Books That Explain Why There is Religion
If you are seriously interested in knowing the real basis for belief you should read one of more of the following excellent books.
How Do You Know That Which You Claim to Know?
Anyone who understands the slightest bit of epistemology knows enough not to claim he or she knows too much with any degree of assuredness. Doubt about what we claim to know is a virtue. This is one of the reasons I doubt the Christian claims. Most Christians claim to know what they believe with complete assuredness. Just read their comments here at DC. I have repeatedly made the distinction between claiming to know something and doubting someone's claims. I simply doubt the Christian claims, and the following books could give Christians an insight into why this is reasonable to do...
The Problem of Miracles
[Written by John W. Loftus] I can think of at least seven problems with believing in the biblical claims of miracles.
Quote of the Day on the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)
There is an entry on the Outsiders Test at Iron Chariots. Here's the dilemma it presents for believers:
On the one hand, believers who object to the OTF look like a person who argues in a court room that he does not want a fair impartial judgment, but rather a biased one from a biased judge who operates on double standards.
On the other hand, believers who accept the rationale for the OTF have a great amount of difficulty in arguing that the raw uninterpreted historical data without any culturally adopted Bayesian "priors" leads the historian to the conclusion that Jesus bodily arose from the dead.
Vote For "The Christian Delusion" as the Best Atheist Book of 2010
My anthology, The Christian Delusion
, has been nominated for the best atheist book in 2010. Please cast your vote right here. If you think it's deserving I'd really appreciate your vote.
, has been nominated for the best atheist book in 2010. Please cast your vote right here. If you think it's deserving I'd really appreciate your vote.Okay I Confess, I've Been Over at Victor Reppert's Blog Again *Slap*
Somehow I just can't seem to stay away ;-)
Another Failed Attempt to Disabuse Me of the Outsider Test for Faith
David Marshall's latest critique of the OTF confuses the success of a particular religion with passing the OTF, which, if correct, would make contradictory religions true by virtue of being successful. And he falsely assumes there is one brand of Christianity. Hence this is no critique of the test at all. He raises some issues that need to be addressed, but that's all. The issues he raises are addressed by Richard Carrier in chapter two of my forthcoming anthology, The End of Christianity, titled "Christianity's Success Was Not Incredible." And I've already explained why Secular Humanism (or atheism) can't win (or be successful).
Quote of the Day
For a religious faith to pass the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) it must be justified by the sciences. Period. If believers reject the sciences as a way to know the truth then let them propose a better alternative. So if the OTF is to be rejected, what do we put in its place? What’s the alternative?
My Cousin Pastor Jeff Stackhouse, a Calvinist, is Cornered on God Being the Author of Sin
Yep, this is him. Wow, such contorted logic knows no bounds:
Am I Crazy? Are You? A Review of Dr. Randal Rauser's New Book
Randal's new book You’re Not As Crazy As I Think: Dialogue in a World of Loud Voices and Hardened Opinions
is refreshing in several ways as a reminder that we need more dialogue between opposing sides, rather than more vitriol.
is refreshing in several ways as a reminder that we need more dialogue between opposing sides, rather than more vitriol. Take College Classes Through the Online CFI Institute
You can read about the CFI Institute run by Dr. John Shook right here. Starting in March, Dr. Richard Carrier will be teaching a class on Naturalism. I'll be teaching one soon, perhaps in April. Other professors include Robert M. Price, Susan Jacoby, Nica Lalli, Dale McGowan, and others. Check it out.
I've Scheduled Some Posts While I'm Gone
I'll be back Thursday night from speaking on Darwin Day for two skeptical groups. Your group might consider having me speak, or for a debate. See ya Friday or so. Until then enjoy my scheduled posts.
Five Deceptive Apologetic Strategies
[Written by John W. Loftus] The social sciences (which broadly speaking includes psychology) have shown us that people hold to unrecognized contradictory beliefs and that they can deceive themselves to accept their conscious beliefs despite the evidence. People have asked me from time to time if Christian apologists lie to defend their faith and I have repeatedly said that even though there are some Christians who do so, most Christian apologists are sincere believers. I still think that. But what's really going on is that these Christian defenders have become experts at deceiving themselves first. They are therefore deceiving others because they are deceiving themselves.
My task is to show them this is what they're doing. It's very hard to convince the deceived that they are deceiving themselves though. They don’t take too kindly to my doing so. They use several deceptive apologetics strategies and they use them all really well. The following apologetic strategies are used by defenders of the Christian faith to deceive. They are used to convince themselves against the evidence. They are used to convince others to embrace Christianity. Don't buy into their spiel.
My task is to show them this is what they're doing. It's very hard to convince the deceived that they are deceiving themselves though. They don’t take too kindly to my doing so. They use several deceptive apologetics strategies and they use them all really well. The following apologetic strategies are used by defenders of the Christian faith to deceive. They are used to convince themselves against the evidence. They are used to convince others to embrace Christianity. Don't buy into their spiel.
Calvinism is Bullshit, and God Wanted Me to Say This.
The Gloves are Off Now! Slavery? NO, A Thousand Times NO!
I've had enough. I am sick and tired of Christian intellectuals, from Paul Copan (my friend), to Victor Reppert and a lot lower down the totem pole to David Wood, in their attempts to say that the slavery in the American South was different than what the Bible allows, and so it should never have been used to justify it. If you want to see me hot tempered, then just raise this asinine argument. I try to get along here at DC by being respectful of Christian beliefs, but on this issue I cannot bend for one nanosecond. Don't even suggest it, as Dr. Victor Reppert just did. Here's what I wrote in response:
Frederick Douglass, a Secularist?
Yep, as Dr. Hector Avalos informs us in his latest column for The Tribune.
Closer to the Truth Looks at the Big Questions
Navigate around at Closer to the Truth. There are some very interesting videos on a number of different topics by top notch philosophers, scientists and apologists, and they keep adding to it. You could spend hours and hours there. There are many hours of videos about the God question too. Let me know which ones you find interesting.
First posted on 10/18/08
First posted on 10/18/08
Professor Matt McCormick Proposes "The Defeasibility Test"
So in the spirit of John Loftus’ Outside Test for Faith, I propose a test. Before I or any other doubter, atheist, skeptic, or non-believer engages in a discussion about the reasons for and against God, the believer must look deep into his heart and mind and ask this question: Are there any considerations, arguments, evidence, or reasons, even hypothetically that could possibly lead me to change my mind about God? Is it even a remotely possible outcome that in carefully and thoughtfully reflecting on the broadest and most even body of evidence that I can grasp, that I would come to think that my current view about God is mistaken? That is to say, is my belief defeasible?
If the answer is no, then we’re done. There is nothing informative, constructive, or interesting to be found in your contribution to dialogue. Anything you have to say amounts to sophistry. We can’t take your input any more seriously than the lawyer who is a master of casuistry and who can provide rhetorically masterful defenses of every side of an issue. She’s not interested in the truth, only is scoring debate points or the construction of elaborate rhetorical castles (that float on air). Read more.
Answering Once and For All The Christian Complaint That Skeptics Would Refuse to Believe No Matter What God Did
This objection comes in several different forms. Christians complain that skeptics demand that God should make his existence obvious to us with undeniable proof before we will believe, or that God should make all religious diversity disappear, or that we wouldn’t believe no matter what miracle God did before our eyes. Some atheists have even said as much, including PZ Myers, who recently said he would seriously consider that he had gone mad rather than believe a miracle had happened before his eyes.
The Christian then shoots his double barrel shotgun at us: 1) If we wouldn’t believe should God’s existence be obvious, then why would God bother providing more evidence in the first place? We simply have hardened hearts. If the present amount of evidence will not convince us then no amount of evidence will convince us at all. 2) If God’s existence was made to be obvious then it would eliminate the possibility of real choice, for it would equally be obvious what we ought to do. And if we would know what God requires of us and that we’d be punished if we disobey then “who but a complete fool would not do what is right?” Let me respond once and for all.
The Christian then shoots his double barrel shotgun at us: 1) If we wouldn’t believe should God’s existence be obvious, then why would God bother providing more evidence in the first place? We simply have hardened hearts. If the present amount of evidence will not convince us then no amount of evidence will convince us at all. 2) If God’s existence was made to be obvious then it would eliminate the possibility of real choice, for it would equally be obvious what we ought to do. And if we would know what God requires of us and that we’d be punished if we disobey then “who but a complete fool would not do what is right?” Let me respond once and for all.
Such Idiocy: I Do Defend My Views Against the Opposition
There are several blog posts in criticism of what I've written that I have not attempted to answer. Because I choose not to do so the accusation is leveled at me that I don't interact with the opposition. This is such idiocy that no wonder these people believe. Let me explain.
Quote of the Day
Christianity is not a worldview. A worldview is larger than one's religious beliefs. It encompasses everything a person accepts as true. So there are probably as many worldviews as there are people.
Austin Cline's Readers' Choice Awards
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Book of 2010Hey, didn't I publish an anthology in 2010? ;-) If you think The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Blog
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Podcast
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Website
* Best Agnostic or Atheist to Follow on Twitter
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Facebook Page
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Social Networking Website
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Forum
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Ad
is a worthy one then I'd appreciate your nomination. It's Easy to Convert People to Christianity!
This 13 minute cartoon video is very instructive, although a bit boring. It's the kind of stuff that converts people to Christianity within a Christian culture. [Warning: Watch it at your own risk! You may convert! lol] This is all you need to do to convert people. Tell a person who is in need a nice tear jerking story. It's easy!
Open Mike Day
Share some thoughts and links here. Then discuss them all you want to. I'm preparing for a couple of talks in the Los Angeles area. Keep me in mind for any upcoming events.
"Don't Spank That Monkey" App Courtesy of XXX Church ;-)
Such a guilt producing message! Okay, Okay, sexual addictions can be very serious, but WTF is this! What's wrong with masturbation? Anyone? Anyone? Will it make you go blind or something? And what's wrong with lust? It's biology baby. Christians will forever have problems with sex. They don't know what to do with it except deny, deny, deny. I've written about this before.
Quote of the Day
Given the proliferation of religious delusions that seem to be growing around the globe in an age of weapons of mass destruction, atheists must start breeding like rabbits. ;-)
Why Former Conservatives Become Atheists More Often Than Liberals Do
Someone recently said: "I would love to see conversion rates to atheism between creationist/conservative Christians (like John Loftus) and more liberal Christians." The implication is that conservatives leave their faith and become atheists more often than liberals do. By proxy this shows liberalism is a better brand of Christianity. I suspect both implications are correct. Conservatives have already rejected liberalism as outsiders to liberalism, and for good reasons. So once they reject their own conservative Christianity it's probable that a high number of them eventually become atheists. Unlike former conservatives though, liberals have probably never critically examined their faith from an outsider's perspective, and this makes all the difference. Since liberals believe in less then liberalism is harder to reject, for the less you take on faith the better it is. ;-) Of course, since that's true agnosticism (understood as a position against all metaphysical claims) would be better than liberalism. And atheism (understood as no religious beliefs at all) is the best conclusion of them all.
At What Point Would YOU Walk Out On An Ice Covered Lake?
I'm amazed when Christians argue their faith is more probably true than not, and then try to live as if they're 100% certain of it. So let's grant them a 51% probability that their brand of Christianity is true. Now to put this into perspective, would they walk out on an ice covered lake if there was only a 51% probability the ice would hold them up? ;-)
My Responses to a Christian Scholar
Someone emailed me what an unnamed Christian scholar had written him so I responded as follows. I'll blockquote his comments:
The Diminishing of the Gods
A thorough study of the history of gods reveals a pattern we’d expect if gods are not real. The farther we move back in time (and the farther we move away from science) we see more and bigger claims of divine intervention. Gods have been responsible for thunder, lightning, rain, comets, and holding up the very earth itself. The Christian god in particular has been finding himself with less and less to do these days...It’s almost enough to make a person think gods — and the Christian god, too — have simply been the human explanation for that which was not understood. Link.
BBC - Can We Trust Science?
Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.
This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.
Quote of the Day, by Jesse Bering
Does all this disprove God? Of course not. Science speaks only to the improbable, not the impossible. If philosophy rules the day, God can never be ruled out entirely, because one could argue that human cognitive evolution was directly and intentionally inspired by God, so we alone, of all species, can perceive Him (and reality in general) using our naturally evolved theory of mind. But if scientific parsimony prevails, and I think it should, such philosophical positioning becomes embarrassingly like grasping at straws. (The Belief Instinct, p. 195-6).
Science Based Explanations vs. Faith Based Explanations
I'm quite aware of the differences between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I have not misinterpreted John's view of science. Rather, I have questioned why he would state that science assumes natural explanations for all phenomena on the one hand, then ask believers to corroborate supernatural explanations through science. -clI must admit this is a great question. The objection is that if I demand that supernatural explanations must abide by the rules of science which only admit natural explanations, then supernatural explanations by definition don't have a chance. This is definitely a quandary of sorts. Let me respond.
A Listing of Cognitive Biases
Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. LinkWhy do I keep writing about this? Because we know humans are prone to these biases. We know this. So we should all become skeptics. We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true. We should adopt a science-based reasoning rather than a faith-based reasoning. Dr. James Alcock defined faith-based reasoning as "belief in search of data." Given the cognitive biases this is simply a wrong-headed approach if we want to know the truth.
I Met a Former Mormon Bishop in Canada
Yep, after I spoke for CFI’s Extraordinary Claims Panel in Canada this former Mormon Bishop came up to me and introduced himself. Afterward we talked over a Foster’s Beer. Someone overheard us talking who said to me, “Mormon’s have some really weird beliefs, don’t they?” Yes they do. But then I see no difference between their beliefs and my former Christian beliefs. I learned to think this way because of my wife. She grounds me. I used to say the same thing about other religions and every time she would tell me they are no different than Christianity. It finally sunk in. She’s right. Then it stuck me. There are people who have never been religious at all. When I tell them I am a former evangelical they must shake their heads and wonder how in the world I could ever have believed what I did. I too am stunned at times. Do natural born atheists think about me the way former evangelicals-turned-skeptics think about Mormonism? Do they shake their heads and wonder how stupid I must be to have believed what I did? Some of them probably do. If so, I hope to show that children are taught to believe in their respective cultures because of indoctrination, brainwashing and enculturation. It could have been them too, ya see.
Quote of the Day
I cannot possibly check everything I believe. There is a trust element involved. I trust the sciences. I trust the consensus of the scientists. Why? Because in those areas where I have studied I agree with them. In fact, if believers were to stop and think about it they trust the sciences too, in an overwhelming number of areas. They just disagree with them in those few areas when the sciences contradict what some pre-scientific ancient agency detectors claimed in a group of canonized texts. -- John W. Loftus
The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid. Doug Wilson: "I Have Faith in the Bible,You Have Faith in Reason"
See below:
Quote of the Day- by John W. Loftus
The bottom line is that the odds of a resurrection from my experience are at 0%. No Bayesian analysis can multiply 0 with any other number and get any more than 0. That's what the probabilities are. So I am skeptical of the extraordinary claim that Jesus resurrected since I cannot dismiss my present experience. I must judge the past from my present. I cannot do otherwise! Coupled with the fact that when I read the NT it provides its own demise there is no reason to believe such a claim EVEN IF IT IS TRUE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)