If you are a Christian and you believe the Bible is truth then the answer is an emphatic YES. The people recently killed by tornadoes? God’s doing. The people killed by Hurricane Katrina? God’s doing. The Bible is clear.
I'm part way through the book and already amazed. I thought the coolest thing in my copy would be Richard Carrier's signature. But, it's actually teaching me a lot about religion. It's the weirdest feeling. It's been years since one piece of media has seriously enlightened me on more than one or two topics. It's a rare gem to find something that dispels a misconception or suddenly clears up some issue, or corrects a mistake, or changes one's mind... but this book has already done all of those things and I'm only on the fifth chapter.What book is he talking about? This one. That's very gratifying to know, thanks.
Great looking bookI'll be saying the same thing that Hector Avalos does in his book, The End of Biblical Studies!
Hey-- can you answer this question -- what will you be saying, to make a quick response to the inevitable question to you, "What do you think will be the End of Christianity -- it just fades away into secularism, or mutates into something else, or gets absorbed into some other religion?" -- From John S.
. It's time that biblical studies as we know them should end. It's time to treat all ancient documents the same way, favoring none of them in the interests of learning how people in the ancient world thought, but not treating any of them as inspired. Avalos has a chapter in this book that sums up what he wrote. In it he calls for secularism. That's the goal anyway. Whether it takes place or not is the question.
Labels:
"Talbott"
, during his debate with Sam Harris? Remember? Books like Copan’s will only take Christianity ten steps back-wards. In the name of inerrancy, the truth is trampled. Contemporary popular apologists tend to look for any way to salvage the text, no matter how unlikely or untenable the argument. They’ll use scholarly sources selectively, or pounce on one scholar’s argument and run away with it, without any concern for the fact the vast majority of scholars haven’t been persuaded by it. They’re not interested in what’s plausible, only in what’s “possible,” if it serves their immediate purposes. They trade in eisegesis, wild speculation, and fanciful interpretations, reading into the text what isn’t there, indeed, what’s often contradicted by the very passages they cite—something Copan himself does not infrequently, as we’ll see.
The question is whether or not Copan realizes he’s stealing home before the pitch. Is he aware that he’s presenting selective evidence, taken out of context, from sources that completely disagree with him? Is he aware that by ignoring certain questions and discussions, he’s able to give the impression that the evidence he loves to allude to (without citing) actually undermines his position? Perhaps he is. Perhaps he isn’t. Sometimes it’s difficult for me to believe that he isn’t aware, but I’ll reserve judgment and leave the question open-ended. Ultimately, however, whether Paul Copan is or is not a moral apologist, the fact of the matter is that he has failed, thoroughly failed, to demonstrate that the God of the Old Testament is not a moral monster.
Bring it, Shuggoth!
We're not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn't take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that's highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.
In other words, when we think we're reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being lawyers (PDF). Our "reasoning" is a means to a predetermined end—winning our "case"—and is shot through with biases. They include "confirmation bias," in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and "disconfirmation bias," in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial. Link.
Labels:
"Prefer to be True"
, Unmasking the New Age
, and In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment.
Most people understand that we cannot usually infer ought from is. But what religious people like Craig seem to be doing is committing the even worse offense of what one might call the 'ought-is fallacy', where because they think that we need an objective morality in order to keep our barbaric impulses under control, therefore it must exist. And since they also think that only a god can supply such a morality, therefore a god must exist also.
No.
Believers in god have to first establish using empirical evidence that god exists before they can use god in arguments about morality or anything else. You cannot argue for the existence of god on the basis of some property that you arbitrarily assert must exist (for whatever reason) and that could have only come from god. Link.
Science doesn't kill people; people kill people. Religion doesn't kill people either, but it does tell you WHY you should...
Bill, in your debate with Sam Harris you claimed God was the grounding of objective morality. That word "God" is problematic though. Until that word is defined, or until you tell us how we know what this "God" wants us to do, or what it is, what you end up saying is that there is an objective grounding to morality, and that's it. But then Sam Harris agreed with you on that score.Think he will answer it?
What do you say to someone who claims this debate was just about semantics, that is, you both agreed there was an objective grounding to morality, but that the real debate concerned how you each defined the word "God"? Sam does not like that word, nor does he use it, and he would vehemently deny that the word applies to his grounding for morality. But what would you say to the objection that the debate was about what that word means, and you never told us anything about this "God" or how we know what "God" wants us to do, or what it is, so all you argued is that there is an objective grounding to morality, and that's it, in agreement with Harris. And since Harris attacked your notion of God repeatedly he won that debate.
Check it out. I am.
Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God's commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false.
It was wonderful being back on the Notre Dame campus again. Even though I am not a Catholic, I felt very much on the home court here and sensed the support of the Christian community. Many have remarked on the terribly low quality of the questions following the debate. What you need to understand is that the audience was loaded with people from the community who are part of the local sceptics group. Last year they also dominated the mikes, with the same intellectually dampening effect. Here's an amusing anecdote we received prior to the debate:
I think about my believing years, and it would have done me some good to hear people like Harris--or any smart person treating religious beliefs like the crazy delusions they are. When you treat these things with respect, then trusting people assume that there's something worthy of respect there-- that faith is something to be respected. I bet I would have found former preachers and priests turned atheists fascinating-- and there's growing numbers of them.
I'm glad we don't have to tiptoe around peoples' magical beliefs any more. I think there is a lot to be said for declaring the emperor naked. Of course believers will rush and swear that the emperor is wearing magical robes and that they saw them and that the silly person calling the emperor naked doesn't know anything deep about magical fabrics-- but the seeds of doubt will be planted in young minds and they will have a choice that many of us didn't have until later in life.
I do think that religion will mostly be associated with the less educated classes and the poorer in the future. One day people will wonder how it is that people could have ever really believed such crazy things.
Labels:
"Quote of the Day"
For starters,Eve is the one blamed for being convinced and led astray in the garden of eden by the naughty snake that convinces her to eat the fruit of the tree so that they will become as gods, Eve then leads adam astray by helping convince Adam to do likewise through being led by Eves example,thus causing downfall of man.
I cannot see any force in an argument to the existence of God from the existence of morality. The Existence of GodIf it doesn’t convince him why should it convince me, or anyone else for that matter?(p. 215).
Labels:
"Quote of the Day"
Labels:
"Debate Craig"
If, as liberal theologians tell us, the “necessary” evils of this world are exactly what God would produce given his penchant for human free will and for physical “freedom” like the movement of tectonic plates, then would a nicer world disprove the God Hypothesis? Don’t hold your breath, for the nature of the God Hypothesis is that no observation could ever disprove it. That’s why it’s not scientific at all, and why religion and science will never find an amiable concordat. 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!
