The Differences Between Science and Religion
I'm Working On My Last Book Now
This is probably going to be my last book. I'm sure it'll be my most controversial one. Who dares to call for the end of the philosophy of religion, anyway? Me. Believing philosophers will rip it to shreds. Atheist philosophers like Keith Parsons, Graham Oppy, J.L. Schellenberg and others will do likewise. Wannabes and students in philosophy of religion programs from both sides will join in the slug-fest.
I have two months to finish it. I won't be doing much here while I do. The book description is to be found on Amazon. It's scheduled for a November publication with Pitchstone Publishing. Cultural anthropologist David Eller has agreed to write the Foreword.
This book will make it ten highly acclaimed published books in ten years. I think I've earned the right to be done after that. Looks like I'll go out with a big bang.
The Money Quote On Sophisticated Theology
The whole reason sophisticated Christian argumentation exists in the first place is because it takes sophistication to make the Christian faith palatable. The more the sophistication then the more the obfuscation, since their faith can only be defended by confusing people who don't share that sophistication. Defenses of Christianity are nothing but special pleading hiding underneath several layers of obfuscation with a sophistication to make it appear otherwise. It's nothing less than special pleading all the way down, and it doesn't take sophistication to see this or to call it out. Even a child can recognize what it is.
The Arrogance and Ignorance of Keith Parsons
Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? My Debate Opener vs Abdu Murray
The red headings represent PowerPoint slides. Here we go...
I’m very honored to be here and happy people actually showed up to listen to this debate. I have a lot of ground to cover so I must begin.
Keith Parsons Attacks!
Does anyone think what Keith Parsons wrote describes who I am and what I'm about? This is the kind of stuff that has a long life, something I have to constantly fight uphill to overcome. LINK. I don't need to respond since it's obvious he's ignorant about me. I do think it illustrates the unfairness of the Secular Outpost, and why no one should pay attention to anything they write about me or my works (unless it's good of course!) ;-)
An Advertisement For Robert Price's Book, "Blaming Jesus for Jehovah"
I wrote a blurb for this book so I recommend it very highly. To get a glimpse of what's in it and what someone else thinks, here's an ad being placed in different magazines by fellowfeather.@gmail.com.
I'll Be Debating Abdu Murray Tonight
It will be streamed live. Here are the links: 1) Link to the event on Facebook. 2) Link to the feed at Ravi Zacharias Ministries. Ravi spoke at my graduation from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985. 3) Link to the feed on YouTube. I'd appreciate it if my readers shared this event with everyone who might be interested.
Keith Parsons is Just Old. That Explains Why He Favors the Old Atheism.
Evangelicals seem to love Keith Parsons. And he likes it. When it comes to writing something in Christian anthologies he's the go-to guy. That slap on the back must feel good. Now he's a good guy I'll admit. But even Edward Feser likes him. Something's gotta be wrong! ;-) They agree in that they both want to return to that old time religion, er, atheism. I understand why Feser wants to live in the past, but Parsons?
Look, I am not interested in merely having a discussion. I'm interested in changing minds. Karl Marx spoke for me when he quipped, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."
At issue are the differences between Old Atheism and New Atheism. Parsons prefers the Old Atheism as does Feser. My view is they both want to live in the past. One must accept the changes and move on into the future. There is no going back. Christianity is dying. Why in the world would Parsons want to return to the good old days when Christianity had a huge monopoly in American academia, and where it was considered a respectable faith? There is at the present time a massive exodus from Christianity by young people. I just learned today that over half the people in Scotland are non-religious. As that happens in westernized countries we no longer need to respect faith-based reasoning, but rather tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about religion.
What are the unique differences between Old Atheism and the New Atheism?
Look, I am not interested in merely having a discussion. I'm interested in changing minds. Karl Marx spoke for me when he quipped, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."
At issue are the differences between Old Atheism and New Atheism. Parsons prefers the Old Atheism as does Feser. My view is they both want to live in the past. One must accept the changes and move on into the future. There is no going back. Christianity is dying. Why in the world would Parsons want to return to the good old days when Christianity had a huge monopoly in American academia, and where it was considered a respectable faith? There is at the present time a massive exodus from Christianity by young people. I just learned today that over half the people in Scotland are non-religious. As that happens in westernized countries we no longer need to respect faith-based reasoning, but rather tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about religion.
What are the unique differences between Old Atheism and the New Atheism?
On Dealing With Science Deniers
John Loftus: When it comes to the objective world of matters of fact, science is the only game in town.
Mr. Green: Hm, interesting. Can you describe the experiment you performed to arrive at that conclusion, so I can reproduce it?
John Loftus: Would you tell us what the alternative is to science?, and/or, What else in addition to science is as good of an alternative?
Mr. Green: I'd rather focus on the question that was actually asked, despite your attempt to dodge it like a seasoned politician.
Mr. Green: Hm, interesting. Can you describe the experiment you performed to arrive at that conclusion, so I can reproduce it?
John Loftus: Would you tell us what the alternative is to science?, and/or, What else in addition to science is as good of an alternative?
Mr. Green: I'd rather focus on the question that was actually asked, despite your attempt to dodge it like a seasoned politician.
Religious Freedom on Cruz Control
I have written a newspaper column about Ted Cruz’s proposal to patrol Muslim neighborhoods. I suggest that his logic should also lead us to patrol some Christian neighborhoods that might become radicalized because of their anti-abortion beliefs.
Methodological Naturalism Again, When Will it Stop?
Victor Reppert is at it again.
I don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to methodological naturalism. Science cannot work without it. The problem comes when one draws the conclusion from it that metaphysical naturalism is the case. So you're opposed to it only if people conclude nature is all there is, that is, only if it's used as an argument to atheism.
Your faith-based arguments are that there is either a reliable source of knowledge about the world other than science, or that your god lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge, or both. But those arguments of yours go against the probabilities.
Why don't you tell us what that other source of knowledge is, and compare its merits to the scientific enterprise? Why don't you admit how many times science has forced you to move the goal posts, such that for centuries when theologians didn't think science could solve a problem science marched past it?
Why don't you address why your god set the world up this way, such that reasonable people will follow the probabilities? Even if for some reason your god could not create the world like this, why don't you admit your God failed to provide the necessary objective evidence that would overcome the methodological predisposition to naturalism?
If you want a serious discussion you must address these issues.
I don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to methodological naturalism. Science cannot work without it. The problem comes when one draws the conclusion from it that metaphysical naturalism is the case. So you're opposed to it only if people conclude nature is all there is, that is, only if it's used as an argument to atheism.
Your faith-based arguments are that there is either a reliable source of knowledge about the world other than science, or that your god lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge, or both. But those arguments of yours go against the probabilities.
Why don't you tell us what that other source of knowledge is, and compare its merits to the scientific enterprise? Why don't you admit how many times science has forced you to move the goal posts, such that for centuries when theologians didn't think science could solve a problem science marched past it?
Why don't you address why your god set the world up this way, such that reasonable people will follow the probabilities? Even if for some reason your god could not create the world like this, why don't you admit your God failed to provide the necessary objective evidence that would overcome the methodological predisposition to naturalism?
If you want a serious discussion you must address these issues.
Blurbs for My Anthology "Christianity in the Light of Science"
We're in the final copy-editing stage for this new anthology. Below are the blurbs to be put on the back cover.
This is the best compilation John Loftus has done to date and I have enjoyed reading his others. I truly couldn’t put it down. He has assembled leading authors to write essays in an easy to read manner that are well annotated. If you find a particular subject of interest in a couple of authors or more, check out their larger body of work. I highly recommended this book for those who want to delve deeper into why religion persists in our world and why it shouldn’t. --Karen L. Garst, PhD, editor of Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life Without Religion and blogger at www.faithlessfeminist.com.
This is the best compilation John Loftus has done to date and I have enjoyed reading his others. I truly couldn’t put it down. He has assembled leading authors to write essays in an easy to read manner that are well annotated. If you find a particular subject of interest in a couple of authors or more, check out their larger body of work. I highly recommended this book for those who want to delve deeper into why religion persists in our world and why it shouldn’t. --Karen L. Garst, PhD, editor of Women Beyond Belief: Discovering Life Without Religion and blogger at www.faithlessfeminist.com.
Ehrman–Licona Ongoing Dialogue On the Historical Reliability of the New Testament
Briefly, in such a dialogue both Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Licona will each contribute (1) an interview, (2) a statement, (3) a response, and (4) a reply — in that order.
The interview will typically take 6,000 words and give each the opportunity to favorably discuss one’s own life and work. The statement will typically take 10,000 words and constitute the portion of the dialogue where each most forcefully advances one’s own case. The response and reply together will typically take another 10,000 words, enabling each to refute the case of one’s interlocutor.
Drs. Ehrman and Licona will argue the following theses:
Dr. Ehrman: The New Testament is not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, it provides no convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
Dr. Licona: The New Testament is a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus. In particular, it provides convincing evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. LINK.
The Gore At the Very Heart of Christianity is Disgusting
I cannot begin to describe what a gruesome faith Christianity really is. Maybe this picture can help.
You see, the more gruesome the death of Jesus was, then the more he loved us and wants us to be grateful for what he did. The more gore the better, you see.
So this statute could be bettered, since he surely loved us more than this statue depicts. His entrails should be spilling out over his naked body, with at least one eye completely gouged out, a broken swollen nose, a broken jaw hanging off his cheek, and bloody hair in tattered shreds.
Have you no imagination Christian!
Methodological Naturalism Again
Paul de Vries described the difference between “methodological naturalism,” which is a disciplinary method that says nothing about God’s existence, from “metaphysical naturalism,” which “denies the existence of a transcendent God.” [Paul de Vries, “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences,” Christian Scholar’s Review 15(1986): 388–96]. The method of naturalism assumes that for everything we experience there is a natural explanation, whereas metaphysical naturalism is a worldview that denies the supernatural realm exists. [For discussions of this see Alvin Plantinga’s essay “Methodological Naturalism?” parts 1 and 2, which can be found at www.arn.org, and in the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (49 [1997]). Barbara Forrest’s “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection,” Philo 3, no. 2 (Fall–Winter 2000): 7–29, along with Michael Martin’s “Justifying Methodological Naturalism,” both found at www.infidels.org/library.]
I myself have written a few things about it. Now for a few new thoughts.
I myself have written a few things about it. Now for a few new thoughts.
Do I Worry I Could Be Wrong About God?
I was asked this question. My answer:
I have no worries. What would I be worried about if so? The possibility there is a wicked god who would torture me in hell is infinitesimal on my calculations. We should think exclusively in terms of the objective probabilities and proportion our conclusions to the evidence. When we do so, there is no reason to think any one of the many god-concepts exists.
I have no worries. What would I be worried about if so? The possibility there is a wicked god who would torture me in hell is infinitesimal on my calculations. We should think exclusively in terms of the objective probabilities and proportion our conclusions to the evidence. When we do so, there is no reason to think any one of the many god-concepts exists.
I'm Preparing to Debate Abdu Murray Next Week.
It will be streamed live. Here are the links: 1) Link to the event on Facebook. 2) Link to the feed at Ravi Zacharias Ministries. Ravi spoke at my graduation from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985. 3) Link to the feed on YouTube. I'd appreciate it if my readers shared this event with everyone who might be interested.
Feel the Bern! Sanders Is Still In This!
Since I don't think anything significant happened on Easter I'm not treating it as a special day.
Bernie Sanders gained three YUGE wins in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington yesterday with more than 68 percent of the vote, same as he did last week in Idaho, Utah, and Democrats Abroad. The real numbers to watch are circled in red. 2,383 delegates are needed for the nomination · 2,049 still available. The chart above hasn't yet been updated yet. Washington has 101 delegates; 25 have gone to Sanders while 9 have gone to Hillary. That's only 34 out of 101. These numbers will change early tomorrow. The super delegates switched to Obama in June of 2008.
Bernie Sanders gained three YUGE wins in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington yesterday with more than 68 percent of the vote, same as he did last week in Idaho, Utah, and Democrats Abroad. The real numbers to watch are circled in red. 2,383 delegates are needed for the nomination · 2,049 still available. The chart above hasn't yet been updated yet. Washington has 101 delegates; 25 have gone to Sanders while 9 have gone to Hillary. That's only 34 out of 101. These numbers will change early tomorrow. The super delegates switched to Obama in June of 2008. Happy Rabbit's Day Everyone!
It's funny isn't it? That an omniscient God could not have done better?
Christian, Your God Concept Is Only Conveniently Omnipotent
This salamander can regenerate amputeed body parts. I've argued if there is a good omnipotent God s/he could make us like that. If God exists all amputeed limbs should regenerate themselves. Or, is God only conveniently omnipotent? Which is to say, he's only omnipotent in selected stories we read in the Bible. (Iron Chariots, anyone?) Go figure. Christians will remove from consideration what we would expect if God exists, preferring instead fairyland tales told in the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past, which by their very nature cannot be witnessed or verified.
Come on people, think like an outsider
for once in your life!
for once in your life!
Del cristianismo al ateísmo: Mi experiencia personal
 |
| Leyendo la Biblia en México |
Dos preguntas siempre surgen
cuando creyentes cristianos se enteran que soy agnóstico o ateo.*
Una es ¿Cómo es que una persona
pudo haber llegado a ser ateo o agnóstico con su estudio de la Biblia?
Mi respuesta menos complicada
es que soy agnóstico o ateo precisamente porque he estudiado la Biblia, y
porque me he dado cuenta de muchas cosas que los creyentes comunes no
conocen.
Las razones específicas han
sido explicadas en detalle en mi libro,¿Se puede saber si Dios existe?, el cual es probablemente el único libro escrito originalmente en español por un ateo que es erudito bíblico acádemico nacido en América Latina.
Otra pregunta común es: ¿Cómo
se puede vivir una vida productiva y feliz sin Dios?
En sí, un concepto muy popular
es que el ateo es una persona amargada, que no tiene ningún motivo para vivir,
o vive una vida que no le satisface. Muchos piensan que el ateo es una persona
que se dedica a los vicios y placeres sin conciencia.
Aquí deseo exponer como llegué
a descubrir las verdades que he discutido en mi libro de un punto de
vista personal, y también demostrar que un agnóstico o ateo puede vivir una
vida productiva y que se considere buena en nuestra sociedad.
My Future Non-Plans
I have a book to copy-edit, another one to write (due June 1st) and then I'm taking a break, hopefully a long one. If I like my break I may not come back. Don't hold me to this since I may change my mind. "Don't say I didn't say, I didn't warn ya."
Bart Ehrman: "Why the biblical stories about the last days and hours of Jesus are probably not true"
LINK. Hat Tip to Patrick Reynolds for this.
Quote of the Day, By Chuck Johnson
Exaggerating the truth of something which is true, or exaggerating the falseness of something which is false is the root of a huge amount of ignorance, dishonesty, and disastrous thinking. By proportioning our beliefs to the evidence, and by becoming authentic by not pretending to know what we don't know, we can see our way to the truth.
A Brief Email Discussion On The Evidence That Our Brain Lies to Us
Garard: In chapter 3 of your book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, if your content is true, how would you know?
Loftus: Because of the scientific evidence coming from both psychological studies and neurology.
Garard: But to suggest you can't trust your brain would suggest you can't trust the evidence from scientific and psychological reports. You could be misunderstanding them, you could be mistaken about what you're reading, they could be mistaken, how do you avoid total skepticism?
Loftus: No. Only a lying brain could reach that conclusion. For upon accepting this evidence, total skepticism could not be an option since the evidence tells us the truth about our brains, that they can and do lie to us. Henceforth, to keep our brains from lying to us about things we desire to be true but aren't, we would demand the same kind of evidence that forced our brains to accept this conclusion. Where there isn't this same kind of evidence we would force our brains to heel by proportioning our beliefs to the evidence, and by becoming authentic by not pretending to know what we don't know.
Thank you. Thank you very much! The End. [Loftus exits the building.]
Loftus: Because of the scientific evidence coming from both psychological studies and neurology.
Garard: But to suggest you can't trust your brain would suggest you can't trust the evidence from scientific and psychological reports. You could be misunderstanding them, you could be mistaken about what you're reading, they could be mistaken, how do you avoid total skepticism?
Loftus: No. Only a lying brain could reach that conclusion. For upon accepting this evidence, total skepticism could not be an option since the evidence tells us the truth about our brains, that they can and do lie to us. Henceforth, to keep our brains from lying to us about things we desire to be true but aren't, we would demand the same kind of evidence that forced our brains to accept this conclusion. Where there isn't this same kind of evidence we would force our brains to heel by proportioning our beliefs to the evidence, and by becoming authentic by not pretending to know what we don't know.
Thank you. Thank you very much! The End. [Loftus exits the building.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)