We're
celebrating the 12 days of Solstice rather than the 12 days of
Christmas. I'm done writing and editing books. So I'm highlighting each
of my twelve books leading up to the 25th of the month when we party. I'll tell
you something about each of them you probably don't know. [See Tag Below]
The first thing you should know is that the publisher wanted to name this
book, Deliver Us From Evil. Since my goal was to produce books named
after the
Four Horsemen
(plus Victor Stenger, who just missed that party with his 2007 NY Times
Bestseller, God: The Failed Hypothesis), I was adamantly opposed to it. So was Richard Carrier, and I think
Russell Blackford, who all voiced our objections.
On hindsight, after
I failed to edit a book named after Daniel Dennett's book, like Breaking the Christian Spell,
I wish we had used that provocative title instead. It sounds sexy doesn't it? Deliver Us From Evil. I like it now, especially after the rise to
power of Christian Theocratic/Nationalists with the twice impeached one-term former
President Donald Trump, and the January 6th failed coup attempt on American
democracy after failing to steal a presidential election.
I'm always very grateful for people willing to read through my books and offer some advanced praise. Here are some blurbs of Christianity Is Not Great:
--------------------
John Loftus knows from the inside what’s wrong with Christianity. Few people are better qualified to explain to those still in its clutches why they’d do well to leave, and he has assembled a fine team of colleagues to assist him in doing so. This book should convert a high proportion of those with the courage to read it.
-- Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.
Finally my work got the attention of Dawkins! I'm still very grateful! But it was too late to be very significant because of what has come to be known as ElovatorGate.
My publisher asked him to change his blurb by introducing it with the words, "As a Former Minister", which he obliged. Why that was important still escapes me.
Here’s a rant against Jews that should horrify all Christians:
“… set fire to their synagogues or schools…bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them…I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues… I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them…I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb…I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like…I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping…I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow…”
We're celebrating the 12 days of Solstice rather than the 12 days of Christmas. I'm done writing and editing books. So I'm highlighting each of my twelve books leading up to the 25th of the month when we party. I'll tell you something about each of them you probably don't know. [See Tag Below]
The first thing to say is that Rauser contacted me to co-write the book without first reading my magnum opus Why I Became an Atheist. I think that's instructive, since he didn't research into how formidable of an opponent I might be. More on that a bit later.
We're
celebrating the 12 days of Solstice rather than the 12 days of
Christmas. I'm done writing and editing books. So I'm highlighting each
of my twelve books leading up to the 25th of the month when we party. I'll tell
you something about each of them you probably don't know. [See Tag Below]
I had wanted the subtitle to be "How to Know Which Religion Is True If There Is One, since I don't think there is one. But that was rejected by my publisher for some ignorant reason I forget now.
Most of my books were conceived and tested on this blog in debates with believers. This is the case with this book more than any other. Here's the Amazon link to my book. In it I'm arguing for a fair test to help believers examine their own faith honestly, without any special pleading or double standards. I am arguing that every honest seeker should embrace it. This should be seen in the first few pages of the book. While I think the test leads to unbelief, that's a separate debate.
[This post of mine in this series accidently got deleted, so I'm posting it again] We're celebrating the 12 days of Solstice rather than the 12 days of Christmas, so I'm highlighting each one of them leading up to the 25th of the month. [See Tag Below].
This anthology was named after Sam Harris's book The End of Faith like some others of mine. The so-called New Atheists took aim at God. My books took aim at Christianity in specific, because I knew the most about that religious faith.
After my first anthology, The Christian Delusion, I started telling authors the due date for their submissions was one month earlier than the actual deadline, to avoid last minute submissions. If I was concerned how the chapter was going I would ask for an outline, or rough draft along the way.
The
Christian Delusion is the first book I give to anyone who wants to understand
why I am no longer a Christian. Loftus and company have returned with The End
of Christianity, which will now be the second book I give to anyone who wants
to read a substantive case against Christian faith.” —Luke Meuhlhauser, owner
of the popular blog Common Sense Atheism, which named Loftus’s book Why I Became an
Atheist as the Best Atheism Book of the Decade (2000-2009).
We're
celebrating the 12 days of Solstice rather than the 12 days of
Christmas. I'm done writing and editing books. So I'm highlighting each
of my twelve books leading up to the 25th of the month when we party. I'll tell
you something about each of them you probably don't know. [See Tag Below]
I envisioned my first anthology The Christian Delusion to be an extension of my first book, Why I Became an Atheist. I thought it would be great to get experts to write on topics I addressed in my book, which I considered essential background reading. All the themes in it expand on issues raised in my book. I personally think The Christian Delusion delivers a powerful blow to conservative Christianity, especially when combined with its predecessor.
Dawkins: I decided to name the book The Christian Delusion after Dawkins' extremely popular bestseller The God Delusion. If his focus was on God, mine was to be focused on the Christian God. I also thought it might get his attention. It didn't. In fact, none of the bestselling atheist writers--the so-called New Atheists--publicly acknowledged my books.
Christians celebrate Christmas in Mexico not just one day, but twelve days! The 12 days start on December 25th and end with a party on January 5th. Perhaps they adopted the number 12 from the the song "The Twelve Days of Christmas"? The message of that song is overtly Christian in every way. Is there a secular counterpart? Please say there is. There should be.
How about celebrating the 12 days of Solstice rather than the 12 days of Christmas? I'm done writing and editing books. So I'll be highlighting each
of my twelve books leading up to the 25th of the month when we party.Your place or mine? I'll tell
you something about each of them you probably don't know. [See Tag Below]
When I first started teaching philosophy classes in 1985 for the College of Lake County, in Grayslake, Illinois, I lost about half my class because the students could not understand me. Yep, that's right. Being in a Ph.D. program at Marquette University, after earning three masters degrees, I didn't know how to bring the information down to college students. I
thought my teaching career was over before it began. Luckily the chair
of the philosophy department told me this happens more often than not for first time
philosophy instructors. Over time I became an expert teacher, bringing highly complex ideas down to first year students.
I eventually learned how to communicate to the average educated person in the pew! My goal is to keep it as simple as possible without being simplistic. The problem with this goal is that there are some elitist readers who think I'm ignorant, for if I was smarter and better educated it would reflect in my vocabulary. Smart, highly educated people, it's assumed, use the nomenclature requisite with their educational achievements.
The
evidential problem of horrendous suffering is one of the most powerful refutations of the
theistic god as can be found: If there’s a theistic omni-everything god, who is
omnibenelovent (or perfectly good), omniscient (or all-knowing), and omnipotent (or all-powerful), the issue
of why there is horrendous suffering in the world requires an explanation. The
reason is that a perfectly good god would want to eliminate it, an all-knowing god
would know how to eliminate it, and an all-powerful god would be able to eliminate
it. So the extent of horrendous suffering means that either god does not care
enough to eliminate it, or god is not smart enough to to eliminate it,
or god is not powerful enough to eliminate it. The stubborn fact of horrendous
suffering means something is wrong with god’s goodness, his knowledge, or his
ability.
There are topics that aren’t mentioned from the pulpit or in Sunday School. One example: how can—how should—faith claims be tested? How is valid knowledge acquired? Epistemology is not a word commonly used by the laity, but the concept is crucial. “Take it on faith”—take our word for it, is stressed by clergy, based on centuries of tradition. But that is avoidance of epistemology, i.e., arriving at sound methodology to find out what is actually true. Folks are trained not to be curious or skeptical.
There are a lot of excellent speakers on this important subject of suffering. I'll be speaking for this virtual eConference, as will a few authors in my anthology "God and Horrendous Suffering", including Darren Slade, David Kyle Johnson, Taner Edis, Mark Gura, David Eller, and Dale O'Neal. I'll be introducing and discussing the problem of horrendous suffering from my book. Come for a discounted price of only $10. Just use the code #Atheism at checkout! LINK.
Unbelievable! This year Margaret Downey will be adding all twelve of my books to the Tree of Knowledge, co-hosted with Phil Zuckerman! Come join the live Zoom meeting this Sunday, December 5th, at 2:45 PM EST, which starts out with a concert for 25 minutes. This year's performer is (award winning) Gary Stockdale. Afterward she will hang this year's books on the tree and then interview the authors. This is exciting! You can watch last year's event right here.
I'm pretty sure this review of my book The Case against Miracles got their attention:
In 2008, John W. Loftus launched what would become a definitive series of anti-apologetic works. The Case against Miracles is the capstone volume of this astonishing output, and it's an impressive achievement. Any thoughtful Christian whose conviction rests on the evidence of miracles who reads this book with an open mind will be hard pressed not to abandon--or at least profoundly rethink--his or her beliefs. Of course, true believers seldom approach works critical of their faiths with an open mind, which is why The Case against Miracles will probably be of greater value to secular students of religion and especially to those drawn to the challenges of anti-apologetics. --Tom Flynn, Senior Editor of Free Inquiry magazine.
It’s no longer out-of-bounds to wonder if Jesus existed
In his book, Outgrowing Religion, John Compere wrote: “The myth of Paul Bunyan makes a good story, as does the story of Jesus. But neither tale withstands critical scrutiny or gives us a clue about the meaning of life. For that, we have brains.” It can be noted, by the way, that legions of New Testament scholars have applied plenty of brainpower to analysis of the four gospels—and they know very well that these stories do not withstand critical scrutiny. Of course, to defend the faith at all costs, evangelical scholars hold out against this conclusion. But Jesus studies have been in turmoil for decades because scholars have not succeeded in identifying which parts of the gospels actually qualify as history. No agreed-upon methodology for that has been discovered.
Hypatia Press is currently sending out defective books, ones that did not include a section describing the authors. They have been informed of their mistake and are correcting it. So here is that missing section below:
"The most pressing challenge to belief in God today is undoubtedly the problem of pain. One only needs to read the provocative array of essays in this volume of leading atheists and other non-theists to see why this is such an ongoing problem for those of us who believe that God is real. Whatever one’s beliefs or worldview, and whether one agrees or disagrees, I commend all seekers of truth to read and reflect on this significant work that John Loftus has so skillfully edited. -- Dr. Chad Meister, Professor of Philosophy at Bethel University and co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil.
Only a few items survive in the dusty archives! That is, the paper trail from my eleven years of graduate work is meagre. Boston University School of Theology was my academic home, 1964-1975. There is, of course, my 250-page doctoral dissertation (typed on my manual typewriter), but I saved few of my other papers. One that I cherish the most is a 17-page essay titled, The Secrecy Motif in Mark’s Gospel, which received an “A”—and a glowing comment from the professor: “This represents a lot of careful work and thought, and I have learned much from it. An excellent paper.” What a nice boost for 24-year old me!
“You shine with radiant light, in this circle of earthly existence. You shine so finely, it surpasses understanding. God hugs you. You are encircled by the arms of the mystery of God.” St. Hildegard of Birgen, 1098-1179
“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or feet and be thrown into the eternal fire.”
Jesus, Matthew 18:8
“Religion is all bunk.” Thomas Edison
The New York Times, 17 September 1994, in its Religious Notes column by David Gonzales, reported on the preparations for a college debate that would soon take place between a Hunter College team, and one from England touring the U.S. at the time. The topic: Is the world better off with religion?
I couldn’t resist saving the clipping, because I’m always on the lookout for examples of bad theology innocently stated. Mr. Gonzales introduced his readers to one of the debaters, 28-year old Daniel Mallon Durante, who was preparing to make the case that the world is better with religion. But the young Durante had been a “self-styled rebel, who went from school to pool hall and on to jobs as locksmith, plumber and printer before enrolling in college.” He had returned to his Brooklyn parish to find God, under the tutelage of Father James Zona. The rebel had been tamed: “Talking and praying with him, Father Zona helped him develop a deep and personal faith…”
Our 408 page paperback book, "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism", is now available for order on Amazon, and other online stores! Order it and spread the good news about Jesus at this holiday season!
You can order my anthology on god & horrendous suffering now! It's not available on any other site that I know other than from the publisher! Click on the link, then on the Preview, to get the pdf. There you'll read the Abstract, Advanced Endorsements, Table of Contents, Foreword by Dr, Stephen Law, the 5th chapter on Childhood Torture by Dr. Darren Slade, andAbout the Contributors. It's coming out as a hardback book. Get it!
“Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me, I once was lost, but now I'm found, was blind, but now I see…” These words were written by Anglican clergyman John Newton in 1772. About the same time these words were also written: “There is balm in Gilead, to make the wounded whole; there's power enough in heaven, to cure a sin-sick soul.” To be saved and cured: one of the most common claims about religion is that it brings comfort. Atheists are sometimes accused of insensitivity: why are we trying to destroy this source of comfort? People count on their religion to get them through the day, but they’ve been prompted in this hope by bad theology: The church has pushed the idea that, in our natural state, we are wretched and sin-sick.
I hadn't shared these pics before. I've already shared my transcripts. People wonder why I've gained the respect of many people both believers and non-believers. I attribute it to my education under Drs. James D. Strauss and William Lane Craig both of whom I majored under, along with my passion for truth.
The Fallibility of First Principles, by Gunther Laird (gunther.laird@gmail.com)
The late Norman Geisler was one of the most popular
proponents of Evangelical Christianity, wedding Calvinistic argumentation with
technical concepts drawn from the Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas.[1]
His son David Geisler continues his work, and recently contacted John W. Loftus
with a syllogism for God’s existence Norman had made in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.
David asked my editor if he had “any atheistic friends that would be willing to
critique this more comprehensive argument for God’s existence and explain what’s wrong with it,” and I was one such friend, so John contacted me.
What follows is a brief critique of the entry “First
Principles” in the Encyclopedia,
which David copied verbatim in his email to John. The entry is quite
substantive, as Norman Geisler provided very detailed descriptions of a variety
of first principles, such as the Principle of Noncontradiction, the Principle
of Causality, and the Principle of Contingency, and explains why they cannot be
coherently denied under any circumstances.
We are so used to easy access to the Bible it’s easy to forget that for most of Christian history the laity did not have the Bible. That became possible in the wake of the invention of the printing press in 1450, and the move in the following century to translate the Bible into the languages spoken by the laity. So for well over a thousand years the church got people to believe what it wanted them to believe about Jesus. Itsold an idealized Jesus based primarily on Paul’s hallucinations of a resurrected Jesus who ruled in heavenly realms. During this long dark age of Bible ignorance, the laity learned the story of their lord through great works of art, stunning stained-glass renderings, and the word spoken from pulpits.
Christian philosopher of religion Dr. Win Corduan shows why I focus on concrete examples like a virgin birthed son of a god, and have such a low view of the philosophy of religion by philosophers who want to rationally discuss the probabilities of these kinds of ancient myths. He wrote a brief summary essay answering the question, What is the difference between objective and subjective claims? He argues there's a point at which subjective and objective claims are the same: "Clearly, the fact that I am making a subjective claim about feeling pain is an objective claim. And that matter can be tested pretty easily; just ask me. But whether I actually have the feelings that I’m telling you about, only I can know."
This isn't the real issue though, even if he's right. For the real issue concerns concrete claims like a virgin birthed son of a god. Those kinds of claims require objective evidence for them, since they're extraordinary claims of the highest order concerning events that are impossible to occur on their own within the natural world, based on everything we know about how the world works. So it doesn't matter if there's a point at which objective and subjective claims converge, even though I doubt that they do. Sure, I would see no reason to doubt Win's claim of pain since it's not an extraordinary one. But I cannot objectively feel his pain either. So I would have no way to conclusively test whether he's lying, without some objective evidence coming from a heart monitor or brain scan.
The real reason Win is addressing such a question is because there's no objective evidence for any of the miracle assertions in the Bible. Sorry if that's the case Win, but that's the case. Sorry if it ends your philosophical discussion Win, but it ends it. It could have turned out differently if there was a god who had the foresight to provide objective evidence for biblical miracles, Win. But your god didn't do that.
I occasionally see this meme on Facebook, with attribution to Mark Twain: “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” But this is probably wrong on three counts: (1) I have never been able to verify it as a Twain quote; (2) the first priests—those who stood out from the rest of their clans as possessing connections to the gods—probably were not con artists; (3) and the people who believed them sensed that the connection was genuine. Of course the time would come when con men took over—these days televangelists come to mind especially.
If this continues they will lose their political influence in America! I welcome this even as I hate what Trump has done to our country. LINK. Thanks to Robert Conner.
When did God stop caring about the Bible? No, it’s not a silly question. Many Christians are so sure that God guided the thoughts—and the pens—of the Bible authors, especially those who wrote the gospels and epistles: they got God’s truth right. But what an embarrassment: we don’t have what they wrote. All of the original manuscripts of the New Testament books were lost. The earliest scrap of a gospel—a few verses of John 18—dates early-to-mid second century. There are scholars who devote their careers to comparing ancient manuscripts, trying to figure out the wording of the original texts. The sloppy, haphazard coping process—by hand—went on for centuries. The scribes made thousands of errors. God couldn’t be bothered to protect and preserve the original documents? That wasn’t within his power? Fundamentalist theologians insist that the original manuscripts were without error: God’s perfect word. Even for them there’s just no denying that so many mistakes were made in the copying process. But their claim that the originals were perfect cannot be sustained.
Looks like it's a race to see which book of mine will be my very last one!
GCRR is set to release "God and Horrendous Suffering" early in November.
Hypatia Press says they're releasing "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism" early in December.
They can both lay claim to the title of last book, if this plays itself out. That's because "God and Horrendous Suffering" was the very last book I submitted for publication, no matter which one is released last!
I actually like that the mythicist book is to come out near Xmas, since people looking for books at that time might be drawn to its cover of an empty manger!
I also like it since the question of Jesus mythicism was one I avoided in order not to offend Christian believers in my early years. So it's good if it comes out last.
In my books I've said all I need to say on every important topic related to Christianity. That's all I can do. It should be enough for one person, even though the debate will continue. I must now live life to its fullest, love, laugh, sing, and dance.
Justin Brierley, producer of the Unbelievable? program, just solved the problem of evil. Not really, but he tries unsuccessfully to make a point about it and free will:
My comments to Justin Brierley:
Justin, anyone can turn a bullet into something good, and anyone can imagine on hindsight that some kind of suffering turns out for good. But an omniscient god is apparently incapable of imagining a world without suffering of the horrendous kind, when even a child can do so. What about a god who never allows humankind to discover gunpowder? What was so important to god that we needed it at all?
Additionally:
Yes, gunpowder has been extremely helpful to modernized society. But was the bloodshed and mayhem worth it when all god wants is for us to believe in him? Think of the murders, the bombs, and the wars, especially the noncombatants like children. The carnage is massive!
If for some indefensible notion god wanted us to discover gunpower, he could have made it discoverable to people who would only use it constructively in building roads, bridges, buildings and the like. He could also keep it away from evil people intent on evil purposes.
A perfectly loving god would do this. Does an omniscient all-powerful god not know how to do it?
Come on now, be honest, if your neighbor announced that he is heading off on a business trip “because I had a revelation from God that I have to go”: would you be impressed by his direct line to God—or would you be tempted to ask if he’d skipped his meds? Maybe the pope receives these kinds of messages—so the faithful hope—but your neighbor? Sometimes noisy televangelists boast that they’re passing on orders from God, but aside from their gullible followers, who believes them? Recently Lauren Boebert shouted to an enthusiastic crowd that God had told her to run for congress. We are alarmed by delusions in high places.
Why is my anthology about horrendous suffering? Because this is the category of suffering every reasonable person agrees is needless, the kind of suffering that a perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing god worthy of worship would eliminate if s/he existed.
In 1935, a professor of Christian history at the Sorbonne, Charles Guignebert, published a book titled simply, Jesus. I still have the worn copy that I read in college. In it he summed up the problem that has plagued New Testament scholarship for generations: “It was not the essence of Jesus that interested the authors of our gospels, it was the essence of Christ, as their faith pictured him. They are exclusively interested, not in reporting what they know, but in proving what they believe.” He also observed: "The Gospels are propaganda writings, intended to organize and authenticate. . .the legend represented in the sacred drama of the sect and to match it to the customs of the mythology of the time." Wikipedia describes Guignebert as “...one of the first French historians who approached this subject in a scientific way and not confessional.”
As an avid reader of ancient Mediterranean literature, I have come to regard Lucian as one of my most cherished Greek writers. A penetrating satirist and cultural critic, Lucian left behind numerous works, most of which apparently composed in Samosata (Roman Northern Syria) in the latter half of the second century C.E. With Syria having served as the nascent cradle of primitive Christianity, Lucian will have had an up-close familiarity with the religion, its earliest peddlers, and cult leaders. Unlike his contemporary Celsus, Lucian never wrote any detailed treatise against the religion, despite his more general campaign to expose superstition and fraudulence. In that sense, his candid appraisal of eastern Mediterranean Christians and their leaders provides one of but a few truly unvarnished external looks at the movement. For your enrichment here, I offer my own translated excerpt taken from his Greek text De Morte Peregrini (Περὶ τῆς Περεγρίνου Τελευτῆς), that is, Concerning the Death of Peregrinus. While the work itself, an account of martyrdom-by-way-of-stunt, merits a subsequent article here at D.C., one that I have already begun to compose, the specific segment on the Christians deserves its own special showcase here.
Careful, thorough study of Christianity’s ancient context provides an “Ah ha!” or “Uh oh” moment, depending on your perspective. For those who don’t accept Christian claims about its holy origins, it’s the former; for the devout, it’s the latter. The problem, of course, is that reality-based thinking about Christian origins doesn’t commonly trickle down to the folks in the pews, so they haven’t caught up with the news: the idea that Easter morning proves Christianity has been fatally wounded. Richard Carrier’s comprehensive essay, Dying-and-Rising Gods: It’s Pagan Guys. Get Over It provides the “Ah ha!’ moment for skeptics: dying-and-rising gods were celebrated by other cults in the ancient world. As Carrier has said, “Jesus was late to the party.”
First off, it seems more than a bit arrogant to claim to be the real deal in atheist philosophy (Real Atheology, RA), but then there's nothing that can be done about that adopted name now. Nonetheless, on Twitter RA Tweeted this excerpt and asked, "Don't know where this is from, but thoughts on this?" If it were me I'd like to know where it came from, and I certainly wouldn't put something like this out there unless I thought it had some merit. Turns out it was written by Catholic apologist Edward Feser denouncing the boogyman "scientism" which we've written about before. About scientism I merely say that when it comes to the nature of nature, its regularities, and its origins, science is the only way to gain the truth. What other alternative is there?
It's disheartening that some thoughtful atheists think what Feser said is worthy of consideration. But this isn't the only time RA puts science and objective evidence in the back. They also highly recommended an essay where they agree with Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan that atheist Graham Oppy "repudiates evidentialism." They're reading and listening to the WRONG PEOPLE! I doubt very much that Graham Oppy "repudiates evidentialism" even if he may repudiate the verfification principle(s) whereby only propositions that have evidence for them are meaningful. Ask him. He should weigh in on this issue. Evidence, objective evidence, is paramount. Otherwise we are building ivory castles in the sky where the ONLY thing that matters in consistency.
When it come to philosophy almost everyone gets it wrong. Let me explain...
Christian apologists—theologians, preachers, priests, Sunday School teachers—work so hard to explain away the big goofs in the Bible, which are not hard to spot. Why not just trim the Bible? Thomas Jefferson did that with the gospels, but traditions about the holiness of the Bible are firmly entrenched. Even so, can’t a committee of distinguished theologians and church officials get together to pray hard for divine inspiration about what actually should be in the holy text? Then they could announce the results and issue God’s Updated Bible.
A few obvious deletions come to mind, e.g., Luke’s Jesus script (14:26) that hatred of family and life are requirements for following him; Matthew’s claim that lots of dead people walked around Jerusalem on Easter morning (Matthew 27:52-53); the list of new Christian skills the resurrected Jesus announced in Mark 16:17-18 (e.g., drinking poison, handling snakes, casting out demons)—after all, we know this last one is in the fake ending of the gospel. So there’s a lot of cleaning up for the God’s Updated Bible committee to do.
The chapters in this book combine to show that it’s exceedingly improbable to the point of refutation for the god of Orthodox Theism to exist. The main problem is an evidential one regarding horrendous suffering. A perfectly good god would be opposed to it, an all-powerful god would be capable of eliminating it, and an all-knowing god would know what to do about it. So the existence of horrendous suffering in our world leads us to think god is either not powerful enough to eliminate it, or does not care enough to eliminate it, or is just not smart enough to know what to do about it.
It also addresses other issues such as the lack of objective evidence for miracles, the absurdity of theistic myths, the relationship of horrendous suffering to differing theologies and religious faiths, the horrendous nature of the biblical god, the horrendous actions done because of religious faith, and how these considerations can personally lead reasonable people away from religion.
The authors discuss this issue philosophically, theologically, apologetically, biblically, religiously, historically, and personally. It’s an excellent model for how philosophers, apologists, and theologians should’ve been discussing this problem decades ago.
Thank you for reading and for your support! We think you'll find a perspective here that you don't usually find elsewhere. Never miss out on future posts by becoming a follower. To make a donation of any size please click here. If you buy anything on Amazon [US] through this link it provides a kickback at no cost to you. Thanks again!
But my call was required by understanding Dr. Peter Boghossian. I first heard of him in a video where he argued "faith based belief processes are unreliable". His target is against faith itself, faith without sufficient evidence, blind faith, which is the only kind of faith that exists. If faith involves trust, there is no reason to trust in faith.
I concluded that it's irrational to reason about religious doctrines that have no objective evidence for them.
Is it ever rational to believe a proposition that requires objective evidence but does not have any objective evidence for it? No! Is it ever rational to believe a religion that requires objective evidence but does not have any objective evidence for it? No! Just consider the gospel claim that a virgin gave birth to the son of a god, and you'll easily see this point. I've written about faith on multiple occasions, especially agreeing with what George H. Smith said about it.
No wonder William Lane Craig doesn't want to debate me on this proposition: "There is sufficient objective evidence for the miracle assertions in the Bible."
Is this claim too boring, too uninteresting for agnostics and atheists to focus on? Why are they focusing on anything else? Why? Curious truth-seekers want to know.
--------------
Thank you for reading and for your support! We think you'll find a perspective here that you don't usually find elsewhere. Never miss out on future posts by becoming a follower. To make a donation of any size please click here. If you buy anything on Amazon [US] through this link it provides a kickback at no cost to you. Thanks again!
Zuckerman is the author of several books, including The Nonreligious, Living the Secular Life, and Society without God. He is a professor of sociology at Pitzer College and the founding chair of the nation’s first secular studies program. He's uniquely qualified to help answer the most important questions believers have when considering to leave their faith. "How can you be moral without God?" "Where do you get your morals from?" My advice will be to get his book, What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life. Below are some high recommendations for it:
“Where did this story come from?” “Where did the author find his information?” “Why did the translator add a footnote?” “Does this story deserve to be in sacred scripture?” Question everything. But maybe this kind of curiosity is too much work, and it undermines the intent of those who promote the Bible as the indispensible foundation for faith. They want you to inhale, to soak in the spiritual meaning that every Bible chapter provides. But when we question everything, it turns out that spiritual meaning is often absent. Or contrived. Religious bureaucrats have tried too hard. A lot of folks have turned away from the faith because there is so much in the Bible that is worthless—or at least trends toward that end of the spectrum.
