The Swedish Fish: Updated Bibliography

Here is the revised bibliography to The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbit's Foot. If you catch any errors be sure to let me know asap so I can fix them. It's always difficult to do a book almost entirely on your own. But it's also highly rewarding.

(And yes, I did read all of these books articles over the past several years. Some of them I read a while back, others I read specifically to do research on this book.)

It's been a lot of long hours, but I can say that The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbit's Foot succeeds in presenting a charitable deconstruction of Randal Rauser's book The Swedish Atheist.

In fact, nearly every chapter I found things to agree with Randal on, but I also found many things we disagreed on. I was sure to point them out and then explain why I disagreed. I can't say I beat him on every point, but I just leave it to the reader to decide who they think made the stronger case.

Bibliography

Avalos, Hector. The End of Biblical Studies. New York, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.

Ayer, A. J. Language, Truth, and Logic. New York: Dover Publications, 1952.

Barrett, Jeffrey A. PSA 2000: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002.

Bennett, Bo. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies. Sudbury: Ebookit.com, 2012.

Benson, Herbert Et Al. “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer.” American Heart Journal 151, no. 4 (May 5, 2005): 934-42. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.05.028.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality; a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.

Bering, Jesse. The Belief Instinct. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011.

Blake, William. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell: In Full Color. New York: Dover Publications, 1994.

Boghossian, Paul Artin. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.

Bonanno, Anthony.Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers... First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, the University of Malta, Sept. 1985. Amsterdam: B. R. Gruner, 1986

Bowie, Fiona. The Anthropology of Religion: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006.

Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Byrne, Rhonda. The Secret. New York: Atria Books, 2006.

Carrier, Richard. Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed. United States?: Lulu.com, 2009.

Carroll, Sean. From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. New York: Dutton, 2010.

Clifford, William Kingdon, William James, and A. J. Burger. The Ethics of Belief: Essays by William Kingdon Clifford, William James, A. J. Burger. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2008.

Corriveau, Kathleen H., Eva E. Chen, and Paul L. Harris. “Judgments About Fact and by Children from Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds.” Cognitive science 38, no. 5 (July 3, 2014): doi: 10.1111/cogs.12138.

Cox, Brian, and J. R. Forshaw. The Quantum Universe: (and Why Anything That Can Happen, Does). Boston: Da Capo Press, 2012.

Damasio, Antonio. Self Comes to Mind. Toronto: Random House, 2010.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Demetriou, Andreas, Willem Doise, and C. F. M. Van. Lieshout. Life-span Developmental Psychology. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, 1998.

Dennett, D. C. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and, 1991.

Downey, Allen B. “Religious affiliation, education and Internet use.” Cornell University Library, arXiv.1403.5534 [stat.AP]; arXiv.org. Accessed April 7, 2014.

Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York: HarperOne, 2011.

Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.

Fajnzylber, Pablo, Daniel Lederman, and Norman Loayza. “Inequality and Violent Crime.” The Journal of Law and Economics 45, no. 1 (12 2002): 1-39. doi:10.1086/338347.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Free Press, 2001.

Foote, George W. Seasons of Freethought: The Collected Works of G.W. Foote. Edited by Tristan Vick. Kumamoto: Hungry Word Publications, 2013.

Fosnot, Catherine Twomey. Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.

Fox, James Alan., and Jack Levin. The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.

Freke, Timothy, and Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the “original Jesus” a Pagan God? New York: Harmony Books, 2000.

Glasersfeld, Ernst Von. Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London: Falmer Press, 1995.

Gockel, Galen L. “Income and Religious Affiliation: A Regression Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 74, no. 6 (12 1969): 632. doi:10.1086/224714.

Goldstein, Sydney. “Socioeconomic Differential among Religious Groups in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 74, no. 6 (May, 1969): 612-631. doi:10.1086/224714.

Grau C, Ginhoux R, Riera A, Nguyen TL, Chauvat H, et al. “Conscious Brain-to-Brain Communication in Humans Using Non-Invasive Technologies” edited Mikhail A. Lebedev. PLoS ONE 9 no. 8 (2014): e105225. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105225

Grayling, A. C. The God Argument: The Case against Religion and for Humanism. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Greene, J. D. “An FMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment.” Science 293, no. 5537 (01, 2001): 2105-108. doi:10.1126/science.1062872.

Greene, Joshua David. Moral Tribes. Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them. New York: Penguin Press, 2013.

Hackett, Conrad, and Brian J. Grim. “The Global Religious Landscape.” Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. December 2012. Accessed March 18, 2014. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/.

Hansen, James E. Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to save Humanity. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2009.

Hare, R. M. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.

Harris, Sam. Free Will. New York: Free Press, 2012.

Haycock, Dean A. Murderous Minds: Exploring the Criminal Psychopathic Brain: Neurological Imaging and the Manifestation of Evil. W W Norton & Co, 2014.

Heimlich, Janet. Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.

Heine, Steven. “Sacred High City, Sacred Low City: A Tale of Religious Sites in Two Tokyo Neighborhoods” published in Religious Studies Review 39, no. 1 (12 2013): 53. doi:10.1111/rsr.12020_6.

Helms, Randel. Gospel Fictions. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007.

Hoffmann, R. Joseph. Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2010.

Holbach, Paul Henri Thiry. Good Sense. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.

Ifrah, Georges, and David Bellos. The Universal History of Numbers: From Prehistory to the Invention of the Computer. New York: Wiley, 2000.

Ingersoll, Robert Green. The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll. New York: Dresden, 1901.

Jensen, Gary F. “Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look.” Religious & Society volume 8 (2006), ISSN 1522-5658. Kripke Center. Accessed September 21, 2014. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.pdf

Jordan, Michael. Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses. New York: Facts on File, 2004.

Kahneman, Daniel. “Judgment and Decision Making: A Personal View.” Psychological Science 2, no. 3 (May/June 1991): 142-45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00121.x.

Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

Koons, Jeremy Randel. “Plantinga On Properly Basic Belief In God: Lessons From The Epistemology Of Perception.” The Philosophical Quarterly 61, no. 245 (May 18, 2011): 839-50. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.709.x.

Kraus, Lawrence. A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. New York: Atria Books, 2013.

Kripke, Saul A. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Kuhn, Thomas S., and Ian Hacking. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Lataster, Raphael Christopher. There Was No Jesus, There Is No God: A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism. Sydney: CreateSpace, 2013.

Laqueur, Walter. The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day. New York: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2008.

Levine, Amy-Jill, Dale C. Allison, and John Dominic. Crossan. The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Loftin, R. Keith and Evan Fales. God & Morality: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Loftus, John W. The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2013.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. London: Penguin, 2010.

MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.

Mack, Burton L. Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth. San Francisco, CA: Harper, San Francisco, 1995.

Mackie, John Leslie. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1990.

Martin, Michael, and Ricki Monnier. The Improbability of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006.

Mayes, Steve. “Judge Orders State Custody, Medical Care for Oregon Faith Healers’ Child.” The Oregonian, July 2, 2010. Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/index.ssf/2010/07/judge_orders_state_custody_medical_care_for_faith_healers_child.html.

McCormick, Matthew S. Atheism and the Case against Christ. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012.

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus; Volumes I-IV. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Meshel, Zeev. Kuntillet ʻAjrud, a Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai: The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Spring 1978. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1978.

Miller, Alan S. “The Influence of Religious Affiliation on the Clustering of Social Attitudes.” Review of Religious Research37, no. 3 (12 1996): 219. doi:10.2307/3512275.

Miller, Kenneth. Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2009.

Murray, Gilbert. Aristophanes: The Knights. London: Allen & Unwin, 1956.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Gay Science. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, R. J. Hollingdale, and J. P. Stern. Untimely Meditations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

O’Keefe, Tim. “Epicurus.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3d.

Oppy, Graham Robert. The Best Argument against God. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

P., De Cecco John, and David Allen. Parker. Sex, Cells, and Same-sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference. New York: Haworth Press, 1995.

Paine, Thomas, and Moncure Daniel Conway. The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2004.

Parker, De Cecco John, and David Allen. Sex, Cells, and Same-sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Paul, Gregory S. “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies, A First Look.” Journal of Religion & Society volume 7 (2005), ISSN 1522-5658. Kripke Center. Accessed September 21, 2014. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf

Picknett, Lynn, and Clive Prince.The Masks of Christ: Behind the Lies and Cover-ups about the Life of Jesus. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008.

Pigliucci, Massimo. Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking Penguin, 2011.

Plantinga, Alvin. “Is Belief in God Properly Basic?” Noûs 15, no. 1 (March 1981): 41. doi:10.2307/2215239.

Polkinghorne, J. C. Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Pow, Helen. “It’s Not Fair! Hilarious Video Experiment That Shows How Even Monkeys Go Bananas over Unequal Pay.” Mail Online. November 22, 2012. Accessed March 18, 2014. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236702/Fascinating-experiment-shows-monkeys-bananas-unequal-pay.html.

Price, Robert M. The Case against the Case for Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes Lee Strobel. Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press, 2010.

Price, Robert M. Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000.

Price, Robert M. “Economics of Salvation” Secular Nation 3rd Quarter.” Economics of Salvation by Robert M. Price. December 03, 2007. Accessed March 18, 2014. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_econ_salvation.htm.

Price, Robert M. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003.

Price, Robert M. The Reason-driven Life: What Am I Here on Earth For? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006.

Price, Robert M. Top Secret: The Truth behind Today’s Pop Mysticisms. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2008.

Raine, A., and Y. Yang. “Neural Foundations to Moral Reasoning and Antisocial Behavior,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 1, no. 3 (12, 2006): 203-13. doi:10.1093/scan/nsl033.

Rauser, Randal D. The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver, and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2012.

Ray, Darrel W. The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture. Bonner Springs, Kansas: IPC Press, 2009.

Ray, Darrel. Sex & God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality. Bonner Springs, Kan.: IPC Press, 2012.

Russell, Bertrand. Mortals and Others: American Essays 1931-1935 Volumes 1 and 2. London: Routledge, 2009.

Sagan, Carl. The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Random House, 1996.

Sciolino, Anthony J. The Holocaust, the Church, and the Law of Unintended Consequences: How Christian Anti-Judaism, S.l.: iUniverse, 2014.

Shariff, Azim F., and Lara B. Aknin. “The Emotional Toll of Hell: Cross-National and Experimental Evidence for the Negative Well-Being Effects of Hell Beliefs.” PLoS ONE 9(1): E85251, January 22, 2014. Accessed March 18, 2014. doi:DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085251.

Sherkat, Darren E. “Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States.”Social Science Quarterly, 12 2011, N/a. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00811.x.

Shermer, Michael. The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies--how We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths. New York: Times Books, 2011.

Sinclair, Upton. Mammonart; an Essay in Economic Interpretation. Pasadena, CA: Author, 1925.

Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002.

Stark, Thom. The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011.

Stenger, Victor J. God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist. New York, NY: Prometheus Books, 2010.

Stenger, Victor J. God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. New York, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012.

Strauss, David Friedrich, The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined. New York, NY: Cosimo Classics, 2010.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

Sukel, Kayt. Dirty Minds: How Our Brains Influence Love, Sex, and Relationships. New York, NY: First Free Press, 2012.

Schwadel, Philip. “The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations.” Review of Religious Research 53, no. 2 (12 2011): 161-82. doi:10.1007/s13644-011-0007-4.

Tabor, James D. Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012

Tabor, James D. The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006.

Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2000.

Vick, Tristan. Ignosticism: A Philosophical Justification for Atheism. 2nd ed. Kumamoto: Hungry Word Publications, 2013.

Vico, Giambattista. New Science: Principles of the New Science concerning the Common Nature of Nations. London: Penguin Books, 1999.

Wainwright, William J. Religion and Morality. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2005.

Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Life. Michigan: Zondervan, 2002.

Wells, George Albert. Can We Trust the New Testament? Thoughts on the Reliability of Early Christian Testimony. Chicago: Open Court, 2004.

Wells, George Albert. “Earliest Christianity,” The New Humanist Vol. 114: No. 3, Sept 1999.

Wells, George Albert. The Jesus Myth. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 1999.

Wells, Steve. Drunk with Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible. United States: SAB Books, 2013.

Wells, Steve. The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible The King James Version from a Skeptic’s Point of View. United States: Sab Books Llc, 2014.

Wicks, Robert. “Friedrich Nietzsche.” Stanford University. May 30, 1997. Accessed March 16, 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/.

Wilcox, Clinton. “God or Godless? A Book Review.” The Christian Apologetics Alliance. November 12, 2013. Accessed March 19, 2014. http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/11/12/god-or-godless-a-book-review/.

Zuckerman, Phil. “Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions.” Sociology Compass 3, no. 6 (March 6, 2009): 949-71. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x.

Zuckerman, Phil. Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008.

Zull, James E. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub., 2002. 

Randal Rauser: What's His Beef?

It was brought to my attention by The Atheist Missionary that someone on Randal's blog had asked him if he was going to respond to my recent book, The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbit's Foot, which is a deconstruction and response to his book, The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails.

Randal responded, rather unkindly I might add, by pointing out what I felt was water under the bridge. 

But since he drags up old issues in order to bad-mouth me behind my back I attempted to respond in kind. But...

As you can clearly see, even though Randal says he unblocked me, he clearly hasn't. Screen-caps do not lie. (I also checked on my iPhone just to be sure -- but I got the same message.)

The second thing I found odd is that he is holding a grudge against me for something I apologized for, and which he admits I apologized for, but then turns around to burn me on anyway.

Usually when you let bygones be, you move on. I thought we resolved our differences and were ready to move forward. I guess not. 

Also, he says Loftus' comments in a blog on Debunking Christianity , which Randal takes umbrage at, represent my mentality. Wait, what? 

What does anything John Loftus might think have to do with the way I think? We're different people, the last time I checked.

Just because both John Loftus and I have rubbed Randal the wrong way at different times in the past, he calls us both nasty, puerile, and vindictive. 

This is called an ad hominem because it attacks our character while refusing to engage with the substance of our arugments. 

So it seems Randal isn't so much about having a nuanced engagement as he is lobbing ad hominem attacks and stonewalling anyone who disagrees with him while he gives himself a free pass to act as badly as he pleases. I don't feel it's very charitable, but that's just me.

Later on in the comments thread Randal and a commentator take issue with my Amazon.com page where the book description says: Skeptic and best selling author Tristan Vick doesn't have a theology degree, yet he knows just as much about God as any theologian.

[Update: The Amazon page has since been altered to better reflect the content of the book and not make it a debate about this author's credentials. As per usual, wait 3-5 business days to see changes.]

This was a (perhaps not so obvious) nod to The Great Agnostic, Robert G. Ingersoll's comment that anyone can know as much as a theologian about God because there is no God, thus nothing to know. 

I would like to point out, however, it doesn't say I know as much about systematic theology or the history of theology as Randal, who has a theology degree. It says I know as much about God as Randal or anyone else. 

I have since had the promotional blurb changed since I realize that I would probably be more familiar with the obscure quote than the general reader browsing Amazon, and wanted to correct it as to not let the same misunderstanding occur again. 

At any rate, if Randal changes his mind and would like to engage in a REAL honest and nuanced conversation, or engage the content of the book and not harp on something said a year ago that we have since put behind us, he knows where to find me.

[Update 2: Hat tip to John Loftus for letting Randal know that I still cannot post on his blog. Randal is welcome to comment here anytime.]

[Update 3: To be more generous toward Randal, I changed the title of the post. I still think he's acting unprofessionally, but that's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.] 

[Update 4: Randal Rauser has blocked John W. Loftus for trying to help me out by pointing out that I still wasn't unblocked, and sharing a screen-cap I took to prove it.] 

Answering an Agnostic in Crisis

I received this urgent sounding message in my inbox:

Hi Tristan,

I hope you can help me out. I was once a Christian, my faith was at its peak ten years ago. From then on, day by day my faith in Christ diminished until a couple of years ago it completely expired. From then on I continued believing in a deity, but certainly not the God of Abraham. Today, I am agnostic verging, just verging, on atheism. I wish I could be an atheist but deep down I doubt I can. I rely solely on reason and my reason tells me that we cannot know whether a god exists which is why I am only an agnostic for the time being. I would probably feel finally free if I admitted to myself that I am an atheist. It is like being gay, first you have to face the fact that you are gay and then to embrace it. Do you have any advice for me? 

Here is my response:

Dear (Agnostic),

All I can do is give you my thoughts and opinions.

I think, like many of us skeptics, you’ve come to the realization that doubting theism (and religion) leads to agnosticism and atheism as a consequence, whereas doubting agnosticism and atheism doesn’t automatically lead to belief in a God or gods or space aliens.

What is true, and what one wishes to believe, are different things.

Agnosticism deals with what we can know, so it deals with truth claims.

Consider the following question: Is it true that Mt. Everest is the highest mountain in the world?

Nobody is *agnostic to whether Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain in the world because there is a definitive answer to this question. We *know it is, because we have measured Mt. Everest and have found it is the tallest.

But it’s harder to find evidence for things that are beyond our detection. If we can’t see or measure it, then we look for indirect signs. Consciousness is a good example of this. We cannot see or measure it. Not exactly. But we can detect it indirectly.

We know, for example, that most sentient animals are conscious creatures. That is, they recognize other creatures that are like them, they sense each other’s emotions, and can show signs of empathy and altruism with regard to those others that are like themselves. This awareness of other minds (of the other) allows us to recognize that the conscious mind is a real thing. That which we recognize in ourselves we recognize in others as well, and we realize we are like them, we share the same emotions, and can show empathy and altruism with respect to those like us.

Some theologians have postulated God as a kind of consciousness, but I do not recognize any conscious mind existing in the universe apart from the conscious minds I can recognize within the universe, which is why I remain skeptical of such a claim

And even if we were able to detect a greater consciousness out there in the great beyond, it wouldn’t necessarily mean it was a god. It might just be a more highly evolved form of consciousness. A sentient alien, a super-computer, or even a conscious, living galaxy. It’s all guesswork as to the types of consciousness that could potentially exist; all I know is that we, at least, know how to recognize conscious minds within ourselves and within other creatures, so there is no reason to think we couldn’t recognize it elsewhere too.

So, as far as anyone knows, life on Earth is the only kind of life that exhibits this higher form of consciousness – at least the sort of minds that we would consider conscious, living, thinking minds capable of rationality. This we do not find outside our own corner of the galaxy. Of course, that doesn’t mean intelligent life, or other forms of consciousness aren’t out there. Just that we haven’t discovered any and so have no other example to cite than our own forms of conscious minds as we find here on Earth.

Theologians, apologists, and believers faced with this dilemma then turn around and make the opposite claim that God is beyond our comprehension. Instead of a conscious mind we can detect, God is rendered undetectable. I must wonder, if this is true then what is there to know?

Doubting the existence of a particular God doesn’t rule out the possibility whether such a thing as a God could exist in the first place. It is, after all, possible. But the question isn’t so much whether it is possible, since anything is possible given the right conditions and circumstances, but whether it is plausible.

However, when we talk about things that are plausible, we are talking about things that can be argued for or against. Does God exist? Well, to be persuaded we’d have to have really solid arguments. If we argue for the truth of a matter, like whether something really exists, we must have positive evidence to base our argument upon. If I say that God really exists, for example, I have to have real support to back up that claim.

This is why it’s called a positive claim.

If we are adding a postulate to the null hypothesis, e.g. creating an alternative hypothesis, then we need to support that postulate in order to prove the alternative hypothesis and thereby nullify the null hypothesis.

If I make the positive claim that Mt. Everest is the highest mountain in the world, then I have to be able to support that claim with evidence. If I say a *different mountain is taller, or that Mt. Everest isn't the tallest mountain in the world, this alternative hypothesis needs to be evidenced. An un-evidenced positive claim is an empty claim.

Which is why those who have zero evidence for God can only profess belief in God – not certainty.

Atheism is not a positive claim. It does not add anything to the null hypothesis (in this case, the natural world is as we observe it). All things being equal, atheists haven’t postulated an additional God to the equation (adding God is the alternative hypothesis), and so atheism isn’t so much making a negative claim as it is stating that the question of God’s existence simply has not been demonstrated so theism is false.

This is what is known as weak-atheism (or agnostic-atheism).

Now, if you make the counter-claim (the negative claim) you are saying that there is absolutely no God. Although this isn't something we can know per se, you can claim to believe it based on the fact that there is not a shred of compelling evidence to sustain the belief in the kind of God that is said to exist, thus you can choose not to believe in any God or gods until all the evidence is forthcoming.

This is what is known as strong-atheism (or gnostic-atheism). The strong-belief where you feel convinced that there are no gods.

I think both strong and weak atheism are fine, because if there was a God or gods to any discernible degree, the null hypothesis wouldn't be the natural world as we observe it, it would be the world as we observe it with gods. But this we do not find. So atheism aligns with the null hypothesis, the world being as we observe it. So that makes the God-hypothesis the one that needs to be proved.

At the same time, you can remain skeptical, but choose to believe. This is called agnostic-theism, because although you admit the evidence is inconclusive and that you cannot know for certain, you feel inclined to believe (for whatever reasons).

But once again, I feel I must stress that this is still making a positive claim – in this case the postulate is a possible deity rather than a prospective deity, but both assumptions add to the null hypothesis.

So, to me, it doesn’t matter how you may feel regarding a certain belief, whether you feel it is possible and we simply haven’t discovered it yet or whether you feel it exists but we still need to better identify it, either way you technically are making a positive claim because you are positing something that adds to the null hypothesis. This means you have to make, at the least, an argument to sustain your belief.

I consider myself an agnostic-atheist because I know that I cannot definitively rule out the existence of a God, but that there is no evidence for any God or gods either, and so I have no reasons that compel me to believe theism is true. All things being equal, I’d need to see some pretty persuasive evidence to incline me to believe. I’d need pretty strong evidence and excellent arguments to persuade me to believe in any one type of God. I can honestly admit, however, that I haven’t seen any form of convincing argument or evidence.

Minus any convincing reasons to believe, the default position becomes skepticism. So atheists are basically saying that because theism doesn't appear to be true, and that the facts are all up in the air, the being skeptical rather than hopeful is the right position to take with regard to theism.

Typically speaking, we aren’t skeptical things we believe to be the case.

I’m not skeptical that Mt. Everest, for example, is the highest mountain in the world. In order for me to be skeptical of that fact, I’d either need to be ignorant of the evidence or else in complete denial of the fact that Mt. Everest has time and again been demonstrated as the tallest mountain on this planet.

This is why I think most agnostic-theists get a bad rap. They are technically saying they are skeptical of what they believe based on the fact that there is no compelling evidence to support their beliefs, but they choose to believe it anyway. We can only stare at them blankly and scratch our chins.

I think the way you describe yourself you probably lean more toward agnostic-atheist. I find this is a very reasonable position to take.

If you stop to think about it, agnostic-theists are making a rather bold claim. Essentially they are saying that even though they lack the evidence they still feel that it is at least a 50/50 chance of God existing, they just don't know which, but have wagered that God exists.

I find this position unreasonable. Because not knowing something could never lead to a conclusion of any certainty. In other words, their feelings are being distorted by what they wish to be true rather than letting themselves be guided by what is most likely to be true. So how can they be uncertain whether there is a God then settle on the choice that God exists? Because that's the story they want to be true.

I think the Great Agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll was correct when he said, “The intellectual advancement of man depends upon how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new truth.”

I have less of a problem with dogmatic atheists who like to profess their certainty that there is NO God. I’m fine with that because there is no evidence to suggest they might be wrong, whereas there is more than enough evidence to suggest that theists are wrong.

Personally, I would find it shocking to find out that there was a God controlling things behind the scenes, a man behind the curtain so to speak, pulling the levers and manipulating things to his will, like the Great Wizard of Oz. I am wholly skeptical of any such a claim because I see absolutely no evidence to even assume such a possibility in the first place. Thus I cannot pretend it’s reasonable to assume invisible, intentional agents when there is no direct or indirect evidence for the tinkering and toiling of invisible, intentional agents.

Many believers say they see “signs” of God working in their life. And then those signs fit with, coincidently enough, exactly what they imagine their God to be like. In other words, these people want God to be real so badly that they see him everywhere they look. This kind of projection causes them to be biased as they tend to see God everywhere, even on slices of burnt toast and on their dogs’ assholes. I find such thinking to be entirely wishful and overly expectant.

Presumably, they wish for it to be this way because they want the universe to have meaning, so they imagine there is a God, and then suddenly the universe has meaning for them! That way they can pretend that their lives have meaning in a vast universe of apparent meaninglessness.

They expect it to be true because they don’t see how they could possibly aspire to anything greater than they are if the universe is meaningless.

They would feel lost in a never ending void of hopelessness and indifference – so they like to conjure up Gods, which always have the unlucky habit of being created as mere reflections of human desires instead of the other way around.

My mother, who is still a believing Christian, likes to tell me she knows God is real. She knows it. How does she know? She just knows. As she so often reminds me, “I know it in my heart that it’s true.”

We want to be loved, so we create a god which is love, whether it is Aphrodite or the Catholic notion that God is love, it doesn’t matter. It is all representative of human psychology. It fulfills our desires. It fills the void of a meaningless universe. It soothes our fears.

Personally, I take the view that the universe is without meaning, but like Fredrick Nietzsche I feel that we have the ability to supply meaning to the universe. The universe therefore isn’t without meaning. It just doesn’t come prepackaged with the stuff – we have to make the meaning first.

Whether or not I find meaning in my life and in the universe isn’t dependent on whether there is a God or not. In fact, I would say this is true of everybody. They simply mistake their desires for truths, and then say because they want it this way rather than some other way then it must be true for everyone. Again, this is more wishful thinking. And thinking which I find to be unreasonable as it doesn’t leave room for doubt, or the possibility of being wrong.

I am reminded of what Bertrand Russell once said:

“There is something feeble, and a little contemptible, about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought, and he therefore cannot carry his own reflections to any logical conclusion.”

Likewise, I’ve never heard believers who espouse, as my mother does, “That they know in their heart that God is real,” to admit even the slightest doubt in this claim. Rather, they tie their emotions up into a pretzel trying to convince themselves it’s true – because if it’s true they feel happy, secure, and have a sense of purpose. Why would they even think, for a second, that they would be wrong? All that would mean is a sense of dread, insecurity, and purposelessness.

But that’s the way I think it really is. Which means, at least in my mind, atheists are brave. They are facing the great unknown head on, and I think that’s more valiant than telling oneself lies simply to feel better – regardless of who turns out to be right (then again, we may never know – in which case the atheist’s position also becomes the more rational one).

That doesn’t mean I think all religious God-believers are irrational. But it’s like the skeptic Michael Shermer has said, people who are rational are the best at making rationalizations for what they want to be true. I think this can be said of all of us, but especially of theists and believers.

At the end of the day, it simply comes down to where your priorities are. Do you value knowledge, asking question, discovering answers, and gaining a better understanding of the world – or are you content to idly while away the hours twiddling your thumbs and believing you already know all there is to know? As my favorite Free Thinker G.W. Foote once said:

“Doubt is the beginning of wisdom. It means caution, independence, honesty and veracity. Faith means negligence, serfdom, insincerity and deception. The man who never doubts never thinks.”

As long as you continue to ask yourself these challenging questions, then I think you’ll do just fine. Admitting that you don’t know in light of a better understanding is to remain humble. It is to take the position of the wise sage. It is to reflect on truth and meaning. There is more to learn than can ever be learned in one life time. As human beings we can never be all-knowing. So we must remain agnostic with respect to those things we cannot possibly know. So the way I see it is you’re already on the right track.

Sincerely,

Tristan Vick (The Advocatus Atheist)

***UPDATE***

I am glad to report that I have received a follow up message thanking me for the in-depth response which this person found to be helpful. I'm glad to have helped in what little way I could!

The Swedish Fish! It's Finally Here!

My latest non-fiction book The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbit's Foot is a response to Christian apologist Randal Rauser and his book The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails.

I was especially honored to have my book edited by the NT historian (and theologian) Robert M. Price!

Check it out!

Amazon (Kindle)

Barnes & Noble (Nook)

P.S.
Spam a friend!

Veiled Threats and Other Nonsense

An atheist friend of mine had the unfortune to run into a militant asshole. In their exchange the asshole told my friend he should go to one of the Islamic countries that murders atheists.

My friend took his tone, along with his suggestion that he ought to go die, as a threat.

Almost instantly more assholes crawled out of the woodwork to defend the rudeness of the first asshole, saying that his "suggestion" was not a threat per se, although they conceded to the fact that it was rather insensitive.

I took the opportunity to defend my friend and got called names, told I needed to educate myself, got read to from a dictionary, and was told that my contention to their insensitivity, which I felt added insult to injury, wasn't a conversation worthy of the fifth grader.

I am going to illucidate exactly why it was a threat.

Here is why...

Because my friend took it as a threat! That's why.

We don't know his situation or circumstances. We don't know any additional facts about the exchange. Just that in my friend's mind there was more than the mere suggestion to go into harm's way, something which made him feel threatened. 

And really, that's all we need to know.

Except, as the conversation progressed, more and more dictionary thumpers did their best to keep on informing him is wasn't a threat, but just a suggestion. Ha! A suggestion? Right. I guess it could be a suggestion in the same way a Nazi sympathizer telling a Jew to go walk into a furnace would never be considered anything more than merely a harmless suggestion.

Allow me to inform as to why suggestions can also be classified as threats.

Because the law says so. That's why.

In law a threat is anything that constitutes the menace of harm. It doesn't need to be direct. It can be indirect, veiled, or even merely suggested.

A tactless man, for example, might call a girl he doesn't like a whore and suggest she do what he tells her lest she get what's coming to her, and this is a threat, plain and simple.

If this same man threatened to rape the girl, this would also be a threat. If he said he'd have his friends rape her too, still a threat.

Now this next part is where many people who abide by a strict dictionary definition of the word "threat" get hung up.

If, with the woman's prior knowledge that the man wants to rape her, she receives a  disconcerting message that suggests she come over to his place so she can be properly "taken care of," let me ask you, would this not constitute a threat?

In legal terms, yes. It's a threat. In this case there is the menace of harm, existing from prior conditions, and the prior knowledge that this man will likely rape the woman.

Thus the law clearly states that even suggestions can be considered serious threats when there is even the slightest hint of the menace to do harm.

But if you are holding to a strict dictionary definition of the word "threat," basically the admission that you desire to physically harm someone, then you could apologize on behalf of would be rapist everywhere and say they are all merely making suggestions.

Wrong.

As we all know, most social interactions among human beings aren't so black and white. Nor is the way we communicate, express ourselves, or use language. Words and phrases can carry multiple meanings and subtexts and you can never be entirely certain how somebody else will take something that is said, especially when it might only be vaguely suggested. But herein lies the problem, if one possesses a prior knowledge that contained in the words is the suggestion that entails abuse, suffering, and harm -- then that suggest comes with it the explicit intent to have harm done, which constitutes the menace of harm, which by law is a type of threat.

What you cannot do is say the woman in the example was over reacting when it was suggested she enter into harms way where there is a near certain chance she will be raped, because it was merely a suggestion.

No, it wasn't. It was more than a suggestion, it was a threat. A threat against her safety, well being, and freedom not to be harassed or assaulted or have it suggested that she should endure these things because someone is sick in the head and finds pleasure from suggesting it.

The same goes for my atheist friend of whom it was suggested he enter into harm's  way where there is a near certain chance of his being murdered.

But, but, but it was only a suggestion! 

No, it wasn't. It was a threat.

Look, I have no tolerance for indirect, mealy-mouthed, fifty-shades of gray type of ways some callous jerk-wad can say they want someone to endure abuse and be harmed. If you intimidate, insinuate, use a condescending and abusive language, and/or hold fear over someone to menace them and cause them to fear for their safety and well-being by suggesting they place themselves in harm's way, it's a threat.

So we have every right to call these assholes out, and my atheist friend has every right to feel intimidated and threatened by someone like this.

And if you still think it was only a suggestion done in bad taste but not a genuine threat, well you are entitled to your opinion, but you'll still be wrong. Not because I say so, or because the law says so, but because my friend... who was the one who feels threatened (not you), took it as though it was a threat.

I hope that instead of telling him he is overreacting to some rather terrible advice, we might be more mindful of his situation and take the time to try to consider what reasons he might have for taking it in a different way than we might have.

On Pro-Choice: Why It's the Only Moral Choice

On Pro-Choice:
Why It’s the Only Moral Choice

“One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living.”

– Ayn Rand

Apologies in advance, but a recent debate I have had has caused me to get up on my soapbox here regarding abortion as it pertains to women’s rights.

The problem with the pro-life position is painfully obvious: It’s not a moral position.

You simply cannot tell a fully autonomous woman that she has no right to an abortion without stripping her of the right to choose for herself whether or not such a thing is in her best interest in the first place.

What this means is before you can even deny her the abortion, you have to take away her right and responsibility to make her own decisions what happens to her body regarding a highly technical medical procedure of which the surrounding circumstances which you are completely unaware of.

This just strikes me as all kinds of wrong.

And simply put, if you are not in the woman’s position and you are not the woman’s doctor, then chances are there is simply nothing you will be able to say which will convince me you have a right to choose for her, on her behalf, what is in her best interest medically, morally, or otherwise.

It’s peculiar, to say the least, how so many pro-life advocates claim abortion is a moral issue but their first act is to disregard any moral precepts whatsoever so as to wrangle the freedoms and rights away from women in order to enact unfair, hostile, or damaging laws and thereby ensure the spread misery all in the name of their so-called “moral” superiority.

To even think for one moment that you had the right to do that, let alone have the nerve to seek to gain authority over another human being simply to save what you feel is in your best interest (not theirs) is beyond the pale. So enough with pretending pro-life is a moral position, it’s not.

As my friend Ashley so perfectly summed up, “You mean I can’t tell others what’s in their best medical interest based on my personal opinions, even though I know nothing of them and their personal history and circumstances? Well ... shit.”

But pro-lifers want it to be the only position. So, realizing they cannot control women like marionettes, they do the next best thing: they try to redefine the legal definition of human life saying that fully autonomous life begins at conception. This strategy is designed to invoke a sense of injustice whenever a woman has an abortion because then they wouldn’t be killing an unborn nothing, they’d be murdering a human life!

It’s a strategy that’s worked well in the past, which is why they continue to attempt to bully anyone who doesn’t use their arbitrary selected definition of “life” by calling them “baby-killers” and “murderers.” The maturity level is very low on the pro-life side of the debate, I think you’ll find.

First of all, you cannot just redefine the definition of life any way you’d like and then call people who do not accept your arbitrary definition “baby-killers” and “murders.” Before your definition even gets considered you must first have scientifically valid reasons for describing and independent human life as beginning at conception. But this is where things get problematic.

The claim that an independent human life begins at conception is based off a desire for life (mostly human life) to be sacred. But ask these same people if they feel an 18 or 19 year old teenager has the right to freely choose to enlist in the military and truck off to war, and they will probably say something like, “Damn straight!”

But maybe this is why they rally so hard against abortion, because if they couldn’t send innocent kids off to die in the wars they started, then they might be in danger of being enlisted themselves!

Or if you ask them whether they are in support of capital punishment, i.e. the death penalty, many will likely say yes, which makes them little more than hypocrites since one cannot define a human life as sacred and then allow for people’s lives to constantly be terminated because of programs and policies they support. To me, supporting the termination of a life sounds an awfully lot like abortion, but minus any of the medically relevant reasons which might justify an abortion.

In the first place, if you truly felt that all human life was sacred, then there would be no greater threat to this sanctity of human life than allowing for adolescents to go off to a war to possibly die or supporting policies like capital punishment whereby you vote for the state to be a person’s executioner and idly sit by and watch while they are put to death. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that unborn fetuses are a sacred life and thus needs to be protected then allow your children to die in your wars for you and your criminals to die in inhumane ways. That’s reneging your belief that human life is sacred and should be protected at all costs.

Second of all, if a teenager has the right to freely choose to enlist in the Armed Forces, and freely choose to make themselves a foot soldier for some greater cause, why shouldn’t a woman have the right to dictate her own fate as well?

If the sanctity of life isn’t enough to prevent people from shipping off to war, then it certainly isn’t enough to prevent abortions of entities not yet even recognizable as part of their biological species (e.g., it takes approximately 11 weeks for a zygote to grow into a fetus with functioning organs and distinct biological features allowing us to classify it as say, human, and not a duckbill platypus).

At least what the pro-choice side of the debate maintains consistent definitions and isn’t in danger of being hypocritical because it’s not playing a “moral” trump card to try and shoehorn people into accepting an arbitrary, unscientific definition for human life with respect to human biological reproduction, nor does it seek to implement laws dictating how others ought to live according to one’s own limited awareness or worldview, and it respects women enough to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to deciding what happens to their own bodies.

Pro-choicer proponents want to protect women, their rights, and if possible the life of unborn (potential) children. That’s right. Pro-choice advocates don’t want unnecessary abortions either, but pro-choice stops here and says to demand anything more than the basic right of the woman to choose what is in her best interest is to step over a line we have no right stepping across.

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, want to safeguard the life of the unborn child, but only if they can legally own the woman and her unborn child first. They’d gladly shred the line of moral decency if it meant they could get their way in gaining power and control over women by stripping women their rights to have sovereign autonomy over their own bodies and decisions.

Which is why, if you are pro-life, the fact of the matter is, you are hostile to women and women’s rights. Period.

The only way to fully back the pro-life movement is to stop caring about women and the rights of women. Some might call me a feminist because I advocate women’s rights, and in this case I’d gladly accept such a charge, especially when it is women’s rights that are being threatened by myopic or outright hostile policies sponsored by those still catering to knuckle dragging chauvinistic philosophies that still believe women aren’t bright enough, well suited enough, apt enough, or wise enough to choose for themselves what is in their best interests.

I’m sorry to inform, but when it comes to the hot topic issue of abortion, well, being pro-choice is rational, being pro-life is not. Doubly so if you are a woman.

Simply put, there is no case that can be made by pro-life advocates that doesn’t automatically devolve into a greater moral peril than that of pro-choice, and for this reason, they simply cannot claim to have the moral high ground here.