Debunking Christianity

Delusional on a Grand Scale: Assessing The Inner Witness of the Spirit

2012-02-04T01:28:00.018-05:00

William Lane Craig claims the inner witness of the Spirit "trumps all other evidence." It is "an intrinsic defeater-defeater" for anyone who experiences to it. So even if I don't have that witness, and even if I don't like the idea of such a witness, I'm in no position to judge that he does not possess it. Craig claims this inner witness provides all the evidence he needs to know Jesus personally and that Jesus is his savior. This witness is sufficient for him. It defeats any evidence to the contrary as utterly irrelevant. But this is delusional on a grand scale. How do you convince a delusional person like this? I probably can't. That's the power of a delusion like this. So for people not impervious to reason let me speak to them. What Craig is doing is sophistry plain and simple. He's describing a subjective experience and claiming it's an objective veridical experience that defeats all other objective evidence. Now it's one thing to say a subjective experience is to be considered objective evidence, as delusional as that is. It's another thing entirely to say a subjective experience carries more weight than all objective evidence. People wonder why I call Christians delusional. You need not wonder any more.

To see that it as a mere non-veridical subjective experience all we need to do is consider the wide number of people around the world who claim to have it. Just consider people who say they are Jesus. Will the real Jesus please stand up? Watch these two videos:

Alan Miller claims to be Jesus:

Jose de Miranda claims to be Jesus:

Watch Jose de Miranda on Youtube.

Both Miller and de Miranda would claim to personally know that they are Jesus, as do their followers. This knowing of theirs would trump all other evidence. It also would be an intrinsic defeater-defeater for anyone who experiences it. They think that even if I don't have that experience and even if I don't like the idea of such an experience, I'm in no position to judge that they don't possess it. They would say this personal experience of theirs provides all the evidence they need. It too is sufficient for them. It defeats any evidence to the contrary as utterly irrelevant.

Now really? How many of these claims do we need to put side-by-side to see them as delusional? There are many people who have claimed to be Jesus.

articulett chimes in on this:

Yeah, and you are in no position to know if the 9-11 hijackers are in paradise. Nor if missing children are being eaten by aliens. Nor if a real Santa exists. You are in no position to know if Bigfoot is real or if we are in a matrix or if any schizophrenic delusions are based on real invisible beings. However, intelligent people are intelligent about the assessing the probable truth value of such claims. We can also understand that lots of people imagine they know things when they are, in fact, wrong.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Alan Miller believes he IS Jesus... why should Craig's "witness" be more compelling to anyone interested in the truth than this guy?

No really, why?

If you are a Christian and you really think this inner witness is an objective veridical experience then you need to watch the worship services of believers around the world seen right here. If the people in those videos are delusional then why aren't you?

No really. Why aren't you?

Richard Carrier On The Eclipse of the Sun At The Death of Jesus

2012-02-03T07:50:00.017-05:00

I've received an uncorrected advance reading copy of Richard Carrier's book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. I'll say more about it later after I've finished reading it. But he highlights a serious problem for inerrantists that I'd like to share. In chapter three he evaluates the claim of the gospels that at the death of Jesus "there was darkness over the whole world from the sixth hour until the ninth" (Mark 15:33; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44-45). If it was meant to be taken literally per Luke, who claims it was an eclipse of the sun ("...for the sun stopped shining"), it could not have happened.

Why? Because a three hour eclipse over the whole world is scientifically impossible. They only last a few minutes, not three hours. They do not cover the whole earth at the same time either, since they only cover parts of it as earth revolves. An eclipse additionally could not have occurred during the Passover, for the Passover was always celebrated during the full moon. This means the moon was on the opposite side of the earth from the sun at that time. Lastly, the entire world at the time had its astrologer/astronomers and not one of them mentioned it. Carrier writes, "This is a slam dunk argument...establishing beyond any reasonable doubt the non-historicity of this solar event."

"Why We Must Treat the Bible No Differently Than Any Other Book" By Biblical Scholar James A. Metzger

2012-02-02T10:21:00.004-05:00

...many theologians and biblical scholars continue to speak of the Christian God in only the most sterling manner: as, for instance, all-loving, just, infinitely wise, and inexhaustibly merciful. But this is not the God of the Bible – not even close. If that were the God of the Bible, I would retain little respect for its authors, who would have proven themselves far more interested in promoting a fiction they liked than in bearing witness to the terrible, unpredictable Power they felt best accounted for (often unseemly) facts on the ground. There’s just no way that the omnibenevolent, all-wise Sovereign of traditional Christianity created and presides over this place. No, if there’s a God at all, he’s likely just the sort we find in the Bible – magnanimous and cruel, loving and spiteful, noble and base, impulsive and deliberate, intelligent and incompetent, responsible and spectacularly negligent. A little like us, in fact, but with a lot more power. Link

"On Visions and Resurrections" by Gary J. Whittenberger

2012-02-02T10:19:00.002-05:00

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the hallucination hypothesis is a plausible explanation of the post-crucifixion “appearances” of Jesus, and to defend it against some of the current criticisms of Christian apologists. Link

The Empty Rhetoric of Christian Apologists

2012-02-01T06:52:00.008-05:00

Previously I described several deceptive apologetic strategies. I want to highlight one more: The use of empty rhetoric utterly lacking in substance.

Christian apologists will write peer reviewed articles defending Pascal's Wager. Given Pascal's premises his argument basically works. In order to see how it works you have to grant that reason cannot decide between two options. The two options for Pascal were non-belief and a Catholicism where nonbelievers risk an eternal punishment in hell for their nonbelief. Given these two options it would be better to believe.

This goes for William James's argument as well. If we're facing a forced option between two live options, nonbelief and the religious hypothesis, and there is no other way to know whether the religious hypothesis is true except by meeting that hypothesis halfway, then we should meet that hypothesis halfway. Doing so means placing oneself in the position of expecting to experience God.

The major, obvious, undeniable, clear as day, staring them in the face problem is that THERE ARE NOT JUST TWO OPTIONS. There are other problems with their premises, not the least of which is that reason and modern science can decide between them, of course. But continuing to defend Pascal and James is pure rhetoric without any substance at all. Defending them makes for a Pyrrhic victory, one which causes just about as much damage to their own faith as to the position it is victorious over.

To see this all we need to do is imagine two other options, non-belief and Islam. Their arguments would cause people who were raised in other religious cultures to embrace the religious prejudices of those cultures. Another way to see this is understanding how people adopt their religion in the first place. To date I have never heard of one evangelical Christian who will admit what is obvious, that how they adopt their religious faith is just like how others do it, based on their own idiosyncratic cultural religious prejudices.

Apologists are not living in the real world, the world of a myriad number of religious and non-religious choices. What, really, do they live in a cave or something? Sorry to be abrasive but they are deluded to think their points have any weight at all in the world we actually live in. To continue defending Pascal or James when their arguments do not apply to the real world of choices is, well, stupid. Yes, Pascal and James were basically right given their premises. So what? Don't be stupid!

The reason I bring this additional deceptive strategy up is because Christian apologist David Marshall continues to spout off that there is one God who can be seen in every religion. I had asked him who answers prayers? His response:

Who answers prayer? God, of course. That's "Bog" in Russian, "Dieu" in French, "Shang Di" in Chinese (also other names), and "Allah" in Arabic.

Now if you read the link I provided he did not attempt to answer the difficulties inherent in saying this. He responded with rhetoric, empty rhetoric, that is utterly lacking in substance.

There are other problems with his rhetoric. As an evangelical Marshall does not think God through Allah authorized Mohammad to be his prophet, for Marshall would say God's prophetic word through Mohammad contains obvious errors. God through Mohammad wants Muslims to kill Jews while the God of the Old Testament called Jews his chosen ones and granted them Palestine as an eternal possession. God through Mohammad said Jesus did not die on the cross while God in the New Testament said he died and that he arose from the dead.

Allah and Yahweh are not the same conceptions of God unless the real God is neither of them and above them both.

Marshall grants this, rhetorically, of course, for he says:

Everyone has a conception of God, but all theists recognize that our conceptions of God are less than the reality...

But again, this too is empty rhetoric, for in his books he basically defends an evangelical conception of God. He is not a pluralist like John Hick, you see. He wants to appear to be a rational level-headed believer and this means making these kinds of rhetorically empty statements. The reality is that Marshall is an evangelical standing in the tradition of evangelicalism. As a world traveler he instinctively knows evangelicalism is dead in the water, so he resorts to using empty rhetoric to appear reasonable, or at least, that's what it looks like to me.

Marshall claims that God is Allah is Yahweh is ______ (fill in the deity of your choice) and that this represents the best of the deities believed by the world religions. But he lands squarely in the evangelical camp. What then becomes of his claim that God is Allah is Yahweh is ______ (fill in the deity of your choice)? Nothing of substance at all!

No wonder I maintain that defending the Christian faith makes an otherwise intelligent person look stupid. That's because these Christian apologists are emotionally engaged much like romantic love is blind.

-------
If you like what I do please consider donating if you can, so I can continue.

Dr. Avalos challenges the claim that our country was founded as a "Christian nation."

2012-02-01T06:34:00.005-05:00

Dr. Avalos has a guest editorial in politically-influential The Des Moines Register that challenges this claim put forth by a previous letter. Read Hector's response right here. He's right! But even if he is wrong, which he is not, there is no going back in time. Many Christians themselves support a secular government, and for good reasons.

Julian Haydon Writes to His Nephew

2012-02-01T06:27:00.004-05:00

You have probably never heard of Julian but he is one of the unsung heroes among skeptics. Here we see him writing his nephew on Adam's supposed free choice in the garden.

By Julian Haydon:

Consider all that has gone into making you, you up to this time.

Your body and its state of health.
Your brain, of course.
Throw in soul, if that pleases you.
All of your past experiences.
All that you were ever taught.
All that you have ever read.
All your inter-actions with other people, ever: parents, Doug, me, your various wives, friends, priests, etc, etc.
All that you ever did.
All that was ever done to you.
All that you once believed that you no longer believe.
E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G without exception.

And then consider, how and to what extent all that is available to you through memory.

If you remembered nothing of all this, how could you still be you, except in body, brain and, of course, soul?

Now, consider Adam.

What did he have that made him, him?

Brain, body and soul - 1, 2 and 3.

What else?

What of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11?

If he had anything else where did he get it? Of what could it possibly consist? Anything at all that might bear on his inclination to obey or disobey a voice with whom he had no experience?

How could he have had any capacity to know God was speaking to him, understand what God said, who God was, why he should believe God's command or have any comprehension at all of the dire consequences of disobedience?

How can you possibly believe God created Adam in a flash, that he was the first human being and yet he had nothing of 4 - 11?

Any child would ask.

Why should you not wonder about these questions? If the Adam story is true, there must be answers.

O, yes. "God works in mysterious ways."

Not Even an Omniscient God Could Convince Me That I Willfully Reject Christianity Against the Overwhelming Evidence

2012-01-31T21:20:00.019-05:00

I cannot conceive of an omniscient God being able to do this given all that I know about Christianity, the Bible, theology, philosophy, science, and the history of the church. For God to do this he would have to re-create this universe and basically rewrite history itself. But what is done is done. If however, it takes omniscience (or near omniscience) to show the Christian faith is true, then God should also know that without it I could not think otherwise. I might be wrong. But not even an omniscient God can show me that I willfully reject Christianity against the overwhelming evidence given that I am not omniscient and given what I find in this world. What the evidence leads me to think is that the Christian faith is wildly improbable.

There is No Hell! There is No Satan! There Is Nothing Here To Worry About!

2012-01-31T16:23:00.003-05:00

It's like evangelicals never open a book by a biblical scholar. Please become informed, please. Stop reading only those texts that agree with your views. Expand your horizons.

Read Dr. Alan E. Bernstein's Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds.

Read Dr. T.J. Wray and Dr. Gregory Mobley's The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots.

Christianity: Where Emotions Rule and All the Rules of Logic Don't Apply

2012-01-31T04:50:00.024-05:00

I think it can be demonstrated that when people are emotionally engaged they do not think or argue well at all. That's why it is said that "love is blind." Romantically involved couples do not see the faults in their lovers that others see. Likewise, when people are angry with someone there is literally nothing good that person can do. Emotions get in the way of sound reasoning. This can be seen everywhere we look. When people are experiencing a great amount of stress they are told not to make any important decisions. The reason is clear. Because they probably won't make good ones. When people have an emotional commitment to some sort of project they will continue pursuing it even after it has been shown to be a failure. That's why successful businesses need "new blood" with "new ideas" every so often.

I have argued that defending Christianity makes otherwise intelligent people look stupid. This is why. Christianity is where emotions rule and "all the rules of logic don't apply" (a reference to Bob Seger's song Chances Are). Believers think they have a personal relationship with Jesus. They are emotionally engaged in the same way as the examples above illustrate of the human condition. They cannot think or reason well at all.

Christians just cannot see this, I know. They will continue arguing despite what I've just pointed out. That's what we would expect. They will pull out an obviously fallacious argument in response. They will say atheists cannot reason well because we are emotionally engaged too. We hate God, ya see. We prefer to sin. Yada yada yada.

This "you too" kind of argument fails miserably but believers can't see it because they are emotionally engaged. The reason it fails is that there are too many "you's" to "too." Believers would have to say this about anyone who disagrees with them, not just atheists. If they are evangelicals (my target audience) this "you tooing" has to apply to moderates and liberals within their own faith. If they oppose Catholicism, this has to apply to Catholics too, and vice versa. And it applies to all other "hell-bound" sects and religions. Again for emphasis, there are too many "you's" to "too."

Believers in these other "hell-bound" religions argue the same way against Christians. That's the amazing thing; the predictable thing. Muslims will claim Christians hate Allah, that they love to sin rather than follow the Koran. Yada yada yada.

Atheists, however, do not single evangelical Christianity out for rejection. Therefore it cannot be said we hate the evangelical God or that we don't want to obey the evangelical God's commands. Nor do we single out for rejection any other God, god, or goddesses for rejection. We merely think none of these religions with their various gods and commands have any more warrant for them than others, since they are all based upon faith. When faith rules it follows that all the rules of logic don't apply. Faith does to logic the same thing that romantic love or anger does to people. It makes emotions rule.

-------
If you like what I do please consider donating if you can, so I can continue.

The Christian Delusion is Never More Apparent

2012-01-30T20:49:00.005-05:00

Just once--once mind you--I'd like to see just one believer, only one, who will say, "Hey, I'm like most people. What I believe is based on my cultural prejudices just like most everyone else." I have never heard one believer admit this, not one, even though in a scientific poll Michael Shermer found that 9 out of 10 people say that other people adopt their religious faith because of cultural influences and emotional reasons. Every single one of them claims to be the exception to the rule, to a person.

William Lane Craig: "No Amount of Evidence or Reasoning Could Convince Me I'm Wrong"

2012-01-30T05:31:00.022-05:00

Essentially this is what Bill Craig says in his regular Q&A (Question 244). Just think what the strongest objective evidence against the evangelical belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus would be, if found. It would be the bones of Jesus, that is, DNA evidence. Craig admits that if the bones of Jesus were found it would falsify his faith, but this is an utterly empty admission, pure rhetoric without any substance at all. For Craig claims that even in the face of this strong objective evidence he would still believe Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. Why? Because for him, the subjective "witness of the Holy Spirit is an intrinsic defeater-defeater for anyone who attends to it." He even predicts "we can be confident that no such discovery will ever be made because we have the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit that Jesus is risen." That is, "given the witness of the Spirit, no such evidence could be forthcoming." Who in their right mind would ever predict what evidence can be found based solely on a subjective experience?

So I got to thinking what he would do if we actually have in our possession the holy foreskin as a way to test the bones we found and there was a DNA match. Here's my scenario:

Let's say we discovered an authentic letter from Pilate saying that Jesus was crucified and that he ordered his guards to take the body of Jesus to Rome for safe-keeping to prove the Christ cult was a hoax. Let's say we also discovered an authentic letter signed by several of the twelve disciples recanting their faith as based on a hoax. These two letters were found independently in different places at different times and dated to the first century Palestine in contexts that could not allow any other conclusion than that they were probably authentic. Or, perhaps someone at the Vatican found these letters and smuggled them out for the world to see. Then let's further suppose we found still yet another authentic letter from the Roman guards at the cross who said they took his body back to Rome, per Pilate's order, to prove the Christian claims were false, even telling us where his bones were buried. Then using this letter archaeologists found his bones exactly where it said they would, with another authenticated letter saying, “These are the bones of Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified under Pilate. He is not risen from the dead. The Christian cult is a lie.” Then we did a DNA test on these bones with the holy foreskin and it was a match.

Can you now see how delusional Bill's position is? Sure, we'll never have this kind of evidence, I understand that. But that would miss the point. For Bill Craig has gone on record basically saying no amount of evidence could convince him he's wrong and that's not only delusional but ignorant on a grand scale. Delusions make otherwise intelligent people stupid.

So Pastor Gene Cook Jr. comes along who had a podcast called Unchained Radio. On my Facebook page he said: "Now if Craig had his apologetics right he should have said 'the concept of evidence presupposes the God of the Bible.'"

That statement is probably even MORE delusional! You see, he is a presuppositionalist. So I responded to Gene like this:

Biblical scholars themselves admit that the God of the Bible is a warlike tribal God who's throne was in the sky. How does that kind of God square with yours? Nonetheless, you have to show that your different conception of God has more evidence to it. To argue your God is the foundation for evidence and then say the evidence supports your conception of God without actually looking at the evidence to see if it does in fact support your conception of God is delusional on a grand scale.

When I say that defending Christianity makes otherwise intelligent people look dumb this is exactly what I'm talking about. No wonder many skeptics have decided it's no use to argue with Christians as deluded as this, and gone to ridiculing them and their faith. Given such idiocy, it's a temptation that's hard to resist.

What evidence does Craig have for the inner witness of the Spirit? What is it? He has a few contested Bible verses, some contested philosophical arguments, and a subjective feeling that he knows God personally. His claim is that the inner witness is an "intrinsic defeater-defeater" for all other evidence so therefore it follows that even if he cannot adequately defend this inner witness from arguments to the contrary he still has it. No amount of evidence or reasoning could convince him he's wrong. Even if I could show him there is no reason to accept the Bible verses and even if I could show him the philosophical arguments don't work he would still claim he has this inner witness to the truth of what he believes. In the end all he has is subjective experience, which is easily countered by the subjective experiences of other believers around the globe and can therefore be easily discounted. This is why I have argued he not only begs the question, his position is tantamount to empistemological solipsism, a dead ended, closed eyes, with fingers in his ears approach to the evidence.

I have repeatedly challenged Craig to respond to my proposed question about the supposed inner witness of the Holy Spirit, which I first submitted to him on October 19th, 2007, and did so again today. So far he has not written on it yet:

My question is this one: Would you please specify the propositional content of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? Plantinga calls the content "the great things of the gospel", and includes the idea that "God exists", "God has forgiven and accepted me", or "God is the author of the Bible." You claim this content assures Christians that they are children of God. But such a notion echoes the poet whom Paul quoted who said, "we are his offspring." (Acts 17:28) You are surely arguing that the inner witness of the third person of the trinity contains more propositional content than that. Shouldn't this witness be more specific about what is meant to be a "child" of the kind of "God" one believes in, how one becomes a child of this God, where one can learn additional information about this God, what he must think of the authority of that source of information, and how he can best interpret it? For instance, to say "God exists" does not say anything about the attributes of this God, and might even be consistent with panentheism. To say "God is the author of the Bible" doesn't say what a believer should think about the specific nature of the Bible, or how to best interpret it.

Until he responds adequately I will continue to call him an epistemological solipsist.

Nothing personal Bill, but this inner witness argument of yours deserves a reserved place in a circus under the big tent! Most professing Christians think it's an oddity, including your own mentor Norman Geisler, so why would you expect anyone else to think differently? Give it up.

Although I defend Bill Craig against the charges that he is insincere, evil, irrational, and lying for Jesus, he is delusional on a grand scale. No wonder he doesn't want to debate me. ;-)

Michael Licona Refuses to Debate Me

2012-01-29T08:28:00.021-05:00

Michael Licona is a Christian friend of mine. I have met Mike and had pleasant conversations with him. He moderated the debate I had with David Wood on whether God exists, seen here. The first time I met him was at the 2009 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting where I was on a panel discussing Bill Maher's movie Religulous. My talk can be read here.

Michael Licona's scholarly expertise is on the resurrection of Jesus where he wrote a massive book on the topic.

But he refuses to debate me on the resurrection.

Here is our recent email exchange:

John: Hi Mike, I was wondering if you would like to debate me on the resurrection.

Mike: Thanks, John. But I'll pass.

John: For what reason(s)?

[Crickets chirping]

My purpose in this post is to inquire as to his reasons since he offers none. No one can answer for him. Only he can really respond.

Surely he doesn't fear me. Surely as a debater Mike doesn't think he'll have trouble trouncing me on a topic of his expertise. After all he's debated Bart Ehrman, Stephen Patterson, Elaine Pagels and my friends Richard Carrier and Dan Barker on this same topic.

But like his good friend William Lane Craig before him, Mike refuses to debate me. Again, I'm being singled out, first by Craig and now by Licona.

Keep in mind Mike Licona cannot say I don't have the credentials to debate him, for he debated Steve Yothment, president of the Atlanta Freethought Society, who apparently does not have any scholarly expertise in the arguments against the resurrection, and he debated Shane Puckett, who likewise has no scholarly expertise in these arguments. [No offense Steve or Shane].

Perhaps Craig and Licona will change their minds, I don't know. It doesn't much matter to me though, since so long as they refuse I can point out something important. They both fear me. They do not fear the debate itself. They fear introducing me to a wider audience. That's what I think. There is no other consistent non-hypocritical reason for their refusal to debate me. At least Dr. Randal Rauser isn't afraid of me, since he and I finished co-writing a book to be published this year by Baker Books, a major Christian publisher, titled God or Godless.

Hey Mike, why won't you debate me? I think you're even scared of providing reasons for your refusal, because none of your reasons will stand up to scrutiny.

In the meantime, Licona can try to answer several of the things I've written about his arguments:

Michael Licona's Book is Delusional on a Grand Scale.

Assessing The Minimal Facts Approach of Habermas, Licona, and Craig.

Does a Religious Context Increase the Odds of a Miracle?

Here's some music while we wait.

;-)

The 2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards for Agnosticism / Atheism

2012-01-28T08:32:00.007-05:00

You can nominate your favorite book, blog, podcast, community, Ad and so forth, until February 15th, right here. Then you can vote for your favorites from February 22nd until March 21st. Winners will be announced March 30, 2012. My anthology The Christian Delusion won last year. With the publication in 2011 of The End of Christianity I'm hoping it could win this year. Nominate away. The more nominations it gets the better chance it will be selected for the voting that follows.

How to Win Friends and Influence People to Atheism

2012-01-28T07:58:00.011-05:00

I have said that I try to persuade believers by overwhelming them with a plethora of arguments, and I am vilified for it. But given the fact that believers must be convinced their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, this is what their faith forces me to do if I want to convince them they are wrong. You see, I know a lot more than I can tell. Based on everything I know, I know Christianity is a delusion. The only thing left to do at that point is to convince Christians they are wrong. And they are. In the September/October 2009 issue of American Atheist (pp. 18-20) David Eller argues this is what Christians have been doing on behalf of their faith. They seek to persuade. And they have been doing it a lot longer than atheists. I've just learned from what they are already doing.

How to Win Friends and Influence People to Atheism, by David Eller

In 1957 William Sargant published Battle for the Mind, on the current understanding of techniques for “indoctrination, brainwashing, and thought control.” Twenty years earlier, Dale Carnegie offered advice on How to Win Friends and Influence People. Since then we have learned a great deal more about how beliefs and attitudes are formed and changed—and theists at least have put these methods into practice, long before the 20th century. They fully appreciate that religion is not a matter of argumentation and certainly not a matter of constructing convincing cases. It is, rather, literally a battle for the mind, as numerous Christian websites clearly illustrate: “The Battle for Your Mind” (http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/vt/vt05/mind.htm), “The Battle of the Mind” (http://www.sw-mins.org/battle_of_the_mind.html), “The Battle in Your Mind” (http://www.joycemeyer.org/OurMinistries/EverydayAnswers/The+Battle+In+Your+Mind/default.htm), “The Battle for the Mind” (http://www.hissheep.org/deliverance/the_battle_for_the_mind.html), and “The Battle of the Mind” (http://www.erwm.com/AntonBoschBattle.htm) to name but a few. Apparently, we atheists are in a battle for the mind, whether we fully know it or not, and that reality calls for a new orientation as well as new tactics.

As rationalists, we value facts and logic and we expect everyone else to respect them. However, all of the research into belief/attitude change indicates that facts and logic are not the decisive elements in bringing people around to a new way of thinking. We love to argue, and we think that arguing is effective, but experience supports the conclusion of Carnegie: “You can’t win an argument.” Instead, “Nine times out of ten, argument ends with each of the contestants more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right.” While we do not have to follow all of Carnegie’s suggestions, we must take seriously the possibility that our current approach is not the best approach—if, that is, we want to actually change people to our way of thinking on the god-question and not merely entertain ourselves with our cleverness and outrage ourselves with the purported stubbornness and stupidity of our opponents. In a word, we need to learn what works and apply it, to treat the theist/atheist encounter as an exercise in applied psychology, of persuasion, of influence.

Atheists are obliged to educate themselves on the most successful techniques of attitude-change, what Robert Cialdini in his book Influence: Science and Practice calls “compliance tactics” or “weapons of automatic influence.” I can hear many atheists objecting already, complaining that persuasion or influence is beneath them, even dishonest, akin to advertising or indoctrination. Indeed, the techniques that Sargant, Carnegie, Cialdini, and many others advocate are akin to advertising, but that is beside the point: they work. We can be noble and unsuccessful, and wallow in our frustration that people don’t get our finely-crafted arguments, or we can be practical and successful. I assure you that, despite all their high-minded rhetoric, theists employ all of the possible tactics of influence and reap the rewards thereof. In the battle for the mind, atheists have so far been unarmed and disorganized, and our results speak for themselves.

Accordingly, in this short article I want to share Cialdini’s six-part plan for effective attitude change. His and all such analyses start from the same premises: first, the human mind functions in specific ways that make some approaches effectual and other approaches ineffectual (and frankly, it is stupid to persist in ineffectual methods), and second, people tend to think and act along what Cialdini calls “fixed action patterns.” This “automatic, stereotyped behavior is prevalent in much of human action,” precisely because “in many cases, it is the most efficient form of behaving” (7). Fixed action patterns are “short cuts” of thought that frequently work well enough to get by. When they are supported by a power structure and an organized community, they are all the more powerful and unshakable.

Cialdini’s six tools to loosen people from their preconceived thought and action patterns and to lead them toward the ideas and behaviors that you want from them begin with reciprocation, give-and-take or exchanging favors. People are more likely to do or think what you want if you give them something first. Giving creates “a sense of future obligation” (20), making it difficult to refuse the supposedly generous giver. That is one reason why religions focus on doing “good works” or handing out free things like bibles: once someone has done a good turn for you, it is harder to deny their requests. Cialdini specifically mentions the Hare Krishna practice of distributing flowers; Christian theists offer everything from free soup to child care and marriage counseling. The point is to get people through the door and then to get them to feel some debt, which they repay with loyalty and increasing commitment.

The second tool, then, is commitment and consistency. “Once we make a choice or take a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment” (52). Getting people to commit themselves to any part of a position makes them more inclined to accept the rest. Getting them to commit verbally and in person is good; getting to them to commit in public and in writing is even better. Merely evoking a positive response (saying something nice about the group or position) without a full commitment is better than nothing. More subtle aspects of the technique include getting a general or small commitment and working up to a specific or large commitment. Commitment and consistency operate together, for “If I can get you to make a commitment (that is, to take a stand, to go on record), I will have set the stage for your automatic and ill-considered consistency with that earlier commitment” (59). This is why churches encourage people to come down to the altar, to introduce themselves to each other, to attend meetings regularly, to contribute financially to the group, or to perform extreme and demanding acts like tithing or attending sunrise services or undergoing physical and mental ordeals. Like a fraternity initiation or a boot camp, “the more effort that goes into a commitment, the greater is its ability to influence the attitudes of the person who made it” (73). Atheism’s much looser structure—making no demands on people, allowing them to come and go as they please, often letting them be anonymous and passive—results in weaker commitment to groups and to the cause.

Social proof is the third tool, which holds that “We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it” (99). People are persuaded by other people, not by facts—or, other people’s belief is a fact. “The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more a given individual will perceive the idea to be correct” (108-9). Here too religion has the edge, since they are in the majority, and they regularly encourage members to only consult other members as models for behavior. “Cults” with their own isolated compounds are only the most extreme version of a general religious tendency.

An obvious but important facet of influence is liking: people are more inclined to think and act like people whom they find pleasant and agreeable. Liking can be based on physical attractiveness, similarity with the target person, flattery, cooperation (hence the double value of reciprocity), familiarity, and positive associations between things (e.g. between getting free food from some group and feeling good about the group). Not for nothing do churches and many otherwise non-enjoyable activities feature lunches and potlucks and pizza parties. It would behoove atheists to be nice.

Fifth is authority, which has been demonstrated again and again. We are more likely to follow and to comply with people in authority, who have power and/of expertise. Humans are, as well as imitative, inherently obedient. And this authority could and should be symbolized with titles, official-looking clothing, and the other “trappings” of status and knowledge. This is why religions include elaborate robes or decorative altars or imposing architecture.

Finally, Cialdini mentions scarcity, because “opportunities seem more valuable to us when they are less available” (200). People are motivated when something is limited in supply and time, or when they are afraid of losing something they already have, or especially when something is in high demand. Religions of course often claim to be dealing in scarce goods, like salvation or remittance of sins. If there are more people than can get into heaven, the (alleged) fact inspires competition for the few remaining spaces.

Atheists will notice that theists have some distinct advantages in these areas: we are, among other things, a minority with few goodies (like eternal life) to offer. And some of these recommendations are easier to implement than others. But we are “at war with the exploiters” (233), in this case the religious exploiters, and we have no choice but to accept the challenge to fight the influence they have over people and to try to influence them to what is, happily, the correct, atheistic conclusion.

The Outsider Test for Faith is For People Who Really Want to Know the Truth

2012-01-28T06:32:00.006-05:00

The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is for people who really want to know if their faith is true. If they do, then it can be likened to a commitment to go on a diet. Just like a person who wants to lose weight so also the OTF demands the same kind of personal commitment. No one can make such a commitment for another person. But that's the first step. It takes resolve. It takes discipline to begin it and to consistently carry through with it.

And just like a diet where a friend can look at the lack of commitment to it (like when eating the wrong foods or the lack of exercise), so also a skeptical friend can look at the lack of commitment when taking the OTF (like when punting to faith rather than seriously wrestling with the issues involved, or not assuming the burden of proof at every juncture along the way).

So if Christians (or any other believers) want to know whether their faith is true they should welcome the input of skeptical friends who will argue they are not being consistent in their commitment to the OTF. And believers would not rely on sound bites or blog posts but delve deeply into the literature of those who disagree, such as I've provided here.

I am sure that a consistent commitment to taking the OTF will lead Christian believers to reject their faith. And that's what I would argue. Whether my arguments succeed or not really depends on a believer's commitment to know the truth. That's my informed opinion even if I cannot convince believers that this is the case. Unlike a person who doesn't lose weight from a lack of commitment to a diet, there is nothing empirical I can really point out to show believers they lack a commitment to the OTF. But I can try.

So again, the OTF is for people who really want to know if their faith is true. It provides the only non-double standard for assessing the truth or falsity of their faith. Skeptical friends who look on can help assess whether believers are seriously committed to doing this, and believers who really want to know the truth will welcome our input.

It's Possible God Exists Even Though All Life Has Evolved

2012-01-27T07:35:00.011-05:00

The implications of evolution are enormous, as I have said before. But even though all life has evolved it's still possible for a supernatural force (or being) to exist. To see this all we need to do is look at what dog breeders do on a regular basis. They manipulate the breeding habits of their dogs to produce new breeds all of the time. In a like manner some kind of god could act like these dog breeders by manipulating the environment and breeding habits of the various species on earth to produce new ones. Doing so would not violate the evolutionary process. It would merely inject purposeful direction into it. I admit this. It's possible God exists even though all life has evolved. But how reasonable is it to suppose this scenario is the case? Not much. Let me discuss such a claim, and then open it up for more discussion.

I'm continually amazed at how often Christians hang their hats on mere possibilities, as I've argued before. Such a scenario is possible, but what we want to know is if it is probable. It's also possible that the Loch Ness Monster exists who escapes all of our attempts to detect it.

The first question we need to ask is where is the evidence for such a claim? Where is it? I don't see any God doing anything. Who does? Who needs evidence when one has faith, which is why I claim faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities. Faith punts to possibilities, that's all it can do. For if someone reached a conclusion based on good evidence that person doesn't need faith.

The second question is why, if a good omnipotent creator exists, he made the law of predation one of the centerpieces of his creative work? Evolution works through the survival of the fittest. Nature is red in tooth and claw. This evolutionary process has forced animals to kill or be killed. Sometimes they are even eaten while still alive. Nearly 99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct because the evolutionary process is extremely wasteful. This is surely not a good way for an omnipotent creator to create. If there is some supernatural force (or being) it is not the God of Christian theology. Let's have done with such a notion and place it into the dustbin of false and harmful ideas.

A third question is what it gains believers to say there is a supernatural force (or being), if that's all they can claim? That god is no different than no god at all. Such a force would be a distant god, and as such, an unnecessary hypothesis, irrelevant to life and our pursuit of knowledge and happiness. Why would we need such a god? He can safely be ignored.

A fourth question is where did this supernatural force (or being) come from? It doesn't explain anything to say it is a necessary being. That's what I call definitional apologetics. Perhaps the universe (or multiverse) is the necessary being. I see no reason to suppose it isn't.

In any case, while it's possible God exists it's such a slim possibility, given evolution, that the more reasonable position by far is that such an entity is an unnecessary hypothesis we can do without.

John Green is Now Writing for "the Other Team"

2012-01-27T05:52:00.006-05:00

John Green is a missionary pastor's son from a Pentecostal background who has written some things for Discipleship Journal and Wittenburg Door. Below is his brief story and an article he wrote on hell.

A couple of years ago, after being a Christian for 40 years, I started asking the hard questions I have avoided for years, and as a result I rejected the Bible as untrue, and my wife and daughter also left the faith as we talked and discussed. Of course, the usual story - we lost most of our friends and my siblings and parents for the most part don't accept that we left because of reason (we are under Satan's power of deception). Anyway, best decision we ever made, and we are loving life, much to the consternation of Christians who expected we would be miserable and suicidal. Ha ha.

Part of my 'therapy' has been putting down in writing, things that are irrational in Christianity. I don't have a blog at this point (maybe down the road) but I thought I'd send one of my articles your way, and if it is something you'd like to share on your blog, you can. I am interested in helping Christians see the flaws in their belief system, and in breaking through the mind games which keep them bound.

I'd like to get back in the saddle, for the other team, so to speak (although the Wittenberg Door used to be a great outlet for my frustrations with Christianity).

God Wants To Send People To Hell.
By J. M. Green

Christianity’s God wants to send people to hell. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

When it’s all said and done, if there is a Hell, and people are deep-frying in it, it is because God wanted it that way. If there is a sovereign, all-powerful ruler of the universe, then of course, he gets his way.

After all, according to Christianity, Hell was God’s invention – his workmanship.

He decides who goes there and why.

It is by his decree that Hell is an eternal fiery torture chamber. Compared to God, Hitler was minor league!

You see, God just hates it when people don’t do what he wants. He can’t stand it when they don’t love him. He’s not at all happy when the red carpet isn’t rolled out for him. He has his pride, after all, and the Good Book says that he is a jealous god.

In fact, he gets so incensed when people don’t love, worship, sing his praises, and generally grovel before him, that he would rather torment them in endless agony than allow them to choose their own path.

You might say his passion burns for you.

“But,” Christians say, “God doesn’t want anyone to go to Hell. He loves people. He originally made Hell for Satan and his demons. People only go there because they refuse his offer of salvation. They’ll be there because they choose to be. They hate God so much they would rather go to Hell than Heaven.”

C. S. Lewis even shamelessly proposed that the doors of Hell are locked from the inside.

Yeah, right…. And the Jewish inmates in Auschwitz were there because they wanted to be too.

Christians just love getting their God off the hook for his bad behavior.

They would rather live in denial than acknowledge what kind of a being their Bible reveals their God to be.

God-excusers are like the good ol’ boy who explains why his wife-beating buddy isn’t such a bad guy. “He doesn’t want to hurt her. It’s her own damn fault. She just doesn’t do what she’s told. She brings it on herself.”

The most basic of human instincts is to avoid pain and suffering. So, if there was a Hell, and people had a choice between being burnt alive forever, or playing along with God’s demands and going to a blissful Heaven, we know which they would choose (unless they are crazy).

Now, another excuse that you will hear is “But God must punish sin.”

Really?

Why?

Is God not free to choose otherwise? Is there some external standard or superior being to which God must answer to?

And with regard to sin, which God must punish, according to Christianity, the worst offense is insulting or rejecting God. After all, the one sin which will not be forgiven is ‘blaspheming the Holy Spirit.’ Not doing things his way is a big deal to the god of the Bible. He says “It’s my way, or the fryway.”

The Kingdom of Heaven bears a strong resemblance to Kim Jong (may the imaginary God not rest his imaginary soul) il’s North Korea: a multitude of people who were all devoted to praising and exalting their ruler, while blind to the fact that their suffering subsidized his pleasure. If you haven’t ever watched a documentary about North Korea, you really should. You will see many parallels with Christianity. Yes, the God of the Bible is a narcissistic dictator, on a cosmic scale.

According to the doctrine of ‘salvation by grace’ you can live your life treating your fellow human beings with love and kindness and still be deserving of Hell, simply because you did not believe in God, or accept his plan of salvation.

In other words, you can be Jeffrey Dauhmer, killer-cannibal, and if you say a salvation prayer in faith, you get an eternity of bliss. Conversely, if you were one of Dauhmer’s victims, and didn’t accept Jesus before Dauhmer killed and dined on you, guess what – you’re going to burn in Hell for eternity. God is next in line after the serial killer is done, and you better believe that being murdered is a trip to Disneyland, compared to what God is going to do to you - forever.

What’s that you say? It doesn’t seem just? Oh, but remember “God’s ways are not our ways” and “Who are you to judge God?” Don’t you know you are endangering your soul by asking these questions?

Some Christians are rightly troubled by Hell. They recognize that a ‘loving’ person, who builds a special torture chamber in his basement, and plans on using it, presents a bit of a problem.

And so, in some Christian circles, the idea of Hell is being revised and chipped away at, as believers try to shape a kinder, gentler religion.

Traditionalists fiercely resist this, perhaps sensing that without the leverage that this threat affords, their power to control will be diminished.

The sensitive Christians who want to banish Hell may want to point you to Jesus. “He is the true revelation of God’s love” they will claim, as if this somehow magically erases Yahweh’s violent mood swings and killing sprees from the Old Testament.

You may wish to remind them that this Jesus whom they view as the epitome of love, threatened hellfire for anyone who calls his brother a fool (Matt. 5:22). And in the final book of the New Testament, (the apocalyptic orgy which is called Revelation,) the Lamb - gentle Jesus - will have a ringside seat for the perpetual burning torment of his enemies, breathing in the smell of burning flesh (Rev. 14: 9-11). Seems like both Yahweh and Jesus share an affinity for burnt offerings.

The real reason why people are willing to risk Hell is that they simply don’t find the evidence compelling. They view Hell as an empty threat from an imaginary god. A barbaric relic of the primitive roots of Christianity, shamelessly borrowed from Egyptian and Persian mythology. Hell is the big stick that religion uses to threaten people into compliance - a manipulation technology.

The non-theist doesn’t worry about Hell any more than the average Christian worries about Zeus sending them to Tartaros for not worshiping him. Christians have no qualms about ignoring other gods. After all, Zeus is just one of many long-dead gods who litter the annals of history.

Pascal, in his flawed wager, assumes that there is only one god whom we bet our destiny against, if we choose not to believe. He was so enamored of his own religion that he failed to understand the stakes involve every god who has ever been worshipped.

Non-believers recognize superstition and manipulation when they see it.

Hell doesn’t scare them, but the fact that millions of people still believe in Hell might.

"My Christianity is Right"

2012-01-27T04:47:00.000-05:00

Romulus and Jesus Compared

2012-01-25T13:45:00.007-05:00

Richard C. Miller's "Mark's Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity," Journal of Biblical Literature, v. 129, no. 4 (2010) is a good read. According to Miller the story of an empty tomb as found in the earliest Gospel owes more to similar Hellenistic stories than Christian scholars have been wont to admit.

TABLE 1
THE TRANSLATIONS OF ROMULUS AND JESUS COMPARED

Mimetic Signal with References

1 Missing body.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.3-5; Matt
28:11-14; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:3;
John 20:2-10

2 Prodigies.
Livy 1.16.1; Ovid, Metam. 14.816-17;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7; Matt
27:51-54; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45

3 Darkness over the land.
Ovid, Metam. 14.816-22; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6;
Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7; Matt 27:45;
Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44

4 Mountaintop speech.
Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24; Matt 28:18-20

5 Great commission.
Livy 1.16.7; Ovid, Metam. 14.811, 815;
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Plutarch, Rom.
28.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant.
rom. 2.63.4; Matt 28:18-20

6 Ascension.
Livy 1.16.6; Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7; Luke 24:51;
Acts 1:9

7 Son of god.
Livy 1.16.3 Matt 27:54; Dionysius of
Halicarnas- sus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2; Mark
15:39; John 20:31

8 Meeting on the road.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4;
Luke 24:13-35; Acts 9:3-19

9 Eyewitness testimony .
Cicero, Resp. 2.10; Livy 1.16.1-8; Ovid,
Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch, Rom. 27-28;
Luke 24:35; 1 Cor 15:3-11

10 Taken away in a cloud.
Livy 1.16.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6; Acts 1:9

11 Dubious alternative accounts.
Livy 1.16.4-5; Plutarch, Rom. 27.5-6, 8;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; 2.63.3; Matt 28:11-14

12 Immortal/heavenly body.
Livy 1.16.8; Ovid, Metam. 14.818-28;
Plutarch, Rom. 28.6-8; 1 Cor 15:35-50;
1 Pet 3:18

13 Outside of the city.
Livy 1.16.1; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6; John 19:17

14 The people flee (populifugia).
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.5;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7; Matt (26:56);
28:8; Mark (14:50); 16:8

15 Deification.
Livy 1.16.3; Cicero, Resp. 2.10.20b; Ovid,
Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.56.5-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7;
28.3; Matt 27:54; Rom 1:4

16 Belief, homage, and rejoicing.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch,
Rom. 27.8; Matt 28:9, 17; Luke 24:41, 52; John 20:27

17 Bright and shining appearance.
Plutarch, Rom. 28.1-2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511;
Matt 17:2; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29; Acts 9:3; Rev 1:16

18 Frightened subjects.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Livy 1.16.2;
Plutarch,Rom. 28.2; Matt 28:5, 10; Mark
16:8; Luke 24:37-38

19 All in sorrow over loss.
Livy 1.16.2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511;
Plutarch, Rom. 28.2; Luke 24:18-24

20 Inspired message of translation
Plutarch, Rom. 28.3; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4

See link, pp. 759-776.

"Here it Comes" I'm Done With My Revised Book Files

2012-01-24T07:06:00.010-05:00

This clip from "The Wrath of Khan" expresses my thoughts as I ponder the impact of my revised book, Why I Became an Atheist, which I am now officially done editing.

No violence is intended here at all. It's purely metaphorical and a bit humorous even though we do battle with ideas. ;-)

It's rare when an atheist book makes it into a second edition, but mine did. It's better said and better argued, weighing in at 540 lbs (er, pages). In a few cases I've even changed my mind (don't ask). It's my magnum opus. It should be available by the end of March. Soon there will a link to it on the various online bookstores. Yes, there will be a Kindle version eventually, but when I cannot say. If you have the first Prometheus Books (PB) edition I think you will want this one since it is my last edition. I won't do this again. It's now good enough. I'm told they will be marketing it as a new book. PB is the premier atheist publisher of our generation and I'm happy to be a PB author. PB tells me they don't let their books go out of print so that's encouraging.

Christians will want to consider how best to deal with it, so here are some possibilities, or they can nitpick at it again.

My Top 25 Substantive Posts in 2011

2012-01-23T08:52:00.009-05:00

Here they are:

25) I Stand in the Gap

24) The Top Ten Misconceptions About Atheists

23) The Ten Marks of a Deluded Person

22) Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion

21) In Defense of Debates

20) Ten Ways How To Resist Preaching to the Choir

19) Science Based Explanations vs. Faith Based Explanations

18) Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable

17) The Danger of Belief is Thinking You Believe What God Does

16) The Problem of Miracles

15) Answering Once and For All The Christian Complaint That Skeptics Would Refuse to Believe No Matter What God Did

14) Who Answers Prayers?

13) An Omniscient God Solves All Problems and Makes Faith Unfalsifiable

12) How Christian Apologists Work

11) When Christians Criticize Each Other I Think They're All Right

10) A New and Better Pascal's Wager: If God Asked You to Wager Before Being Born What Would You Choose?

9) The Deuteronomist and King Josiah

8) The Outsider Test is Not Hard to Understand

7) Responding to Thomas Talbott: On Why I Think There is a Material World

6) Assessing The Minimal Facts Approach of Habermas, Licona, and Craig

5) Does a Religious Context Increase the Odds of a Miracle?

4) Michael Licona's Book is Delusional on a Grand Scale

3) William Lane Craig On Whether the Witness of the Spirit is Question-Begging

2) In Defense of William Lane Craig

1) Let's Recap Why William Lane Craig Refuses to Debate Me

That Which Disconfirms UFOs From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence

2012-01-23T03:22:00.008-05:00

In 1971 a NASA space orbiter named Mariner 9 discovered that the canals on Mars were illusory. This discovery strongly disconfirmed the claim that there was intelligent life on that planet. Before this discovery many people claimed they encountered Martians. Afterward, Martians stopped visiting us and started visiting us from Venus. Then after the surface of Venus was found to be hot enough to melt lead Venusians stopped visiting us too. Now they come from far more distant places in our universe. What best explains this? It’s because there were never any Martians or Venusians who visited earth.

When we examine the messages from UFO’s they have always been fashionable to the particular time period. None of them conveyed any new scientific information even though they should be far more advanced than us. Before the Cold War was over the messages warned of nuclear war, then later they warned us about the degradation of our environment. Carl Sagan, in his masterful treatment of this phenomena in his book, The Demon Haunted World, asked why UFO’s didn’t warn us about ozone depletion in the 1950’s, or about the HIV virus in the 1970’s, “when it might really have done some good?...Can it be that aliens know only as much as those who report their presence?” (p. 101).

Now apply this same critical thinking to the Bible and it's God. You don’t believe Martians or Venusians visited earth. Why? Because we discovered some facts about these planets (yes, I know we’ve discovered water on Mars). You also don’t believe they visited us because the messages these aliens supposedly communicated were not the kind we would expect, offering us nothing new and ever changing with the times.

That’s why you shouldn’t believe God of the Bible.

First, when we discovered the gods didn't live in the mountains believers then proposed they lived in the sky. As we gradually discovered how huge the sky was, the God of faith got bigger too, until believers claimed he lived in an entirely different realm.

Second, Christian, why didn't your God tell us that drinking polluted water would kill us, as would lead poisoning. Why didn’t he tell us which poisonous plants and creatures would kill us if we ate them or they bit us? Many people, mostly children, had to die in every part of the globe because your god was too busy telling us how to use our penises.

Where in the Bible can we find your god telling us how to discover penicillin, or a vaccine for tuberculosis, or polio. Some basic information during the Bubonic Plague would have been helpful, such as information about quarantining people. And with god’s help scientists today could’ve created a vaccine for the world-wide Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 which killed an estimated 50 million people.

But no. We find none of this in the so-called message from God in the Bible, and that’s only the beginning.

Come on now. Can you actually believe that an omniscient perfectly good being told us more about using our penises than some of this other information, things that the ancients just didn’t know? You don’t believe in Martians. Why do you believe in the biblical God?

The ONLY explanation that fits the data is that Christians are delusional.

----
First posted 12/30/10

The 2012 Debunking Christianity Challenge

2012-01-21T17:47:00.005-05:00

Four years ago I challenged Christians to take the Debunking Christianity Challenge. Just like last year I'm proposing twelve reasonably priced college level books, one per month.

My challenge is for Christians to read our books and test their faith to see if it can withstand our arguments. As I argued recently most believers do not seriously question their faith. Do you want to be different than other believers? Do you want to do what most of them don't do? Then take the DC Challenge. I challenge you! Hey, what do you have to lose? If the books cause you to become stronger in your faith that's good, right? But if your faith cannot survive our assault then we've done you a favor. No more soundbites. No more reading one blog post at a time. Sit down for yourselves and read through whole books written by the skeptics. Here then are the twelve books for this year's DC challenge:

You can read them in any order you like but read them!

January: If you want to know why human beings have a propensity to be believers then Michael Shermer tells us in his book The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.

February: If you have never considered the evidence for evolution, probably the best book is Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. You must read what science shows us which has convinced nearly all thinking people. The implications of evolution are enormous for religious faith.

March: For an overview of the debates that separate us read John Shook's book The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between). This book more than adequately will sum up and argue for what you need to consider. It's very good.

April: Read the second edition of my magnum opus, Why I Became An Atheist. It will be available by this month. It is a massive revision including new chapters and better arguments with an additional 110 pages.

May: For a devastating critique of the Christian faith read the first anthology I edited called The Christian Delusion.

June: Then read my second anthology, The End of Christianity, Of course, I think it's a tour de force.

July: Read Thom Stark's book The Human Faces of God. While it appears as if he's arguing just against the Christian doctrine of inerrancy (and does a superb job of it), he's doing far more than that. He argues there are not only "scientific and historical problems" in the Bible, but also that there are "moral, ethical, theological, and ideological problems" with it (p. 208). He goes into some detail on a few of the issues found in my books, mostly in the Old Testament.

August: To see how much of the New Testament cannot be reliable read Bart D. Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted. This is probably my favorite Ehrman book where he argues that the New Testament is a human, not divine book.

September: Do you still think the resurrection of Jesus can be defended even if the New Testament isn't reliable? Then read Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder’s book, The Empty Tomb.

October: If by this time you find yourself no longer an evangelical and need to unlearn what you were taught to believe from your upbringing and education, do not miss Paul Tobin's magnum opus, The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus. This is a massive book. This book will help deprogram you out of some things about the Bible and Jesus you previously believed.

November: If by this time you end up a liberal then the kicker book this year is Hector Avalos’s The End of Biblical Studies. If you think liberalism is the answer read Hector's book.

December: The problem though is faith itself. It's an irrational leap over the probabilities. Since I don't think arguments to the existence of God get us anywhere and because believers don't understand how science works and why faith doesn't, read Victor Stenger's book, God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion It'll probably be a classic.

-----------------

Each of these twelve books cites additional works for you to study out in greater and greater detail. There are many books I would've liked to list, but I just limited it to twelve. If you have already read one or more of these books simply replace them with one or more of the following ones:

Sometime this year my co-written book with Dr. Randal Rauser should be available, titled God or Godless, published by Baker Books, a major Christian publisher. I think it's a really good book so don't miss it. Stay tuned, I'll announce it.

Probably the best atheist book published last year is by biblical scholar Hector Avalos, Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (Bible in the Modern World). As of yet it's not reasonably priced. Try to get it at your university library though. Christianity dies on the rock of this one issue and Hector does a masterful job of showing us why.

I also highly recommend The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, by Victor Stenger, G.A. Wells, Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity, and Michael Martin’s book, The Case Against Christianity.

Or choose from of a list I made at Amazon.com of forty books (but have not updated it in a long time).

Again, what do you have to lose?

Oprah Winfrey's Half-Sister and The Odds of The Resurrection of Jesus

2012-01-21T06:32:00.025-05:00

There are a lot of things that happen to people that go against the overwhelming odds. Let's take the example of Oprah Winfrey's revelation in November 2010 that she has a half-sister named Patricia who was adopted out by her mother shortly after being born. What are the odds of someone discovering late in life that she has a half-sister? I don't know, but surely it's extremely rare. It wasn't a miracle, that's for sure. Things like that do occur from time to time. By contrast, if Jesus arose from the grave then such a thing was a miracle, and as such has even less of a chance of happening than a sister discovering she had a half-sister, by far!

Incredibly rare events within the realm of the natural world take place all of the time, like people getting stuck by lightning, winning the lottery, finding a bottle with a note in it that washes up on a beach, or living through a disaster that should have killed them. Yes, these things are all extremely rare, but they happen, all of the time.

In a like manner, a natural explanation for the resurrection should almost always be preferred over any claim that Jesus arose from the dead, so long as it has a minimal degree of plausibility (i.e., aliens did not do it). It's the rational thing to conclude. Even if we cannot produce a natural explanation of what actually happened from the so-called evidence, it's still far more reasonable to say we don't think Jesus arose from the dead. Why? Because incredible things happen all of the time.

In what follows I'll offer a very brief natural explanation of the claim that Jesus resurrected. Compare it with the claim he physically arose from the dead. You cannot say my natural explanation lacks plausibility because I already admit that it does. As I said, incredible things happen all of the time. What you need to say is that my natural explanation is MORE implausible than the claim that Jesus physically arose from the dead, and you simply cannot do that.

My natural explanation is that the early disciples were visionaries, that is, they believed God was speaking to them in dreams, trances, and thoughts that burst into their heads throughout the day. Having their hopes utterly dashed upon the crucifixion of Jesus they began having visions that Jesus arose from the dead. They began preaching this to people who subsequently had these same kinds of visions. In these visions they thought Jesus was speaking to them, so they began preaching what they learned from him (Acts 2:17-21; I Cor. 14; 2 Cor. 12:1-10). The most obvious of these revelations was Paul's claim that he learned the Gospel and the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus himself, not from men (Galatians 1:11-12; I Cor. 11:23). The author of Revelation wrote down seven dictated letters from Jesus as the result of his vision (Rev. 2-3).

They "saw" Jesus. They preached what he "revealed" to them. There was no objective evidence for any of this, so there is no reason why we should take their word on it. After all, these visions were subjective experiences.

With this as a basis for their faith anything can be believed and taught with the authority of Jesus speaking from heaven. All one needs to do is compare this phenomena with the rise of Mormonism.

It can also be believed that there was an empty tomb on the basis of a vision from someone who is thought to receive this revelation from Jesus himself. We call these people "liars for Jesus," and we know plenty of them who have claimed they found Noah's Ark.

My natural explanation doesn't require a conspiracy, or that Jesus didn't die on the cross. All it requires is one liar for Jesus, and I think this liar is the author of Mark, the first gospel. He invented the empty tomb sequence. That's it. The rest is history among superstitious people who were wanting to have hard evidence for their claim and would believe Mark's Gospel based upon the visions of a visionary. Just think of Joseph Smith who started the Mormon church. It's the same claim.

Stranger things have happened.

But a miracle is simply more incredible than my natural explanation, by far. Therefore no reasonable person should believe Jesus arose from the dead. Just as it was utterly incredible but non-miraculous that Oprah would discover she had a half-sister, so also there is no reason to punt to a miracle when it comes to the early church claim that Jesus physically arose from the grave.

And if my natural explanation doesn't work there are a number of them, any one of which has more probability to it than that Jesus physically arose from the dead.

Why Do Christians Disagree?

2012-01-20T05:22:00.004-05:00

Why is it Christians cannot agree to the point where they have condemned each other to hell and/or slaughtered each other because of doctrinal differences that other Christians don't think are essential for salvation? My answer is that Christianity is man made, and as such, doctrinal differences are due to different human ways of understanding the Bible. There is no divine mind behind the Bible, otherwise God should have communicated his will much better than he supposedly did. That's the major reason why there is no doctrinal Christian unity. These different doctrinal understandings continue to be used by denominational leaders to differentiate between Christianities for financial gain and power. Christian, what's your answer?

Stenger's New Book: God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion

2012-01-18T06:06:00.003-05:00

I have had the privilege of reading through Victor J. Stenger's soon to be released book, God and the Folly of Faith,and it's a tour de force. Among the published atheists trying to bridge the gap between scientifically minded people and people of faith, I think Stenger is the best.

The reader is treated to the history of the conflict between science and religion where Stenger argues there is a fundamental conflict between the two. "Science" he writes, "has earned our trust by its proven success. Religion has destroyed our trust by its repeated failures. Using the empirical method, science has eliminated smallpox, flown men to the moon, and discovered DNA. If science did not work, we wouldn't do it. Relying on faith, religion has brought us inquisitions, holy wars, and intolerance. Religion does not work, but we still do it." (p. 15)

Stenger writes in hopes that he can stem the tide of the growing distrust of science in America. It is a call for scientists and other rationalists "to join together to put a stop to those who insist they have some sacred right to decide what kind of society the rest of us must live in--for the sake of the future of the planet and the betterment of mankind. Hopefully in perhaps another generation America will have joined Europe and the rest of the developed world in shucking off the rusty chains of ancient superstition that stand in as an impediment to science and progress. (p. 20)

Believers generally do not trust science. Stenger's book is the antidote. Believers will see just how science works and why it is to be trusted over anything religion has ever produced. "Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible," Stenger argues, "because of their unequivocally opposed epistemologies--the separate assumptions they make concerning what we can know about the world." (p. 16)

It is a massive refutation of the claim that science is a religion or that science is based on faith. At the end of it Stenger shows how the future of mankind will be determined by whether or not science wins over faith in issues like tobacco use, pollution, and global warming.

Unlike some other books by Stenger this one was written for the average intelligent reader. There isn't a lot of technical jargon in it. Stenger just keeps getting better and better. I consider this book to be his best book yet because of its appeal to a broad range of readers and because he's hit the nail on the head, writing about the essential problem between scientifically minded people and believers. I think it'll probably be a classic.

You can pre-order it now. Get it.

Bruce Gerencser on Atheism, The Bible, and Jesus

2012-01-17T22:31:00.002-05:00

Atheists have a wide and divergent view on most everything. There is no atheist position, atheist viewpoint, or atheist worldview. Atheists can’t even agree on what the words atheist or atheism mean.

Religionists are used to narrow, defined, sectarian beliefs. Methodists believe__________. Catholics believe______________. Mormons believe ___________. That’s not how it works with atheists. Every atheist must determine how to proceed from the basic premise of atheism…..the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. From this departure point atheists believe a variety of things and it is unlikely that any two of them will agree with one another on everything.

Link.

Ten Reasons Why Most Believers Don't Seriously Question Their Faith

2012-01-17T07:56:00.006-05:00

This topic interests me to no end. Why don't most believers seriously question their faith? Does it take a special type of individual? Does it require some personality trait that believers don't have? Does that make skeptics different people? Could it be intelligence? Could it be that skeptics have a higher self-esteem than others? Is it that we don't need social approval? Is it that life's experiences have shown us we cannot accept the dominant opinion on a matter? Is it that we question what we're told in general? Perhaps, but when we look at skeptics in general there doesn't seem to be a set pattern. Perhaps a scientific poll might help answer that kind of question. What I do think is that the following ten reasons are almost certainly necessary conditions even if they are not sufficient ones:

1) The lack of critical thinking. I cannot tell you how often believers respond to skeptical arguments with informal fallacies in favor of their faith, which includes special pleading, non-sequiturs, all or nothing thinking (i.e., the "either/or" and "black and white" fallacies), begging the question, the "you too" fallacy, and especially appeals to ignorance. They don't even know that's how they are responding. And this is what I see coming from some Christian scholars I have dealt with, even those who teach critical thinking in the colleges, which nearly stuns me. Their responses are bad, really bad, and they don't/can't see it.

2) There is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. Christians can acknowledge this with others who believe differently in religions they consider bizarre. Why can't they see it in themselves? The reason is the same one for why the others can't see it in themselves. It's because they too are brainwashed. Only the brainwashed do not know it.

3) A very large percentage of believers do not seek out disconfirming evidence for their faith, which can be decisive. They are sure of their faith so they only look for confirming evidence. This can only make them more entrenched in whatever they were raised to believe in their particular culture. But it's an utterly wrongheaded approach to their faith.

4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. The more we know the more we should doubt. Any educated person will tell you this. Socrates even said he was wise because he knew one thing others didn't, that he didn't know. The more we know the less we claim to know.

5) This ignorance is due to the fact that believers fear to doubt. It's the very nature of faith in an omniscient mind-reading God that he is displeased when they doubt his promises. So in order not to displease him they do not seriously question their faith. Believers also fear to doubt because they reside in a Christian community of like-minded believers, their friends, who can be counted on when in need, and who would ostracize them if they walked away from the faith. Social pressure among one's main group of friends keeps them in the fold and blissfully ignorant of the need to test their faith.

6) The biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith is because of where it could lead them, to hell. They cannot bring themselves to travel down a road that might eventually lead them to eternal torture (or however they conceive the final judgment). The thought never occurs to Christians that they don't have the slightest fear of Allah's hell, or the many sects within their own faith who claim all others are going to hell.

7) Believers conversely have a hope they cannot bring themselves to do without, living eternally in heaven with their deceased loved ones. This hope is so intense they cannot entertain they might be wrong, otherwise they might have to admit they will never see their dead mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters again. That's simply too painful for them to even consider.

8) The nature of faith itself. Faith is a parasite on the mysterious. Without mystery faith couldn't exist. Wherever there is mystery there will always be room for faith because as humans we seek an explanation for the mysterious, and for believers their particular God-concept fills in the gaps. This is one of the informal fallacies I mentioned earlier. Believers require nearly all mysteries to be solved before they will consider their faith unreasonable, and that's an unreasonable epistemic standard since there will probably always be mysteries. Faith is therefore an irrational leap over the probabilities, something no thinking person should ever do with the probabilities given the available evidence. One should only conclude what the probabilities show and never assert more than what the evidence leads us to think is probably the case.

9) Then too, there is the concept of an omniscient God which is used to solve all problems. I call this the Omnscient God Escape Clause. Because theists believe in an omniscient God skeptics must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard of proof, making their faith pretty much unfalsifiable.

10) Morality seems to be another issue, that if believers walked away from their faith they would ipso facto have no reason to be a good people who care for the common good of a society. But the overwhelming evidence is against this, best seen in the demographics.

I guess some people just cannot be helped, that's all. ;-)

You Should Get Guy Harrison's "50 Popular Beliefs That People Think are True"

2012-01-17T05:17:00.004-05:00

Having been sent a copy of Guy Harrison's new 458 page book, 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True,I heartily endorse it as do many others:

"What would it take to create a world in which fantasy is not confused for fact and public policy is based on objective reality? I don't know for sure. But a good place to start would be for everyone on Earth to read this book." --Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History

"...the perfect book for skeptics to carry with them whenever they venture into the dark and mysterious realms where myths, monsters, and magic lurk as pretenders to truth, and where pseudoscience and superstition rule the day. I haven't had this much fun flipping around an encyclopedic collection of weird things A to Z since indexing Skeptic magazine. Harrison has added to the growing body of skeptical literature a contribution that will continue to move our culture toward one that openly embraces reason, science, and logic." --Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine; columnist for Scientific American; author of The Believing Brain and Why People Believe Weird Things

"This book exactly nails the points science communicators have been trying to make for years." --Brian Dunning, author and host of the award-winning Skeptoid podcast

"Extremely well written, with a generous helping of good-natured humor, Harrison's book is the perfect antidote to magical thinking. Not just a debunking of fifty modern myths, Harrison explains exactly why these fifty popular beliefs have not passed scientific muster, always holding open the possibility, however remote, that one day they might. It's a fun read and should be on the bookshelves, not just of every skeptic, but of every believer in things that go bump in the night." --Dr. Kenneth Feder, professor of anthropology at Central Connecticut State University and the author of Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology

"A much needed tour through common delusions about reality. Harrison writes clearly and succinctly about beliefs that are not supported by science or logic. However, he does so with sympathy and understanding for the reasons so many people find comfort in the irrational." --Victor J. Stenger, author of the New York Times bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis and The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning

There are nine chapters on "Magical Thinking" with subjects like the paranormal, Near Death experiences, Psychic mind reading, the Bible Code, reincarnation, ESP, Nostradamus, and miracles.

Six chapters deal with "Out There" topics like "faked" moon landings, ancient astronauts, alien abductions, UFO's, Roswell, and Astrology.

Seven chapters on "Science and Reason" like the correctness of science, the Holocaust, Global warming, racism, and conspiracy theories.

Five chapters on "Strange Healings" like alternative medicine, homeopathy, faith healing, and anti-vaccines.

Twelve chapters on the "Lure of the Gods" like what is a true religion, creationism, prophecies, prayer, Noah's Ark, Archaeology, Holy relics, TV preachers.

Four chapters on "Bizarre Beings" like ghosts, Bigfoot, angels, and witches.

Four chapters on "Weird Places" like haunted houses, heaven, Bermuda Triangle, Area 51.

Three chapters on "Dreaming of the End" like the Mayans, and other end time predictions.

This book is written very well. It is a one stop shopping guide for discussing weird unevidenced beliefs. At the price we find on Amazon you have no reason not to get it. Use it as a reference guide on these topics. I will.

Is Christianity the Worst Religion in the World? Ben Cain thinks so.

2012-01-16T10:08:00.000-05:00

See what you think.

There is No Atheist Community, No Atheist Movement

2012-01-13T23:04:00.001-05:00

I want to briefly make the case that there is no atheist community. There are only atheist communities. There is likewise no atheist movement. There is only an atheist momentum. Atheists do not even share the same goals. Again, briefly, because my time is limited, here goes.

A community must have agreed upon leaders but atheists do not have any universally recognized leaders. If you think otherwise then name one. Sam Harris is an agnostic who has been criticized by atheists for his defense of a science based morality and for defending torturing Muslim militants. Christopher Hitchens unfortunately, is dead. But he was criticized by atheists for his defense of Israel. Dawkins is being boycotted by some atheists for a really insensitive and sexist comment. Michael Shermer is criticized for defending capitalism and being somewhat supportive of Ayn Rand. We all know about Paul Kurtz's unfortunate ousting from CFI (something I don't care to take sides on). We choose our leaders and we don't always agree on who they are. We belong to atheist groups and there are many to choose from. A community must have shared understandings, shared goals, and a shared focus, but we do not all share these things. We don't even agree on whether there should be a secular society, as evidenced by Bruce Sheiman's book An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It.

We are split into accomodationists and confrontationists, activists and academics, politically minded and scientifically minded atheists, debunkers and those who are largely apathetic. Most atheists don't even bother with atheist communities at all. Others choose their particular communities and support the ones thought of as doing what is important, and they are different for each one of us. Unfortunately, atheist communities act much like churches do, with a struggle for power and influence.

There is no atheist community and no atheist movement. We only have a momentum. This means no one speaks for all atheists. I personally find it appalling when one particular community of atheists think that THEY represent all atheists in a movement that does not exist behind a chosen leader that not all atheists accept and use that power to ostracize and demean other atheists outside that particular community. I am all about treating other atheists as human beings respectfully as much as possible. I can be and am a conciliator who hopes we can all work together when we share the same goals. I embrace all approaches. We need each other and every perspective. When an atheist outside of our chosen community is ignorant there is no reason to blast him into oblivion. We should merely inform him. We need to treat others with respect and dignity as much as possible.

I have already experienced church in my life and it's not pretty.

Stay Tuned I'm Coming Back

2012-01-13T14:26:00.002-05:00

I've decided to return to blogging here. I like it better. Stay tuned.

If Republicans nominate Newt Gingrich for President it will signal the further erosion, and maybe even death, of Christian conservatism as we once knew it.

2011-12-08T21:20:00.001-05:00

Dr. Avalos's guest editorial was published in the politically influential Des Moines Register, and centers on how the nomination of Newt Gingrich would signal the erosion of self-described Christian conservatism. Follow this Link.

James Rachels' Book, "Created From Animals" Is Wonderful!

2011-12-08T21:00:00.001-05:00

The late moral philosopher James Rachels wrote a textbook on moral philosophy I used in preparation for my Introduction to Ethics classes called Elements of Moral Philosophy. I highly recommend it. He writes extremely well and makes the scholarly arguments accessible to the educated reader--something I aim to do as well. Rachels' book, Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism, is also extremely well written and accessible to the educated reader. It's wonderful!

It was published in 1990 but is still an important work. It can be read online for free right here, but I recommend getting a hard-copy of it since the pdf version is sideways.

In many ways moral philosophers have ignored science. To the degree they do I'm unimpressed. Rachels does it right though, and in doing so he provides a model that moral philosophers should follow.

Chapter one might be considered by some readers to be sort of irrelevant to his argument in the rest of the book because he discusses Darwin's life, how he discovered the principle of natural selection and the ensuing reactions and debates that followed. I found Rachels to be well-informed about these events. He related them very well and the chapter is very informative. For people unacquainted with Darwinism this chapter is essential since it forms the basis for how he will argue later. After all, he wants to begin by showing Darwinism is the case. To the specialist this chapter can probably be skipped.

To see what he aims to do in his book read pages 4-5 in the "Front Matter" pdf, and then the "Recapitulation" found on pages 171-72 in the Chapter 4 pdf (be prepared to turn your head sideways).

In chapter five he wrestles with the implications of Darwinism for morality with specific reference to the treatment of animals in distinction from human beings. Rachels argues that "If we think it is wrong to treat a human in a certain way, because the human has certain characteristics, and a particular non-human animal also has those characteristics, then consistency requires that we also object to treating the non-human in that way" (p. 175). Then he fleshes this out in what follows and answers objections.

Since humans and other animals are not radically different in kind, his new understanding is summarized on page 197 in the Chapter 5 pdf.

It is a highly readable book, full of information, which has definitely advanced our understanding. Get it. Read it. Think about it.

Oh, and did I tell you that Darwinism does away with traditional morality where human beings have a special sort of dignity that other animals don't have?

Yep.

Tommy G. Baker Has Spoken His Last Word From the Grave

2011-12-03T07:39:00.002-05:00

I had mentioned our good friend Tommy had died and had six posts yet to be released. Unfortunately upon examination two of them were duplicates. So he has spoken his last word. To see his posts follow this link.

I hate death. It's the final enemy. Paul was right about that. The older I get the more I think this way. I hope in the future people really can live to be 160+ years old with their minds who can be productive in their final years. I hope someday that if we have an incurable disease we can be frozen and later revived and then healed so we can see the future. I hate the fact that I'll never see what human beings have done on this planet in 100 or 200 or 1,000 years or more. I hate the fact that I'll never see my Dad again, or my grandparents, or my stepfather that my Mom married after Dad died. I hate it.

We are mere mortals. This life is all we have. It's mere delusion to think otherwise. But knowing the truth hurts. What would hurt more is to think there is a God who punished them with death because of what some curious mythical bastards did in some Garden, and that they're now being tortured in hell. Do believers even care to actually think about this? So I raise my middle finger to people like that and to their concept of God. I raise it to believers down through the ages who have used hell as a cradle to grave threat. I raise it to death itself.

A Jealous God and Divine Domestic Violence

2011-12-03T06:43:00.001-05:00

If a human husband said that to his wife, we would classify it as domestic violence. And rightly so. It reflects a view of the wife as property, and the husband as her lord and owner with sovereign rights to inflict punishment on one who has “stolen” from him his exclusive right to “sow his seed” in a “field” that is his property....Presumably an image of God who would himself commit assault and battery against his wife is one that it is crucial to examine critically and rethink. Link.

A Neglected Atheism: A View from Sam Harris

2011-12-03T03:00:00.001-05:00

If atheism is the rejection of belief in gods then Buddhism is an atheistic system! Buddha himself was an agnostic who said in Deer Park, "I can not say whether there is a god, no god or not a not-god. But I can tell you how to obtain enlightenment"

Buddha thought that belief in gods was a source of suffering. He taught a particular path of consciousness that is a form of detached compassion. Can we of a skeptical Western Atheism dialogue with a more ancient psychological Eastern atheism? Or does the roots of Western atheism come from an Enlightenment period younger but with a more valid materialistic ontological grounding that must reject the phenomenological ontology of Buddhism?

The author Sam Harris points out that the true teachings of Buddhism has become caught in a trap of religion: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/

What the world most needs at this moment is a means of convincing human beings to embrace the whole of the species as their moral community. For this we need to develop an utterly nonsectarian way of talking about the full spectrum of human experience and human aspiration. We need a discourse on ethics and spirituality that is every bit as unconstrained by dogma and cultural prejudice as the discourse of science is. What we need, in fact, is a contemplative science, a modern approach to exploring the furthest reaches of psychological well-being. It should go without saying that we will not develop such a science by attempting to spread “American Buddhism,” or “Western Buddhism,” or “Engaged Buddhism.”

If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world—truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence—these truths are not in the least “Buddhist.” No doubt, most serious practitioners of meditation realize this, but most Buddhists do not. Consequently, even if a person is aware of the timeless and noncontingent nature of the meditative insights described in the Buddhist literature, his identity as a Buddhist will tend to confuse the matter for others.

There is a reason that we don’t talk about “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra,” though the Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra. Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all. In the same way, once we develop a scientific account of the contemplative path, it will utterly transcend its religious associations. Once such a conceptual revolution has taken place, speaking of “Buddhist” meditation will be synonymous with a failure to assimilate the changes that have occurred in our understanding of the human mind...

There is much more to be discovered about the nature of the human mind. In particular, there is much more for us to understand about how the mind can transform itself from a mere reservoir of greed, hatred, and delusion into an instrument of wisdom and compassion. Students of the Buddha are very well placed to further our understanding on this front, but the religion of Buddhism currently stands in their way.

Written by Tommy G. Baker

I Ate Some Crap the Other Day

2011-12-02T15:37:00.000-05:00

Yep. I am not exempt from this. I own a carpet cleaning business and one of my best paying customers decided to talk to me about Jesus as I was cleaning. She asked if I had “a personal relationship with the Lord.” I said, I did at one time but now I have some doubts. She replied that she has doubt too. I said I used to be a minister but don’t even go to church anymore. She said she and her husband don’t go to church either. When I asked why, she said they haven’t been able to find any church that teaches the truth. Really? I said. She and her husband listen faithfully to Pastor Andrew Wommack’s radio program instead. Interesting I said. She offered me one of his books, and I said that was not necessary, “You don’t need to do that.” She insisted, saying they buy several copies and give them out so it’s no trouble at all. Not to offend her I said, “sure, that would be very nice of you,” and she handed me two of them. I thumbed through them, and once again said, they looked interesting. She told me that life isn’t worth living without Jesus, and I said I’ll look into it. Then I escaped without her offering a prayer. Bullshit! Now the next time I clean she’ll ask me what I thought of them. I’ll probably say “interesting.” ;-)

That’s how it is sometimes. We must eat crap once in a while. I’m sure if I had argued with her I would’ve lost her business and she would not recommend our services anymore.

Idealism Is Hardly Ideal

2011-12-02T03:00:00.000-05:00

I think "external material world" is a dualistic habit we continue to carry from religious language. It presupposes that there is some homunculus that is presented the external world in a mental theatre inside our head. But it serves our syntax well . The use of a subject and predicate places the I in the brain by tradition. Our language almost insures it. But if we posit a monism would not the only difference between a physical monisim and a mental one be semantics? What would be the means of comparison? What is internal to that spiritual/mental "external world?"

If thought or consciousness is a terminate of a causal chain then it is simply a physical effect of a whole neural correlate of interacting physical events. They find their nexus as a symbolic effect of that which is sensed. The real issue is a causal one when dualism is set aside. Does a person's thought effect what occurs or does what occurs effect what one experiences? Obviously we mean the latter.

Solipsism, the antithesis, is rare and seems to be held only by contrary philosophers. We mistake the Eastern view of claiming the world is an illusion as meaning it is unreal. An illusion is quite real. "Illusion" simply means the experience of something real other than it is. That something is experienced but misinterpreted. Illusion is that which deludes us. The Eastern mystic ( esp. Buddhists) ask one not to be attached to sensory experience (in other words not to make biased judgements of an experience). This leads to better analysis of a real world. So I am uncertain as to what religion idealism would actually be valid.

Panentheism and pantheism have a monism. Buddhism has no real internality in that it posits the ego as a symbolic construct mistaken as the self or the experiences occurring. The "within" means direction...toward the self. Hinduism posits that the internal and external are one. The Atman is but a manifestation of Brahmin. Brahmin is all. Atman is but its objectification. It is similar to the use of Logos as the relative image or form of God who is boundless or absolute.

So external and internal would be more of a linguistic device so that the narrative world as analog to the real world is distinguished. I really do not know of many idealists save those of philosophical history. Ultimately and practically those philosophers can not practice their belief consistently or legitimately.

Written by Tommy G. Baker.

Omni-Faults: The Conflicts of the Attributes of God

2011-12-01T03:00:00.000-05:00

If god is omniscient there is no free will. God sees the entire contents of the world's unfolding events from beginning to completion prior to his creating or actualizing of it. If he creates the world as he sees it prior to its existence his act is the first cause of all constituents of that world. Those events will occur necessarily if god acts. The only resolution to this dilemma is, if there is a god he must sacrifice omniscience in the act of creation in order for there to be freewill. In other words he must make a boulder too big for himself to lift.

Aa a result omnipotence is sacrificed as well as omniscience. For he can not create a free will agent without sacrifice of knowledge which entails loss of ability to know how. Therefore he no longer has power over a future outcome. He has no power to prevent that outcome. He has no power to create that outcome. And lastly that outcome has the power to frustrate god's will as being an outcome of another freewill agent in opposition to god.

If these factors are correct, then god can not be omni-benevolent for he lacks the knowledge of outcomes to always act accordingly. He lacks the ability to make the right choices in every outcome. And while the intent of his responses to such outcomes may be honorable they can be wrong because of the lack of omniscience and omnipotence.

These attributes, while ancient and worn in their usage by philosophy and theology, are contradictory to each other and the act of creation. They show themselves to be statements of adoration or veneration but not valid in any real or logical sense of the word. They leave no reason for a conscious act or actor as the first cause of our world. Therefore there is no need to assume or posit a god of creation.

Written by Tommy G. Baker

Darrin Rasberry, A Former Team Member at DC Now Claims to Be A Christian

2011-11-30T21:14:00.004-05:00

Yep, so long as this is not a ruse. Darrin was never an atheist in the first place though. ;-) I wish him well. That's the power of the delusion. It has a pull on some of us to return to the fold. He writes about it here. When I first invited him to DC Darrin wrote this Greetings. Darrin and I traveled together to the 2008 EPS Apologetics Conference which I wrote about here. Hey, people believe and disbelieve for a wide variety of reasons, and that's it. There is no need to discredit his conversion. Why do Christians try to discredit our deconversions?

Christian, Are You Praying for the Return of Jesus?

2011-11-30T21:01:00.002-05:00

So I was talking to a Christian mother whose daughter is an atheist and sure to go to hell. I asked her if she's praying for Jesus to return to earth soon. She says yes, every day, and she thinks he'll come back soon too.

Duh. Where is the compassion when it comes to faith? Wouldn't the reasonable thing to do is pray that Jesus does NOT return soon so her daughter might come to repentance and be saved? Are believers brain dead or something?

Baha'i Practice as a View to Early Christianity

2011-11-30T03:00:00.004-05:00

For two years I worshipped with and studied the Baha'is. They are a group who believe that they originated from direct revelation by god. However their guardian, Shogghi Effendi, acknowledges, "A handful of students, belonging to the Shaykhi school, sprung from the Ithna-'Ashariyyih sect of Shi`ah Islam."

In my relationship with the Baha'i Faith I observed many factors that were enlightening and seemed an explanation of how an early leader like Jesus could be elevated to the position of God. Like Christianity which derived from Judaism, Baha'i faith derives from Islam. As Jesus was a teacher who taught how to pray to god so the Baha'i teacher, Baha'u'llah, taught how to pray to god.

Baha'u'llah is originally seen as the mirror of God who, through his teachings, manifested and revealed perfectly His Word and Will. In a short period of a hundred years the teacher of prayer has become the one to whom the Baha'i prays. It seems that as with Jesus a vessel that delivers the will, image and Word of God in a representative form soon is viewed literally as that God manifest.

When we reveal a story by skilful imagery and metaphor it is not to pass that story off as the actual thing but as an actual description. In religious worship it seems that a teacher who embodies the wisdom and teaching of God is soon mistaken as God. It is the problem of idol worship. The idol represents the God of the cult. But over time as the symbolism is lost and focus becomes on the concrete the image becomes becomes the actual god.

The Baha'is used "mirror of God" imagery instead of Christian terms like "the image of God", "Word of God", or "Form of God." Baha'u'llah has become polished as a mirror by god so that he reflects god perfectly in his soul and words. The Baha'is originally meant that their teacher was not God but a human and physical source where God and his will could be understood. This seems to be the same intent of the adoration language in the hymnal sources that Paul quotes in his Epistles. These things helped to make a human teacher a divien myth.

We can see by comparison of this recent religion how Jesus as teacher could be admired and respected in hymnals. The words soon became more literal and the teacher of how to pray to god becomes the object of prayer. itself The representative of God's Word and Will, who is seen as a representation of that word and will in behavior and spirit, soon becomes a physical manifestation of God Himself. And so the pattern continues.

Written by Tommy G. Baker.

NOVA The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse?

2011-11-29T17:16:00.002-05:00

If you want a great primer on the existence of a multiverse watch this PBS program. Take particular note of how cutting edge science works.

Watch The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? on PBS. See more from NOVA.

Suffering as Evidence of God's Failure

2011-11-29T03:04:00.006-05:00

This is a weak argument concerning theodicy that is meant to address the premises of an ontological argument for god. It requires one to look at the attributes of god before they are assumed for the ontological argument itself. It focuses on "capability" rather than omnipotence:

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3 )x necessarily would not allow q

4) p-->; not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6) q -->; not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8) not p

9) not p-->;not x

10) not x

11) god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do so in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds. A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.

The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god which are in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.

I personally see the ontological argument, my argument and other modal logic arguments to secondarily demonstrate the limits of logic in that such statement as the ontological argument can only demonstrate the validity of its rationality and not the actuality of its claim. I have attempted to ground my argument into the actual world and therefore allow it to meet empirical knowledge which I prefer to logical knowledge in many areas.

Written by Tommy G. Baker.

"God or Godless" Nears Completion

2011-11-28T10:14:00.002-05:00

My co-written debate book with Dr. Randal Rauser will be finished in a few days. It was a rewarding exchange of ideas. Randal announces it right here. This will be a must have book, great for discussions in colleges and reading groups! Now I have the copy-edits to do for the revised edition of WIBA. Then I will be able to blog more.

Tommy G. Baker Died But Speaks From the Grave

2011-11-28T07:47:00.007-05:00

I sadly learned that a team member here at DC has died. I feel a great sorrow for this since Tommy G. Baker had so much more to share. There are six posts of his that I have yet to release and will do so one at a time this week. So he will speak from the grave. But first I'll share what he told me when I asked him to join DC and also link to his previous posts:

Here is what he said:

Well I am originally from Tennessee I went to school with James and Johnny Sennett from the eighth grade. I later attended Atlanta Christian College ( 79-83) and graduated summa cum laude. I then went to Emory and studied under Hendrikus Boers who is an atheist and then head of the NT department. My focus of my MTS was the historical Jesus. Jurgen Moltmann was there at the time. I felt liberal scholarship was just as dogmatic as conservative. I had written a paper on the problem of the historicity of the resurrection. The professor of Ethics at ACC was Frank Hogg (Hogue) at the time. He had studied Pannenberg at Emmanuel and wanted to discuss the critical aspects in detail.

We met once or twice a week. I decided to use a hypothetical that assuming my research was wrong and there was a resurrection what does that mean if there is no god? We then focused to studying the question of god. We both switched to Georgia State to study philosophy. I found out that my ex-wife was having an affair and left. I became a social worker and never finished my masters.

Sennett is now married to my ex-wife. We continue to be friends and play guitar and discuss theology. I am married and have a 2 year old and a 21 and 17 year old from a former marriage (all sons). After concluding a few years of reading physics I am studying neuroscience and consciousness. I was diagnosed with acute leukemia on 3/17 and have been undergoing chemo and other treatment since. I spent about 6 weeks in the hospital. James visited and I got to debate him a little. On a personal note since we are both his friends, when he visited me in the hospital he really seemed close to concluding his faith with Christianity. He has a fascination with daoism (Taoism) and Theravada Buddhism. He could not offer me any response to atheism.

I will receive a bone marrow transplant on 7/28. I have a 55% chance of survival. So obviously I have had and will have a lot of time to write. What topics of interest would you like for me to cover? Obviously my academics was the historical Jesus. My Greek is rusty since I have not been focused on that area in a while but I pull it out when needed. Physics and consciousness have been areas in which I have been studying to analyse theism, pantheism and panenethiesm. I have very cynical views of the use of philosophy and find it to be an evil necessity. I tend to be pragmatic and empirical with a skeptical view that logic can define actuality and that it seems to reflect more of the brain's response to existence as it objectifies perception into mental symbolic constructs.

Sincerely,
Tommy

Now for the link to his previous entries, right here.

Greta Christina: Why Are You Atheists So Angry?

2011-11-28T07:28:00.002-05:00

A Smorgasbord of Links for Your Enjoyment

2011-11-22T11:16:00.003-05:00

Bruce Gerencser on Who Determines What the Bible Says?

Stephen Uhl, a former Catholic priest, is interviewed (with his wife Diane) by Tucson TV about their "Out of the Closet" billboards.

Harry McCall sent me this link on Biblical Illiteracy at Bob Jones University

Jerry Wilson sent me a link of his debate with a Christian apologist.

Articulett shared a link where a former believer named Anthony mentioned me as a major factor in his deconversion.

Brian sent me a link to a Nova documentary made a few years back on the creationism vs evolution trial in Dover. It's really good.

I'm Too Busy to Blog Much Right Now

2011-11-19T10:55:00.000-05:00

I'm doing the copy-edits for the revised book, Why I Became an Atheist, and also co-writing the book with Dr. Randal Rauser. Use the comments section below to provide some interesting links. Cheers.

Mike Licona Responds to Norman Geisler

2011-11-18T20:43:00.001-05:00

Link. I am so glad I don't have split hairs like they do. It's all so delusional.

Slavery, Abolitionism and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship: Reflections about Ethical Deflections

2011-11-14T15:55:00.000-05:00

Dr. Avalos reflects on how ethics is practiced by modern biblical scholars, and on why Christian academic scholars can't seem to unchain themselves from viewing Jesus as perfect. Link

The Famous Thomas More / William Tyndale Polemic.

2011-11-13T08:44:00.000-05:00

They debated each other for 2000 pages. Both were also executed. Harsh words, harsh times. Link. Parts of this are a fascinating read!

Andy Rooney on Atheism

2011-11-11T07:28:00.000-05:00

Andy Rooney spoke briefly (beginning at 1:12) on his atheism and his views on all the faith talk coming from presidential candidates. Rooney, who died on November 4, 2011, was best known for his reporting on CBS’ 60 Minutes. Link

Robert Gundry Was the First Scholar Norman Geisler Outted

2011-11-10T18:41:00.002-05:00

In 1982 he published Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art analyzing the Gospel of Matthew. Gundry used redaction criticism in his work. He thus argued that Matthew adapted the story of Jesus to appeal to the intended audience. Especially problematic was Gundry's assertion that Matthew made ahistorical additions to the infancy story in Matthew 1 and 2.

This sparked a major controversy in the Evangelical Theological Society. Gundry contended his work did not question the inerrancy of Matthew. Rather he argued that inerrancy must be considered in light of authorial intent. Matthew, Gundry claims, "treats us to history mixed with elements that cannot be called historical in a modern sense." Thus, the book of Matthew should not be measured against the standards of the genre of modern historical writing in order to be called inerrant. On the other hand, "Luke states a historical purpose along lines that run closer to modern history writing…" Gundry's view was supported by a significant portion of the ETS. The Society's executive looked into the matter and at first cleared Gundry. However a campaign against Gundry was launched, spearheaded by Norman Geisler. This campaign succeeded and in December 1983 Gundry resigned from the ETS. Link

Michael Licona Loses His Teaching Position Over Matthew 27

2011-11-09T16:55:00.000-05:00

Jeffrey Jay Lowder wisely comments:

The incident casts doubt on the ability of Evangelical scholars, qua Evangelicals, to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. To his credit, Licona apparently questioned the literal historicity of Matthew 27, without letting the perceived implications of his commitment to Biblical inerrancy get in the way. At the same time, however, I can't help but be struck by the fact that apparently many Christian scholars were unwilling to publicly defend Licona, presumably because they were afraid they might lose their jobs, too. It is precisely because of this sort of mentality that I have previously questioned whether evangelical Christians can consistently affirm the ethics of belief required by freethought. Link

Quotes of the Day

2011-11-09T07:38:00.008-05:00

Here are a few salient quotes in context for further discussion:

The more often Christians have to resort to background beliefs—the more often they have to resort to their overall religious worldview to defend a particular tenet of faith—then the less likely their faith is true. Link

Christians must be convinced that their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard. Link.

When Christians criticize each other I think they're all right. Link.

Morality 3: Of objectivity and oughtness

2011-11-08T09:44:00.002-05:00

Hector Avalos’s New Book is a tour de force, Part 3

2011-11-07T11:10:00.003-05:00

This is the final part of my review of Dr. Avalos's new book, Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship, which I began writing about right here. You'll just have to get it at some point and read it for yourselves. But it is really really good, just what the doctor ordered! ;-)

In chapter 3 Avalos surveys contemporary ancient near-eastern literature along with that of the Greco-Roman world. he summarizes this chapter up in these words:

Once we examine those primary Near Eastern sources, we do not find much that is new in Christianity, and we find many Near Eastern advantages that the Bible did not offer slaves...If Christianity made any advances, it would not be because it was original, but because it reverted to ‘pagan’ practices that preceded it. (p. 61)

In chapter 4 the good doctor examines the most important OT passages on slavery:

Genesis 1:26: Let Dominion Begin
Genesis 3:16 and Female Subjugation
Genesis 9:19-27 and Noah’s Curse
Genesis 16: Rape of a Slave Woman?
Genesis 17:12 and Genital Mutilation
Genesis 17:23: Abraham, the Blessed Slavemaster
Exodus 1-15: A Liberationist Paradigm?
Exodus 20:10 / Deuteronomy 5:12-15 and the Sabbath
Exodus 21:1-6 and Term Limits
Exodus 21:16 and “Manstealing”
Exodus 21:20: Killing Slaves
Exodus 21:26-27: Beating Manumission
Leviticus 25:42: Who’s your Master?
Leviticus 25:35-43: Jubilee Manumission
Leviticus 25:44-46: Enslaving Outsiders
Deuteronomy 15 and Inner Biblical Progress
Deuteronomy 23:15: Fugitive Slaves
1 Samuel 8: Exclusive Service to Yahweh?
Ezra 2:64-65 and Slave Societies
Job 31:13-15 and Justice for Slaves
Joel 2:28-29: Possessing Slaves

Take for instance Leviticus 25:39-46 which was "certainly one of the most often quoted by pro-slavery advocates to demonstrate that God allowed slavery." (p. 86) It reads:

And if your brother becomes poor beside you, and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee; then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own family, and return to the possession of his fathers. For they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with harshness, but shall fear your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness (Lev. 25.39-46).

It has been claimed by some biblical scholars and apologists that the word for slaves used in the OT ('ebed) "means servant, a subordinate, an official, but does not connote ownership of the person." Avalos argues such a conclusion "is clearly contradicted" by this passage, "for it uses the word ‘ebed when describing how the Israelites are allowed to buy slaves. Verse 45 states that an ‘ebed ‘may be your property’ and may be inherited by the slavemaster’s children (v. 46). If buying and inheriting an ‘ebed does not ‘connote ownership of a person’, then what does?" (p. 64)

Some biblical scholars, Avalos tells us, think this passage "was meant to revise the law in Exodus 21.6," which allows the enslavement of Hebrews. Leviticus 25.39-44, in contrast, specifically prohibits enslaving Hebrews, and shifts slavery completely to outsiders. If this is the case, then "calling this an ‘advance’ would be most questionable." Why? Because "one could argue that it bespeaks of a further differentiation between insiders and outsiders that later authorized the enslavement of non-Christians, including Muslims and Africans." (pp. 86-87)

There is a lot to say for this chapter which Avalos sums up in these words:

This brief survey of representative biblical passages shows a repeated attempt by modern biblical scholars to mitigate the ethical implications of slavery in the Hebrew Bible. Some scholars ignore the slavery theme, and others try to engage in comparative ethics in order to show the superiority of biblical directives. A repeated technique is to compare the ‘biblical’ best with the pagan ‘worst’. In all cases, we can find misrepresentation of neighboring cultures and/or the omission of countervailing examples and evidence.

In chapter 5 the good doctor examines the most important NT passages on slavery:

Matthew 7:12: The Golden Rule
Acts 17:26 and Human Unity
1 Corinthians 7:21: Better to Remain in Slavery?
Galatians 3:28: A Magna Carta of Humanity?
Galatians 4:7: No Longer Slaves?
Ephesians 6:5: Obedience through Terror
Philippians 2:4-6: Slavery as Human Destiny
Colossians 3:18-4:1: The Magic of Socio-Rhetorical Criticism
1 Timothy 1:10: Manstealing
1 Timothy 6: Honoring Christian Slavemasters
Philemon: What Are You Insinuating?

Take for instance Acts 17:26 which reads: "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." This was one of the most widely used abolitionist texts, Avalos tells us, "which "supposedly establishes that human beings were all created equal." (p. 97). However, the most reliable manuscripts do not have the word "blood" in it. Nonetheless, Paul in this same sermon used a similar expression of the classical writers when he said in v. 28, "...even some of your poets have said..." Avalos then quotes from Seneca, who admonished his readers to "remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies". And he quotes from Cicero, who said "men are grouped with Gods on the basis of blood relationship and descent...there is a blood relationship between ourselves and the celestial beings; or we may call it a common ancestry or origin." Avalos asks: "So why do Christian apologists credit Christianity for initiating the idea of universal brotherhood when even the New Testament says that the idea already existed in non-Christian cultures?" (p. 98)

Take as another example Galatians 3:24-28, which reads:

So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justifed by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3.24-28).

"Those espousing a non-egalitarian understanding of this text have the advantage," Avalos argued, for "being considered the offspring of Abraham, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or slave-status, does not mean that differences have been erased in any other sense. That is to say, Paul does not mean that slaves do not exist literally anymore. Thus, ‘there is no slave or free’ cannot mean ‘there exist no slaves or free people’. Otherwise, if slaves do not literally exist anymore, then nor do free people. Colossians 4.1 alone refutes the idea that Paul thought slavery had been abolished in Christianity: ‘Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.’" (p. 110)

While Dr. Avalos says a great deal more about these OT and NT passages than I have mentioned he summarizes what he has found:

Attitudes toward slavery are sometimes worse and more inhumane in the New Testament than in the Old Testament...While the Old Testament set term limits for some slaves, New Testament slavery can be indefinite. While the Old Testament railed against enslaving fellow Hebrews, the New Testament allows Christians to own fellow Christians. The Old Testament required the emancipation of some severely injured slaves, but the New Testament advised Christian slaves to be submissive even to cruel masters. So if there is a trajectory from the Old Testament to the New Testament, it is toward an increasing acceptance of slavery and its cruelties.

Chapter 6, "Christ as Imperial Slavemaster" might be the most interesting one of them all, for in it Dr. Avalos shows how that,

Jesus cannot be regarded as an abolitionist in any sense. He never required abolitionism from his followers; rather, the opposite is true. Jesus’ parables portray the Kingdom of God as a slave colony, where God can do as he will with his slaves. In the Kingdom of God, bad workers are punished with horrific tortures. More importantly Jesus is patterned in some traditions as the parallel of the Roman emperor. Regardless of any other benign and loving portrayals of Jesus, that imperialistic portrayal has had detrimental consequences for non-Christians around the world for the last 2000 years.

This is truly a great read. I can only hope that it will soon be available in a paperback version that is reasonably priced before too long.

My Bookstore

2011-11-07T08:18:00.015-05:00

To help me keep blogging I'd appreciate my readers buying books on Amazon from one of these links below (or anything else for that matter). I get about 7 cents on the dollar from what you purchase at no extra cost to you. Thanks so much in advance! And thanks too for any donations you can send me. Blogging is a very time consuming activity that takes away from my ability to earn some more needed money.

Our Published Books:

By John W. Loftus:

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

The End of Christianity

Why I Became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments

By Hector Avalos:

Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship (Bible in the Modern World)

The End of Biblical Studies

Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence

Health Care and the Rise of Christianity

New Important Books:

Important College Level Books:

Avalos: Secular vs. Religious Harm

2011-11-06T10:21:00.000-05:00

Dr. Avalos explains why modern wars don't prove that secularism has done more harm than religion. Enjoy. By the way, have I said recently that Hector is one of my main intellectual heroes? He is!

Hector Avalos's New Book is a tour de force, a Classic Text, Pt. 2

2011-11-06T05:46:00.205-05:00

I began my review of Dr. Avalos's book, Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship, in a previous post you can read right here. His book is divided into two main parts. Chapters 2-6 discusses the various strategies used by biblical scholars to mitigate the negative ethical implications of slavery in the Bible, while in chapters 7-16 he illustrates how the Bible was used to sustain slavery, arguing that "the Bible's stance on slavery posed an enormous, and sometimes insuperable, challenge for abolitionists." (p. 17) I'll not review part two of his book except to say that it is devastating to the apologist claims that the abolitionist movement was inspired by the Bible. We can see this in part one of Avalos's book alone, for in it he discusses the most important biblical passages on slavery in the Bible since that's what the abolitionists had to work with. Hint: they were backed up against the wall. Their movement went against the thrust of the passages found in the Bible.

In chapter one Hector speaks about three unethical types of hermeneutics used by biblical scholars and apologists. The first he calls representativism, which "affirms that a particular biblical ethical view is representative while others (usually bad ones, like slavery and genocide) are unrepresentative" of the over-all biblical texts. He questions this by saying that scholars "pick-an-choose what counts as representative texts, and leave out or diminish those texts that do not represent the 'core teaching of the Bible." (p. 24) But how do they determine that which is representative? If we use a statistical analysis we find a "very complex and confusing situation." If instead we use a "qualitative criterion" then it is "not much more helpful." Considering Deuteronomy 10:12-22 in light of the claim that the core message of the Bible is God's preferential option for the poor, Hector writes: "Statistically, we could make the case that this passage makes slavery to Yahweh 'characteristic and definitional' of Israel's status. Verse 14 reads: "To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it." So Avalos says, "we could just as well argue that Yahweh's imperialism is 'characteristic and definitional,' not some preferential option for the poor." (p. 25-26)

The second unethical hermeneutic is called trajectorialism, in which it's acknowledged that "certain undesirable biblical practices may exist in the Bible but they are nonetheless a step in the right direction or represent advances." (p. 27) Avalos dispenses of this fallacy in part by using the words of Moses I. Finley, who wrote:

It consists in assuming the existence from the beginning of time, so to speak, of the writer's values--in this instance, the moral rejection of slavery as an evil--and then examining all earlier thought and practice as if they were, or ought to have been, on the road to this realization, as if men in other periods were asking the same questions and facing the same problems as those of the historian and his world." (p. 27)

One flaw here is that it assumes that the interpreters of this generation have it right and that all future interpreters were wrong. It "is always precarious," Avalos writes, given the history of biblical interpretations of the texts, "to think that our current period represents some permanent telos in emancipatory trajectories because the world could revert to slavery in the future." (p. 28)

The third unethical hermeneutic, the most common one, is called reinterpretation, which "allows the original meaning of the text to be erased or changed to fit a later or modern context." (p. 29) Avalos presents biblical scholars with two options:

A. Authorial intent is the only one that matters
B. Authorial intent is not the only one that matters

If one chooses A, then biblical studies has been highly unsuccessful. We
often do not possess enough information to determine what an author meant,
even if we believe that authorial intent matters and should be the primary
goal of interpretation.

If one chooses B, then the only result is chaos and relativism that renders
all scholarly biblical studies moot and superfluous. Faith communities do not
need academic biblical scholars to inform them about any original context
in order to keep the Bible alive for themselves. So what is the purpose of
academic biblical studies in such a case?

At this point I must quibble with the good professor. I remember a doctoral class on Hermeneutic Theory I had at Marquette University where we read and discussed Hans-Georg Gadamer's book, Truth and Method, which Hector mentions. At the time as an evangelical I had accepted the arguments for authorial intent found in E.D. Hirsch's book, Validity in Interpretation, which Hector also cites. What I came to think, and still do, is that B is the case along with the biblical scholars Avalos criticizes. It's not that authorial intent is not important. It is, although, authorial intent is only important when the author is still alive to comment further on how someone interprets what he said. And even then authorial intent is not the only thing important since one could still argue that his original words leads the reader to a different interpretation. One could still say, "No, you said this....now don't back out of what you said."

Let's put it this way in practical terms. There are times when a friend will say something badly. And there are times when I will respond by telling him what he really meant to say. Upon hearing my interpretation he will respond by saying, "yes, that's what I meant to say." So there are times when the listener (or reader) can understand what the author or speaker meant to say better than he actually said it. The difference when it comes to ancient texts is that the authors are not alive to tell us we understood them better than what they wrote.

The most important factor for interpreting any document is the text itself. While the author in his cultural situation is also very important for understanding a text like the Bible, the intent of the authors is not decisive since we have no access to it. This hermeneutical issue plays itself out when it comes to Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution. I think the Constitution is a "living document" because it becomes a quagmire to determine which author's intent the Supreme court must consider when interpreting it; the original author(s), or the various intents of those who signed it (or who voted on the various amendments). So for consistency sake I must quibble when it comes to interpreting the Bible as well. But it's not a big quibble at all.

I would say it this way: Biblical scholars cannot ethically reinterpret a text when the text does not allow for that reinterpretation. And that should be all one needs to say about it.

Nonetheless, Avalos presents a show stopping challenge which takes into consideration my quibble about authorial intent when he wrote:

But even if we suppose that all authorial intention is irrelevant or indeterminate, the consequences of Levenson’s [reinterpretationist view] differs not in the least from rejecting that ancient text from modern life altogether. For if Text X has original Meaning A, then reinterpretation means accepting a different interpretation that can be described as Not-A (i.e., not the original meaning). But accepting Not-A is tantamount to saying that Meaning A no longer exists or has any relevance. If so, any reinterpretation of the Bible’s teaching on a particular issue is similarly a rejection and abandonment of the Bible’s teaching on that issue. (pp. 32-33)

Bravo!

More later.

The Barna Group On Six Reasons Young People Are Leaving the Church

2011-11-06T03:59:00.004-05:00

Reason number one: "...unprecedented access to ideas and worldviews as well as their prodigious consumption of popular culture." But we knew that already. Josh McDowell said it before, and *ahem* yours truly. If you want to know the latest before the information brokers do, see me. ;-)

Guess What? My Newest Book Will Be in Christian Bookstores!

2011-11-05T08:29:00.002-04:00

Yep, it's the one co-written with Dr. Randal Rauser, as introduced here. We have until January 1st to finish it. So if I'm not making much noise until then you'll understand. During this same time I'll be working on a revision to WIBA. If you don't want to miss a thing become a follower of DC.

Ten Ways How To Resist Preaching to the Choir

2011-11-04T16:33:00.015-04:00

I have extensively read both atheist and Christian literature, their blogs, journals and books, along with listening to their videos and podcasts. What I have discovered is that most people are preaching to the choir. They do not step inside each others shoes to understand where they are coming from. They do not meet on common ground, assume common assumptions, and common understandings. They are talking past one another like ships that proverbially pass each other in the night. Instead, they are speaking to people on their own side more than anything else, who seek to confirm what they have already come to accept. There is a time and a place for this, I admit. But I see it almost everywhere I look. More often than not each side speaks from a position without trying to really understand the position of the people they are trying to reach. I’ve thought a lot about this, so in the interest of starting up this conversation let me offer ten ways how to resist preaching to the choir, with specific reference to how skeptics/atheists can do this.

1) Understand science, theology, and philosophy better than believers do. This is a tough one if you do not have the requisite knowledge. The more knowledgeable you are then the better your efforts will be, and that’s all I can say about it. You must want to learn about these subjects. You must read the requisite literature, lots of it. If you’re not willing to put the time and effort into this then I understand, but the more you do the more effective you will be.

2) Grant as much as you possibility can allow for the sake of argument. Don’t major on the minors or engage every little objection you can think of if the objections are not to the heart of the issue. Say something like, "Okay, I’ll grant for the sake of argument that there was a historical figure behind the Jesus cult and that the early disciples believed he had bodily raised from the dead” if you can. It doesn’t hurt to allow this, for even then there are still plenty of reasons for not believing Jesus was bodily raised up from the dead. Do what I have done:

Did Paul Conceive of a Resurrected body?

The Jesus in the Gospels Never Existed.

3) Adopt the principle of charity when dealing with a believer’s argument. Assume the argument in it’s best form even if stated badly. No strawman caricatures. If you are unclear what the argument is, then ask the believer to clarify it. Use the Socratic dialogue where you ask the believer something like this: “Are you saying that because science has not discovered the answer to this question that therefore you can insert the god of your choice?” Then if the answer is yes, you can go on to ask, “What justifies you inserting your god at this point when there are so many conceptions of god to insert?”

4) Use the Bible against the believer. For most Christians the Bible forms the basis, or part of the basis, for what they believe. Therefore inform them of what it says. It debunks itself if properly understood. In doing this you should properly understand what it says. The better you understand the Christian responses to their own Bible passages then the better you can press home your points. You just cannot quote the Bible when believers have been thinking about the Bible for nearly two millennia. We don't accept quote mining from Christians. So why should educated Christians accept quote mining from us?

5) Use other Christianities against each other, something I do quite frequently. That way it's not an atheist argument, so-called, at all. The arguments are coming from other believers. See this here:

When Christians Criticize Each Other They Are All Right.

How To Debunk Christianity.

6) Don’t claim more than what an argument leads us to conclude. The problem of evil, for instance, does not lead a believer to atheism. If successful it only shows that one or more of the attributes normally thought to apply to western monotheistic gods is false. Such a god may exist who is less than good, less than omniscient, or less than all-powerful.

7) Whenever possible admit when you hadn’t considered something before. If you learn from believers something you hadn’t considered before then be a human being towards them and admit it. Be nice. It has a way of softening tensions. It allows believers to see us as real flesh and blood people. It makes them a bit at ease to discuss things with us. None of us know it all. So admit it if possible. It will go a long way toward reaching out to them.

8) Treat the views of believers with a modicum of respect. Why not? I realize this is very hard to do. I also recognize we cannot always do this, nor is it always the best policy, nor have I always done it myself. But when you are engaged in an argument with a believer if you wish to try, really try, to meet him or her on common ground then you must do this if your goal is to help change their minds.

9) Treat believers as persons with a modicum of dignity. After all, they are people, just as you are. I like to treat people I meet on the net as if we were having a discussion over coffee or a beer. That’s the goal. I know none of us do that all the time. Sometimes people have a history of dealings with each other where this is probably impossible. But it’s still something to aim at.

10) Go to where believers are found. I don’t personally do this much myself. Sometimes they come to me here at DC. But if you want to reach out to believers then you need to meet them on their ground. If you’re preaching to the choir inside your own conclave then you’re in the wrong place if you want to reach out to them.

Twelve Reasons I Don’t Believe in Supernatural Claims

2011-11-04T14:06:00.000-04:00

This is a real good summary of the reasons. Link.

My Book WIBA is "Not Just a Refutation" But "An Evisceration"

2011-11-04T10:34:00.000-04:00

So says one kind recent reviewer. If that's what he thinks then wait till he gets a look at the revised book. I'm chomping at the bit to begin the editing process this coming week for a February publication.

Hector Avalos's New Book is a tour de force; Sure to Be A Classic

2011-11-03T20:25:00.010-04:00

I'm very grateful that Hector send me a copy of his new book, Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship. You can see the table of contents and purchase it if you follow the link. I cannot recommend this book more highly than to say that anyone who wants to deal with the issue of slavery in the future must deal with it. It is so well-informed and argued that Biblical scholars and Christian apologists might hope to ignore it if they could get away with it. ;-) This is a wonderful and extremely needed work. In this first post I'll just introduce it.

In his earlier book, The End of Biblical Studies, Dr. Avalos shows how biblical scholars have tried to maintain the Bible is relevant to modern society but their efforts have actually done the opposite. In this new book he shows how biblical ethics are irrelevant to a modern society by focusing in on just one issue, slavery. He writes:

My basic premise is that if slavery is not regarded as wrong, then little else can be. And if slavery is regarded as inexcusably wrong, then biblical ethics stands or falls on its attitude toward slavery. As such, this book is a critique of the broader idea that the Bible should be the basis of modern ethics." (p. 1)

The main point of his book, he tells us,

...is that reliance on biblical authority was instrumental in promoting and maintaining slavery far longer than might have been the case if we had followed many pre-Christian notions of freedom and anti-slavery sentiments. (p. 4)

His work contains three elements:

1) Biblical scholarship generally functions as an apology for biblical views now deemed unethical, and slavery is a primary example.
2) Reliance on biblical ethics generally has delayed the abolition of slavery and any progress toward freedom in the manner the latter is currently conceived.
3) Any credit to the Bible for ethical advances concerning freedom is usually the result of arbitrary exegesis of the Bible, reinterpretation, and the abandonment of biblical principles. (pp. 4-5)

While Dr. Avalos acknowledges "there are instances where reliance on the Bible can be credited with some ethical advance," he writes that "this study will confirm...that it was abandoning or marginalizing biblical argumentation, and shifting to secularized economic, humanitarian, legal, and practical arguments, that made a much greater impact on abolition." (p. 19)

In my opinion Avalos delivers on that which he claims, so much so that biblical scholars and Christian apologists will be running for cover, hiding from the onslaught of the Avalos intellectual machine. ;-) I wonder how long it will take for one of them to write a book on slavery that argues against him? Perhaps they will find something else to do, like going for a walk, saying they're working on something else at the moment, switching disciplines, or even retiring.

Masterful job Hector! There is no other ethical issue in the Bible that deserves our utter disgust with regard to the faith-based claim of the inspiration of the Bible. On this rock alone Christian ethics and faith die.

Click here to read part 2.

5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think

2011-11-03T08:57:00.001-04:00

Everyone should understand these 5 fallacies. They apply to our debates at DC:

#1. Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#2. We're Hard-Wired to Have a Double Standard

#3. We Think Everyone's Out to Get Us

#4. Our Brains Don't Understand Probability

#5. We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win"

Can Christianity Survive Pop Culture?

2011-11-02T14:09:00.005-04:00

I doubt it, not the way it's going. Evangelical Christians are being forced to retreat from our culture. Many of them prefer home-schooling. And given the entertainment industry I doubt they can watch many TV programs that make the rest of us laugh. I have mixed feelings about this since some of the stuff is getting pretty raunchy, like the CBS sitcom "Two and a Half Men" (linked below). But if pop culture continues headed in this direction then evangelicals might as well become Amish in their way of life to maintain their moral purity. Or, if they are watching, then their morals will continue changing and with it so will their theology.

This is the October 17th episode: A Giant Cat Holding a Churro.

On Secular Blogging: “If something is worth doing, it’s worth doing badly”

2011-11-02T06:17:00.006-04:00

I've liked this quote by GK Chesterton from the day I read it. Doing something badly is at least doing something productive, if what you're doing is the right thing to do. It's better than not attempting something at all. At least you will learn from your efforts. All of the most important things we learned to do we started out doing them badly, like walking, talking, singing, dancing and riding a bicycle. You improve as you go. You cannot improve until you start. You begin by starting out badly. You have to be willing to fail, sometimes often, to achieve what you want to. So if you decide to do something, anything, be prepared to start out by doing it badly. If you wait until you can do something perfectly you'll do nothing at all.

This more than justifies Blogging by both the secular scholar and the non-scholar. Scholars are focused on gaining the respect of their peers so they may Blog very little, fearing that their peers can see problems in what they write because Blogging is like that. Some objections can't always be dealt with in a short provocative Blog post. Non-scholars may write very little because they feel unqualified to do so.

When it comes to our common goal of ridding ourselves of the influence of the religious right in America take Chesterson's advice: “If something is worth doing, it’s worth doing badly.” We need all of our voices. Don't be afraid of being wrong. I'm not. That's why I Blog. That's why I am an effective Blogger as well as an effective author. Sometimes I use my Blog to test ideas. Sometimes I merely provoke discussion. But I learn as I go. And I invite all secular people to do the same thing, both the scholar and the non-scholar. Come on people, Blog! Share what you know. Together we are making a difference. Join those of us who are already doing it.

An Illustrated Guide to Dr. Hector Avalos's Book, "Fighting Words"

2011-11-01T09:45:00.000-04:00

In Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, Dr. Avalos did a careful analysis of the fundamental texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and shows how four 'scarce' resources have figured repeatedly in creating religious violence: sacred space (churches, temples, holy cities); the creation of holy scriptures (exclusive revelations); group privilege (chosen people, the predestined select few); and salvation (only some are saved). If you want to see his thesis illustrated in the city of Jerusalem you need only look as far as Simon Sebag Montefiore's new book Jerusalem: A Biography. One reviewer wrote of his book:

The amount of murder, massacre etc for 2,000 years is appalling. Religious madness is the theme. Christians murdering Jews and being murdered and both murdering Muslims and being murdered in their turn. WHY? Because Christ was crucified here, Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac here and Mohammed road a horse with a human face aerially around the city, receiving insights as he went. So the murders and massacres are about the places where religious events are believed to have taken place.

Adam and Eve Again

2011-10-31T20:39:00.002-04:00

Before eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve either knew that disobeying God was evil or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then they can’t be blamed for disobeying him. If they did, then they already possessed the knowledge that God had forbidden. Either way, God could not justly banish them from Eden. (Adduced by Richard R. La Croix.) Link.

William Lane Craig On Whether the Witness of the Spirit is Question-Begging

2011-10-31T10:33:00.026-04:00

Dr. Craig attempts to answer that question right here. What you will see when you read his answer, ladies and gentlemen, is something I have told you about before. Step right up for an extra $1 and see this oddity, folks. Christians repeatedly are forced into claiming that their faith is possible and demand that we show their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable epistemological standard. Here we see it in plain sight. Craig highlights Alvin Plantinga's argument, now get this, that "Christian belief can be shown to be unjustified, irrational, or unwarranted only if it is shown that Christian beliefs are false." Craig says:

On behalf of his model Plantinga claims, not that it [Christianity] is true, but that

(i) it is epistemically possible, that is to say, for all we know, it may be true;
(ii) if Christianity is true, there are no philosophical objections to the model;
(iii) if Christianity is true, then something like the model is very likely to be true.

None of this begs the question, I hope you can see. For the key claims are conditional. Neither of them assumes that Christianity actually is true.

Wow, such a conclusion just takes our breath away doesn't it, even if we grant it. Guess what folks, Christianity is possibly true, and if it's true then something like Plantinga's model is very likely to be the case! But I admit this very slim possibility. Sheesh. It takes Plantinga three massive books to make that point? That's what's on display for your viewing pleasure folks. But this isn't the issue, or at least, not a very important one! The issue is whether it's probable that Christianity is true, and it is no more likely to be true than any other faith based claim!

But wait, Craig goes on to say, and you've got to see this to believe it, that,

...of course, a Muslim could make exactly similar claims about Islam, as Plantinga acknowledges.

So what do have we here? Plantinga's argument could equally be used by a Muslim, Mormon, Moonie, Marcionist, Mithraist, Mandaeist, Manichaeist, Mazdakist, Mohist, Macumbaist, Masaist, Mayanist, Meher Babaist, and so forth. Which means folks that, to use a conditional statement, even if Plantinga's argument succeeds it says nothing at all about whether Christianity is true.

When it comes to his own personal inner experience of the spirit Craig merely denies others have one:

Of course, the Muslim can say the same thing, and so we have a standoff. But...he does not in fact have a genuine witness of the Holy Spirit to the truth of Islam...his experience was either non-veridical or misinterpreted.

"Nah nah na boo boo," he says, "I have one and you don't, so take that." And Craig thinks this response is not question-begging? What does he think it means to beg the question? We can only shake ours heads.

Isn't the reasonable adult thing to do is to admit something like this: "I see that many other people in different religions all claim to have a personal experience of their own god and that they also claim, as I do, that all others are wrong about it. So this so-called inner witness of mine is probably mistaken given the number of mutually exclusive religious claims being made by people who were raised to believe differently in their own distinct religious cultures." This conclusion is further warranted since we know from psychology that we interpret our personal experiences according to what we consider probable, that what we consider probable is dependent on what we were taught to believe when there isn't any clear cold hard evidence to settle these diverse religious claims, that we subsequently believe what we prefer to believe, and that we defend what we prefer to be true.

When it comes to defending his brand of Christianity over others, Craig does not propose any method at all to get at the truth. He says:

Again, the Muslim can say the same thing and so engage in Muslim apologetics aimed at providing de facto objections to Christianity. Great! Bring on the debate!

I challenge Dr. Craig to tell us all what method he proposes to establish the probability of his particular brand of Christianity at this point. All that religious faith produces is more and more diverse and even mutually exclusive religions with no method to settle their differences. By contrast I've proposed a consistent, non-double standard in The Outsider Test for Faith. What alternative does he propose?

I also challenge him to respond to MY proposed question about the supposed inner witness of the Holy Spirit, which I submitted to him on October 19th, 2007, and so far he has not written on it yet:

My question is this one: Would you please specify the propositional content of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit? Plantinga calls the content "the great things of the gospel", and includes the idea that "God exists", "God has forgiven and accepted me", or "God is the author of the Bible." You claim this content assures Christians that they are children of God. But such a notion echoes the poet whom Paul quoted who said, "we are his offspring." (Acts 17:28) You are surely arguing that the inner witness of the third person of the trinity contains more propositional content than that. Shouldn't this witness be more specific about what is meant to be a "child" of the kind of "God" one believes in, how one becomes a child of this God, where one can learn additional information about this God, what he must think of the authority of that source of information, and how he can best interpret it? For instance, to say "God exists" does not say anything about the attributes of this God, and might even be consistent with panentheism. To say "God is the author of the Bible" doesn't say what a believer should think about the specific nature of the Bible, or how to best interpret it. Link.

Until he does I will continue to call him an Epistemological Solipsist.

Nothing personal Bill, but this inner witness argument of yours deserves a reserved place in a circus under the big tent! Most professing Christians think it's an oddity, including your own mentor Norman Geisler, so why would you expect anyone else to think differently? Give it up.

The Scale of the Universe

2011-10-31T03:52:00.000-04:00

Link. Drag the square at the bottom from left to right and back. Where is God? ;-)

Science Brings Results: Quantum Levitation

2011-10-31T02:19:00.006-04:00

What is there about science that we trust? Results, time after time after time. When we compare the results of science with what religious faith gives us, all faith produces is more and more diverse and even mutually exclusive religions with no method to settle their differences. Remember me saying I had levitated? You doubt this can happen, right? Well it can, and it's no magic trick nor is it done by a religious state of higher consciousness. It's called Quantum Levitation, akin to the "Back to the Future" movie stuff.

Don't neglect to watch this video beginning at 2:20 onward.

Here is the website.

Am I At the Forefront of the Current Atheist Movement in America?

2011-10-30T18:39:00.002-04:00

That's what one Christian who comments here said to me in an email:

I was checking out the first chapter of William Lane Craig's latest book, On Guard, and he makes a comment pretty similar to what he said about you. Something to the effect of, "I've seen atheist websites, and some of the most effective websites are from atheists who were trained in apologetics, and later became atheists."

His point was that apologetics won't necessarily help you keep the faith, and also parallels his other comment that he made about not wanting to set you up as "Mr. Anti-apologist."

I think that your website is one of the few atheist websites that really has a rigorous deconstruction of Christian beliefs. I'd find it hard to believe that he didn't at least have you in mind, given your history, when he was talking about "effective atheist" websites.

You can read the passage on his website for free and judge for yourself. I'm beginning to think that what it comes down to is that he thinks he may just be sharpening your ability to criticize Christianity. Furthermore, maybe he thinks it would be a mistake to provide more people with access to your work.

I can understand that. I think, however, that with the New Atheist movement winding down, you're the obvious way to go. I really can't think of anyone else that would be worthwhile to debate besides maybe Stephen Hawking...but...well that's not gonna happen.

If you are in touch with him, then maybe you could point out that you're it. You're at the forefront of the current atheist movement in America. Maybe if he looked at it that way he would be more amenable?

Whether he is correct or not it's kinda encouraging to know he thinks that, even if it's surely an exaggeration. I do dispute that the New Atheist Movement is winding down though. It's just moved into high gear. ;-)

When Christians Criticize Each Other I Think They're All Right

2011-10-30T08:46:00.014-04:00

One way to tell whether a theory is in crisis to to observe how many versions of that theory have been proposed. When it comes to how the death of Jesus supposedly atones for sins there have been a lot of versions proposed by Christians who, for good reasons, have disputed the others. So let's recap. The earliest proposals were The Ransom Theory and the The Recapitulation Theory. Then came a host of them afterward, like Anslem's Satisfaction Theory, The Penal Substitutionary Theory, The Governmental Theory, The Moral Influence Theory, and recently The Relationship Theory. There are others: The Acceptance Theory. The Declaratory Theory. The Mystical Theory. The Guaranty Theory. The Vicarious Repentance Theory. The Christus Victor Theory. The Healing Theory. The Penal Non-Substitution Theory. The Kaleidoscope Theory. The Participatory Model. The Scapegoating Theory. Check some of them out! See also this book of four views, and watch as Christians trash the other views! You see, there is nothing left for me to do. Christians do it to themselves. All I need to do is point it out.

Given nearly two millennia I’d venture to say with good reason that there will never be a cogent, well-argued version that can ever pass muster in the future either. I think the whole idea of Jesus dying for my sins to restore me to God is built upon the beliefs of a superstitious ancient world, where gods and goddesses were pleased with sacrifices, whether they were human or animal ones. This ancient world is long gone now, so it’s time to give up believing in an incarnate God who offered a sacrifice for us on the cross to atone for our sins.

"Think Atheist" On the Top Books Debunking Christianity

2011-10-29T14:04:00.005-04:00

Link. Besides the books he mentioned which ones would you recommend and why? And to think, William Lane Craig doesn't believe I'm qualified to debate him. Who does he think taught me a lot of what I know anyway? ;-)

Just Give Me The Stats, Ma'am

2011-10-28T13:20:00.001-04:00

The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is "Equally Brilliant and...Self-Apparent"

2011-10-28T08:39:00.009-04:00

It's discussed at 49:20 in episode #93 of Reasonable Doubts Podcast. It was said that the Religious Dependency Thesis (RDPT) can be discarded in favor of focusing in on the nature of justification. But without it believers wouldn't be jolted into considering the OTF at all. Another reason for including it is because the RDPT is a fact, since it follows (not of logical necessity but of overwhelming probability) from the Religious Diversity Thesis (RDVT). However, the best reason for including it is that if the OTF was made to be about the nature of justification then the debate would still focus in on the RDPT anyway. So why not argue for it and preempt the objections?

Avalos's book, "Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship"

2011-10-27T11:43:00.001-04:00

This long awaited scholarly book is now available. Dr. Avalos' book definitively refutes the claims of Rodney Stark and others who credit biblical ethics and Christianity as a main factor in the abolition of slavery. See it here.

Hey I just Levitated! No Really, I Did!

2011-10-26T23:56:00.005-04:00

It was amazing! I did, I tell you. I did! For about five minutes I was suspended in mid-air! It was wonderful! Do you believe me on my word, or not, and if not, why not? As you think about this ignore the Christopher Hitchens quote, as well as the need for a religious context.

For The Record I'm Not Famous Now, Nor Do I Think I'll Ever Be

2011-10-26T08:31:00.005-04:00

In the sidebar it may look as if I think highly of myself. There seems to be a lot of self-promotion going on over there. The reason that you see it is precisely because I know I'm not that important. There are new visitors here every hour who have never heard of my work. So it's to introduce them to it. Until I make it on the cover of Time Magazine, or until I am the president of an atheist organization that has billboards all over California, or until I am interviewed on Nightline, not very many people in the over-all scheme of things know of my work, especially the people in Europe. And I don't think that will happen. My books have never been on the "New Books" table at any national chain bookstore. They sit on an atheism shelf in the back of the store, if there is an atheism shelf at all. I'm not complaining. That's just the way it really is. And since I have no new arguments defending metaphysical naturalism and have decided to kick a dead horse, evangelicalism, I'm only dealing with a small slice of the pie. I know that. But I want to get the attention of the people feasting on that slice of pie.

Hitchens Quote

2011-10-25T21:58:00.003-04:00

I Stand in the Gap

2011-10-25T07:18:00.004-04:00

I am set for the express purpose of destroying the influence of evangelical Christianity in America and in the world at large. I hope atheists can appreciate this. I'm doing what I think it takes as a former evangelical insider. Whether I can do this is not the question, since I just want to be a part of what many others are doing. I embrace a multifaceted approach to accomplishing this shared goal of ours.

As a former evangelical intellectual I know what to do. I know where the theistic weaknesses are felt best. I use liberal Christian scholarship to do what I do, for liberals make the best arguments against evangelicalism, my chosen target audience (although I could choose to target liberals as a former liberal myself). Since I do, some atheists don't like that. Since I don't aim at the scholars but rather bring their arguments down to the educated people in the pews it makes me look unscholarly. Since I am not a scientist some scientifically minded people look down their noses at me. Since I don't have a PhD some people (mostly non-PhD degreed people) think I don't know what I'm talking about. Since I defend William Lane Craig from charges of being insincere, dishonest, irrational and personally evil, some atheists think I'm an accomodationist (which couldn't be further from the truth). I've answered a few other criticisms of me.

Most Christians don't like what I do, as you should know. Some of them have personally attacked me and continue doing so. I don't like this but it is what it is. I am vilified and misunderstood. It's a very tough place to stand. Sometimes I must wallow in the mire with Christian Bible thumpers. Other times I must deal with Christian scholars. Some people in the atheist community don't understand that I'm trying to reach out to Christians as best as I can. I wish they did but I can't expect them to. They demand conformity, just like any community does--a cookie cutter mentality I left for good when I left church.

I am a freethinker first and an atheist second.

But here I stand. I can do no other. ;-)

Randal Rauser: "Why Won’t Paul Copan Respond to Thom Stark?"

2011-10-24T20:54:00.001-04:00

Link. We're still waiting.

I'm Giving Away Some More Books

2011-10-24T18:48:00.003-04:00

Well it feels like that anyway, for a donation. I'm moving so I need the money.

Apologetics Books:

Cult Books:

Stanley Jaki Books:

The book on the right is "The Relevance of Physics." Keep in mind that I met Jaki who was one of my heroes as a Christian, so these books are highlighted quite a bit.

Books on Islam:

Books on Science 1:

Keep in mind that by selling them it says nothing necessarily negative about them. After all, I got them in the first place. It's just that maybe someone else can utilize them.

If you want them email me at johnwloftus at frontier dot com, and make me an offer. I prefer you bid for one or more of these groups of books as a whole. But I'd consider fair prices for some selected ones. If you can't read the title to a book let me know. To see other books I'm "giving away" click on the tag "Book Giveaway" below.

It's Possible That Evangelical Christianity is the True Faith

2011-10-24T09:20:00.007-04:00

Okay, I've said it. It's possible Christians are right after all. But then it's possible the Loch Ness Monster exists and is evading our attempts to detect her too! Christians must be convinced that their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard. There are at least two reasons why they demand such a high standard of disproof. The first is what I call the Omniscience Escape Clause (read all the links in this post!). The other reason is Pascal's Wager, in that unless the Christian faith is shown to be nearly impossible the threat of hell still holds sway over the minds of believers. I would think however, that if their faith is shown to be improbable that should be good enough. Here then are several ways where believers, especially evangelicals (my target audience), try escaping out from underneath the weight of probabilities:

It's possible that...

God is good despite massive and ubiquitous suffering.

Jesus resurrected even though the tools and methods of the historian don't lead us to think he did.

That it's reasonable to accept second-hand testimony (at best) of a resurrection found in ancient written sources which cannot be interrogated, but it's not reasonable to accept someone's testimony who claims he levitated without seeing such a thing personally, or without some personal interrogation.

That there is divine intervention in the evolutionary process even though there is no room for it.

That Christianity is true even though evolution has enormous negative implications for religion.

That faith can be a rational leap over what the probabilities actually lead us to conclude, even though other believers in different mutually exclusive religions accept this rationale too.

That petitionary prayers are efficacious even though scientific studies have shown they work just about as well as chance.

That Evangelicalism is true even though it's a late historical development to Christianity in general.

That if metaphysical naturalism is shown to be improbable then evangelicalism becomes de facto the only rational alternative. WTF?

That even though believers in different religious faiths adopt, defend, and believe with near certainty the religion of their culture, the evangelical faith is true and the others are of Satan.

------------

Recently I've proposed a New and Better Pascal's Wager, which asks us to wager on whether or not we would wish to be born on earth knowing there is a hell to pay if we are born in the wrong time and place. One Christian response is to say that it's possible this is exactly what happened, that we all were given such a choice, and we all chose to take the gamble that we would end up in heaven knowing the odds.

I have made an argument based on the concept of retroactive prayer where prayers can change the past by changing what God foreknows, who then intervenes before a tragic event even happened. One Christian response is to ask how we know God doesn't do that regularly, or at least as often as he answers any petitionary prayer.

Basically Christians, and evangelicals in particular, need a Reality Check.

------------

I have said that I try to overwhelm the believer, and I am vilified for it. But given the fact that believers must be convinced their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, this is what their faith forces me to do if I want to convince them they are wrong. You see, I know more than I can tell. I know that Christianity is a delusion from all that I know. The only thing left to do at that point is to try to convince Christians they are wrong. And they are.

What other ways do Christians depend on what is possible to bolster their faith rather than going with the probabilities? Their name is probably Legion! ;-)

Quote of the Day, From My Wife

2011-10-24T07:57:00.002-04:00

As we drove past a church having their service yesterday she made me laugh when she said:

Looks like they can't remember how to be good and need to be reminded every week. Some of us are smarter than that.

[First posted 9/6/10]

Did Jesus Do Miracles?

2011-10-23T06:25:00.002-04:00

There are some doubts that Jesus was known as a miracle worker in his day. David Friedrich Strauss (1808- 1874 CE) was the first to systematically argue this case. Against the rationalist approach of explaining them all away naturally, and against the supernaturalist approach which took these claims literally, Strauss argued in what can be considered a book of its own (a chapter containing 121 pages), that these miracle stories were myths.1

The rationalist approach is probably best illustrated by William Barclay in his Daily Study Bible commentaries on the Gospels. With regard to the feeding of the multitudes by Jesus, as recounted in the gospels, Barclay suggests the real miracle was one of generosity; that when someone first offered the few meager loaves and fishes he had to help feed the others, he inspired everyone in the crowd, one by one, to share what they had until they were all fed and there were basketfuls leftover.2 But this denies some obvious things in the text itself, especially when it says Jesus took the food after praying and gave the broken pieces to his disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowd to eat. It says that Jesus fed the crowds. They did not feed themselves.

The supernaturalist approach has textual problems too. With regard to the feeding of the multitudes by Jesus, as recounted in the gospels of Matthew (in chapters 14 and again in 15), Mark (in chapters 6, and again in 8), Luke (in chapter 9), and John (in chapter 6) there are discrepancies. These stories appear in different contexts and in different places. There are discrepancies about the number of men who were fed (4000 or 5000?), how many initial loaves and fishes there were (five loaves and two fish, or seven loaves and a few fish?), how many baskets of food were left after everyone had eaten (twelve or seven?). But the most interesting thing is that in Mark’s and Matthew’s gospels the story appears twice. D.F. Strauss rhetorically asks: “Is it conceivable that the disciples, after they had themselves witnessed how Jesus was able to feed a great multitude with a small quantity of provision, should nevertheless on a second occasion of the same kind, have totally forgotten the first, and have asked, ‘Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to feed so great a multitude?’” (Mark 8:4 and Matthew 15:33).3 Rather than telling us what really happened, these miracle stories were largely created later by an evolving church to make a statement about the spiritual importance of Jesus, Strauss argued. The point of the feeding of the multitudes with bread and fish was not to report what Jesus actually did on a particular day in his life, but to make the claim that Jesus was the bread of life who feeds his disciples with spiritual food in their own day. None of the attempts to rescue this problem as more than a myth that was told twice make sense, he argued, especially when the story has a parallel in the Old Testament where Elisha miraculously multiplied food for people (II Kings 4:42-44). According to Robert Price, repeating such a story twice is the “unintended result of the redactional decision to retain both versions instead of choosing between them.”4

There is even some testimony to suggest Jesus may not have even performed miracles. The earliest texts of the New Testament were written by Apostle Paul, and in I Corinthians 1:22-23 he said the “Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” It seems as though Paul is claiming the gospel message is not supported by miracles at all, but rather by the foolishness of preaching. It’s also instructive to note that Paul never specifically attributes any miracle to Jesus in all of his writings. It seems as if Paul just doesn’t think Jesus did any of them, even if miracle workers who used the name of Jesus as a magician’s charm did exist in the early church.

In the earliest gospel, in Mark 8:12, we read the same thing, this time from the lips of Jesus: “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” This seems to be a categorical denunciation of the claim that he did miracles. There is still more, as G.A. Wells informs us, “there is no mention of any miracle of Jesus even in the writings of the earliest Fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smryna—known at the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ because they were believed to be the immediate successors of the apostles).”5 Robert Price suggests the probability that the miracle stories were put in the gospels because they also served as a manual for how early Christians could perform them.6

What Strauss, Wells, and Price argue is that these facts suggest the miracle stories represent later mythic additions based on evolving church traditions to the story of Jesus. At least some, if not many, or even most of these miracle stories can be explained in this way. And while their conclusions represent a minority opinion among biblical scholars today, these considerations do at least provoke some doubt. How can we be sure otherwise? We can’t, because we can never accept the majority opinion just because it’s in the majority.

----------------

1. David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined 4th ed., trs. George Elliot trans, (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co, Inc, 1902), pp. 413-534.
2. William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke Revised edition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), p. 140.
3. David Friedrich Strauss, Life of Jesus: Critically Examined, p. 508.
4. Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition? (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), p. 159.
5. G.A. Wells, Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where it Leaves Christianity (Chicago: Open Court, 2009), p. 61.
6. Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, pp. 133-163.

A Helpful Review of My Book WIBA

2011-10-22T12:48:00.000-04:00

The author writes:

This was one of the first books I read when I began to doubt. It was extremely comprehensive and I found many of the chapters very helpful. John appeared extremely well-cited and read and I cannot even imagine amassing such a collection on my list of read books as the quantity that fills his footnotes. Link.

I'm Co-Writing a Book With Dr. Randal Rauser

2011-10-22T07:51:00.017-04:00

Nine months ago at Randal's initiation we finished a book proposal tentatively titled: God or Godless: One Atheist, One Christian, and Twenty Irreverent, Interesting, and Somewhat Informative Debates. In it we each propose ten topics for debate. This has been a slow process but we finally got a contract from Baker Book House, a major Christian publisher.

You can find Rauser's website and blog link right here. He describes his views as "progressively evangelical." What's that? ;-)

Here are my proposed topics that revolve around the problem of evil (taking aim at god's omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence):

Who is this god and what did he command?

1) The biblical concept of god evolved from polytheism to monotheism.
2) The biblical god required human sacrifices for his pleasure.
3) The biblical god commanded genocide.

God does not care:

4) God does not care much about slaves.
5) God does not care much about women.
6) God does not care much about animals.

God is ignorant:

7) God is ignorant about science.
8) God is ignorant about the future

God is incompetent:

9) God is an incompetent creator.
10) God is an incompetent redeemer.

Randal's proposed ten topics (i.e., canards) are:

1) If there is no God then life has no meaning
2) If there is no God then everything is permitted.
3) Science is no substitute for religion
4) God is the best explanation of the whole shebang
5) If there is no God then we don’t know anything (the argument from reason)
6) Atheism spoils Valentine’s Day (Argument against naturalistic views of love)
7) Everybody has faith, so why not make yours a reasonable one?
8) The Hallelujah Chorus. Period. (Argument from beauty)
9) God best explains the miracles in people’s lives
10) Jesus was resurrected, so who else do you think raised him?

This is going to be a unique book, a very good one, and yes, I think I'm trashing him. ;-)

[Updated from a 12/23/10 post]

"The End of Christianity" is Now Available in Kindle

2011-10-21T05:35:00.001-04:00

Link. Finally!

FFRF's "Fool Me Once" Campaign Looks Excellent!

2011-10-21T05:32:00.000-04:00

Link.

A New and Better Pascal's Wager: If God Asked You to Wager Before Being Born What Would You Choose?

2011-10-21T03:01:00.002-04:00

Why didn't we get a choice in whether or not we would be born on earth? Wouldn't the reasonably good thing to do is to create us and then ask us if we would want to be born knowing the risks involved?

God could have presented us with an informed choice to either be born or to be put out of existence forever, with heaven up for grabs if we wanted to take the risk. God would accurately inform us what the probabilities are to gain heaven should we be sent to earth as a babies somewhere. And we would know the probabilities that we might not be raised in the right Christian family and might therefore be sent to hell because of it. We would be fully informed persons about the risks involved. After all, this would be our lives! We're sentient conscious moral beings. Why wouldn't God give us a choice in the matter? It's unethical for him not to do so. It would be a Pascal's Wager in heaven before being created on earth. If I were given that choice I would simply say "No, count me out! Put me out of existence now." That would be the reasonable thing to do if I became informed about the odds. Only a fool would choose otherwise. And yet here I am without any choice in the matter who apparently will be condemned to hell.

[First Posted 3/2/11]

Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Refuses to Debate William Lane Craig

2011-10-20T09:15:00.004-04:00

Link. He writes:

Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament. Anyone who criticises the divine bloodlust is loudly accused of unfairly ignoring the historical context, and of naive literalism towards what was never more than metaphor or myth. You would search far to find a modern preacher willing to defend God's commandment, in Deuteronomy 20: 13-15, to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder....

Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.

I have to admit Dawkins has class. He continually turns the tables on believers. Listen, we would refuse to debate a Holocaust denier, a spokesperson for the KKK, or a militant Muslim. Why would we? Doing so legitimizes their position. He refuses to debate an apologist for genocide even though Craig speaks for the majority of evangelicals in America. It appears that Dawkins doesn't care that Craig's view is a majority view. It's just not right for him to legitimize such an absurd position, and I can admire that.

Does a Religious Context Increase the Odds of a Miracle?

2011-10-20T06:56:00.003-04:00

Christian apologists point out that the probability of a miracle is increased when it occurs in a “religious context” as opposed to one that is a merely an “anomaly.” William Lane Craig states that: “A miracle without a context is inherently ambiguous. But if a purported miracle occurs in a significant religio-historical context, then the chances of its being a genuine miracle are increased. For example, if the miracles occur at a momentous time and do not recur regularly in history, and if the miracles are numerous and various, then the chances of their being the result of some unknown natural cause are reduced.” Then he proceeds to argue that in the case of Jesus his resurrection took place in such a religious context.1

In a like manner Michael Licona argues: “We may recognize that an event is a miracle when the event…occurs in an environment or context with religious significance, In other words, the event occurs in a context where we might expect a god to act. The stronger the context is charged in this direction, the stronger the evidence becomes that we have a miracle on our hands.”2 Comparing David Hume’s hypothetical example where Queen Elizabeth comes to life after dying with the resurrection of Jesus, Licona says, “a significant difference exists” because “the historical matrix in which the data for Jesus’ resurrection appears is charged with religious significance…whereas the life of the queen enjoys no such context.”3

What are they talking about? Licona offers two analogies. If a fifty year old blind atheist from birth recovers his sight on a Saturday for no apparent reason, this is merely an anomaly, an unexplained fact. It might be a miracle, but who can say for sure. There just wasn’t anything other than the fact of his recovery itself that offers us a clue as to why this happened. But if instead, this same atheist had a Baptist preacher visit him out of the blue, who prayed and recited the words to the song, Amazing Grace, where at the moment he says, “I was once blind but now I see” the atheist recovered his sight, that is a religious context. And in such a context a physician as a physician is justified in thinking a miracle has indeed occurred, Licona argues.4

So apparently if an anomalous unexplained event takes place and its timing is also improbable because of a religious context, then it has a better chance to be a miracle. The timing of the event adds to the improbability because of the religious context. If a blind atheist from birth recovered his sight at a specific moment when someone said, “Be healed,” or prayed, that gives his recovery more probability that it is a miracle. But notice that Licona didn’t suggest an analogy where the atheist bathed in the Ganges River in India and was subsequently healed of his blindness; nor one involving a witchdoctor’s spells healing him, nor one in which he recovered his eyesight because a Catholic nun prayed for him in the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, in France. All of these analogies involve a religious context too. And even though these are just analogies, from what I can tell, sick blind and paraplegic people in charismatic and Pentecostal churches are prayed for every worship service, sometimes under the same circumstances of this hypothetical story, to no avail. So even if such an event might actually happen someday I might want to ask why so many others are not healed under the same circumstances.

Nonetheless, I can't grant his point about the religious context. For a miracle like the one Licona described would be considered as some testimonial evidence that a miracle had taken place despite the religious context. After all, a miracle by his definition is one where “there could be no natural cause.” That alone, if it happened, is at least some good evidence I would think. What does the improbability of the timing add to such an impossible event when the event is ipso facto impossible from all we know about natural causes? If unexpectedly someone levitated in front of a group of people for no apparent reason, with no explanation for why it happened, what does it add to such a naturally impossible event if someone were to have commanded him to levitate by the power of his god just before it happened? It’s already an impossible enough of an event that the command to levitate by this believer doesn’t add much of anything to the improbability of the event itself. All it seems to add is which particular god might have caused it. Although, in my case, I might actually think such setup decreases the probability that it was a miracle, since it would look like a magician’s trick rather than an actual miracle of a man levitating after being commanded to do so.

In any case I could cite an endless number of claims of healings and miracles coming from many other religious traditions beginning with the dawn of human history. Do any of these other miracle claims have any more probability to them because they took place in a religious context? If a religious context increases the probability that a miracle occurred then how does that help Christian apologists, since most all miracle claims come from specific religious contexts. Neither William Lane Craig nor Michael Licona are claiming anything special with regard to their faith here. And so I have no reason to accept their miracles have any better attestation to them then others simply by virtue of their own religious contexts.

----------

1. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, p. 569.
2. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 163.
3. Ibid., p. 164.
4. Ibid., pp. 165-66.

More On The Outsider Test for Faith

2011-10-20T06:38:00.004-04:00

All a person has to do is make an interesting argument that provokes debate. If you have done that then you have done well. It furthers the discussion. The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is such an argument. Here is a recent email and my answers to the objections.

Mr. Loftus,

As a believer, I began first to read The Christian Delusion. Therein you responded to objections that had been raised against the OTF as you had presented it in WIBA--which I read following TCD. As a believer, these were some of the objections I raised regarding the OTF:

In response to the objection that the OTF's skepticism is self-defeating, I took issue with your claim that it was not because the OTF is not a belief system but, rather, an approach to truth.

Assuming you're right, the OTF is still self-defeating.
This is so because the OTF as an approach to truth can only be employed as an approach to truth by those who hold it as a true approach. But one can only hold it as a true approach by either assuming it's validity by petitio principii, or declare it is outside the bounds of its own demands--thus special pleading.

Remember, I have repeatedly said to believers to provide a better alternative. They have not done so. Therefore my approach to truth is a better one barring no other. You are arguing in a circle here, that people only choose the approach to truth that bolsters what they think is true. I would think anyone who argues this way is saying that religious truth, or truth in general, is in one's own head and what is true for one person isn't true for someone else because the standards of truth are different. How do you propose to get out of saying this?

And I am not assuming anything in specific with regard to the OTF. I've justified it by the sciences of psychology, cultural anthropology and the sheer demographics of religious diversity spread out into geographical zones over the earth. People who disagree cannot disagree with the evidence of the sciences. Given that evidence, what is the best way to approach truth and religious truth in particular? I propose that we follow the sciences. There is no other way. The OTF is based on science, and so when it comes to extraordinary miraculous claims the sciences take a skeptical approach to them, especially since there are so many extraordinary claims that support mutually exclusive religions.

My claim is two-fold with regard to the OTF: 1) Christians use it when examining other religions, which means they agree with it but are not consistent in using it; and 2) If a deity did not make a religious faith pass the OTF when there is a hell to pay for disbelief, then people will be condemned to hell by virtue of the fact that they were born in different religious cultures as outsiders.

My other qualms with the OTF were the ambiguities involved in passing the OTF:

At what point does the evidence outweigh the skepticism?
Is the skepticism we employ our own subjective skepticism that needs to be outweighed by the evidence, that of another's, or some skeptical standard above us all?
If each individual varies in their level of skepticism in relation to various doctrines, is the OTF only meant to satisfy our own skepticism? If not, what is the objective standard that makes up what you are referring to as skepticism?

An argument can be sound without it being convincing. What is convincing is person-related. It always is. Keep that in mind.

I do not need to specify what should turn a believer into a skeptic. I am proposing a methodology for getting at the truth, one that believers themselves use, one that has no rival, one that is supported by the sciences, and one that would call into question a good loving God if a religion was not made to pass that test when there is a hell to pay. And I say that if one's religion passes the test then have at it.