[First published on 6/13/20] OPEN THREAD! There is an often repeated argument that marijuana is the gateway drug leading to dangerous drugs. [I think it's largely false but don't get sidetracked on it.] There is however, a gateway to doubting the whole Bible that I want to highlight here. Lately I've been focusing on the virgin birth claim because this is the gateway to doubting the gospel narratives, just as Genesis 1-11 is the gateway to doubting the Old Testament narratives. It was for me anyway. It was the first tale in the gospels that led me to doubting it all. It was also the last tale William Lane Craig could bring himself to believe. You can see this double doubting of both Testaments in the list of the five most important books that changed my mind, and the five most powerful reasons not to believe.
Two Christians Jimmy Akin and Caleb Jackson debate two atheists, John W. Loftus and Dr. Darren Slade. I'm thankful for this opportunity. This should be challenging, interesting, educational, and some fun too!
A debate hosted by "Capturing Christianity" on YouTube will take place tonight, Thursday at 7 PM Central time.
In this 2v2 debate, two Christians (Jimmy Akin and Caleb Jackson) debate two atheists (John Loftus and Dr. Darren Slade) on whether Jesus was born of a virgin. The first half of the debate will focus on the Virgin Birth. The second half of the debate will focus on Christmas miracles/Marian apparitions.
LINK
[First Published in December 2022] Churches all over the world will once again get away with the traditional Christmas story, for one simple reason: the folks in the pews can’t be bothered to carefully read the Jesus birth stories in Matthew and Luke. It’s just a fact these stories don’t make sense and cannot be reconciled: Fake News! A few of the more charming verses from these stories have been set to music and are recited during Christmas pageants; these deflect attention from the utter failure of these stories to quality as history.
"How the New Testament
Writers Used Prophecy" by John W. Loftus.
One of the major things claimed by the New
Testament in support of Jesus’ life and mission is that Jesus fulfilled Old
Testament prophecy (Luke 24:26–27; Acts 3:17–24). If God cannot predict the
future as time moves farther and farther into the distance, as I questioned
earlier, then neither can any prophet who claims to speak for God. As we will
see with regard to the virgin birth of Jesus, none of the Old Testament
passages in the original Hebrew prophetically applied singularly and
specifically to Jesus. [In chapter 18, "Was Jesus Born of a Virgin in Bethlehem?"]. Early Christian preachers simply went into the Old
Testament looking for verses that would support their view of Jesus. They took
these Old Testament verses out of context and applied them to Jesus in order to
support their views of his life and mission.9
How many times have you heard a believer say God did a miracle, or answered a prayer, based on a very unlikely set of circumstances? All the time, right!! Christian apologists will even argue there are coincidental miracles in the Bible, called "timing" miracles, events that took place naturally at the right time. Not so fast! Become informed. Read the following books. See why they don't count as miracles, or answered prayers.
In The Improbability Principle, the renowned statistician David J. Hand argues that extraordinarily rare events are anything but. In fact, they’re commonplace. Not only that, we should all expect to experience a miracle roughly once every month. But Hand is no believer in superstitions, prophecies, or the paranormal. His definition of “miracle” is thoroughly rational. No mystical or supernatural explanation is necessary to understand why someone is lucky enough to win the lottery twice, or is destined to be hit by lightning three times and still survive. All we need, Hand argues, is a firm grounding in a powerful set of laws: the laws of inevitability, of truly large numbers, of selection, of the probability lever, and of near enough.
You see evidence of miracles and answered prayers in coincidences not because there's a god doing them, but because you look for them. They are not evidence of anything but your own subjective awareness placing a grid upon these events where you see your god acting on your behalf. They are also evidence that you are ignorant of math and statistics and the probabilities built on them. Q.E.D.
[First published on 8/7/12 by Jonathan Pearce] To coincide with the recent release of my book The Nativity: A Critical Examination, I wrote a couple of posts concerning issues with the nativity accounts in Luke and Matthew. One Christian commentator, Vincent, made replies to many of my points, all of which I rebutted. There was one point on which he pushed and that was a thesis by Christian physicist Frank Tipler that sets out to defend the Star of Bethlehem from a naturalistic standpoint. Tipler hypothesises that the Star of Bethlehem could have been a supernova or hypernova. Frank Tipler is a physicist who once seemed to produce decent work but who has since adopted his work to a Christian outlook, attempting to find physical and scientific evidence for the miracles of Jesus and the workings of the Bible. Many know him from the strong anthropic principle he developed with John Barrow (himself a deistic member of the United Reformed Church). Vincent's points on Tipler can be summed up with this quote:
Chapter 13: The Bethlehem Star, by Dr. Aaron Adair, in Christianity in the light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press, 2016): 297-313. [Used with permission].
About two
centuries ago, there was a major transition in the way scholars were
approaching the stories of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments. There
was a greater attempt to look at the historical context and formation of the
holy book and its stories, and the tales of Jesus were a major issue for
critical scholars and theologians. It was also at around this time that the
acceptability of wondrous stories was not palatable, at least for the educated
where a deistic god was more ideal, one that did not perform miracles and was consistent
with the universe of Newtonian mechanics. A naturalistic understanding of the
world, inspired by the success of the physical sciences, along with inspiration
from Enlightenment thinkers, changed the way people looked at the world, and
that caused for a significant reassessment of the spectacular stories of the
ancient world. What was one to do with the miracle stories of Jesus if miracles
don’t happen? The solution was a series of rationalizations, none seen as
terribly plausible but preferable to claiming a miracle or a myth. For example,
Jesus walking on water was a mistake on the part of the Disciples, seeing their
master walk along the beach shore on a foggy morning and not actually atop the
water. Even the resurrection of Jesus was so retrofitted into scenarios that
are unlikely, to say the least, but at least they weren’t impossible.
We can imagine the literary agents for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John meeting for drinks one Friday evening after work. They all get texts that the church’s Authorized Bible Committee has decided to publish the four gospels together, back-to-back. They all wince. Not a good idea! This will encourage the faithful to compare the four Jesus accounts. Matthew and Luke plagiarized (and altered) Mark extensively—without telling anyone—and the author of John’s gospel was pretty sure that the other three hadn’t told the story well at all, and made up stuff to ‘improve’ to tale. What a mess.
[Edited version of a Dec. 6, 2014 post]. Matthew
J. Marohl’s book, Joseph’s
Dilemma: ‘Honor Killing’ in the Birth Narrative of Matthew (2008), is a provocative one that examines Joseph’s
dilemma in some detail. It highlights something absolutely barbaric that both Joseph and Jesus acknowledged. We read of it in Matthew 1:18-19:
Now
the birth of Jesus Christtook place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to
Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy
Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being
a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her secretly.
What does it take for a person to say No to belief in a god? No matter the depth of indoctrination, it might happen when one is faced with suffering on an unprecedented scale. This happened to Martin Selling, born in Germany in 1918. He was Jewish, thus was caught up in the Nazi frenzy of hate. He ended up in Dachau.
[First Published 8/3/21] I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). Here is chapter three on "The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke." Do not skip this chapter! It's the most thorough taken-down of the inconsistent, inaccurate, absurd genealogies you will find. It deserves to be studied! I highlighted a few awesome statements of his.
[First published by Jonathan Pearce on 7/19/12] I was recently talking in a thread or two, about the historical implausibility of pretty much all of the claims in both Luke and Matthew with regards to the infancy accounts of Jesus' birth.
The situation is this. I maintain that, to hold to the notion that the accounts are historical, one has to jump through hoops. However, the Christian might say that one or two claims in the accounts may be false, but that does not mean that the other claims are false. But in this approach lie many issues. For example:
1) If we accept that some claims in the accounts are false, does the Christian special plead that the other claims are true?
2) The claims are so interconnected that to falsify one or two of them means that the house of cards comes tumbling down.
3) If we establish that at least some of the claims are false, how does this affect other claims within the same Gospel? How can we know that claims of Jesus' miracles are true given that the reliability of the writer is accepted as questionable?
And so on. In my book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination, I think I give ample evidence that allows one to conclude that the historicity of the nativity accounts is sorely and surely challenged. All of the aspects and claims, that is. There are problems, for sure, if one accepts that some claims are false but others are true. But the simple fact of the matter is that all of the claims are highly questionable.
Tis the season to carefully study the Jesus birth stories
A few years ago I attended the special Christmas show at Radio City Music Hall. It ended with the famous tableau depicting the night Jesus was born: the baby resting on straw in a stable, shepherds and Wise Men adoring the infant, surrounded by farm animals—and a star hovering above the humble shelter. Radio City did it splendidly, of course, but the scene is reenacted at countless churches during the Christmas season. The devout are in awe—well, those who haven’t carefully read the birth stories in Matthew and Luke. This adored tableau is actually a daft attempt to reconcile the two gospel accounts—which cannot, in fact, be done.
“Keeping Secularism in the Holidays” by Edouard Tahmizian, Vice President & Social Media Manager of Internet Infidels (The Secular Web). He wrote a little 50-second piece dedicated to keeping Secularism alive. Happy Holidays! Sheet Music by Edouard Tahmizian for Piano/Keyboard.
Noteflight (click on the play button on the digital score).
LINK.
This chapter supports my first contention—that people
who are located in distinct geographical areas around the globe overwhelmingly
adopt and justify a wide diversity of mutually exclusive religious faiths due
to their particular upbringing and shared cultural heritage. This is the Religious Diversity Thesis (RDVT), and it is a well-established fact in today’s world.
The problem of religious diversity cries out for reasonable explanation,
something that faith has not provided so far. Attempts to mitigate it or
explain it, as we’ll see, either fail to take it seriously or explain religion
itself away.
New legislation scheduled to be introduced in Parliament on
December 6, 2023, proposes to finally, officially, separate the British government from the Church of England: “Perhaps the distressing sight of King Charles III kneeling before a bible and kissing it at his coronation ceremony hastened the decision to introduce this legislation. The coronation took place at Westminster Abbey, where Charles swore an oath before the bible to uphold the Church of England’s privileges during the ritual led by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The National Secular Society, which has been campaigning for the church’s disestablishment since its founding in 1866, reports that a cross claiming what was purported to be shards from Jesus’ crucifix (sic) was part of the ritual.”[1] The new king’s oath “to preserve the Church of England, guarantees Church of England bishops and archbishops 26 seats in the House of Lords, and means state schools can be required to hold Christian worship.” Dr. Scot Peterson of Corpus Christi College remarked, “It’s been difficult to defend having an established church since the beginning of the 20th century but it is now becoming a figment of the imagination. The king being the head of the Church of England made sense in 1650, but not in 2022.”[2]
When American Christians head off for church on Sunday morning, how many church buildings of other Christian brands do they pass on the way to their own denomination? Baptists would be horrified at the thought of worshipping at a Catholic church instead. And Catholics would be baffled at the style of worship at a Methodist or Presbyterian church. This is the essence of Mess One: there are, in fact, thousands of different Christian brands, i.e. denominations, divisions, sects, and cults. There has been rampant splintering for hundreds of years because the devout cannot agree on basics about god and how he wants to be worshipped.
In 2011 I did a series of posts called "Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?" I put some of them in the third chapter in The End of Christianity, and the first chapter in God and Horrendous Suffering.
Below I've put together thirty of them that most Christians agree on and why they are all improbable:
1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three
inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a
beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk,
never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had
a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.
2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the
physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will
subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.
Quick summary: atheism is easier than religious faith, and people are lazy, so why does anybody bother with the hard option? Why don't human brains seek a kind of lowest-energy state, by analogy with dynamical systems that tend to run downhill? This post explores, rather speculatively, whether the human brain on faith gets stuck in a kind of higher-energy state, and becomes unable to get to the bottom, similar to what many dynamical systems actually do.
In this debate I'm going to focus on the alleged miracle of the virgin birthed incarnate god. Dr. Slade, of the Global Center for Religious Research, will focus on Mary's apparitions and on testing miracles in general. I'm told this will be a two hour program.
Those who have been assured since childhood that God is Love—and
have been coached to pray to their loving father well into adulthood—seem immune to many Bible texts that contradict this idea, for example, these pieces of Jesus-script:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36)
Luke’s version of this text is prefaced with, “I have come to cast fire upon the earth, and how I wish it were already ablaze!”(Luke 12:49)
In his letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul taught that “wrath and fury” awaited people who were disobedient to god. (Romans 2:8)
It can be asserted with little fear of contradiction that every literate
adult the world over has a mental image of Jesus of Nazareth. After all, Christianity is the largest religion — an estimated 2.4 billion adherents — and has existed for 2000 years. For centuries, laymen and scholars alike assumed the gospel stories were history and that Jesus and his apostles were verifiably historical characters like Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1), Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1), or Tiberius Caesar and Pontius Pilate (Luke 3:1-2). However, in the early twentieth century, when German scholars began to question the reliability of the New Testament texts, that assumption came under challenge, particularly after 1909 when the philosopher Christian Heinrich Arthur Drews published Die Christusmythe, The Christ Myth, that claimed there was no reliable independent evidence for the Jesus of the gospels — Jesus, Drews asserted, was a product of the imagination. Could Drews have been right all along?
IS RELIGION COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE? by Dr. David Eller (pp. 257-278). [This is a 4000 word excerpt out of 8600 words. Get the book!]
In most of the squabbles between religion and
science, religion is never defined, because, since most of the squabbles are
occurring in majority-Christian societies, the assumption is that “religion”
means “Christianity.” Worse yet, the assumption is usually that “religion”
means “traditional Christianity” or “evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity.”
Substituting one of these terms for “religion” in our original question yields
the highly problematic inquiry: Is traditional/evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity
compatible with science?
The first problem, of course, is that even if it is
not, then perhaps some other form—some modernist or liberal form—of
Christianity is compatible with science; perhaps
Christianity can be adjusted and juked to fit with science. The second and more
profound problem is that even if traditional/evangelical/ fundamentalist
Christianity or any version of Christianity whatsoever is not compatible with
science, perhaps some other religion—say, Hinduism or Wicca or ancient Mayan
religion or Scientology—is. Yet you will notice that almost no one asks, and
almost no one in the United States or any other Christian-dominated society
cares, whether Hinduism or ancient Mayan religion is compatible with science,
since few people know or care about Hinduism or ancient Mayan religion. The
tempest over religion and science is thus quite a local and parochial brouhaha,
people fighting for their
particular religion against
(some version or idea of) science.
Hallucinations are not a credible foundation for any religion
The church gets away with a far, far too much because most of the laity don’t bother to read the Bible, let alone study it carefully.This failure enables the clergy to nurture an idealized version of the faith—indeed, an idealized version of Jesus—unhindered by so much of the nasty stuff in full view in the gospels and in the letters of the apostle Paul. The clergy are quite content that the folks in the pews don’t go digging about in these documents. Instead, ritual, sacred music, costuming, stained glass windows—church décor in general—allow the laity to savor a false version of the faith promoted by the ecclesiastical bureaucracy.
[This is one of my earliest posts, published in January 2006] Many Christians will maintain they have a
superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good.
They claim to have objective ethical standards for being good, based in a
morally good creator God, and that the atheist has no ultimate
justification for being moral.
Consider
what Dr. William Lane Craig wrote: “If life ends at the grave, then it
makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint.…”
“Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to those
of a saint? “The world was horrified when it learned that at camps like
Dachau the Nazis had used prisoners for medical experiments on living
humans. But why not? If God does not exist, there can be no objection to
using people as human guinea pigs.” [Apologetics: An Introduction, pp. 37-51].
The
Christian claims to have absolute and objective ethical standards for
knowing right from wrong, which is something they claim atheists don’t
have. The Christian standards are grounded in the commands of a good
creator God, and these commands come from God’s very nature and revealed
to them in the Bible. There is a philosophical foundation for this
claim, and then there is the case Christians present that the Bible
reveals God’s ethical commands. Both are illusions of superiority. It is
an illusion that the Christian moral theory is superior, and it is an
illusion that Christians know any better than others how they should
morally behave in our world.
We often marvel at Paul's lack of interest in the life and times of Jesus. He says Jesus was born of a woman but says nothing about his mother. He tells us Jesus was killed for the sins of others but tells us nothing about where the event occurred. He tells us that Jesus was buried but he tells us nothing about the gravesite. Did Paul not think the information was available in his time?
We know Paul could read the Old Testament as allegory as we see in Galatians 4:22-31:
“Tonight is the night that Mary passes through your house…”
Six years ago I published an article here about a sure-fire way for
devout believers to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that prayer is an authentic way of communicating with god. That YES, god uses prayer as a way to let humans know his will on a wide variety of issues. I suggested recruiting 1,000—or 10,000—believers known for their intense prayer activity for a special project. But there’s a very crucial rule for the selection of these prayer experts: they must be drawn from the many different branches of theism, e.g., Catholics, Protestants—so many different kinds, including Pentecostals—Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Greek Orthodox. After a few weeks of intense prayer activity, these folks across the broad spectrum of theism would share what god had told them about such things as:
John Smith posted this quote from Einstein on Facebook. The full quote is from 1936:
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing to do a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can't reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations; for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for an new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Einstein’s Philosophy of Science.
Granted he was speaking about the philosophy of science, which is a legitimate philosophical inquiry. But think on this. Maybe not, I say. Science has solved a multitude of philosophical problems, and will continue doing so. Given that success rate scientists are good philosophers. By contrast, by the same standard, philosophers have been poor scientists.
This comment of mine drew a bit of fire on Facebook.
[This was one of my earliest posts here at DC] Many Christians assume a certain kind of rational
superiority over any other system of belief and thought, especially
atheism. According to them, their beliefs are rationally superior in the
sense that Christianity wins hands down in the marketplace of ideas.
They claim that a compelling case can be made for believing in
Christianity over any other system of belief and thought.
This
way of thinking about the Christian faith is due to what my friend and
Christian scholar, Dr. James Sennett calls, “The Illusion of Rational
Superiority,” in his forthcoming book: This Much I Know: A Postmodern Apologetic.
Dr.
James Sennett argues against the idea that people who reject
Christianity do so because they are either “ignorant,” “stupid” or
“dishonest with the facts.” That is, he argues against the idea that a
“fully rational rejection of Christianity is impossible.” Dr. Sennett
calls this objection the Christian “Illusion of Rational Superiority."
It's simply an illusion, he claims. [Although, as a Christian
philosopher he argues it is an unnecessary illusion due to the fact that
even though he has a reasonable faith, it is “not rationally compelling
to all.”]
A major challenge in this time of declining Christian belief is finding a
hot button issue that keeps gullible followers enraged and engaged and dropping their Social Security dollars here and there into collection plates. For decades, one reliable sales pitch for evangelicals and Catholics was the specter of the homosexual menace, but as recently noted, “When the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right of same-sex marriage nearly eight years ago, social conservatives were set adrift. The ruling stripped them of an issue they had used to galvanize rank-and-file supporters and big donors. And it left them searching for a cause that — like opposing gay marriage — would rally the base and raise the movement’s profile on the national stage. “We knew we needed to find an issue that the candidates were comfortable talking about,” said Terry Schilling, the president of American Principles Project, a social conservative advocacy group. “And we threw everything at the wall.” I’m sure Schilling really meant to say, “We threw everything at the wall after much prayer and deliberation.”
A thousand years from now, will there be people—with as little grasp of history as contemporary Christians—who worship a goddess named Minerva, because they believe that Minerva McGonagall in the Harry Potter stories was real? What magical powers she had! She could change herself instantly into a cat, and multiply food supplies. Will there also be a goddess Hermione, based on Hermione Granger in Harry Potter, who created a magic potion that allows the person who drinks it to assume the physical appearance of another person? Will the Fairy God Mother in Cinderella be worshipped as well, because she used a magic spell to turn a pumpkin into a splendid coach?
[First Published August 2022] I've written three books to educate believers on how to honestly seek the truth and defend it: 1) The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion is True. In it I show honest believers how to approach their faith consistently without any double standards or special pleading.
2) How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist. In it I show Christian apologists how to correctly defend their faith, if it can be defended at all. Apologists should read it before writing another sentence in defense of their faith. In it I challenge apologists to stop doing what they're doing if they're honest about defending their Christian faith. The risk is that if they stop it they cannot defend their faith at all. But the risk is worth it if they're serious about knowing and defending the truth.
3) Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End. In it I show philosophers of religion and other intellectuals how to properly discuss and debate religious beliefs. What I cannot teach however, is to desire the truth. That comes from within. Taken together these three books are the antidote to the faith virus. The problem is almost none of them desire the truth, comparatively speaking. Here's hoping a few honest believers are reading who desire the truth.
In her book, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not (2016), Abby Hafer gives a by turns amusing and horrifying account of numerous obvious goofs in the human body that any competent designer would fix. (Or be sued by the victims.) These are all elegantly explained by evolution, and count as evidence for it. Since evolution typically proceeds by small increments of genetic change, which are often as small as a change to a single nucleotide, the corresponding changes to the phenotype are also often small adjustments to what is already there. Evolution cannot "see" that a better solution may be far away in the design space, requiring large-scale modification of the genome at many positions simultaneously. What's worse, these modifications would have to occur in multiple individuals at the same time, to maintain a breeding population! For more about the evolutionary design space, see Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995).
An egregious example of bad evolutionary "design" is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is a bad-enough mistake in humans, but reaches comical proportions in giraffes. As all tetrapod vertebrates have a similar arrangement, it would have been even more comical in the longer-necked sauropod dinosaurs. The nerve would have been as long as 28m (92 ft) in Supersaurus, almost all of which was an unnecessary detour.
Having previously linked to some reasons why philosophical apologetics is not changing very many minds, especially the most sophisticated philosophy that every serious philosophical apologist loves to recommend, because it says that they understand it! Congrats to you!! A lot of it is obtuse and obfuscationist though. As it's practiced today, it isn't that helpful if one wants to change minds. After all, the more sophisticated that philosophy is, the more sophisticated the reader is. At that level it doesn't change the minds of sophisticated readers because they are already entrenched in what they think. It also has a way of being turned around as a pat on the back! Just see how William Lane Craig responds to a very detailed and knowledgeable question about philosophical apologetics at his website, Reasonable Faith. Craig wrote:
I include your question here for the instruction and encouragement of our Reasonable Faith readers. You have masterfully surveyed for us the current philosophical landscape with respect to atheism. You give our readers a good idea of who the principal players are today.
I hope that theists, especially Christian theists, who read your account will come away encouraged by the way Christian philosophers are being taken seriously by their secular colleagues today.
The average man in the street may get the impression from social media that Christians are intellectual losers who are not taken seriously by secular thinkers. Your letter explodes that stereotype. It shows that Christians are ready and able to compete with their secular colleagues on the academic playing field.
I am in wholehearted agreement with you. I actually find it very sad to see a discipline (the philosophy of religion) I have cherished for many years being debased and distorted by so-called Christian philosophers. Like you, I have now finally and happily found my place in the atheist community. I’m slowly making my way through your "Unapologetic book", it’s quite fascinating, loving the Nietzschean hammer style.
[First published on 10/5/20] Because this is the haunted month of Halloween
here's something to spook ya all!
I'm always interested in new angles to argue my case
against Christianity. Kris Keys does that in the excellently researched
essay below. He argues there is more evidence for the resurrection of
Vampires and Revenants than there is for the resurrection of
Jesus.
Introductory comments by Kris Keys:
Well this is my first time writing a blog post and little
did I know it would be for the website Debunking Christianity!! I find
this to be completely hilarious as I am not in of myself militantly
opposed to Christianity in of itself; I tend to dislike Evangelicals but
that is because I view them as hypocritical and blatantly power hungry
but of course this description would not apply to all Christians. As
probably the readers of this post have deduced by now I am not a
Christian, but I am also not an atheist either. I tend to be rather
eclectic in my views. I fancy myself to be broad minded and open to
change.
I am a schoolteacher by profession, and I have taught both social
studies and science at the high school level. I have dual degrees in
both fields. In my not remotely enough spare time I enjoy reading
folklore, Medieval history, sociology, anthropology and other subjects.
Basically a lot of stuff. Over the years I have heard the
Christian argument for the physical resurrection of Jesus and at one
time I found this argument to be convincing, but more and more for many
varied reasons I became rather skeptical of it.
None of this explains though, how this essay came about! Nothing
remarkable about it really. I was scrolling through Facebook and I saw
John Loftus’s profile. In discussion with him I mentioned that one could
use the resurrection argument to demonstrate the existence of vampires
and I showed him a response I wrote to a friend of mine on this.
John asked me to do a write up
for him.
So here is a write up I never seriously figured I would write up on a
blog, one that I never suspected I would write for. So I hope everyone enjoys
it. So without further ado, here is my attempt to show that the
Christian argument for the resurrection of Jesus would also demonstrate
vampires exist. I will leave it up to you dear readers to determine if
Jesus rose from the dead and if you need to invest in crucifixes and
garlics now; or that perhaps claims of the dead returning bodily just
should not be given the benefit of the doubt. You decide.
I am a follower of John Smith at Facebook, who writes some very good provocative stuff. This Facebook post of his to the left provokes some thought too. He suggests a few works he considers to be the best defenses of atheism. They are all sophisticated philosophical treatises.
Sure, I'm a gadfly, but there are people who think the best atheist arguments come from atheist philosophers. Who or what is the source of this ignorance? Where does it come from? I think it comes from Christian philosophers themselves, because it can and does serve as a red herring leading people away from some powerful atheist arguments.
When I show up and offer a different perspective they treat me with a touch of tribalism, and/or they ignore me. It doesn't have to be that way. There is room for all types of argumentation from Biblical/Religious scholars and especially scientists.
Alex Pinkney graded philosophical arguments, since apparently, he considers them the best that atheists have to offer. He wrote:
McArdle has a YouTube channel and sends out several emails a week, like this:
One thing that I like about John Loftus is that even though he has a PhD in philosophy, he refuses to join apologists in the Philosophical weeds. The Christian god, exists just above our head, sniffs animal carcases and impregnates virgins. As Stavrakapoulou puts it in Anatomy, the Christian god has hands, feet, a penis etc. Loftus sticks with the specific theism. Pine Creek Doug does this also. In that philosophical locking of horns betwixt Michael Jones-town and Phil talk, my head was spinning. My mind was trying to keep track of all of these invisible abstractions: "agents" "minds" "predicates" etc. And in my view, this is a deliberate apologetic ploy.
Yahweh is a carcase-sniffing tribal god with a massive cock. In Ezekiel, we are told that god has a glorious fiery penis. Retreating to all of this highfalutin philosophical talk is simply a red herring.
Even a casual reading of the Ten Commandments (either Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5) should make anyone skeptical that a supposedly good, competent god had anything to do with it. Here was this god’s big opportunity—alone with Moses on the mountaintop—to let humanity know the best moral principles to follow. Many ethicists have noticed three crucial items that are missing: (1) Thou shalt not engage in warfare; (2) Thou shalt not enslave other human beings; (3) Thou shalt not mistreat or undervalue other human beings because of the color of their skin. These omissions are surely an indication of defective, indeed bad theology.
Slavery and racism have brought so much pain and suffering to the world. But war has been, by far, the greatest destroyer, especially as weapons have become more and more advanced—very smart people have been hired by military leaders to create devastating killing machines. This prompts us to doubt, on another level entirely, that a good god was involved in the creation of humans.
The Parable of the Mysterious Witness by John C. Wathey:
This fictitious story begins with a sexual predator who has been stalking a family, watching their house. His eye is on the young daughter. He has studied her habits and those of her parents long enough. He decides to attack. So he enters her room through the window, silences the frantic child with duct tape, and carries her to his car. The predator reaches a wooded area and drags the struggling girl with her muffled screams into the woods, where he brutally beats her, rapes her, and buries her alive in a shallow grave. The predator then drives away.
Shockingly there was a mysterious witness watching him, an undercover policeman. Although he carries a gun he did not intervene. Although he has a police radio he did not call for assistance. He simply watched it all take place then drove home, leaving the girl to suffocate to death. Even more shocking we’re told the policeman is the girl’s father, and that he dearly loves her!
“The crime of this sexual predator must surely be among the most despicable imaginable. Yet I expect most readers of this story are even more appalled at the behavior of the mysterious witness. How can one possibly rationalize his utter failure to rescue this poor little girl, his own daughter? And yet, for the believer in the omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent personal god, every horrendous act of evil in the world, every natural disaster, every injury, illness, and genetic defect that causes senseless suffering has just such a mysterious witness: God himself. [John C. Wathey, The Illusion of God’s Presence: The Biological Origins of Religious Longing (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2016), pp. 38-39.]
Other words come to mind as well: indifferent, complacent, gullible. Quite bluntly: There is a lack of curiosity. If the church says that the Bible was inspired by a god, isn’t that good enough? In fact, it is one of the great ironies in the ongoing debate between believers and atheists that the Bible is one of Christianity’s biggest embarrassments. Atheists—anyone outside the faith, for that matter—can point to countless passages in the Bible and ask, “Is that really the god you believe in? Why do you follow/adore/worship Jesus when so much of his advice in the gospels is so bad?” Professional Christian apologists work very hard to make the Bible look good—make it look like it came from a divine author. But the huge problem is that so much of the good book is just awful.
The traditional argument from evil claimed that God
was incompatible with any amount of suffering, for God could, and would want
to, prevent every instance of it. Most philosophers nowadays regard that as too
strong. A certain amount of suffering might be allowed by God, provided there
is a morally sufficient reason for his allowing it—provided, in other words,
the suffering serves some greater purpose or is the unavoidable consequence of
something that justifies its existence. For instance, it may be that our having
free will is a great good which more than compensates for any evil actions
resulting from that freedom. Or it may be that certain types of suffering are
the only way to bring about something of immense value. As an example of the
latter, it is possible that in order to freely develop into the sort of beings
that God wants us to become, we must first overcome certain challenges—and
these may include disappointments, feelings of frustration, and other
experiences we would prefer not going through. (As some theists put it, God’s intention
was not to create a paradise in which to keep us perfectly happy, but to create
a place where we can grow and develop into persons worthy of spending eternity
with him.) It is also possible that an instance of suffering today is the least
terrible means of preventing a far greater amount of suffering at some future
date. Each of these, as well as several other possibilities that will be
discussed below, provides a conceivable explanation for at least some of the
bad things that happen in this world.
But
even if God is not incompatible with all suffering, he is incompatible with
suffering that cannot be justified by some outweighing benefit. Such suffering
would be senseless or gratuitous, and if we are to take seriously the claim
that God is perfectly good as well as all-powerful and all-knowing, we cannot suppose
that he would let someone suffer without reason. If one has the ability to
prevent such pointless suffering, yet fails to do so, one cannot be considered
morally perfect. It follows that there can either be a God, or there can be
senseless suffering, but not both. This leads to a very simple argument in
support of atheism:
Observers agree that many churches across Europe and North America are bleeding members, struggling financially, and are increasingly faced with the choice to close or merge to stay afloat. At the same time, sociologists of religion have noted a clear trend: the center of Christian belief is steadily shifting to the global South. As Christianity withers in Europe and its former colonies in the northern hemisphere, a New Christendom is springing up in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. Its brand of Christianity is Pentecostalism.
