In the small, rural mid-western town where I grew up—and long before my arrival—the Christian souls had been sorted into Protestant and Catholic camps; I was in the former. Naturally, this was well after the eras of armed combat, so folks got along quite well despite the religious chasm. There were frictions, of course: Protestant kids were taunted by Catholic kids that they were going to hell: only followers of the Pope had the lock on heaven. But the insults were returned; one Protestant woman, whose nephew had become engaged to a Catholic woman, with wedding to be in her church, refused to attend because she had no intention of “setting foot in that heathen temple.”
If there was anything that both camps shared it was certainty. We knew that we were right, and those on the other side were wrong. And they knew that they were right, and we were wrong. This certainty was guaranteed by faith.
The debate over faith is whether Christian definitions of faith are consistent with each other (they're not), whether they make any sense (they don't) and whether Christians do what their own definitions say they do (they don't).
Many of us claim Christian apologists lie to defend their faith. I have a whole chapter documenting this phenomena in my book, "How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist" (see link in the sidebar). So with regard to Zacharias, since he has knowingly lied about his credentials, why should anyone accept his apologetical defenses of the Christian faith? LINK. I don't see why anyone should.
Unbelievably, David Marshall now clarifies what faith is by rejecting the need for reason, based on sufficient evidence, saying:
"... having sufficient evidence is PART (not all) of having faith....Good reason to believe is a necessary, not sufficient, part of biblical faith. It really wouldn't be faith if that were all there were to it..."
Marshall is now opposed to scientific thinking, which only accepts sound reasoning based on sufficient evidence.
The only thing faith can mean at this point is that it's an irrational leap over the need for sufficient objective evidence, that is, wishful thinking. For it is the all-important undefined bottom line Marshall maintains, that can and does over-rule reason and sufficient objective evidence, whenever necessary.
What Marshall has repeatedly denied he's now been forced to admit, that my definition of faith is correct after all!
The Christian meaning of faith is "holding firmly to and acting on what you have good reason to believe is true, in the face of difficulties." (As Timothy McGrew and I put it in "True Reason," summarizing traditional Christian thought.) I'd say 100%, or close to that number, of humans have faith in gravity in that sense.
One of my definitions of faith is that it's an irrational leap over the need for sufficient evidence. There are many others that accurately define what believers do. Christian apologists insist that our definitions of faith are faulty. This is a substantive debate, not merely a misunderstanding of terms. Non-believers define faith based on what believers actually do. Believers define faith disingenuously based on the need to appear reasonable when they're not. In the case of apologist David Marshall's comment on Facebook, summarizing his co-written book, it's never more clearly seen.
If having faith is having good reasons to conclude something is true, and if this is how reasonable people conclude we shouldn't jump off a cliff, then faith is equivalent to having sufficient evidence for a conclusion. If so, the word "faith" has no distinct meaning. Why use it then? That's the disingenuous part. It is patently obvious that believing a dead man arose from the dead 20 centuries ago in the superstitious past is not the same thing as knowing we should not jump off a cliff. Patently obvious! My claim is that faith so distorts the believing mind that it also forces believers to define it in disingenous ways that are patently false. If you're reading this and think apologists like McGrew and Marshall do a good job defending your faith on the factual issues, then you should take seriously my claim that the way they define faith is indicative of the way they defend their faith. If one is patently false and disingenuous, then so is the other. Let it be known that apologetics in defense of the Christian faith is all special pleading.
Has Christianity ever been—as the old hymn puts it—“one great fellowship of love throughout the whole wide world”? Probably not. Even at the very beginning, the gospels provide hints of discord in the Jesus inner circle.
Wouldn’t it have been a privilege to be chosen by the messiah as a disciple? I guess it’s human nature to want more—which is what happens in a story that we find in Mark 10. It’s tempting to wonder if Jesus was all that great at choosing and training his closest colleagues. In Mark 10, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, asked Jesus, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” Jesus pointed out that this wasn’t his decision, and the reaction of the other disciples was predictable: “Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John.”
This video shows why reasonable people cannot base our conclusions on any ancient pre-scientific sacred text. All of the explanations for why the earth doesn't move are ignorant ones, having previously concluded the "facts" via "revelation." Reasonable people do not proceed in this manner. Believers do it all the time.
In 2013, when the Boy Scouts lifted its ban on gay scouts, Executive Pastor Tim Hester, of the Louisville Southeast Christian mega-church, announced that the scouts were no longer welcome to meet at the church. The decision was based on a “lot of prayer.” That church boasts 30,000 members, so there must have been a lot a data-streaming from the divine mind to human minds.
Is anybody suspicious?
But can’t we test this, scientifically…or at least semi-scientifically? That is, let’s approach the ‘power of prayer’ with genuine curiosity, and do our best to eliminate bias and fluke.
This may be beating a dead horse, but some people are convinced the horse is alive and well. So here’s something else that's wrong with the Boethian attempt to escape theological determinism.
According to Boethians, God doesn’t have foreknowledge of one’s future actions because God is outside of time. He therefore does not foresee what we are going to do, he timelessly sees what we are going to do. And that, they claim, means that we remain free to choose among different possible courses of action.
I have little doubt that last week’s mass shooting in Sutherland Springs made even many religious people question their faith. How could such a thing happen in a church, to people who were worshipping? Where was God? One preacher, however, explained it in a way that even those of us who’ve pretty much heard it all might find surprising.
According to Hans Fiene, a Lutheran pastor from Illinois, “When those saints of First Baptist Church were murdered yesterday, God wasn’t ignoring their prayers. He was answering them.”
When crucifixes are part of church and home décor—and even sported as jewelry—it’s hard to get the point across that something is terribly wrong: A horrifying belief has been normalized…and for what? Guy Harrison has made the point perfectly: “No one seems to know why a god who makes all the rules and answers to no one couldn’t just pardon us and skip the barbaric crucifixion event entirely.” (Christian in the Light of Science, ed. John Loftus, 2016)
The central doctrine of the Christian faith should make decent people shudder….no, it should make them wretch. And no, the apostle Paul acknowledging that Christ-crucified is a stumbling block doesn’t “make it all better.” These verses emerged from his troubled mind:
The first commandment doesn’t say “Thou shalt not have no gods,” but rather “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The main concern there is not with atheism, but with competing religious beliefs. And at first it does seem that belief in rival deities should, if anything, be regarded as worse than lack of belief. Just like atheists, members of other religions fail to believe in the Christian’s god of choice. But in addition, they believe in false gods! Surely, that’s the greater crime.
And yet, that’s not how the religious see it these days. Ever since religion stopped being central to one’s tribal identity — especially in the West — those with different religious beliefs have been tolerated. “Thou shalt have no other gods” is no longer so important. Rather, it is atheists who are now viewed as the remaining enemy. And the reason seems obvious. Atheists don’t merely reject these people's religion; they reject the very idea of religion.
Skydivephil has just released a new film in his Before the Big Bang Series that explores competing scientific models of the early universe. In this part Stephen Hawking and his colleagues James Hartle and Thomas Hertog discuss their No Boundary Proposal for the quantum origin of our universe.
In the film Hawking discussed his new work which implies the multiverse of eternal inflation is actually finite rather than infinite. Although the film is about the science of the early universe, some of it touches on issues raised in atheists/theist debates. For example, some theists claim that if inflation generates a multiverse it doesn't solve fine tuning, since inflation itself needs fine tuning. But these scientists counter that inflation does not need fine tuning in The No Boundary Proposal. At the 49:03 mark, Hawking finishes with a nice quote about why the universe does not need an intelligent creator. Enjoy.
From what I have read of Edward Feser, he doesn't provide any testable data, just arguments. Intelligent as these arguments might be, they are guessing. They are no better than hypothetical models produced by theoretical physicists that await testing and verification.
If we could get by on mere brainpower, then we would have little use for telescopes, microscopes, spectrometers, partial accelerators, and so on. But why stop there? All medical diagnosis should be done a priori. X-rays, blood tests, and MRI's wouldn't be necessary. But we do. Data rules, that is the lesson of the Enlightenment.
[First published in February 2013]. William Lane Craig says he knows God personally by the inner witness of the Spirit. He needs no other evidence. He claims this subjective inner witness trumps all objective evidence.He knows that he knows that he knows. Let's place this claim of his side by side with others who claim the same thing, and see what we get. My contention is that religious faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities.
My heart goes out to the 8 family members killed in the Texas church attack. God be damned!
Three generations of one family were killed in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Sunday, the family told The Daily Beast. Six members of the Holcombe family were shot to death inside First Baptist Church. Bryan Holcombe was guest preaching at the church and was killed along with his wife, Karla, a Sunday school teacher. Their daughter-in-law, Crystal Holcombe, a mother who was eight months pregnant, was also killed with three of her children. Crystal’s husband, John Holcombe, was shot but survived the attack, along with two of their other children. Marc Daniel Holcombe, Bryan and Karla’s son, was also killed, along with his 1-year-old daughter, a grandfather confirmed. LINK
David Eagleman is "founder and co-director of the Center for Science and Law, which studies how new discoveries in neuroscience can navigate the way we make laws, punish criminals, and develop rehabilitation." A few years back The New Yorker did a story on Eagleman calling him The Possibilian. What is that you ask? Watch this entertaining 20 minute talk, where he explains why he's a possibilian, rather than an atheist or a believer, who are both "certain" they are right.
He misunderstands what an atheist is, since there's nothing he says that isn't what I can agree on.
How to be a patriot when the world is about to end
On the northern Indiana prairie where I was raised in the 1950s, a seamless blend of Christianity and patriotism had been achieved. We were up against Godless communism, after all, so what could make more sense?
One of our daily newspapers was The Indianapolis Star, whose masthead included words from II Corinthians 3:17: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The editors of the paper no doubt assumed that the apostle Paul and Patrick Henry were kindred spirits. But in fact Paul was not writing about liberty as Henry understood it. The last thing Paul had in mind was freedom from human tyranny.
Many theists believe both in a god with infallible knowledge about the future and in libertarian free will, and thus face the problem of how to reconcile these two ideas. An attempted solution which has come up in the comments section here more than once is the so-called “Boethian solution.” It maintains that God is outside of time, and so does not actually have foreknowledge. From his extra-temporal vantage point, God sees all of time — past, present, and future — all “at once,” so to speak. Therefore, he does not foresee what you’re going to do tomorrow; rather, he sees it, much as we see the present.
The most common reply to this is to point out — correctly, in my opinion — that a timeless god is a contradiction in terms. But there is another problem with the Boethian solution, which is that, even if we set aside problems with timelessness, it doesn’t work!
I don't watch very many horror films and even fewer slasher films. I picture myself as one of the victims, never one the killers, so they always make me hate the killers. I don't want to hate. So I don't enjoy these movies so much. Plus, lots of gore is uninteresting to me. But since this is the season to scream, and because one of these films was made available for free last night, my wife and I watched the 2007 slasher film Hostel: Part 2. It has generated a fair amount of criticism and censorship over the years, since 2007. [Trailer below]
Slowly but methodologically doubt leads to disbelief. This is what happens over and over in the lives of ex-Christians like me. No wonder doubt is frowned upon as a vice, while faith is touted as a virtue. Look where it can lead! The question to be taken seriously is why doubt leads to disbelief rather than to faith.
Rene Decartes laid down a good challenge. Doubt everything as much as possible for once in your life. Descartes was a good Catholic so it's not just me saying it. Doubt your faith as if you were an outsider to it, never having heard of it before. Do so by seeking objective evidence for it rather than 2nd 3rd 4th handed down anecdotal evidence to confirm it. Look for coherent beliefs. Try to make sense of its doctrines. It's not too late to start the 2017 Debunking Christianity Challenge.
The pious among us are so sure that religion improves the world. They can point to gazillions of examples of believers doing good, without granting that charitable behavior doesn’t have to be motivated by a god spying on you—or its spirit molding your character. It has often been pointed out that you’re a better person if you do good without being prodded by an imaginary friend.
Despite the unctuous pretense, religion is a threat—and it is hardly in retreat. We can see a gathering storm, a catastrophe barreling down on us. More than ten years ago, Christianity Todaypublished an article that should snap secular folks to attention. You think we should worry about global warming? Well, yes, but add this to your disaster list:
Dr. William A. Zingrone expertly comments on the continued rise of the irreligious in a recent post for D.O.N.E (Defenders of the New Enlightenment). This is welcome news despite the rise of the Trumpster's "deplorables". Here's a teaser:
In but 40 years, the mid-70’s to today, the number of US folks identifying as “white Xian” has been nearly cut in half from 82% (the vast majority) to 43%...And its not just that church-goers aren’t predominantly white anymore, it is the number of “Nones” (no religious affiliation) that has increased to a quarter of the US population. There are now significantly less churchgoers, not just white ones, the Nones now being larger than either US Catholics (down to 21% from 25% in the 70’s) or White Evangelical Protestants (down to 16%).
Nones. 25% of the US population, and now 38% of the 18-30 year olds...Let that sink in. The irreligious, in America are bigger than the Catholics or Evangelicals. It doesn’t seem like it, does it? LINK.
My Christian Facebook friend John Appleton wrote, "John, my prayers for you, which I have faithfully said every day since I took up your prayer challenge, is that someday sooner rather than later you would use your considerable gifts to win others to Christ as you once did."
I responded, "John In my days as a Christian I decided to pray daily that Elton John would become a Christian and write Christian songs, but he never did."
Then this discussion ensued, ending with me asking if he would commit to testing his prayers for two months and report back, based on a method I developed for honestly testing prayers.
Here's a discussion on David Marshall's Facebook wall about indoctrination and science. I had said, "Teach science and religions die. Sorry about that. Evolution is science. Religions die as science is taught. It doesn't matter that you say many scientists are believers since there are many options as believers which probably excludes your type of Christianity...Teach science is what I say should be done. Teaching people to think like scientists is what I do. And this is indoctrination? Methinks anyone dismissing science like this is indoctrinated." [Link below]
