What is Faith/Belief? Can Believers Even Tell Us?

[A redated post] In David Eller's words, Malcolm Ruel in his book, Belief, Ritual and the Securing of Life,

...demonstrates that the concept of belief in Western civilization and Christianity has evolved, from a kind of "trust" in god(s) to specific propositions about God and Christ to the notion of "grace" based on the personal experience of and commitment to God and Christ to a conception of belief as an "adventure of faith" which does not have any particular destination or make any specific claims. The evolutionary trajectory of belief in Christianity is, then, distinctively "local" and historical--that is, culturally and religiously relative--and not to be found in every religion. Many religions do not have any "creed" of explicit propositions about their supernatural worlds, and many do not mix fact, trust, and value in the English/Christian way. Ruel concludes that the English and Western concept of belief is "complex, highly ambiguous, and unstable" and "is demonstrably an historical amalgam, composed of elements traceable to Judaic mystical doctrine and Greek styles of discourse." [Source: Introducing Anthropology of Religion, p. 33.]

Peter Boghossian and Tim McGrew on the Christian Program "Unbelievable"

There's a lot of blathering about Tim McGrew's so-called trashing of my friend and colleague Peter Boghossian. For the record, I view myself as Boghossian's bulldog and I have posted a few reviews of his book, A Manual for Creating Atheists.Randal Rauser's headline is this: Tim McGrew gives Peter Boghossian an unbelievable public drubbing. On the other side, James Lindsay carefully reviews their debate. You can listen to it on the program Unbelievable right here. I think he did well but McGrew threw him for a loop once or twice.

Read more »

What's the Difference?

As a Total Literary Fraud Filled with Stolen Religious Ideas, the Bible Offers the World Nothing New

It’s simple.  Can anyone name one technological advancement, one scientific achievement, or a single advancement in morals and ethics not already covered earlier and better in a neighboring cultures near Palestine ?  

Read more »

Without A Mythical Jesus, What Has Modern Scholarship Left Us With?

Meet the Son of God:  Jesus

"And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Matt. 8: 20)

When Jesus is stripped of all his miracles, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, his descend to Hell, and his accent to Heaven (all of which the majority of New Testament scholars inform us are later theological embellishments), popular modern scholars such as Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman tell us that Jesus was nothing but a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet whose eschatology about the End of the Age was materialize in his own crucifixion.

Read more »

The Case for Naturalism (Sean Carrol)

This is the opening statement by Sean Carroll at "The Great Debate: Has Science Refuted Religion?", sponsored by the Skeptic Society on 25 March 2012.  Other participants in the debate were Michael Shermer, Dinesh D'Souza, and Ian Hutchinson.

You can see the full debate here.

Beyond an Absence of Faith

This project has been a couple of years in the making, but it is one that myself and my co-editor are very proud of. Beyond an Absence of Faith: Stories About the Loss of Faith and the Discovery of Self is a collection of deconversion accounts from people of various worldviews from people from a number of countries.

Read more »

Jerry Coyne Reports: The Adam-and-Eve War Continues at Bryan College

The money quote:

The College is in a ferment over a topic close to my heart: the historicity of Adam and Eve. Even conservative Christians, it seems, have trouble believing that Adam and Eve were the literal ancestors of humanity. That historicity has become increasingly problematic since the appearance of new papers in population genetics, showing that over the last few hundred thousand years, the population of Homo sapiens could not have been smaller than about 12,250 (10,000 who remained in Africa and 2,250 who migrated out of Africa to populate the rest of the globe).

In other words, the human population never comprised only two people. And if Adam and Eve weren’t the literal ancestors of humanity, then a critical part of the Genesis story is wrong: the acquisition of Original Sin. And if there were no Original Sin accrued by a literal Adam and Eve, then all of us—their supposed descendants—aren’t sinful by birth, and Jesus’s return wasn’t necessary. LINK.

My, How the Truth of the Bible Has Fallen!

Biblical Archaeologist Nelson Glueck 

on the Cover of Time Magazine 1963

A famous quote by one of the 20^th century’s leading Biblical Archaeologist, Nelson Glueck:

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”  (Nelson Glueck from his 1959 book, Rivers in the Desert)

According to the late George Ernest Wright, Professor at, and Curator of Harvard’s Semitic Museum, “Glueck’s explorations are second to none, unless it is those of Edward Robinson.”

The question is now:  What can be proven historically true in the Bible (if anything)?

Quote of the Day, by Loftus

A god worthy of worship is a god that someone thinks is worthy of worship. As the world got bigger people needed a bigger god to worship. That's about it.

Dinesh D'Souza Pleads Guilty to Violating Campaign Finance Law

Link. He faces up to two years in prison. That's not the only thing he has faced recently.

Are You a Reasonable Christian? Do You Really Have Faith?

Richard Dawkins is a really good wordsmith and he wrote a very nice blurb for my soon to be released anthology, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.He wrote, “John Loftus knows from the inside what’s wrong with Christianity. Few people are better qualified to explain to those still in its clutches why they’d do well to leave, and he has assembled a fine team of colleagues to assist him in doing so. This book should convert a high proportion of those with the courage to read it.”

What intrigues me is that he says it takes courage to read such a book. Courage. I like that. I know of Christians who do not have the courage to read books like this one. I keep asking them "what do you have to lose?" Seriously. Wouldn't any reasonable person want to examine his or her faith by reading books from people who don't believe, just to see if there are any good reasons not to believe? If your faith survives then you will have a stronger faith. So, do you want a stronger faith or not? If your faith doesn't survive then wouldn't any reasonable person want to know?

Typically most Christians will only read Christian apologetic responses to books like this one. This is a lazy way to investigate your faith, representing no effort at all. Think on this. When you prepare to vote in an election do you only listen to what campaign headquarters for one candidate says without checking into the rebuttals of the other campaign? You shouldn't. Those running a particular campaign have a vested interest in getting their candidate elected. They are spin doctors if needed. They have a one track mind. They cannot see a middle ground. So I invite Christians who don't read atheist books to read this one. Try it. Even your God, the one who supposedly created reason, would be pleased you're willing to investigate your faith by fearing nothing. If you fear, that is a sign you don't have enough faith.

Quote of the Day, by Loftus

That which creates and sustains all religions is a sense of mystery, fear, guilt and suffering. People want answers so religions have been created to help solve them. The scientific fact of evolution is the best explanation for why we experience these feelings as rational animals, thinking reeds. Hence, there is no longer any need for any religion.

A Brief Thought: Dennis Rodman, Kim Jong-un, and Yahweh

The way that Christians are willing to ignore all the horrible aspects of their god's character and actions (as reported in the Bible), and blissfully cozy up to him reminds me of how Dennis Rodman likes hanging out with sadistic North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-un.  It kind of makes you want to shake  him and say "What the hell are you thinking?!" 

I guess for Christians, the perceived benefits of being buddies with a powerful psychopath outweigh the negatives.

Written by J. M. Green

The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus in a Nutshell

Let's consider the kinds of evidence Christians argue should convince us to believe. Philosophical arguments to their God are special pleading since they don't lead to any specific religious sect. What's left? There's no empirical evidence since we weren't there to witness the resurrection for ourselves. It's not good enough for reasonable people to simply accept someone's claim that he saw some guy come back from the dead, much less someone in the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past. The textual evidence comes from the 4th century, which contains known forgeries. In these texts there is no first-hand eyewitness testimony. Neither Jesus nor his disciples nor anyone who saw or heard Jesus wrote any of them. There is no prophetic evidence, none. There is no prophecy of a Trinitarian God, no prophecy of an Incarnation, no prophecy of a virgin birth, no prophecy of a dying Messiah and no prophecy of a resurrected Messiah. All the so-called Old Testament prophecies are either not predictions at all, or misapplied by the New Testament writers. There is no corroborating evidence of the bizarre unbelievable stories in the Gospels about earthquakes, eclipses, or dead saints who were supposedly raised from dead when Jesus did.

And I'm supposed to believe? Really? Seriously? When I say there isn't sufficient evidence to believe I mean just that. It doesn't matter if the earliest disciples had sufficient evidence to believe. We don't know that they did. All we have is the so-called evidence above. The kicker is that the Jews of that day did not believe this so-called evidence, nearly 8 million of them in the known world, even though they believed in God, his ability to do miracles, Old Testament prophecy, and were there. So tell me once again why any reasonable person should believe? It simply does not add up.

Even if God exists…
Even if miracles took place…
Even if Christianity is true…
Even if Jesus was resurrected…
Even if there were eyewitnesses…
There’s no reason for US to believe today!

Would You Have Considered Stabbing a Preacher in the Face with a Pitchfork? (True Story)

A Tool of the Devil?

I was reminiscing yesterday about the time back in 1974 when I was working at a hardware store in Walhalla, SC while I was a Bible Major in college. The owner of the store would often hired people who were unable to pay their bill so they could work off their credit balance while keeping their goods.

One such person I worked with was a twenty year old man named Cecil ((now deceased) who had just lost his job and was working to pay off his debt) who had been once employed with the town of Walhalla.

Read more »

Can We Will Ourselves to Believe?

Q: Do you think that belief is subject to the will? Can one "choose" to believe something, such as religious propositions?

A: Apart from the issue of free will, I do think we can will ourselves to believe. Christians do it all the time. It's the will to believe that blinds them to the evidence. William James and Pascal said that if we have doubts we can change them by attending worship, praying and looking for God. I think that happens. I think atheists can will ourselves not to believe too, because of a tragic event. It is a sticky and complicated subject. At some point though, no matter how much we want to make ourselves believe, we cannot do it. I cannot believe. There is nothing I could do to make me believe.

Quote of the Day, by Loftus

Most Christians cannot be reasoned out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place. They must first be convinced their faith is impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, which is reversing the standards that reasonable people require.

A Short Note on the Use of Tacitus as a Historical Source for Jesus

A. It would have been impossible for Tacitus (56 CE – ca 118 CE) to have had any firsthand knowledge of a Historical Jesus since Jesus would have already been dead for at least 23 years before Tacitus was born (assuming the latest date of April 33 CE for the crucifixion).

B. The fire in Rome happened on June 19, 64 which would have made Tacitus only 8 years old at the time. At such an age, Tacitus would have likely been much too young to have recorded anything (if he was literate at that age) especially for a child living in Gaul.

C. The distance from Gaul (setting Paris as the central city) to Jerusalem (by land) is about 3,695 miles. How could Tacitus, who was only 8 years old at the time, have any firsthand knowledge of either the Christians in Roman Palestine or even the fire in Rome over 700 miles away?

D. Tacitus published his first work (Agricola) in 98 CE and his Annals around 114 or 115 or 59 years after the fire in Nero’s Rome and 82 years after the death of the so-called Historical Jesus. Thus, the information about “Christus”  (a hapax legomenon) suffering under Pilate shows a confessional belief and not any historical event he knew about. If Jesus is the Christus meant here, then we would expect the Latin “Iesum Christum”.  However, Tacitus is likely simply repeating an established tradition as we learn nothing more than that which is not already stated by Josephus and forms the basis for the Apostles Creed: “ . . . passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, . . . “(suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;).

 Reference: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 rd ed., edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (Oxford University Press, 1996)

Religion and Violence: Dr. Richard Hess responds to Dr. Avalos

Dr. Richard Hess

Finally available on high quality video is my 2012 presentation on my theory of religion and violence (a summary of Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence [2005) at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.

This particular presentation is notable because  Dr. Richard Hess, a well-known evangelical biblical scholar and apologist at Denver Seminary, responds at 1:06:58, and I respond at 1:26:01 to him and others.

I don’t think Dr. Hess was successful in defending biblical violence, but you can judge for yourselves.

For My Christian Friends Offended By Michael Sam's Kiss

So, I've been seeing some upset and outrage from some of my Christian friends, about the public broadcast of Michael Sam kissing and embracing his boyfriend.  I find it strange that these same people aren't bothered by some things in their Bible.  Consider the following passages:

Read more »

An Update on Richard Carrier's Book, "On the Historicity of Jesus"

The subtitle and table of contents are now available. The subtitle is "Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt." It's scheduled to be published in June of this year with a whopping 700 pages! The hardback list price is $95 and the paperback list price is $35. Below is the book description and table of contents:

Read more »

What About the Origins of Life Itself?

We know that we descended from a common ancestor. We know this. Evolution is a fact. Many believers agree about this, even a growing number of evangelicals. But what about the origins of life itself? The answer is simple. Ready? Since the evolution of life has a natural explanation then so also does the origins of life, we just don't know how yet. Give science time. Don't punt to a god explanation just as believers shouldn't have done before Darwin. Comprende?

Dear Christian, Doubt Is Not Your Enemy (Part 1)

For the Christian, doubt is a bad thing - a lack of faith, or even worse, outright unbelief.  Early on in the Bible, doubt is portrayed in a negative light.  The Eden story in Genesis tells of a serpent planting doubt in the mind of Eve - did God really say not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? 

According to the Bible, faith is the “evidence of things unseen” (Hebrews 11:1).  Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).  The writer of the gospel of John has Jesus saying “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).  In other words, God approves of those who believe on the basis of stories they have been told, rather than requiring evidence, as “doubting Thomas” did.

Such credulous acceptance of unverified word-of-mouth claims played an essential role in the rise of Christianity.  Miraculous stories abounded in ancient superstitious cultures, providing fertile soil for supernatural beliefs to grow and thrive.  Apologists and theologians love to claim that the New Testament stories are based on eyewitness accounts, but let’s face it – it’s not like the early believers could use a phone, or Google, or Snopes to investigate claims.  Do we really think that they climbed on a donkey and rode for days to track down and interview sources, to verify the tales they were told?  The fact that the people of that time would most likely not be skeptics is the more reason that it is vital we should scrutinize the biblical claims.

Read more »

The First Two Blurbs for "Christianity is Not Great"

My anthology, Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails, should be out in October.You wouldn't believe who wrote a blurb for it! Check out the first two blurbs by clicking on the link. Then pre-order it today!

Quote of the Day by Darrell Barker

Dear thoughtful friends, stay clear of people who require the threat of death and punishment to overcome the moral weakness of their contradictory and deeply flawed ideas.

10 Tips for Winning a Debate

Some good advice from Hemant Mehta.

Do Ossuaries Claimed for St. James and St. Peter Prove a Historical Jesus?

The James Ossuary

“So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?”  (John 6: 30) 

It was bound to happen. After I posted seventeen reasons why any evidence for a Historical Jesus should be rejected, a person who calls himself “MrEveryman” left several comments with evidence he claimed proves that at least two ossuaries (bone  boxes) carried the bones of St. James and St. Peter, thus vindicating the Gospels.

Read more »

The Holy Trinity as Incoherent

The Holy Trinity has had a problematic history, partly evidenced by point of fact that theologians still don't agree on how it works, and partly  seen from its ex post facto evolution, shoehorned into the scant evidence of the biblical texts. From Ignatius of Antioch onwards we see development of the idea in early church thinking, until it is codified at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century CE. There will be more talk later on what was creedally set out.

Read more »

“Bryan College losing nearly 25% of faculty after 'Adam and Eve' controversy”

                                                            
                                                               
You can read the full story HERE

An Apple Doesn't Fall Too Far From the Tree: The Bible's Failed Prophecies and Those Who Believe Them

(This book was given to me by a Christian twenty-two years ago with a stern warning that I needed to either repent or perish.  The 228 page book was first published in 1988 (revised in 1991) was written by a Johns Hopkins University nuclear engineer, Robert W. Faid mathematically proving that Mikhail Gorbachev was the Antichrist having the Mark of the Beast on his forehead.)

Read more »

Secular Leaders Online Classes Now Available

Dr. John Shook is heading this project, which you can be read about right here. Classes available for June include:

The Science and Philosophy of Free Will, with Richard Carrier.

Sexual and Gender Diversity, with Julia Hemphill and Greta Christina.

Sean Faircloth on Defending Secular Government: Strategies for Success.

God’s Not Dead? How an Unscripted Philosopher can Disprove God, with Dan Fincke.

The Founding Fathers and Religion, with Myron Jackson with Sean Faircloth.

Does Morality Need God? A Christian and an Atheist Debate, with John Shook and David Baggett. [This one should be good!]

Dr. Shook is also doing a series of excellent "Humanist Matters" videos which can be viewed here.

Soon I'll be teaching one of these classes and doing a "Humanist Matters" video, so stay tuned.

Five Factors That Cause Christians To Lose Their Faith

[Written by John W. Loftus on 12/9/10] I just thought I’d put this out there since I’ve been thinking about these kinds of things for years. By no means are all of the following factors involved in every story of deconversion. But in almost every case at least one of them is true. So here goes:

Read more »

Do You Think You've Seen a Miracle? Think Again!

David J. Hand's new book, The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day looks excellent!

In The Improbability Principle, the renowned statistician David J. Hand argues that extraordinarily rare events are anything but. In fact, they’re commonplace. Not only that, we should all expect to experience a miracle roughly once every month. But Hand is no believer in superstitions, prophecies, or the paranormal. His definition of “miracle” is thoroughly rational. No mystical or supernatural explanation is necessary to understand why someone is lucky enough to win the lottery twice, or is destined to be hit by lightning three times and still survive. All we need, Hand argues, is a firm grounding in a powerful set of laws: the laws of inevitability, of truly large numbers, of selection, of the probability lever, and of near enough.

Supreme Court Rules Town Meetings Can Have Prayer: A Mere Symbolic Victory for Conservatives

You can read the story right here if you haven't heard yet. I don't usually comment on political issues although I could do so. Today's Supreme Court ruling deserves commentary though, and I'm the one to provide it. First off, the ruling is inconsistent with the First Amendment as applied to the state and local level by the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified the Bill of Rights as a whole, including the First Amendment, applied to the state and local level. We fought a war over this so we cannot revisit that issue. The ruling is also stupid and offensive to those of us without faith. However, Christians are hailing it as an important victory while atheists think it's quite a setback for us. It is neither. It is merely a symbolic victory that serves as a morale booster for the conservatives, something that means little to either side in the long run. There's no reason to praise Jesus nor is there any reason for despair. Let me explain.

Read more »

Evangelicals Concede They Are Losing in the Marketplace of Ideas

"In the next decades we will see a massive decrease in evangelical influence politically, economically, culturally, and financially" writes John S. Dickerson, in The Great Evangelical Recession (p. 26). "260,000 evangelical young people walk away from Christianity each year. Of that number 35% will find their way back, and 65% do not find their way back. Why are they leaving? They don't believe anymore." [Dickerson, pp. 98-102]. "This is not a blip. This is a trend. And the trend is one of decline," said Ed Stetzer [as quoted in Dickerson, p. 32]. Here are a few of the books that are sounding the alarm:



The solutions offered in these books range from becoming culturally relevant to the young generation, committing to serious discipleship, fervent prayer, massive evangelism, and prioritizing the wisdom of God over the wisdom of man. Not one of them thinks for a nanosecond that the Christian faith should be abandoned, that their faith cannot win in the marketplace of ideas. But that is the real problem. In the minds of other evangelicals like Peter Enns, John Walton, Kenton Sparks, Christian Smith, Bruce Waltke, Randal Rauser, Rob Bell and others, they suggest revising and extending their faith to accommodate to the new realities. But when they do this they are conceding their faith is relativistic with no foundation. This is very interesting to watch.

We are watching the demise of evangelicalism!

Don't think so? Here is a page from Dickerson's book:

Read more »

Kel on Ten Things Christians Should Keep in Mind When Debating Atheists

His list would be something along the following:

Read more »

From Minister to Atheist - Joe Holman On The Infidel Guy Show

This interview took place in 2004, before the Clergy Project. Joe does a great job in it as a former team member here with me at DC. Link. [Click on the "Download" link underneath Joe's picture even if your cursor looks like an hour-glass.] Joe authored a good book, Project Bible Truth: A Minister Turns Atheist and Tells All.

Should We Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?," A Submission by Brad Compton

We have only two main sources on the resurrection of Jesus: the writings of Paul, and the Gospels. Let’s look at each of them in turn.

Read more »

Robert Price and Edwin Suominen Interviewed by The Thinking Atheist

Robert M. Price and Edwin A. Suominen co-wrote the excellent book, Evolving Out of Eden, which I have recommended very highly.They were interviewed by The Thinking Atheist recently. Enjoy.

Thinking Critically vs Skeptically

[Edit 1/2/2015: This is another post in my series, "Do You Want To Be A Christian Apologist?" This is number 17 in the series, which are tagged with the words "Christian Apologetics" below, seen in reverse chronological order. So, let's say you want to be a Christian apologist, someone who defends the Christian faith. Then what must you do? The 17th thing you must do is make a distinction between thinking critically and thinking skeptically and focus on the former to the exclusion of the latter. ]

There shouldn't be a difference between thinking critically vs skeptically, for to think critically is to think skeptically, and vice versa. So why do I write about this? The answer in a word: Faith. Believers can and do think critically, especially the best of the best, like Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig. Other notable Christian scholars are Paul Copan, Randal Rauser, Victor Reppert, David Marshall, and Matt Flannagan who regularly engage in apologetics against atheists like me. But they are not truly critical thinkers since they do not think skeptically.

Teaching students to be critical thinkers is very important but teaching them to have a skeptical disposition is more important. Critical thinking should lead to this disposition. The problem is that faith is a critical thinking stopper. It builds up a wall that stops believers dead in their tracks. They dare not go beyond it to the proper conclusion when applying the standards of critical thinking. Now I taught critical thinking classes as a Christian believer. So I know exactly what they are doing. Norman Geisler, one of the leading Christian apologists who defends the indefensible, even co-wrote a book with Ronald M. Brooks titled, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking.I don't know enough about the leading defenders of other religious faiths, but I suspect in their universities they teach critical thinking classes from textbooks they have written too. And I expect we would all agree with what they teach and write, except for some of the examples they use to illustrate a particular logical rule.

So what's the problem? Faith. Faith stunts one's critical thinking skills. It prohibits a person of faith from applying the set of critical thinking skills we all agree about. You can see this by how they argue, which I am documenting here. What believers do is to defend their faith rather than look critically at it, no matter what the intellectual cost. Stephen Law is right: “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.” (Believing Bullshit, p. 75). If Christian apologists could think logically, without the perceived need to defend their religious sect's faith, they would see they are not thinking consistently critically.

In the hopes I can help nudge them along this road I recommend reading Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn's college textbook, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age.There are newer, more expensive editions of this book than the one I linked to. But look inside this one then choose which edition at which price you can afford. But get it. You will see what I mean when I say there is no distinction between critical thinking and thinking skeptically. They are one and the same. That's why I argue faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities. I say believers operate by double standards. They do not think critically, in the sense I just wrote about and which this book could help show them. When we say the party of agnosticism and atheism is one of reason and science we mean it. We invite believers to the adult table, where an adult conversation can be had.