In my world miracles like virgin births and resurrections do not happen. What world do you live in? If they do not happen now then they did not happen in the ancient past either. And that's how historians must view the evidence. Yesterday's evidence has lost all of its power to convince. We do not believe in miracle claims in today's world and we live in this world. So how much more so is it the case that we cannot believe they took place in the ancient past! We can interview people in today's world and we still don't believe they happened. How much more so is this the case in the ancient past where we cannot interview the people involved! The overwhelming numbers of Jews in the days of Jesus did not believe he resurrected even though they believed in a miracle working God named Yahweh and the Old Testament. How much more so then is it the case in our world that we cannot believe when miracles are supposed to establish that Yahweh did a particular miracle in the past! Again, if they do not happen in our day then they did not happen in the past either. What world are YOU living in? --John W. Loftus
I saw my cousin Bill at the restaurant this weekend and told him a bit about how my books are being received and a few speaking engagements I've had recently. I asked him that maybe he'd want to come with me to one of them. He responded, "I don't want to hear any of your vile." Well then, he has his mind made up hasn't he?
My claim is that believers like him were brainwashed or indoctrinated by being raised to believe in their respective cultures. I know he was. If my claim is correct then believers must be confronted with the issues I raise to know whether in fact they are, since, without being confronted with them they will never know that they are, if they are. Christian do you agree?
When it comes to foreknowing our future, Craig argues that God has Middle Knowledge such that he knows “what every possible creature would do under any possible circumstances,” “prior to any determination of the divine will.”[1] So despite his protestations to the contrary isn’t it obvious that if Craig’s God has this kind of foreknowledge he could simply foreknow who would not accept his offered salvation before they were even created, and then never create them in the first place? If he did that “hotel hell” would never have even one occupant. Why not?
In question #202 at Reasonable Faith Dr. Craig tries to answer this type of problem:
Daylight Atheism, in discussing Sam Harris's controversial but insightful book, The Moral Landscape, argues we can step over the "is-ought" problem and I agree. Here's the money quote:
It's true that you can't take any catalogue of facts about human nature, however comprehensive, and from them distill the conclusion: "We ought to value human flourishing." But for the same reason, it's also true that you can't start with any catalogue of facts about human history or the world, however comprehensive, and from them distill the conclusion: "We ought to use the scientific method to study reality." Does this cast doubt on the legitimacy of science as a human endeavor? More importantly, does it imply that there exist other ways of knowing that are just as valid? No system of thought can be derived out of thin air. They all have to be based on axioms that can, in principle, be rejected. But if that's a strike against objective morality, it's also a strike against philosophy, science, mathematics, and every other branch of human inquiry as well....And what to do with those stubborn philosophical skeptics, who insist to their last breath that we can't prove that human well-being should be valued above other qualities? Let them be. If our approach to morality is correct, its superiority will be borne out in practice and people will eventually be persuaded to come along for the ride, just as theists switched from faith healing to antibiotics when they saw how much more effective the latter was. Link.
Of course, there were lots of books for me to choose from. In a few cases I had to choose just one book even though the author wrote several. And in a few other cases Christianity merely adapted and changed in response to a book. But in their day each of these authors threatened Christianity to its core. You can still get them and read them for yourselves. Do so.
Christian theists love to point out the limits of science, and it does have some. But to focus on them to the exclusion of the massive amount of information we have acquired from science is being extremely ungrateful for what it has achieved. To me that is one aspect of the denigration of science. The limits of science are based in 1) the limits of human imagination, and 2) the limits of that which we can detect. That which is undetectable does not fall within the realm of science, although, with further advances in our scientific instruments we can detect things that were previously thought undetectable. If science does reach its limits in the future, there won't be any cause for theistic celebration because scientists may not know they have reached its limits, and because there are probably some things they might never know. Why should that conclusion, if they reach it, be preferred to an evolving God concept in a sea of god-concepts without any means to settle which one is to be preferred as the best explanation of the same data? What is the theistic alternative method for squeezing the truth out of the universe? What is it? Until theists can propose a better method than science to learn about the universe, they should just shut up!
Yep, that what Vic Reppert and gang must do, and Vic is supposedly an intellectual whom Christians say stands head over heels above me! lol Is this not completely and utterly ignorant? This is why I cannot believe. To do so you must be ignorant! I need not even respond since someone named Doctor Logic already did. See below:
As a non-scientist who appreciates how science works let's take a look through this recent New York Times article summarizing the proceedings of a gathering of two dozen chemists, geologists, biologists, planetary scientists and physicists who pondered "where and what Eden might have been." Here's the article.
You're both going down eventually. Kick against the goads all you want to. You're in denial. Lash out if you want. It'll do you no good. See here. As Led Zeppelin sings, "Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good." ;-)
Andrew Bowen, 28, of Lumberton, N.C., is spending the 12 months of 2011 being "spiritually promiscuous," he says with a wry sense of humor. Each month he immerses himself in a different religion, adopting its rites and rituals, learning from its prayers and scriptures, meeting with its believers and sharing what he learns with the world. Bowen calls this yearlong effort "Project Conversion." He said: "Although I'm not pretending to convert to any of these faiths, I am giving myself as fully as possible to their practices, beliefs, rituals and culture. It's 100 mph for a whole month. I have to digest material in 30 days that would take a normal devotee a lifetime. One cannot help but to start thinking, dreaming, acting, sleeping, eating, speaking, singing, even making love differently." Link
While Bowen is not religious this is something even better than the DC Challenge, Part 2. Any Christians want to do either of these things?
Some secular intellectuals have changed the world who, for all I know, were not nice people, or so we're told by Paul Johnson in his book, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky. I read a large part of the first edition when it came out in 1998, but it's now been revised. From people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, to Karl Marx, to Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemmingway, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and George Orwell, Johnson specializes in the dirt. From theft to divorce to womanizing to hypocrisy to opportunism to lies, he digs it all up. It's not flattering to any of them if true, and I cannot dispute his facts.
At the end of his book Johnson summarizes what is his main point:
Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information....This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival....Skeptical thinkers must realize that because of the survival value of beliefs, disconfirming evidence will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to change beliefs, even in “otherwise intelligent” people....[S]keptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. It is, quite literally, a threat to their brain’s sense of survival. It is entirely normal for people to be defensive in such situations. The brain feels it is fighting for its life....it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone’s beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics’ ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a “higher brain function” in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges. Link
I have been arguing daily for about six years online. I tire of arguing with people who continually move the goal posts, who seek out the tiniest loophole to drive a truckload of Christian assumptions through, who refuse to see the implications of current psychological studies on the state of the human mind, and who refuse to see the obvious and clear impact of my Outsider Test for Faith.
I've heard it all. And it disgusts me. Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable. This is an utterly unreasonable demand. I cannot show their faith is impossible. I can only show it to be improbable, very improbable. Not only that, but they refuse to see what they're doing. Let's rehearse these things with a few examples, okay?
I consider the evidential case against a good God from naturally caused suffering to be the most significant problem for believers.
Can anyone tell me why God did not do a perpetual miracle by averting that earthquake? If God was concerned about remaining hidden then no one would suspect he did anything if he averted it, because it would not have taken place. Anyone? Anyone?
I do think it’s fair to say New Atheists favor science and are suspicious of philosophy generally, and theology in particular. To my mind, there are several good reasons for this.
Like me, I suspect most New Atheists grew up seeing and benefitting from the ever-increasing fruits of science. It’s been said a million times, but I don’t think it can be over-emphasized: Science works. Science produces things. Philosophy and theology, on the other hand, seem only to produce more and more words.
Want to see an utterly ignorant analogy by a Christian intellectual named Ed Feser? He's not alone. Victor Reppert linked to what he said. Feser's gripe is against the "New Atheist Types." He says that "Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, and their clones in the blogosphere routinely display exactly the sort of ignorance and bigotry of which they haughtily accuse their opponents."
But Feser ends up being the ignorant bigot on this one.
Yep, with Dr. John Shook. Details here. It's probably not too late to sign up for it. Richard writes about it on his blog. I'm scheduled to teach a class for CFI in April.
Believers ask me if I am skeptical of what I believe about religion because the brain distorts the information we receive. Let me be clear here. Atheism is born of skepticism and is a full blown skepticism. Precisely because I know how our brains distort information I am skeptical of that which I want to be true, and more importantly, I demand evidence for what I believe. Have you ever seen TV programs like CSI and/or Law & Order? Something like that. They need evidence to arrest someone just like I need evidence to believe. So how can I be skeptical of my conclusion that some belief doesn't have any evidence for it, if there isn't any evidence for it, or if the evidence is weak? Atheists are known as non-believers for that very reason.
Every once-in-a-while believers show up to remind me that I'm not succeeding in debunking Christianity, at least not with them. Rob Lundberg recently said this: "I haven't seen an argument from you John that would have me think that you're right either. Cheers." Well, let me make a few comments and then I have a song for people like him.
Gary Marcus's book, Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind, is a body blow to religious belief. It performs a double service to us by showing how the evolution of our brain accounts for why we think so poorly, and in so doing goes a long way toward showing that religious belief is a product of this poor thinking. Very highly recommended.
Gary Marcus, professor of psychology at New York University, begins chapter one by saying: “If mankind were the product of some intelligent, compassionate designer, our thoughts would be rational, our logic impeccable. Our memory would be robust, our recollections reliable.” (p. 1). Instead, our brains evolved as a kluge. A kluge “is a clumsy or inelegant—yet surprisingly effective solution—to a problem.” Just picture a house constructed in stages by different contractors at later times and you can get the picture. The original bathroom might be extended, which in turn takes away some space from the living room, or an added bedroom which does away with the bathroom upstairs. Without starting all over with a completely new floor plan, we get a kludge
Does it just not cross any believer's mind that you're all ridiculous when you claim to know with certainty you're right and all others are wrong? What is it with you people? Are you just that dense? "No," you'll say, "the Mormons are wrong and we are the only ones right." Then still others will chime in: "I'm right!" "No, I am." "Am not." "Am too." Are not." "Are too." What idiocy! Do you just not realize what this looks like? Get a grip delusional people. Skepticism is the adult attitude. Grow up!
"Without an adequate theodicy, arguing for God’s existence will be like arguing that the earth is flat. Vast quantities of contrary data will either have to be ignored or dealt with in an arbitrary and ad hoc fashion." God and the Burden of Proof p. 132.
You know, the more I think of it, the more I think Christians--especially of the evangelical kind--argue in the same way as flat earthers. Read through that second link. See any parallels? I do.
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior is wonderfully written by two brothers that highlights several areas where we humans are not as rational as we think. It has serious implications for religious believers. Let me explain.
I'll tell you what, the more time I spend arguing with believers the more I become interested in psychology and how the brain works. It's not just the utter buffoons I'm talking about, which are many, but all of them. Christians are illogical and delusional. This I know, after spending years in my own delusion and after years of dealing with them since my deconversion. How can they be so deluded, I ask myself? How can they be so dumb? Recently a PhD sent me his criticisms of a part of my book, WIBA, so I began writing a response but abruptly stopped and deleted it, because it didn't deserve a response. I've heard it all before. And I've said it all before. I am convinced that defending the faith makes otherwise brilliant people look stupid. I mean it. That's what faith does to a person.
See a parallel here with the Outsider Test for Faith coming from Jerry Wilson?
I realized that all religions are bubbles. People see the other bubbles, but only from a perspective within their own bubble...I realize that, from a vantage point outside of all bubbles, all bubbles are equal. So all religions are equal and, therefore, all religions are equally wrong. Link
Someday in the future ardent Christians who visit us at DC will go through a similar deconversion just as he did, and just as I did.
I am personally attacked almost every day on the web for something I've written. If I don't respond then it's taken to mean I can't (WTF?). These Christians think all skeptical arguments are utterly lame, including mine. Who in their right mind would think this? Just once I'd like to hear a devout Christian say something like: "Hey, that's something I haven't thought of before," or, "This is a serious problem for my faith." It's just that these things are almost never said. No, they have the answers. And they laugh at all skeptical arguments, many of which derive from David Hume, who is thought to be the greatest English speaking philosopher who ever lived.
Now it's one thing to disagree with the skeptics. It's another thing entirely to think our arguments have no force at all. The fact that most Christians think they have no force at all simply means these Christians are delusional.
A few Christians and skeptics have criticized my book WIBA because in it I quote from many different sources to make my points for me. Let me explain why I did this and see if it makes sense.
This is my conclusion from reading this book by Thom Stark. It’s an absolute must read that I’ve included in my Debunking Christianity Challenge. I'll share a few criticisms of it but they pale by comparison with the over-all thrust of his powerful book. He comes from the same centrist Christian Church that I did, which is also noteworthy. Let me give you a brief overview of it.
Have I changed my attitude from wanting a respectful discussion of the issues that divide us? If so, why? Have believers changed me? Should I let them change me? Will they be better off if they do?...or worse off? Can I remain steadfast in hopes of the ideal in the midst of some utterly ignorant comments and personal attacks from people I think are delusional? Am I that kind of person? Should I even care?
Once again Victor Reppert has taken a pot shot at me. He has become somewhat fixated on me. I guess that's a compliment since he wouldn't do this if I was not a threat to his faith. And while I don't respond to many criticisms posted by Christian Bloggers I do feel the need to respond to him, which is a compliment to him as well. Should I bother responding?
Religion claims to set its followers free, while all the time holding them in thrall and insisting they kiss the hand of their jailer. There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles. Link
Anyone who understands the slightest bit of epistemology knows enough not to claim he or she knows too much with any degree of assuredness. Doubt about what we claim to know is a virtue. This is one of the reasons I doubt the Christian claims. Most Christians claim to know what they believe with complete assuredness. Just read their comments here at DC. I have repeatedly made the distinction between claiming to know something and doubting someone's claims. I simply doubt the Christian claims, and the following books could give Christians an insight into why this is reasonable to do...
There is an entry on the Outsiders Test at Iron Chariots. Here's the dilemma it presents for believers:
On the one hand, believers who object to the OTF look like a person who argues in a court room that he does not want a fair impartial judgment, but rather a biased one from a biased judge who operates on double standards.
On the other hand, believers who accept the rationale for the OTF have a great amount of difficulty in arguing that the raw uninterpreted historical data without any culturally adopted Bayesian "priors" leads the historian to the conclusion that Jesus bodily arose from the dead.
My anthology, The Christian Delusion, has been nominated for the best atheist book in 2010. Please cast your vote right here. If you think it's deserving I'd really appreciate your vote.
David Marshall's latest critique of the OTF confuses the success of a particular religion with passing the OTF, which, if correct, would make contradictory religions true by virtue of being successful. And he falsely assumes there is one brand of Christianity. Hence this is no critique of the test at all. He raises some issues that need to be addressed, but that's all. The issues he raises are addressed by Richard Carrier in chapter two of my forthcoming anthology, The End of Christianity, titled "Christianity's Success Was Not Incredible." And I've already explained why Secular Humanism (or atheism) can't win (or be successful).
For a religious faith to pass the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) it must be justified by the sciences. Period. If believers reject the sciences as a way to know the truth then let them propose a better alternative. So if the OTF is to be rejected, what do we put in its place? What’s the alternative?
You can read about the CFI Institute run by Dr. John Shook right here. Starting in March, Dr. Richard Carrier will be teaching a class on Naturalism. I'll be teaching one soon, perhaps in April. Other professors include Robert M. Price, Susan Jacoby, Nica Lalli, Dale McGowan, and others. Check it out.
I'll be back Thursday night from speaking on Darwin Day for two skeptical groups. Your group might consider having me speak, or for a debate. See ya Friday or so. Until then enjoy my scheduled posts.
The social sciences (which broadly speaking includes psychology) have shown us that people hold to unrecognized contradictory beliefs and that they can deceive themselves to accept their conscious beliefs despite the evidence. People have asked me from time to time if Christian apologists lie to defend their faith and I have repeatedly said that even though there are some Christians who do so, most Christian apologists are sincere believers. I still think that. But what's really going on is that these Christian defenders have become experts at deceiving themselves first. They are therefore deceiving others because they are deceiving themselves.
My task is to show them this is what they're doing. It's very hard to convince the deceived that they are deceiving themselves though. They don’t take too kindly to my doing so. They use several deceptive apologetics strategies and they use them all really well. The following apologetic strategies are used by defenders of the Christian faith to deceive. They are used to convince themselves against the evidence. They are used to convince others to embrace Christianity. Don't buy into their spiel.
Okay, get ready for another round of verbal body slams and charges of ignorance, but it's time to revisit Calvinism. I hate that theology with a passion, but keep in mind I do not hate Calvinists themselves (kinda like, "love the sinner hate the sin").
I've had enough. I am sick and tired of Christian intellectuals, from Paul Copan (my friend), to Victor Reppert and a lot lower down the totem pole to David Wood, in their attempts to say that the slavery in the American South was different than what the Bible allows, and so it should never have been used to justify it. If you want to see me hot tempered, then just raise this asinine argument. I try to get along here at DC by being respectful of Christian beliefs, but on this issue I cannot bend for one nanosecond. Don't even suggest it, as Dr. Victor Reppert just did. Here's what I wrote in response:
Navigate around at Closer to the Truth. There are some very interesting videos on a number of different topics by top notch philosophers, scientists and apologists, and they keep adding to it. You could spend hours and hours there. There are many hours of videos about the God question too. Let me know which ones you find interesting.
So in the spirit of John Loftus’ Outside Test for Faith, I propose a test. Before I or any other doubter, atheist, skeptic, or non-believer engages in a discussion about the reasons for and against God, the believer must look deep into his heart and mind and ask this question: Are there any considerations, arguments, evidence, or reasons, even hypothetically that could possibly lead me to change my mind about God? Is it even a remotely possible outcome that in carefully and thoughtfully reflecting on the broadest and most even body of evidence that I can grasp, that I would come to think that my current view about God is mistaken? That is to say, is my belief defeasible?
If the answer is no, then we’re done. There is nothing informative, constructive, or interesting to be found in your contribution to dialogue. Anything you have to say amounts to sophistry. We can’t take your input any more seriously than the lawyer who is a master of casuistry and who can provide rhetorically masterful defenses of every side of an issue. She’s not interested in the truth, only is scoring debate points or the construction of elaborate rhetorical castles (that float on air). Read more.
This objection comes in several different forms. Christians complain that skeptics demand that God should make his existence obvious to us with undeniable proof before we will believe, or that God should make all religious diversity disappear, or that we wouldn’t believe no matter what miracle God did before our eyes. Some atheists have even said as much, including PZ Myers, who recently said he would seriously consider that he had gone mad rather than believe a miracle had happened before his eyes.
The Christian then shoots his double barrel shotgun at us: 1) If we wouldn’t believe should God’s existence be obvious, then why would God bother providing more evidence in the first place? We simply have hardened hearts. If the present amount of evidence will not convince us then no amount of evidence will convince us at all. 2) If God’s existence was made to be obvious then it would eliminate the possibility of real choice, for it would equally be obvious what we ought to do. And if we would know what God requires of us and that we’d be punished if we disobey then “who but a complete fool would not do what is right?” Let me respond once and for all.
There are several blog posts in criticism of what I've written that I have not attempted to answer. Because I choose not to do so the accusation is leveled at me that I don't interact with the opposition. This is such idiocy that no wonder these people believe. Let me explain.
Christianity is not a worldview. A worldview is larger than one's religious beliefs. It encompasses everything a person accepts as true. So there are probably as many worldviews as there are people.
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Book of 2010
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Blog
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Podcast
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Website
* Best Agnostic or Atheist to Follow on Twitter
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Facebook Page
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Social Networking Website
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Forum
* Best Agnostic or Atheist Ad
This 13 minute cartoon video is very instructive, although a bit boring. It's the kind of stuff that converts people to Christianity within a Christian culture. [Warning: Watch it at your own risk! You may convert! lol] This is all you need to do to convert people. Tell a person who is in need a nice tear jerking story. It's easy!
Share some thoughts and links here. Then discuss them all you want to. I'm preparing for a couple of talks in the Los Angeles area. Keep me in mind for any upcoming events.
When you go to Amazon please begin by clicking on this link. DC receives pennies on the dollar no matter what you buy at no extra cost and helps keep me Blogging. There are other ways to donate too. Thank you all so very much!
argues we can step over the "is-ought" problem and I agree. Here's the money quote: 
. I read a large part of the first edition when it came out in 1998, but it's now been revised. From people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, to Karl Marx, to Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemmingway, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and George Orwell, Johnson specializes in the dirt. From theft to divorce to womanizing to hypocrisy to opportunism to lies, he digs it all up. It's not flattering to any of them if true, and I cannot dispute his facts. 
, is a body blow to religious belief. It performs a double service to us by showing how the evolution of our brain accounts for why we think so poorly, and in so doing goes a long way toward showing that religious belief is a product of this poor thinking. Very highly recommended.
p. 132.
is wonderfully written by two brothers that highlights several areas where we humans are not as rational as we think. It has serious implications for religious believers. Let me explain.
, has been nominated for the best atheist book in 2010. Please cast your vote 
is refreshing in several ways as a reminder that we need more dialogue between opposing sides, rather than more vitriol. 
DC receives pennies on the dollar no matter what you buy at no extra cost and helps keep me Blogging. There are 
