I recorded a video
talk for two virtual conferences this past Labor Day weekend, for the International
eConference on Atheism, put on by the Global Center for Religious Research, and for the Dragon Con Skeptic Track. I'm very grateful for these two opportunities. That video will be released sometime soon. In what
follows is the text of my talk. Please share if you want others to discuss it with you. Enjoy the discussion!
Today I’m arguing,
along the same lines as Christopher Hitchens did, that “What can be asserted
without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” [God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York,
Twelve. 2007), p.150.] Specifically I’m arguing that “Miracle Claims Asserted Without Relevant Objective Evidence Can Be
Dismissed. Period!”
I think all reasonable
people would agree. Without any relevant objective evidence miracle claims
shouldn’t be entertained, considered, believed, or even debunked. I intend to go
further to argue that as far as we can tell, all, or almost all miracle assertions, lack any relevant objective evidence, and as such, can be dismissed out of
hand, per Hitchens.
[Another summer re-run.]
We nonbelievers claim that a perfectly good, loving being would never have created hell, but according to most Christians we are simply wrong. God is loving, they say, but he is also just — and justice demands that evil-doers be punished. Without hell, after all, where would the Hitlers, Stalins, and Ted Bundys of this world end up? In heaven?
This is a common argument, which means that many must find it persuasive, but my guess is that those who do simply haven't given it sufficient thought. It's very easy to see the flaws in it.
To begin with, hell isn't only for serious evil-doers: standard Christian doctrine maintains that we are all deserving of eternal punishment and that anyone who doesn't accept God's offer of salvation ends up there. A second thing to keep in mind is that even the worst evil-doers aren't necessarily sent to hell — not if at some point they become sincere believers. Ted Bundy, for instance, claimed to have accepted Jesus before being executed, and if that's true then on the standard view he did end up in heaven.
One therefore cannot justify hell on the grounds that evil-doers must be punished. But more importantly, can one still maintain that God is just given this doctrine? Does it make sense that all of us are deserving of eternal punishment, or that those who accept Jesus are forgiven?
[Sorry about all the ads. I think I got rid of them. Wait for it.]
As we know by now Donald Trump is a narcissistic sociopath. Not only can we tell by watching and listening to him speak about his rating "numbers, and his lack of empathy for the victims of Covid-19, two people who should know have come out in public saying so. His niece Mary Trump, as we should all know by now. But also Trump's ghostwriter for the book "The Art of the Deal." Tony Schwartz has written a devastating piece on Trump, warning us all about him, titled The Psychopath in Chief. He says, Understanding what we’re truly up against — the reign of terror that Trump will almost surely wage the moment he believes he can completely prevail — makes the upcoming presidential election a true Armageddon. Vote as if your life depends on it, because it does.
The Atlantic Monthly has put out a few great articles on Trump, Evangelicals, and the Coronavirus. The most important one is a theme of mine about cognitive bias with regard to faith and religion: