same things he did, and then driven a whole truckload of Mormon or Muslim assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice too. And we would still be in no better position to judge between faiths, even granting that skeptics also have faith assumptions. What I’m proposing with the Outsider Test For Faith is a way to distinguish between what we should accept from what we should not. I’m arguing there isn’t a better test when it comes to religious beliefs. So again, what better method is there?
And even if I grant Keller’s definition of religion for the sake of argument such that everyone has one, including skeptics, then once again what better method is there but The Outsider Test to decide which one of them is correct, if any? When we all apply it to our respective religions we should all be agnostics about all metaphysical claims, all of them. We should all be agnostics. We should all doubt our doubts. Agnostics already do this. This double negative way of expressing things does not lead to faith. It leads to agnosticism.
Keep in mind that the choices in front of us are emphatically NOT between any one particular situated cultural form of Christianity and atheism. The choices are Legion. This fact makes agnosticism the default position. Anyone, and I mean anyone including myself, who leaves the default position and affirms an answer, any answer, has the burden of proof. The denial is the easy part. We deny the beliefs of nearly everyone else, sometimes without even considering them. The hard part is in affirming the correct set of beliefs. I am an atheist because that’s the direction agnosticism pushes me. My atheism is due to the process of elimination. One supernatural entity, being, or force after another was rejected by me leaving the only reasonable answer to be atheism.
But in fact, I do not accept Keller’s definition of faith or of religion. He’s manipulating the debate by using a language game in his favor here. I refuse to play this game. I know as sure as I can know anything that there is a material world, and that I can trust my senses. Therefore I know the scientific method is our only sure way for assessing truth claims. Words like hope and faith and trust just don’t do these things justice. The word faith must be reserved to apply in this context to beliefs about that which cannot be sensed or empirically tested, like ghosts, angels, demons and gods. And likewise the word religion must be based upon beliefs about those kinds of entities if it’s to have any separate meaning at all.
What Keller is doing is descibing a worldview anyway. Everyone has one but that does not make everyone religious. An atheist worldview is not a religion. That is a language game I refuse to accept. If by denying all religions this makes the atheist worldview a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby!
Ken Pulliam, Former Apologist with a Ph.D. Comes Out of the Closet
Ken was formerly a blogger here at DC under the name Former_Fundy.
He writes:
Here's a link to his new blog.
He writes:
I was "saved"(trusted Christ and Christ alone) at the age of 18 and was baptized in an independent Baptist Church in Georgia. I graduated from Baptist University of America (1981) with a B.A. in Theology. I earned an M.A.(1982)and a Ph.D. (1986) in Theology from Bob Jones University. After graduation, I taught at International Baptist College in Tempe, AZ for 9 years. After a few years of accumulating doubts, my Christian faith evaporated sometime during the course of 1996. I am no longer a believer. If I had to pigeon-hole myself, I would say I am agnostic.
Here's a link to his new blog.
A First Look At My New Edited Book: The Christian Delusion
Below you can have your first look at my new edited book.
![]()
More Criticisms of The Outsider Test For Faith Answered
A guy named Joshua has criticized my OTF. Here is what he said and my response to him.
He finds that I am unclear about the test and as such there are not one but five (different?) tests because I'm not clear about it. Joshua is doing three things with me and my test in order to maintain an improbable faith.
1) He’s mistaking my attempts at clarifying and further explaining the OTF as different tests, which is wholly inappropriate rhetoric. 2) He’s faulting me for not writing to the professional philosopher, which, if I did so would not be my target audience. 3) He’s chosen to personally offend me with his rhetoric in hopes that I will not respond so he can have the last word. All in all this is indeed an interesting strategy, but it will not work with me. Leaving aside his many mischaracterizations of my position, and leaving aside the things I’ve already addressed, along with his offensiveness, I’ll briefly respond.
In any case, even if we grant Plantinga’s argument, the fact remains that all belief systems that excuse themselves from scientific testing are belief systems which include beliefs about how the system came about. So there is no way to decide between them. And they are almost certainly culturally caught in the culture of one’s origin. So I see no reason not to be skeptical about all these kinds of belief systems, and I see no reason why the Christian believer wouldn’t want to be skeptical about his own system of beliefs because of this.
He finds that I am unclear about the test and as such there are not one but five (different?) tests because I'm not clear about it. Joshua is doing three things with me and my test in order to maintain an improbable faith.
1) He’s mistaking my attempts at clarifying and further explaining the OTF as different tests, which is wholly inappropriate rhetoric. 2) He’s faulting me for not writing to the professional philosopher, which, if I did so would not be my target audience. 3) He’s chosen to personally offend me with his rhetoric in hopes that I will not respond so he can have the last word. All in all this is indeed an interesting strategy, but it will not work with me. Leaving aside his many mischaracterizations of my position, and leaving aside the things I’ve already addressed, along with his offensiveness, I’ll briefly respond.
He said: Whether Loftus thinks skepticism is a presumption or a “control belief”, something we start with or something we conclude with, is now wholly beyond me.Both. I said it is circular but not viciously circular.
He said: This should lead us to “presuppose” skepticism, one of Loftus’s many underdefined terms. But skepticism seems to be a negative term, meaning something akin to “Don’t assume the Bible is true,” or something very much like that. It’s unclear whether Loftus has anything positive in mind for skepticism as an actual investigative methodology for the epistemology of religion.If he doesn’t know what it means to be skeptical of a positive claim or assertion then he’s being willing obtuse. As Vic Stenger repeats, “absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence should be there and is not.” In my book I argue for Hume’s standards, methodological naturalism, and the scientific method itself. There are no better standards or methods. What are the alternatives if not?
He said: Loftus repeats his book’s claim that sociological data is akin to a “background” fact to be used in assessing religious “truth claims.” It is important for the non-specialist reader to realize that, usually, sociological or cultural arguments are relevant only to the rationality of religious believers themselves. Say Joshua’s only reason for believing in God is because his trusty uncle told him so. This wouldn’t cast doubt on the proposition “God exists,” but it would cast doubt on the proposition, “Joshua believes in God for good reasons.” This is an important distinction that Loftus frequently ignores.This analogy is disanalogous and even disingenuous, for we’re not just talking about one case of one uncle telling one person to believe in one kind of God. There are myriads of uncle’s telling a myriad of nephews to believe in a myriad number of gods, and these nephews all believe what they’re initially told. And THAT is what I’m addressing with the OTF. Such a situation does indeed cast doubt on what any given uncle tells his nephew such that these nephews ought to be skeptical of what they were told. Why? Because all nephews believe what they were initially told by their uncles, and because at the very least all but one of these uncles must be wrong. They could even all be wrong.
He said: Loftus says certain rather conspicuous things given his own projects, such as “Christian, just ask yourself whether the initial reasons you had for adopting your faith were strong ones.” Yet Loftus doesn’t want us examining his initial reasons for adopting his atheism, and to instead examine the new arguments in his book (and arguments in future books, and on blogs). Remember, not only did Loftus have weak-to-bad reasons for adopting his atheism, but had he been born in Saudi Arabia, he likely would have never become an atheist at all.I deny I have weak reasons to be an agnostic. That’s the default position. And I deny I have weak reasons to be an atheist once I leave the default position. I claim that when it comes to the truth about these sorts of questions agnosticism is the default position precisely because of these sociological factors. We should all doubt all of our conclusions, and I do. Join me won’t you?
He said: The worst case scenario is that Loftus’s argument yields an infinite regress of Outsider Testing. Shouldn’t we do Outsider Tests with respect to the beliefs that led us to take the Outsider Test? And so on.This is a red herring. In one sense all tests would fall prey to such an objection. And yet we’re all just mere mortals. Agnosticism is the default position anyway, as I have repeatedly said.
He said: Here he’s trying to argue that we should have skepticism about beliefs arrived at through cultural means. As Alvin Plantinga has shown, this sort of thing reduces to attacking the truth of belief, in those cases where the belief system includes beliefs about how the system came about. For example, Christians will often hold that the spirit of God gets much of the credit for their belief. So if Loftus is correct about cultural determinism, then he actually is objecting to the truth of Christian belief. In any case, I’m not sure I can take Loftus seriously when he says he’s just trying to convince Christians to use skepticism for their further investigations into their beliefs.Here he uses the word “skepticism” as if he knows what I mean by it, so which is it? Does he or doesn’t he know what I mean by it? If he doesn’t know then he just doesn’t know, right? And if so he cannot turn around and act like he does.
In any case, even if we grant Plantinga’s argument, the fact remains that all belief systems that excuse themselves from scientific testing are belief systems which include beliefs about how the system came about. So there is no way to decide between them. And they are almost certainly culturally caught in the culture of one’s origin. So I see no reason not to be skeptical about all these kinds of belief systems, and I see no reason why the Christian believer wouldn’t want to be skeptical about his own system of beliefs because of this.
He said: But the Christian can just say, “Hi John Loftus. I’ve given arguments for my Christian belief. Therefore I don’t need to apply the Outsider Test to it.” Loftus claims he doesn’t have to test his test, because his test has good grounds for it, despite the indisputable cultural data he keeps talking about, that shows Loftus would not have developed the Outsider Test if he was born on Mars. But the Christian usually thinks she has good ground for her beliefs, despite the indisputable cultural data.Again, these things all point to agnosticism being the default position. Why can’t he understand that? Because he’s trying his best against the arguments to defend what he was raised to believe and he just cannot bring himself to doubt what he was taught. I’m sure every believer in every different culture would say the same thing as he did here, which I dealt with in my book.
He said: Lastly Loftus should realize that we need to figure out the best way to investigate religious claims. To me it seems to be that proper methodology will be to put ourselves in situations where we would be likely to perceive religious objects – say, God. For example, it would be silly to write off Islamic belief on the basis of reading a book about it, when Muslims claim to have palpable experiences of God. If we really want to investigate Islam so that we can justifiably say it is groundless, we at least need to include some experiential investigation.Muslims do indeed claim to have done the experimental investigations. And surprise, they have experienced Allah! Maybe he can tell me why the Mormon Church still exists now that DNA evidence has conclusively shown that Native American Indians did not come from the Middle East too? His test comes straight out of William James whose argument only serves to reinforce what one believes. Any believer who approaches his faith as James sought to do would only become more entrenched in what he originally believed.
He said, quoting me:My point, since he missed it, is that this is the case for every single one of us when it comes to all of our beliefs. I don’t claim we cannot be rational. We can. I only maintain that the human mind is extremely malleable and capable of believing a great many different mutually exclusive things. It is a fact that all of us hold to beliefs which cannot all be true and which contradict other things we accept!Let me put it to you this way, if you read everything that I have read and experienced everything that I have experienced, then you would think on these issues exactly the same way I do. Deny this if you can.I have an even better suggestion. If I became John Loftus, my beliefs would be those of John Loftus. Deny this if you can!
Stenger's Newest Book: The Best Book of the New Atheist Movement!
This is what I think of Victor Stenger's book,The New Atheism. To read what I wrote about it on Amazon click here and scroll down. As always, if you think this is a helpful review then a positive vote would be appreciated.
Evolution is a Fact and Dawkins Proves it!
To read my review of The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution click here and scroll down. As always, if you think this is a helpful review then a positive vote would be appreciated.
Alien Intelligent Design
This is brilliant but apparently done by a Christian whose book is receiving some good amount of praise. Intelligent design theorists, take a look and you too might laugh a bit.
A Discussion I'm Having With a Scholar Friend on Facebook
Last Update
See what you think below. His name will be kept private unless he wants me to reveal it.
I had first asked about the probability of Messianic prophecies being interpreted correctly in the New Testament, and of the probability of Christianity.
Jan said:
John W. Loftus said:
Jan said:
See what you think below. His name will be kept private unless he wants me to reveal it.
I had first asked about the probability of Messianic prophecies being interpreted correctly in the New Testament, and of the probability of Christianity.
Jan said:
It's tough only if you approach texts in a distinctly modern way. Understanding that narratives speak of worldviews and texts reference one another within a cultural tradition, the interpretive task looks rather different. People like Tom Wright and John Sailhamer have made this idea clear to me.John W. Loftus said:
You'll also know that terms like "probable" in this vein are rather harder to assess than, say, calculating the probability of drawing to an inside straight. Historically folks have assessed the probability of theisms differently. I find the comprehensive case for Christian theism to be rational and satisfactory in a holistic way. You don't. The history of thought doesn't make me expect a breakthrough on either side of this debate anytime soon.
Jon D. Levenson, Professor at Harvard Divinity School in the Department of Near Eastern Studies and Civilizations, offered a great definition of what a critical scholar is when he wrote they “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.” See page 3 of his book The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son.Jan said:
I hope we can agree on that.
It begs the question of self-awareness, perpetuating the myth of the objective scholar, the romantic notion of the iconoclastic individualist. My view of human nature, including my own nature, is rather less optimistic than Dr. Levenson's. I like the goal of objectivity. I doubt it every time it's claimed.John W. Loftus said:
Hmmmm. Well it's one thing to strive for objectivity. It's another thing entirely to engage in special pleading to defend something you were raised to believe in a Christian culture and/or by parents who taught you what to believe. We must realistically entertain the PROBABILITY that we are wrong. Do I? Yes, most emphatically. I may be wrong in what I affirm. I doubt very much I'm wrong in what I deny, since the denial is the easy part when it comes to a multitude of competing religious claims. That's what I mean when I say there is a difference between smelling a rotten egg and laying a good one. The smelling is the easy part and we all do it, even if we cannot lay a good egg. And no, atheism is not a religion nor is it a worldview. If it is, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. ;-)Jan said:
The atheist is the skeptic who doubts all religious viewpoints. I'm ultimately an agnostic. But precisely because I'm an agnostic I affirm atheism. In fact, I'm a protest atheist. I'm protesting the lack of good evidence and God's care even should some supernatural force or being exist. If God does exist then a distant God is no different from none at all.
An atheist is someone who normally arrives at his position through the process of elimination. That too describes me.
Do you know who is "engaging in special pleading to defend something you were raised to believe in a Christian culture and/or by parents who taught you what to believe" and who isn't? Conversely, do you know who is engaging in special pleading to >attack< the same, and who isn't? From what standpoint of objectivity do you offer any such description in any specific instance? When you say, "That too describes me," do you not mean, "That is how I describe myself"? Is that an objective description?Are these rhetorical questions?
John W. Loftus said:
Jan, no one, and I mean no one, who attacks objectivity as much as you are compelled to do can turn around and claim with a straight face his views on such matters as faith are objectively correct! You are a closet agnostic, or a postmodern. Welcome to my world. Otherwise you really do not mean to attack objectivity at all. You only attack it when someone claims to have it whom you disagree with, which applies a double standard to your opponent's claims. The fact is that I don't claim any kind of objectivity at all, even if I strive for it! That's precisely the reason why I'm an agnostic, you see. So you're preaching to the choir. And in so doing you've actually shown me that you are engaged in special pleading, my friend. You are in denial. ;-)Jan said:
Here's your dilemma: Either you affirm a kind of objectivity that others who disagree do not have, or you say we're in the same mostly subjective boat. The first horn is that you have a double standard. The second horn is that you should be an agnostic.
I hope I'm not taking you away from more important things. Feel free at any time to ignore me. Now would be a good time BTW ;-)
Between the claim to superior objectivity, which I think your rhetoric implies, and the despair at knowing anything at all lies the ground on which we make rational (warranted) decisions but disagree. What you miss in my deliberately irreverent rhetoric, which you style an attack on objectivity, is my resentment at the way you frame the question. There's nothing inherently superior or especially objective in denying something you used to believe. Levenson's (typical) remark doesn't identify objectivity; it simply affirms rebellion, which can be a kind of subjective reaction different from traditionalistic adherence but no less subjective for being different. You, like my Calvinist friends, like to posture your position as inherently better informed or more intellectually honest than the opposite number. I think that's silly. Do not discount the degree to which the atheist subculture is infused with romantic exaltation of the courageous, iconoclastic individualist, passing out rewards for displaying such a persona.John W. Loftus said:
As to special pleading, I think you're again assuming a set of rules that others won't agree to. Don't bait me by saying I'm not striving for objectivity. I'm simply reminding us of the limits of our so-called objectivity and the suspiciousness of any claim to objectivity that arises out of biography.
Now, differently and briefly. We both know that in the history of thought, (Christian) theism has always been challenged but remains resilient. We both know that people make decisions and commitments for a whole host of reasons, many of which are opaque, including to the person who makes the decisions and commitments. My point is twofold: history suggests that Christian theism is controversial but not intellectually irresponsible, and experience suggests that one does well not to trumpet his objectivity.
Am I objective? No, but neither is anyone else. Does that make rationality impossible? No again, just difficult and properly infused with humility. Is it irrational to believe in the Christian God? No, just very controversial. You or I could be wrong. Neither of us is inherently more objective in any way that we could confirm by objective means, however.
To go back to your remark about stamp collecting. First I say thanks for clarifying your nonbelief in the way that I've heard other agno-atheists do so. Second I observe that a-phatelists don't write books telling stamp collectors that their hobby is stupid and that stamps are simply worthless slips of paper if people don't attach value to them. It always makes me wonder why people care so much about something they find irrelevant. I know, I know: it does great harm to the people who believe it. Well, why care about those people?
I honestly didn’t intend to become your friend and then use it to argue with you. I appreciate getting to know other scholars and I wish you the best.Jan said:
But don’t get me wrong. I am not a subjectivist nor a postmodern thinker. I do, however, think we can convince ourselves to believe in most anything. Two examples in my own life illustrate this. As a teen I found an interesting book by Frank Edwards on UFO’s. I read it and then several like it. So I became convinced there were UFO’s because what a person reads or experiences shapes what he thinks. Later, having graduated from Great Lakes Christian College, I was a conservative in every respect. But I had not yet studied the Biblical feminist arguments. A graduate from Emmanuel School of Religion presented the case and recommended some books which convinced me of that position even though I was a conservative in every other area. It was because of his influence and the books I first read on the topic that convinced me of that non-conservative position which was inconsistent with everything else I believed.
So while I don’t think subjectivism is the case I do think we are all far less objective then anyone wants to admit. This leads us to skepticism about that which we want to believe and supports Levenson’s comment on what honest critical scholarship entails. To claim he is advocating rebellion is unwarranted. Imagine a scientist in a conference who cannot convince his peers of his findings resorting to that as an explanation for why they reject them. Then you’ll see what I mean. That’s an ad hominem attack which has nothing to do with the evidence or lack of it.
So I’m not claiming you do not strive for objectivity. In fact I’m not claiming anything about you personally since I don’t know what you think. I’m claiming emphatically that we human beings all fail in being objective when there isn’t a mutually agreed upon reliable test to adjudicate our differences. We’re all woefully inadequate at being objective. Dismally inadequate. That's why science is the best antidote to wishful thinking.
Now please don't go off denouncing science, either, which seems to be what believers are forced into doing. You do not doubt the findings of science in a host of areas. Do you want to denounce astronomy, plate tectonics, computer science, mechanics, chemistry, rocket science, etc? No. You accept its results in every single area except in those areas you think the Bible speaks about. So I merely have to ask you once again to defend the double standard you must have to accept your faith. Why do you accept science and even appeal to it except when it comes to what ancient superstitious barbaric people wrote in a pre-scientific age? Have you recently read Judges 19-21? I know that text is a narrative one which merely describes the barbaric actions of people rather than a prescriptive one. But my question is why I should ever listen to anything these ancient barbaric people wrote on morality or God or the universe and its beginnings. These people have no intellectual or moral standing to have any claim to tell me what to think or to do.
I do what I do in order to help others because I care that others don’t waste their education and their lives in pursuing a dead end. I wish someone would’ve told me in my early years. I may have pursued a lucrative career instead. And like Dr. Hector Avalos I say that since I spent so much time studying these things it would be a waste not to share what I eventually learned. If every person who came to the same conclusions I did would walk away and not share what they learned then Christianity would be flourishing (think Kantian Categorical Imperative here). I need no further justification for doing what I’m doing. I’m certainly not an angry person. Who would I be angry at? Are you angry at Allah by arguing against Islam (if you did)?
Cheers
I do not reject science, nor do I accept science in everything except what the Bible says. I don't think it provides "a . . . reliable test to adjudicate our differences" on all matters. The boundaries of science are more intensely debated than the boundaries of India and Pakistan, but there are boundaries nonetheless. Science can't adjudicate every question, and even those questions that it can adjudicate are hardly settled in an instant by applying "science." What you say smacks of logical positivism to me, and I'm certainly done with that, as are others.John W. Loftus said:
Still, I appreciate your words about subjectivity, and your statement that you are not a postmodernist. I am postmodern insofar as I reckon with the reality of subjectivity in every statement, including the scientific. I do not despair of objectivity but I try to be aware of subjectivity.
Thanks also for acknowledging how little you know about what motivates me or exactly what I think. One of these exchanges soon may include less assumptions on that score.
My point (yet again) about your citation of Levenson is that it suggests that those who find against their belief system are somehow more objective than those who don't, while I observe that one can be subjectively motivated by a desire to rebel (anger at daddy? at the nuns in parochial school? at the seventh commandment?) as by true objectivity. But I guess that along the way you've acknowledged the problem of subjectivity, so we can stop bragging about whose objectivity is bigger.
Sharing what you've learned is noble, but why be noble towards others? I suppose you can choose to be so, but why give a rip at all? Is it objective to be sentimental about others' well being?
You have a way with words! Yes, “The boundaries of science are more intensely debated than the boundaries of India and Pakistan.” But there can be no disputing that methodological naturalism as a method is the defining hallmark of science. So the question is why you yourself apply that same method in every area of your life except when it comes to studying the Bible which forms the basis of your beliefs? I think that is a double standard. Since that method has been so very fruitful in every area you should consider using it to study the Bible too, just like you would use it to study the Koran or the book of Mormon. You assume these books were written by men and not God. Working with that assumption provides some significant insights and better conclusions than the God hypothesis.Jan said:
In areas where science cannot adjudicate any given question then we should doubt any answer to that question as agnostics. What alternative method do you propose if not? One need not be a logical positivist to do this, which like you I agree is a dead issue.
My point about Levenson is that we should be skeptical of any conclusion that confirms what we believe since we all desire to confirm our prior held beliefs. That we do is a fact. I think what Levenson is saying is a responsible way of doing research even if we are woefully inadequate at doing this. I see no reason from what you’ve written not to seek to do what Levenson wants us to do given the pyschological studies suggesting we all seek a reduction to cognitive dissonance.
Is it objective to be sentimental about others' well being? Sure it is. Think Kantian Categorical Imperative again. Dr. David Eller dispenses once and for all (I think) this whole notion that Christianity provides the basis for objective moral standards anyway, in my edited book The Christian Delusion.
Why should methodological naturalism be applied to areas that are outside the bounds of science? If there is a god, the existence of that god is not a valid object of scientific inquiry, right? Methodological naturalism assumes the point to be proved in that discussion, or at the very least sets what might be an unreasonably high threshold of proof. But that's old stuff.John W. Loftus said:
By the way, I don't think that Christianity is the only way to establish morality. I was just curious as to your desire to share your insights with others. Categorical imperative is fine with me. Just curious.
Of course I understand Levenson's point, and yours. I simply make the contrasting point that a person's objectivity is still very much in question even if he claims to be doing something that runs against his present or prior belief system. Abbie Hoffman wasn't objective as a Yippie because he was born to the upper middle class. An atheist is not objective because he was raised a Christian. My former-atheist colleague is not objective because he is now a devout Christian and biblical scholar. You can't not think about pink elephants if given the task.
By the way, I affirm that Christianity is wishful thinking. I don't think it is merely wishful thinking, or irrationally wishful thinking. There's the mischief.
Methodological naturalism can be applied to the Bible. Think philology here. James D.G. Dunn argues that it would be flying in the face of overwhelming evidence to argue against the fact that the Pentateuch was written by a lengthy process which has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. And Raymond Brown argued the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke cannot be reconciled regardless of whether God can inspire the Bible or not.Jan said:
If there is a God, the existence of that God should indeed be open to scientific investigation. Why not? After all, science starts with the five senses and if by using them we cannot experience God then how else could we know he exists, especially if he demands that we conclude he does. And if we cannot learn that God exists from science (archaeology, history as a science, psychology, investigation of miracles and prophecy) then we can safely ignore him. What kind of intelligent being would demand that we believe and not offer any scientific evidence for his existence? And no, religious experience cannot count for there is no objective scientific evidence that all people have it or that those who do have it come to the same theological conclusions from having it.
And if you affirm that Christianity is wishful thinking, then you of all people should treat your inherited faith with the same level of skepticism as you treat the faiths of others. This expresses my Outsider Test for Faith. If you don't do this then you are once again holding to a double standard.
Your arguments for applying a scientific test to the existence of God don't deal with the obvious way that methodological naturalism excludes the possibility of God. Your rhetoric assumes that science is an obviously superior way of knowing.John W. Loftus said:
If for a variety of reasons, one concludes that theism is likely, and for additional reasons that Christian theism is the most likely (e.g., because of its impressive explanatory power regarding human experience in the world in all dimensions, including the empirical but not limited to it), the question for me is whether such a decision has warrant. I find that it's been proved satisfactorily that it does. In fact, I think it has more warrant than the idea that I must know first, last and only by science, not least when among the things that such a theism can explain is why a human can do science and even the philosophy of science that justifies it.
You said: "Your rhetoric assumes that science is an obviously superior way of knowing." Yes, that's correct. What's the alternative and how reliable is it given the diversity of religious beliefs around the world? Be honest here. What is the alternative? Now don't get me wrong. I think it's rational to believe. I just think what you believe is not probable at all to say the least. In fact, I'm so sure you're wrong I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. What I'm unsure of is which view is correct, hence agnosticism.*Last Update*
Nonetheless, if you can be made to believe most anything if exposed to it for a prolonged period of time then your judgment that Christianity has warrant cannot be any more objective than anything else you believe when there is no scientific evidence for it. And so why would you spend your life understanding it, articulating it, or defending it when at best your faith is based on wishful thinking? Strange that.
Jan said:
Yes, methodological naturalism has its defenders. The defense is old and has proved to be unpersuasive for many. It is also not scientific.John said:
You do seem to allow some nonscientific ways of knowing, like basing ethics on the categorical imperative, which has little to do with science. Science alone counts, except when it doesn't.
Still, whatever. There are no surprises here for me, and probably not for you either. You think you have defeaters for Christian theism. I've heard them before and don't find them persuasive. You were once impressed with arguments for Christian theism but now find them unpersuasive. That's where we started yesterday and where we are today, to no one's surprise.
Jan, I do allow some nonscientific ways of knowing, yes. It’s just that the scientific method based in methodological naturalism is the surest way to knowledge such that anything lacking that support has less credibility. I think the human sciences can help us know what is right and good too (i.e., smoking is bad; democracy is good, rape is wrong if we want a free society). That’s a digression but I’m sure I could give it a robust defense quite easily. In any case you mischaracterize my position on science. You don’t even try to understand it. I’m philosophically rather than scientifically oriented. I understand the limits of science very well and admitted so earlier (“the boundaries”). I’m not some two-bit atheist thinker who does not understand the issues. But of that I can forgive you since you really haven’t met the likes of me before. You can see for yourself the high praise people on both sides are saying about my book in the link offered below.At this point we discussed personal stuff.
BTW the categorical imperative does not apply to all ethical questions. It can’t, and from what I understand Kant himself didn’t think so. Like many thinkers I’m an eclectic on ethics. Some issues are best dealt with by this imperative while others are not. I stand squarely in the happiness tradition of Aristotle. I am a moral realist. Look it up. I think we can know what makes people happy and then claim that since holistic happiness is an end in and of itself therefore the pursuit of it is ethical, moral, good and right.
Lessing's Ugly Broad Ditch
[Written by John Loftus] Read and try to respond to German critic Gotthold Lessing's (1729-1781) argument regarding miracles and history:
“Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.” “But…I live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles…[they] have to work through a medium which takes away all their force.” “Or is it invariably the case, that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself experience?”
Lessing, just like G.W. Leibniz before him, distinguished between the contingent truths of history and the necessary truths of reason and wrote: Since “no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths.” That is, “the accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.”
He continued: “We all believe that an Alexander lived who in a short time conquered almost all Asia. But who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of great permanent worth, the loss of which would be irreparable? Who, in consequence of this belief, would forswear forever all knowledge that conflicted with this belief? Certainly not I. But it might still be possible that the story was founded on a mere poem of Choerilus just as the ten year siege of Troy depends on no better authority than Homer’s poetry.”
Someone might object that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, are “more than historically certain,” because these things are told to us by “inspired historians who cannot make a mistake.” But Lessing counters that whether or not we have inspired historians is itself a historical claim, and only as certain as history allows. This, then, “is the ugly broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap.” “Since the truth of these miracles has completely ceased to be demonstrable by miracles still happening now, since they are no more than reports of miracles, I deny that they should bind me in the least to a faith in the other teachings of Christ.” (“On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power,” [Lessing’s Theological Writings, (Stanford University Press, 1956, pp. 51-55)].
[First posted Feb. '06]
“Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.” “But…I live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles…[they] have to work through a medium which takes away all their force.” “Or is it invariably the case, that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself experience?”
Lessing, just like G.W. Leibniz before him, distinguished between the contingent truths of history and the necessary truths of reason and wrote: Since “no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths.” That is, “the accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.”
He continued: “We all believe that an Alexander lived who in a short time conquered almost all Asia. But who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of great permanent worth, the loss of which would be irreparable? Who, in consequence of this belief, would forswear forever all knowledge that conflicted with this belief? Certainly not I. But it might still be possible that the story was founded on a mere poem of Choerilus just as the ten year siege of Troy depends on no better authority than Homer’s poetry.”
Someone might object that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, are “more than historically certain,” because these things are told to us by “inspired historians who cannot make a mistake.” But Lessing counters that whether or not we have inspired historians is itself a historical claim, and only as certain as history allows. This, then, “is the ugly broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap.” “Since the truth of these miracles has completely ceased to be demonstrable by miracles still happening now, since they are no more than reports of miracles, I deny that they should bind me in the least to a faith in the other teachings of Christ.” (“On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power,” [Lessing’s Theological Writings, (Stanford University Press, 1956, pp. 51-55)].
[First posted Feb. '06]
"Everything That We See in the World Today is Exactly What We Would Expect if Evolution Were True" - Dawkins
Watch this short video of his new book here.
Top Ten Atheist Songs
My friend Luke over at Common Sense Atheism has chosen the top ten atheist songs.
See what you think.
See what you think.
Sacrilegious Graphic (Comic) Books For the Young
Last night a young friend showed me a couple of great looking and very funny R rated graphic books he's beginning to collect. They are sacrilegious, extremely well done, and funny. Check them out: Battle Pope; and Jesus Hates Zombies. There is a generation of young people who think the Pope and Jesus are objects for ridicule. No argument here. Just ridicule. And they find these books funny. To me THAT is funny. We no longer have to debunk Christianity with arguments. Just get them hooked on these books! ;-)
Robert G. Ingersoll's Vow
This is my vow as well!
HT: Andrew Atkinson
When I became convinced that the universe is natural-that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world-not even in infinite space.If you have been freed from religious dogma then join him. "[G]rasp the torch that [he] had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still." What can you do on behalf of skepticism today?
I was free-free to think, to express my thoughts-free to live to my own ideal-free to use all my faculties, all my senses-free to spread imagination's wings-free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope-free to judge and determine for myself-free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past-free from popes and priests-free from all the "called" and "set apart"-free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies-free from the fear of eternal pain-free from the winged monsters of the night-free from devils, ghosts, and gods.
For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought-no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings-no chains for my limbs-no lashes for my back-no fires for my flesh-no master's frown or threat-no following another's steps-no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.
And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain-for the freedom of labor and thought-to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs-to those whose flesh was scarred and torn-to those by fire consumed-to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still. Link.
HT: Andrew Atkinson
History, Faith and the Real William Shakespeare
There are some parallels with the quest for the historical Shakespeare and the quest for the true historical faith.
My First Debate on the Problem of Suffering
Six years ago I was sort of browbeaten into debating a handicapped Walmart clerk named Nick, whom I didn't want to beat up on. The proposition to be resolved was this one: The amount of human suffering in the natural world is incompatible with a kind, caring, omnipotent father/creator God. I've since become sort of an an expert on this issue. But in preparing for that debate I saw how powerful the case against God from suffering was. I'm Doubting John. What d'ya think?. If you've read my book (which will be available again mid-October) then you have my most developed thinking on this issue, which I gained later in preparation for a debate on the same issue with Dr. David Wood. The debate with Dr. Wood can be viewed here.
Harvard Professor Michael Sandel on Justice
For Christians who think the Bible has the answer please get and read Michael Sandel's book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?. In this link is a video where you can see him ask some difficult questions. How does the Bible answer them? Is the Bible even helpful? Be sure to get and read his book of readings too.
At 55 Today I'm Wondering If I Can Book This Guy in Advance to Sing at My Funeral! LOL
Since I'm getting blasted in the comments below, supposedly because I may have made fun of a person with a mental disability, let me respond.
I found this video posted on Facebook by a well-respected Christian scholar, so if you blast me then blast him too.
Besides, I never said exactly what it was that I found to be funny about this guy who can't sing, so let me spell it out now.
What I find hilarious is that the church allowed him to sing before the congregation in the first place. That's it! They knew how he would sing on camera before he sang and they let him sing anyway! That's the hoot! So no, I would not want him to sing at my funeral for the same reasons the church leadership should not have let him sing before the faithful. Why? Because it’s painful to hear him sing. He can’t sing! Do I need to be any clearer?
If a Christian wants to respond that God doesn't care how talented someone is when it comes to worshipful praise, and that sincere faith is all God asks, then let's do a review. People have gifts. Christians say believers have spiritual gifts. This guy’s gift is NOT singing. So a responsible church leadership should not let him sing and/or lead the congregation in song. Any church leader who was this irresponsible should be fired. I know. I taught a church leadership class for a Christian college. This is not indicative of good church leadership. Not only is it not edifying to the congregation but it can also harm the guy who sang who will be ridiculed afterward.
Think of it this way. If sincere faith is all that's important then why doesn’t the church hire this guy to be their preacher and listen to him every week? Why not make him the treasurer of the church? Why not make him the choir director? You see, sincerity is not enough when it comes to placing the right people with the right gifts in the right place. Church leadership must be more responsible than this in identifying and properly placing people with the right gifts.
And that’s it. I find this incident absolutely hilarious for those reasons. It has nothing to do with whether or not this guy has a mental handicap. If he does I sympathize for him much more than that church did, for I would never have placed him in this situation in the first place. As a result, people would not be making fun of him in public like they are now.
So, let's have some more fun with this for the reasons I just stated.
Richard Dawkins vs. Karen Armstrong: "Where Does Evolution Leave God?"
In the recent issue of the Wall Street Journal former nun Karen Armstrong claims we need God to grasp the wonder of our existence, while Richard Dawkins claims evolution leaves God with nothing to do. See what you think. You know where I stand. In the coming days after I get both books I plan on reviewing Armstrong's latest book The Case for God and the recent book by Dawkins titled, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. As always I'd appreciate any financial help in buying and reviewing books like these (see the "Donate" button in the sidebar).
The Christian and Biblical Scholarship
Many Christians who comment at DC seem all too willing to offer platitudes to defend their faith. So let me try to rectify this problem by challenging them to become more informed.
Christian, what skeptical and/or liberal books have you read? Have you read my book? [It will be available again after a reprinting around October 8th]. Have you read any of the ones in the Debunking Christianity Challenge? Have you read any of the ones linked to in the sidebar from evangelicals? Have you considered what one Mormon wrote?
I'm curious because only someone who has not done so could make your case so blithely without a clear understanding of the issues.
Alvin Plantinga himself admits that the results of biblical criticism could show him wrong. The problem is that he does not show an awareness of knowing anything much about biblical criticism. He's a philosopher defending as best as he can what he was raised to believe based upon conservative biblical scholarship. Well, the conservatives have finally caught up in some ways to critical scholarship.
Critical scholarship is what we should all try to attain. Critical scholars “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.”
Do you disagree with this? Are you prepared to look into these issues in a greater detail with that attitude? This is what my Outsider Test for Faith calls upon you to do.
Save this comment for future reference. Let it provoke you to do your own investigation of the issues. Read all of the links. Tell me about the books you've read and then proceed to read those books I recommend. Start with Kenton Sparks evangelical book, then read Peter Enns book.
Investigate, don't simply regurgitate these pat answers.
Cheers.
Christian, what skeptical and/or liberal books have you read? Have you read my book? [It will be available again after a reprinting around October 8th]. Have you read any of the ones in the Debunking Christianity Challenge? Have you read any of the ones linked to in the sidebar from evangelicals? Have you considered what one Mormon wrote?
I'm curious because only someone who has not done so could make your case so blithely without a clear understanding of the issues.
Alvin Plantinga himself admits that the results of biblical criticism could show him wrong. The problem is that he does not show an awareness of knowing anything much about biblical criticism. He's a philosopher defending as best as he can what he was raised to believe based upon conservative biblical scholarship. Well, the conservatives have finally caught up in some ways to critical scholarship.
Critical scholarship is what we should all try to attain. Critical scholars “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.”
Do you disagree with this? Are you prepared to look into these issues in a greater detail with that attitude? This is what my Outsider Test for Faith calls upon you to do.
Save this comment for future reference. Let it provoke you to do your own investigation of the issues. Read all of the links. Tell me about the books you've read and then proceed to read those books I recommend. Start with Kenton Sparks evangelical book, then read Peter Enns book.
Investigate, don't simply regurgitate these pat answers.
Cheers.
Davies: Biblical Ethics not the Basis of our Civilization
The renowned biblical scholar agrees with the New Atheists, at least in part.
In a post that is drawing fire from Christian biblical scholars, Philip Davies argues that biblical ethics have little to do with our western values. See Philip Davies’ post
Davies' conclusions are not really that different from my argument that the Bible is largely irrelevant to modern society in terms of its ethical values (The End of Biblical Studies [2007]). But I would add that the appeals to biblical authority are still causing a lot of ethical problems in modern society.
In a post that is drawing fire from Christian biblical scholars, Philip Davies argues that biblical ethics have little to do with our western values. See Philip Davies’ post
Davies' conclusions are not really that different from my argument that the Bible is largely irrelevant to modern society in terms of its ethical values (The End of Biblical Studies [2007]). But I would add that the appeals to biblical authority are still causing a lot of ethical problems in modern society.
Are "Emotional" Reasons to Leave the Faith Legitimate Reasons?
Yes, if these reasons are relevant to the question of the truth. So says one Christian Blogger named Joshua, who answers the accusation against me that I left the Christian fold merely for "emotional" reasons. He gets it!!
There is plenty of theology floating around that indicates that the church and people with God’s spirit “inside” of them will have certain features, and that the church will not be merely nominal in nature. So bad experiences are more epistemically relevant than you and many others might like to think. After all, doesn’t this approach what Jesus suggests when he says that people will know his disciples by their love? Indeed, only if we could rely solely on esoteric argumentation, and not our lives, to be a witness and sustainer of faith. Link.
If one must lie for Jesus in order to defend Jesus then that should be a clear indication that one is not being honest with the evidence for Jesus.
There are believers who personally attack me based on some personal information I relate in my book. These people are believers. I’m attacking their personal invisible friend in their minds. End of story for them. So there must be something wrong with me. Nevermind for the moment that on some occasions they lie for Jesus in attacking me by exaggerating and purposely mischaracterizing exactly what I said. If one must lie for Jesus in order to defend Jesus then that should be a clear indication that one is not being honest with the evidence for Jesus. But then they are blinded by their faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)