Theodicky by Thom Stark
Here is an older post written by a Christian theist dealing with the problem of evil in light of the Haitian earthquake. I'm pretty impressed with it. Here are a few snippets to whet your appetites:
Christian Professor Dr. Randal Rauser to Review TCD
After reading 70% of it he writes:
The Christian DelusionA quick look at Dr. Rauser's Curriculum Vitae shows he's not a Bible thumper to say the least. This should be interesting....is an engaging read. The essays are generally of a high caliber and it provides a strong, comprehensive case against Christianity. I am grateful to Loftus and the other essayists for putting this volume together and very much looking forward to engaging it in the weeks to come. Link.
Can a Religion Pass The Outsider Test for Faith?
The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) calls upon believers to test their own geographically inherited faith with the same level of skepticism they use to test the religious faiths they reject. The only kind of religion that might possibly pass this test is one that embraces some kind of nebulous god (although I don't think one exists). I think all of the so-called divinely revealed religions based in the ancient superstitious past fail this test. And yet, it didn't have to be this way had there been more evidence to believe. The evidence just doesn't exist for any of them. Christianity, for instance, could pass the OTF if God provided the needed evidence to believe. But he didn't do so.
My Chapter in TCD is the Inspiration for Someone at Debate.org
I hope The Instigator on this forum does well with it. He begins:
In this debate, I shall argue that the existence of vast amounts of animal suffering is a compelling reason to reject the existence of a theistic, omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God. This debate is targeted specifically at Christians, and Christian responses to the argument. For those who are interested, the inspiration for this debate comes from the chapter "The Darwinian Problem of Evil" in the recent atheistic anthology The Christian Delusion
The Problem With Using God as an Explanation
Actually there are many problems with using God as an explanation. Let me highlight what I consider one of the most important problems. It's this: it explains too much. It explains everything, and so it explains nothing. What do I mean by this? If every problem can be solved by a single solution then the solution has too much explanatory power. It becomes a simplistic solution.
Debating Bart Ehrman is a Bad Idea?
So writes Jim Elliff on the Christian Communicators Worldwide blog. It is "wrongheaded" to set up debates with Bart Ehrman "or, for that matter, any unbelieving skeptic." Link. Why? Because debates like these will cause some believers to lose their faith. He's got that right. It does. ;-)
"Reading Books is Bad for Evangelical Christians"
Hey, I liked this post very much. I'm mentioned in it!
The Choice is Emphatically NOT Between Christianity and Atheism
I am an atheist. I reject all religious faiths and paranormal claims. In fact I reject faith, period. I should never take a leap of faith beyond what the evidence leads me to conclude. So I do not believe. I am a non-believer. That distinguishes me from people who believe. Believers are all in one category (or type, or classification) of knowers. Non-believers are in a different category of knowers. Believers base what they claim to know on faith. Non-believers base what they claim to know on the actual probabilities.
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
16) That while the results of science are assured when it comes to chemistry, physics, meteorology, mechanics, forensic science, medical science, rocket science, computer science, and so forth, when it comes to evolutionary science that shows all present life forms have common ancestors, or when science tells us that dead bodies do not arise from the grave because total cell necrosis is irreversible, the results of science are wrong because the Bible says otherwise.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Quote of the Day by Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society
If science disappeared from human memory, we would soon be living in caves again. If theology disappeared from human memory, no one would notice. Theology is a completely and utterly useless pursuit. It is self-indulgence of the first order. Link.
HT Russ
Interesting Recent Unrelated Posts
Listen to an interview with Bible scholar Dr. Jaco Gericke.
Then check out Dr. Keith Parsons on Robin Collins's fine tuning argument.
And don't miss Dr. Ken Pulliam's posts related to slavery in the South. With regard to slavery the pro-slavery arguments were stronger than the abolitionists. See for yourself what the pro-slavery contingent said.
Then check out Dr. Keith Parsons on Robin Collins's fine tuning argument.
And don't miss Dr. Ken Pulliam's posts related to slavery in the South. With regard to slavery the pro-slavery arguments were stronger than the abolitionists. See for yourself what the pro-slavery contingent said.
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
14) That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
13) That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy even though there is not one passage in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today's historical-grammatical hermeneutical method.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Was Mark's Gospel a Work of Fiction?
As I've argued before, history is a slender reed to hang a religious faith on. The evidence for an event happening in the past is always going to be less than what we personally experience--always! We know all to well about forgeries, faked evidence, and fraudulent claims to take anything at face value, especially when it comes to the past, and exponentially when it comes to some miraculous story in the ancient superstitious world.
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
12) That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Secular Nation Podcast Featuring David Eller on "You Atheists Just Aren't Natural"
For today’s Podcast Dr. David Eller will read his article, “You Atheists Just Aren’t Natural”. Dr. Eller holds a PhD in anthropology and teaches in Denver Colorado. Dr. Eller has been featured in several freethought magazines including Secular Nation and is also featured in John Loftus’s newly published book “The Christian Delusion.” Listen here.
Some New and Interesting Books
A last six of these books I already have. The others look really interesting to me and are on my wish list.
An Open Challenge to William Lane Craig
Dr. Craig answers one question a week here. I had asked him a question about Lessing's ugly broad ditch, which he answered nearly three years ago here. Immediately afterward I asked him a follow-up question. So far there has been no response. Maybe he'll get to it? At least I hope so. I issue a public challenge for him to answer it:
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
11) That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Christianity Disproved
I like this site Christianity Disproved. There's lots to see and to digest. The problem is that Christianity has been disproved in every generation, especially since the Enlightenment. Christian apologists simply reinvent their faith in every generation to save it from refutation. What we have in subsequent generations is a slightly different form of the inherited branches of Christianity. As generation piles upon generation what we have are different forms of Christianity such that the Christianities of today would have suffered under the Office of the Inquisition they are so far removed. And the Christianities of the future will be just as different as today's forms.
CNN Launches Belief Blog, Controversy Ensues
Welcome to CNN’s Belief Blog, where we'll cover the role that faith and belief play in the news - and in our readers’ lives.Because of the outcry from atheists like PZ Meyers and others, this Blog may also give voice to atheist and nonbeliever issues.
We believe that understanding the role of faith in today’s world isn’t optional or nice to know. It’s need to know.
"Religions that preach retribution for non-belief cannot in fact lay claim to being reasonable"
When I threaten you, I automatically remove reason as an allowable means to accepting my claim. I’ve in effect determined your choice. If you were truly free to exercise reason, I would have to accept its outcome no matter what, even if I considered you gravely mistaken. Punishment for arriving at a wrong conclusion turns reason into a thought-crime.
So when believers like Christians or Muslims contend their faiths are based on reason, one may simply object that this can’t be so because their god in fact doesn’t allow it. Using reason to arrive at any other belief than the correct one will earn you an eternity in hell. Thus, reason is in reality an evil to be avoided....Blind, unquestioning, and unexamined belief is what the theist’s retributive god truly desires, not a belief grounded in reason. Link
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
10) That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Theories of Punishment and the Substitutionary Atonement
Ken Pulliam broaches this subject by asking,
Why do we punish wrongdoers? What is the purpose of the punishment? It is crucial to understand the theories of punishment in order to properly understand the rationale behind the Penal Substitutionary Theory (PST) of the atonement. Link
Christians Impaled on the Horns of a Moral Dilemna
Take for instance chapter eight in The Christian Delusion written by Hector Avalos. He argues that Yahweh is a moral monster, contrary to Paul Copan.
Here then is the dilemma: The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher's god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.
written by Hector Avalos. He argues that Yahweh is a moral monster, contrary to Paul Copan. Here then is the dilemma: The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher's god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
9) That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Answering Two Objections That Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet
Two objections to my chapter 12 in The Christian Delusion have surfaced. You can read a summary of it right here, but keep in mind that dealing with a summary of a chapter is not dealing with the case I present in that chapter. Let me answer these two objections.
have surfaced. You can read a summary of it right here, but keep in mind that dealing with a summary of a chapter is not dealing with the case I present in that chapter. Let me answer these two objections.
Labels:
"The Infidel Delusion"
How NOT to Argue Against Me: A Critique of Shandon L. Guthrie's Critique
You can find several summaries of my new book The Christian Delusion out there. But if you think dealing with a summary of a book is the same thing as dealing with the arguments in it, then think again. One professor did this with my previous book Why I Became an Atheist,
and this is how I responded:
out there. But if you think dealing with a summary of a book is the same thing as dealing with the arguments in it, then think again. One professor did this with my previous book Why I Became an Atheist, and this is how I responded:
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
The Library of a Preacher Friend
Today I visited a "tent-making" pentecostal preacher/contractor friend and I was surprised to find he had a massive library filling up nearly a whole bedroom sized office space in his home. I browsed the books and did not find one book written by a liberal or a skeptic. I found Bible commentaries from conservative publishers, self-help psychology based Christian books (like how to have a good marriage, or raise good Christian kids), expositor's preaching books, spiritual warfare books, and a handful of apologetic books written by conservatives. He is a conservative and only reads conservative books. So no wonder he's a conservative. He does not have to read what the liberals say, or the skeptics. Others do that for him who tell him why they are wrong. His library assumes that the Bible is true. All he needs to do is understand the Bible and apply it. His reading is based on trust. He trusts conservatives to tell him how to understand, apply, and preach the truth. He does not trust anyone else. Others will deceive him. Sheesh.
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
5) That there was a first human pair (Adam & Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
What Best Debunks Religion: Studying Science Or the Humanities?
Science steadily but effectively acts as a corrosive to religion. That's why we must insist our students become more scientifically literate. But a recent study done by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research shows that what produces the most religious skepticism among college students is when they study the social sciences.
In other words, humanities and social sciences, much more than biological and mathematical sciences, challenge you to imagine the world though the eyes of others. And this exercise in imagination undercuts religious dogma far more effectively than any science lesson can.
A Paraphrase of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
What do you think of "Ed's paraphrase of the Kalam Cosmological Argument":
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe may have begun to exist, but the verdict is still out on that.
(3) Therefore, no conclusion about whether the universe has a cause can be advanced at this time. ;-) Link.
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
The End of Cosmology?
In the March '08 issue of Scientific American is an article describing the future of our universe. First click on the scanned in image.
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
I'm going to start a series of posts describing what must be the case if Christianity is true. When done I'll put them all together so Christians can see the formidable obstacles there are to their faith at a glance.
1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.
1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.
Labels:
"Reality Check"
Reviews of "The Christian Delusion" Book
Apart from the reviews you can find on Amazon, several atheists are reviewing the book The Christian Delusion. I'll update this post as others write fair and substantive reviews of it, perhaps including some quotes from thoughtful and respectful Christians when I see them.
. I'll update this post as others write fair and substantive reviews of it, perhaps including some quotes from thoughtful and respectful Christians when I see them.
Labels:
"TCD"
Isn't God's Creation Wonderful?
God could not have made all creatures as vegans/vegetarians, could he? Nope. Not a chance. It was impossible for him. Right?
"John, I'm Scared to Doubt Because I Might Go to Hell"
Someone recently wrote this to me. At one time I too was scared to doubt. But I was never scared of Allah's threat of hell. In fact, I never gave it a thought. Why are people scared of the Christian hell when they have never been scared of the Muslim hell? When Muslims leave their faith they are just as scared of Allah's hell as Christians seem to be about Yahweh's hell. If Christians are not scared of Allah's hell then they should not be scared of Yahweh's hell. Both conceptions of hell are culturally inherited beliefs.
Is This What We Should Expect From God?
What do you think of the following question emailed to me by Andre:
Is it rationally defensible to believe that God would have created the entire universe, including millions / billions of years of suffering, including human and animal suffering, the extinction of the majority of species and the endless, wasteful suffering we see around us simply in order for a chosen few humans, who have managed to comply with his wishes, may spend eternity in bliss with him?
My Strategy for Debunking Christianity (Once Again)
Christians are already atheists (skeptics) of all other religions, so all I need to do is get them to be atheists (skeptics) of their own religion. If I can do this they will be forced to think for themselves and no longer rely on the Bible or Christian theology for the answers to existence. Here's how I debunk Christianity. I've decided to do for Christians what I myself experienced. It is/was liberating to become a freethinker rather than, as Voltaire quipped, "a nonthinker." You see, there is a big difference between historians and apologists. Historians want to know what happened in the past. Apologists assume their faith is true and then do whatever it takes to defend it. Apologists cannot say, "Oh, maybe the evidence isn't there after all." Nope. They feel a huge responsibility to defend the faith for their respective clientele. I can even grant believers that some sort of deity exists. Big deal if she does! As I have argued a hundred times before it makes no difference. Why? Because natural theology is (or should be) dead.
Labels:
"debunking strategy"
Do I Sound Like a Fundamentalist?
Since I appear so cocksure that Christianity is a delusion some people think I'm a fundamentalist on a par with the late Jerry Falwell. Here's a discussion I'm having about this with a Christian philosopher:
Hey, Would Someone Please Do Me A Favor on YouTube?
Given the ubiquitousness of animal suffering and pain inflicted upon each other and by human beings, would someone please put some of these images to Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World? Or how about from Disney's The Circle of Life? I think it would have its effect. There is no excuse for this world if there exists a perfectly good creator.
More On How Can We Know Who is Wrong
Here's the discussion continued from How Can We Decide Who is Wrong?
Face it John, chapters 2 & 3 in The Christian DelusionMy response:I really think that given the way you are forced to argue your case above (very lame) that you are blind. The reason we cannot agree is because you are not willing to be consistent nor can you allow yourself to even consider that you are living in a cult group surrounded on every side by many other Moonies......you could just as easily be talking about atheists as well as Christians. I say you’re blind, you say I’m blind. I say you’re inconsistent, you say I’m inconsistent. I say your sources are weak, you say my sources are weak. I’m willing to say it’s an intellectual stalemate, but you believe you have intellectual superiority. If the answers were as obvious as either of us thinks they are, this issue would have been settled during the Enlightenment.
How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?
Here's an email exchange I recently had with a Christian. It's typical of many others. I said:
Although both of us could be wrong, at least one of us is wrong. How do you propose deciding which one of us is right, if one of us is?His response:
I agree that at least one of us is wrong. Unless one of sees evidence or has an experience to convince us otherwise, neither of us will change our minds. No matter how much you and others want to paint it otherwise, atheism is not a purely scientific conclusion.My response:
It's the method of science that shows your faith to be wrong. There is no other way but to assume a natural explanation for everything. That method has no need of a god. Historians cannot approach the past any other way, nor can scientists. If we cannot know something by the method of naturalism as applied in science and history then we cannot know something at all.
The Case For "The Case Against The Case For Christ"
Bob Price's new book The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel, incinerates Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ, along with the evangelical apologists he interviews, including Craig L. Blomberg, Gregory Boyd, Ben Witherington III, D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, J.P. Moreland, and others. However, I doubt many of the people who read Strobel's book will read Price's book, not the least of which because understanding Price might demand a better understanding of the issues than the cream puff book Strobel wrote for the average person in the pew, but also because Price seems so disgusted with evangelical apologists at this point in his career he can't hide it.
Matt McCormick debated Russell DiSilvestro on the Resurrection
See what you think. I liked his opening statement.
"You Can't Trust Science!"
Christians accept the results of science in a vast number of areas. That is, except for just a few that contradict their holy ancient superstitious book. This video below is a nice summary of the results of science. How does religion stack up with science? Let's see, that book says there was a universal flood (so say many Christians). Science shows that this did not happen. What to do, what to do? How do I decide? Let's see, science says virgins don't have babies. Science shows this could not happen. What to do, what to do? How do I decide? That's easy for me. You?
Ken Pulliam Answers Two Important Questions in Genesis
Does Genesis Teach the Big Bang?, and Have Jews Always Believed in Creation ex nihilo? His answer in both cases is a big fat NO!
Do Fish Feel Pain?
Yes, argues biologist Victoria Braithwaite in her new book, Do Fish Feel Pain?
These important findings reinforce my chapter on The Darwinian Problem of Evil for The Christian Delusion. What did animals do to deserve their pain? I argue that it doesn't matter one whit whether humans inflict this pain on them or whether God did. There can be no moral justification for it at all, none. I also consider whether these animals, all of them, will be compensated in heaven for their sufferings, as some Christians have affirmed. All you need to do is imagine what a heaven would be like with fish in it, for example, and you can see the silliness of the whole concept. Besides, merely compensating creatures for their sufferings cannot morally justify their sufferings, otherwise we could justify torturing any sentient being by simply compensating them afterward.
These important findings reinforce my chapter on The Darwinian Problem of Evil for The Christian Delusion. What did animals do to deserve their pain? I argue that it doesn't matter one whit whether humans inflict this pain on them or whether God did. There can be no moral justification for it at all, none. I also consider whether these animals, all of them, will be compensated in heaven for their sufferings, as some Christians have affirmed. All you need to do is imagine what a heaven would be like with fish in it, for example, and you can see the silliness of the whole concept. Besides, merely compensating creatures for their sufferings cannot morally justify their sufferings, otherwise we could justify torturing any sentient being by simply compensating them afterward.
Robert M. Price on Myth and Method
Nothing in Hume or Troeltsch or Bultmann, that I can see, bids us reject miracle claims without weighing the evidence. It is just that, given the limitations imposed upon us (until we invent the time machine, that is), we cannot detect “probable miracles” even if they happened! Historical inquiry cannot touch them, even if time travel would show them to have been real!...Faith claims to be able to do an end-run around the data and to obtain certainty about an ostensible miracle via some other way. But what way is that? It is, I think, nothing more than the will to believe.
Hume already allows us to accept a miracle report, provided any naturalistic explanation would sound even more far-fetched than a supernatural one. In appealing to the universal facts of human experience, Hume is being neither deductive nor circular. He is merely appealing to what everyone knows: the frequent reports of the extraordinary we hear from UFO abductees, Loch Ness Monster fans, people who see ghosts or who claim psychic powers, always seem to turn out to be bunk upon examination. From The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails
"The Invention of Lying" is a Funny Movie
Here's a great clip in which Ricky Gervais tells lies in order to give people hope for a life after death. It's hilarious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
DC receives pennies on the dollar no matter what you buy at no extra cost and helps keep me Blogging. There are 
