Joe Nickell's Death

I disagreed with him on a lot of issues, but, as with anybody who does the sort of work he did, there's a lot to agree with him about and appreciate as well. Since there's so much that's false and fraudulent in religion and the paranormal, anybody who gives so much of his life to opposing that sort of thing is going to do some good in the process.

One of my memories of him is an appearance he made on "The Sally Jessy Raphael Show" in the 1980s. He was part of a panel with Ed and Lorraine Warren, Ed sitting next to Joe. You can watch it on YouTube. Go here for a segment in which Joe commented, "I've not met a house that I thought was haunted. I think the Warrens have never met a house that they didn't think was haunted." That's hyperbolic as far as the Warrens are concerned, of course, but it's a memorable way of expressing something that's true. Ed and Joe both went too far, in opposite directions.

You can read my response to Joe on the Enfield Poltergeist here. He called the magician Milbourne Christopher "one of the greatest influences on my early career as a magician turned paranormal investigator". Christopher visited the house where most of the events of the Enfield case occurred, and he probably witnessed some paranormal events while he was there. Some of those experiences were recorded on audio tape. You can read about Christopher's visit to the house and his involvement in the case more broadly here. It's a lengthy article, but you can go to the shorter section focused on Christopher to read the most relevant material.

Nickell's prominence in skeptical circles is reflected in some comments Robert Price made fifteen years ago:

"In appealing to the universal facts of human experience, Hume is being neither deductive nor circular. He is merely appealing to what everyone knows: the frequent reports of the extraordinary we hear from UFO abductees, Loch Ness Monster fans, people who see ghosts or who claim psychic powers, always seem to turn out to be bunk upon examination. Ask Joe Nickell. Ask James Randi. Ask the evangelical stage magician Andre Kole, who exposed Filipino 'psychic surgeons.'" (John Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion [Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010], 277)

Nickell, Randi, and Kole are all dead now. There was already good evidence for the supernatural before any of them were born. There's more evidence for the paranormal now than there was then. (See, for example, here and here.) Looking to such people to debunk the paranormal as a whole has always been a false hope.

Giving the outsider test a failing mark

It's been many years since I commented on John Loftus's outsider test of faith. His position went through various permutations. The book is supposed to be the definitive version, so I was reading his book recently. A few observations:

This chapter supports my first contention–that people who are located in distinct geographical areas around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and justify a wide diversity of mutually exclusive religious faiths due to their particular upbringing and shared heritage. This is the Religious Diversity Thesis…Not only is there religious diversity, it's also clear that religions are situated around the globe in mostly distinct geographical locations. John Loftus, The Outsider Test of Faith: How to Know Which Religion is True (Prometheus Books 2013), 33,36.

i) Needless to say, that phenomenon is entirely consistent with the truth of Christianity. Both Judaism and Christianity were revealed in pagan cultures with preexisting religions. 

ii) Perhaps even more to the point, Scripture takes for granted that when sinners are left to their own devices, they will be conformed to their heathen culture. It takes God's grace to break through the social conditioning. Absent divine intervention, the phenomenon Loftus cites is exactly what the Bible predicts will be the case. 

As children we were all raised as believers. Whatever our parents told us we believed. If they said Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny existed, then we believed what they said until we were told otherwise…We don't know not to believe what our parents tell us. Ibid. 13. 

i) Really? From what I've read, kids typically figure out on their own that Santa can't exist. They puzzle over the logistical demands of the Santa mythos. They come to realize that it's a practical impossibility. But apparently Loftus needed an adult to dispel his belief in Santa. 

ii) As a young boy I once asked my mother where God came from. She said God made himself. That didn't make any sense to me. How could something that doesn't exist make itself? It has to exist in the first place to do anything.

I questioned her about that explanation years later and she admitted that she tried to give me an explanation a child's mind could grasp. Didn't work! 

As a young boy I once sat in my grandmother's kitchen. She made tea for us. She said God was everywhere. I asked her if God was in the teapot. She said yes! I didn't believe that. It made no sense to me.

My father was a teacher. Among other things, he taught classical mythology. I read the books at home. As a young boy I asked him about the relationship between God and Zeus. He offered a syncretistic explanation like Milton's Paradise Lost. I sensed that he didn't really believe that explanation. 

iii) Most religions (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, rabbinic Judaism) are more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy. Not what you believe but what you do. 

Informed skepticism is an attitude expressed as follows: (1) it assumes one's own religious faith has the burden of proof; 

i) Both insiders and outsiders have a burden of proof.

ii) It depends on your starting-point. You should only treat all religions equally if all religions are in the same epistemic situation. But what if some religious claimants are conspicuously lacking in evidence to back up their claims-or there's damning evidence to the contrary?

iii) Should the religionist approach his religion as a blank slate? That's too abstract. Suppose one religionist has a supernatural experience while a coreligionist does not. In that event they can't approach the question with the same detachment because they don't find themselves in the same epistemic situation. They have different starting-points because their experience or lack thereof locates the starting gate at different points along the track. So you can't treat the question in a vacuum if your experience puts you in medias res. 

(2) it adopts the methodological-naturalist viewpoint by which one assumes there is a natural explanation for the origins of a given religion, its holy books, and its extraordinary claims of miracles; 

i) Loftus has his thumb on the scales. But we should only adopt methodological naturalism if metaphysical naturalism is true. Otherwise, methodological naturalism is prejudicial. Naturalism has its own burden of proof. 

ii) Moreover, it isn't possible in principle to establish religious claims even if religious claims are true by using methodological naturalism since that methodology automatically screens out supernatural explanations. So the procedure is circular. According to methodological naturalism, nothing can ever count as evidence for the supernatural. It preemptively discounts that explanation regardless of the evidence. 

iii) Some religions do have a natural explanation. However, it's not as if a Christian apologist thinks Christianity has a monopoly on supernatural origins, while all other religions must have natural origins. A Christian apologist makes allowance for the possibility that a false religion has supernatural elements. A Christian apologist doesn't suspend supernatural explanations when examining Christianity or its rivals. So there's no double standard. For instance, some people who practice witchcraft may exhibit genuine occult powers. 

(3) it demands sufficient evidence before concluding a religion is true; and most importantly, 

If a religion is true, it should be possible to provide sufficient evidence for its claims. That doesn't mean every adherent must be competent to marshal the evidence. 

(4), it disallows any faith in the religion under investigation, since the informed skeptic cannot leap over the lack of evidence by punting to faith. Ibid. 23. 

Depends on how you construe the role of faith. Much of what we believe is based on sampling reality. Samples constitute evidence that something exists or happens. 

But samples are partial, so the question is how representative the samples are. Samples form the basis of extrapolations and generalizations. Sample are direct evidence for what they sample, and that may provide prima facie justification for believing that phenomena of the same kind follow the same pattern. That's where "faith" takes over. If we have some direct evidence, that gives us reason to trust what we can't directly verify on the provisional assumption that the pattern holds for the same kind of phenomena. 

Based on many instances where air travel is safe, we conclude that it's probably safe to board our plane, although we don't know in advance if our particular flight will crash. The past track record gives us faith in the future. We have no direct evidence for the future since direct evidence for an event is retrospective. We only know for sure that it will happen after the fact. Sample instances function as a makeweight. So there's a mean between blind faith and direct evidence. And that is faith–based on evidential examples. 

Rigging the outsider test

It's been many years since I've debated John Loftus, but I recently tangled with him on Facebook:

Loftus

"A historian wants to know what happened. The apologist doesn't care what happened. He only wants to defend the Holy Book at all costs, even if it means he must sacrifice his intellect to do so."

Hays

i) An apologist for atheism doesn't care what happened. He only wants to defend his naturalism at all costs, even if it means he must sacrifice his intellect (e.g. eliminative materialism) to do so.

ii) Loftus overlooks the obvious fact that becoming a Christian apologist is sometimes the end-result of pursuing the evidence, and not the starting-point. 

iii) What about historians committed to methodological naturalism? They don't care what happened. They will defend a naturalistic explanation even if it means sacrificing the evidence.

Elimination round

Both John Loftus had Jeff Lowder have repeatedly challenged W. L. Craig to a public debate. Since they're both competing for his attention, perhaps they need to begin with an elimination round. The survivor can proceed to the next round. 

There are many potentially interesting match-ups. Problem is, there's only one Craig and many aspirants. He can't debate them all. He can only debate a small fraction. And he's already 66, so the opportunities are rapidly diminishing. He has to be very finicky. 

In fact, I expect some aspirants are getting desperate because they know time is running out. 

He debates people who are either highly credentialed or very prominent. There's also a difference between who you debate when you are getting established, and who you debate after you are established. Once you have a reputation, you attract bigger fish. 

Aging atheist syndrome

Over at DC, John Loftus was recently having a cryfest because Jeff Lowder dissed his debate performance with David Wood on the Resurrection.

A few quick observations:

i) Loftus exhibits aging atheist syndrome. I've observed a number of prominent unbelievers who becoming increasingly bitter as they age, viz. Nietzsche, H. G. Wells, H. L. Mencken, Mark Twain, Thomas Paine, Quentin Smith, Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, 

Likewise, I wonder if Keith Parsons, Robert Price, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers were always this sour. Christopher Hitchens could be charming when he wasn't drunk:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1901636/posts

Atheism is a grim worldview, and as the padding of youth wears out, there's nothing to insulate the atheist from the polar night of despair. 

ii) Carrier, Lowder, and Loftus are all very vain, image-conscious men. However, Loftus suffers from an inferiority complex.

Aside from the fact that Lowder is at a better place in life than Loftus, he has too much self-regard to publicly humiliate himself the Loftus so often does. Loftus just can't restrain himself. He has nothing to look forward to. 

He can't stand to be belittled, yet he makes himself an object of ridicule. He brings upon himself the very thing he finds intolerable. If you show people where your buttons are, they will push your buttons. It's so predictable.

iii) When I say he suffers from an inferiority complex, I don't mean that as a putdown. Many men and women struggle with feelings of inadequacy or even self-loathing. In my observation, that usually goes back to childhood. A father they could never please. Lacking social acceptance in junior high and high school.

What's ironic about Loftus is that he pushes away the very thing and only thing that would salve his condition. Everyone benefits from the Gospel in different ways. That includes people who struggle with low self-esteem. The Gospel can compensate for a lack of self-worth. But Loftus shuns the very medicine that would alleviate his pain. 

Thumbs down for John Loftus

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/05/22/another-terrible-atheist-debate-performance/

The Wood/Loftus Debate On The Resurrection

David Wood and John Loftus debated the resurrection on April 20. A video of the debate is now available. Wood won the debate by a wide margin, and I won't attempt to summarize the many good points he made. You can watch the debate yourself to get Wood's side of it. Here are several problems I noticed with Loftus' portion of the debate, among a lot of other problems that could be mentioned (the references in parentheses are to minutes within the YouTube video linked above):

To hell and back

Predictably, John Loftus tries to make hay of David Wood's conversion story. This begins with feigning shock. He's shocked! Or so he says (twice!). Is Loftus really that naive about the ways of the world?

He descends into the subway as he tells his dark past. Then he emerges topside when describing his conversion.

That plays on Plato's allegory of the cave as well as Dante's Inferno. In addition, Victor Reppert thinks the subway is based on the Green Witch incident in the Lewis's Silver Chair. 

http://cslewisjrrtolkien.classicalautographs.com/cslewis/bookexcerpts/silverchair.html 

For anyone who thinks my deconversion story away from faith is a bit shocking (it isn't much at all) just compare David's conversion story towards faith, as seen in the video link below. If someone wants to discount my deconversion story due to my personal experiences, then how much more should they discount David's conversion story due to his personal experiences. After all, if personal experiences led us each to adopt different conclusions about God, then the personal experiences leading me to change my mind pale by comparison to his. 

That's such a simpleminded contention. Who says experience has no bearing on truth-claims? What about the argument from religious experience? 

There's no uniform principle here. It depends on the nature of the experiences and the inferences we draw from that experience. 

If David adopted his faith due to the experiences he describes in the video--experiences which show him to be an irrational angry young man--then how rational could this irrational angry young man have been when he adopting his faith at that time?

i) To the contrary, David explains that he was striving to be a rationally consistent atheist. Since atheism entails moral and existential nihilism, that implicates a behavioral counterpart.

At the same time, David explains that atheism generates an insoluble dilemma. How can you be a rationally consistent atheist when atheism is irrational at rock bottom?

ii) There's also the question of mental illness. David mentions, at the time, his mom's abusive boyfriend and a dad who was living out of town (or out of state). If I were going to play armchair psychologist, I'd suggest his social alienation and imaginary social life (e.g. communicating with animals) was a defense mechanism which took the form of dissociation. 

iii) BTW, some abilities he said he thought he had at the time (telepathic communication with animals, controlling the weather) are things I've read about in connection with witchcraft among Eskimos and Africans. He may have been off his rocker, but there may also be an occultic element to it. That's not the first explanation I'd reach for in his case, but I know next to nothing about his childhood. 

iv) Another question is how representative "sociopathology"  is in the general population. For instance, Vikings is a popular TV drama. Yet the characters do on a regular basis what David did on one occasion. Hacking old men, women, and children to death. 

And even though that's fictional, throughout history you have many men who get a thrill out of killing people. They kill people for fun. And not just killing, but doing so in the most brutal ways they can imagine or devise. 

Fact is, a sociopathic streak lies just beneath the sociable facade of many humans–especially men. It doesn't take much provocation to bring that to the surface. It's a question of whether people think they can get away with it. Look at warrior cultures. Look at all the atrocities committed around the world, past and present. 

A Christian can chalk that up to original sin. A Darwinist can chalk that up to our predatory animal ancestry. 

If atheists succeed in secularizing our culture, we may well revert to the unbridled savagery of our pre-Christian forebears. There will no longer be a moral or spiritual restraint on our baser impulses. 

Aside from what I've said above, consider three more sets of questions: 1) With such a past how damaged of a person do you think David is? Would you like to be married to him (or work with him) and have a fight that most close people do?

I've never felt the slightest inclination to marry another man. 

2) How likely is it David would return to his former hatred and behavior if he rejected his faith now at a later age?

In other words, if David reverted to atheism, with its moral and existential nihilism, would he take that more seriously than Loftus?

Atheists Flunking The Outsider Test

I recently listened to John Loftus and David Marshall discussing Loftus' outsider test and a book Marshall wrote about it. See here and here. Near the end of the first program, Justin Brierley (the host) and Marshall discussed the growth of Christianity in China. Even though Brierley and Marshall made important points about how Christianity is growing in China and the role of miracles in that growth, Loftus ignored what they'd said and returned to discussing people who believe what their parents taught them, how unimpressive it is that Christianity has survived for so long, etc. But China isn't a Christian culture, people who convert to Christianity in China on the basis of miracles aren't just accepting what their parents or culture taught them, and Christianity isn't merely surviving in China. Loftus' response was irrelevant and evasive. In the second program, he acknowledged that he doesn't know much about Christianity in China.

Craig Keener has a lot of material on miracles and the growth of Christianity in China in his book Miracles (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011). I wrote several posts about his book here, including excerpts of his comments on China. Here's a post about hostile corroboration of Christian miracles, in China and elsewhere. And here's a post I wrote about Christian and non-Christian miracles witnessed by skeptics who then changed their position.

While Christianity is so large and growing, atheists remain such a small minority of the population. Atheism hasn't been doing well with outsiders.

Does The Behavior Of The People In Matthew 2 Make Sense?

Jonathan Pearce has been writing some posts lately about how the individuals mentioned in Matthew 2 wouldn't have behaved the way Matthew describes (see here, here, and the comments section of the thread here). Below are some of my comments on the subject, taken from my review of Pearce's book on the infancy narratives and what I've written elsewhere:

Recycling Bad Objections To The Accounts Of Jesus' Birth

Valerie Tarico has written an article about Jesus' birth that repeats a lot of common objections without interacting with counterarguments that have been circulating for a long time. And, unsurprisingly, John Loftus linked it. We've covered most of this ground many times before, but I'll respond to several examples of Tarico's argumentation.

Karaoke atheism

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1311/john-loftus-christianity-great

Christianity And Its Evidence Keep Growing

Alex Tsakiris recently interviewed John Loftus on his Skeptiko podcast. Tsakiris makes some good points, and his comments at the end of the podcast (recounting an email exchange he had with Loftus) are especially worth listening to. Don't just read the transcript. There are significant parts of the program that the transcript doesn't include.

Tsakiris made some of his usual anti-Christian comments. At times, he'll dismiss "Christianity" without qualification. At other points, he refers to something like "fundamentalist Christians". He mentioned inerrancy. Judging by this podcast and his previous comments, I suspect that he's referring to conservative professing Christians in general. It's misleading to refer to conservative Christianity as a whole as "fundamentalism", but I suspect that's what he's doing. He wants to move beyond the disputes between atheism and the type of Christianity he's criticizing. He thinks people are "stuck on stupid" by focusing too much on atheism and traditional Christianity. He thinks work like what Loftus has done has effectively debunked conservative Christianity. He's weary of "silly, empty tomb Christianity kinds of debates". He wants to move on.

Your cheatin' heart

Ham is alluding to John Loftus:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/08/13/the-chutzpah-of-unethical-atheists-but-we-actually-understand-why/

The Outsider Test of Nothing

http://helives.blogspot.com/2013/04/outsider-test-of-nothing.html

An atheist in wonderland

John Loftus recently said:

I do ponder giving it up almost every single day now. It's enough getting attacked by several Christians who are threatened by my very existence, and much more so by my arguments. You should know that there are several sites set up just for personally maligning me. There are others who have made it their mission to spread lies about me. There have been Christians who have posed as me saying things on websites that are possibly criminal. Some have even openly prayed for me to die. I never know if someone who criticizes me is a Christian posing as an atheist, or an atheist. I can handle all of this, as maddening as it is, so long as I know there are people who appreciate and understand what I do. But even with this encouragement what I cannot take are atheists who take pot shots at me from behind. That's the final blow. It's just too much. I cannot fight battles on two different fronts. It's psychologically impossible. That's just me. I suspect it would be for most anyone. I also have a very hard time ignoring it.

Sorry, I've been having some misgivings about the research and experimentation lately. Maybe it stems from a sort of sympathetic fellow feeling from reading Flowers for Algernon one too many times. Maybe it's something else. Anyway, I feel the need to come clean now. In point of fact, there's no better time.

The truth, John, is you're basically a lab rat caught up in a scientific experiment. Its purpose was to come up with a workable model by which to test mental disorders like depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. As I trust you're aware, lab rats are a common go-to choice in scientific research. Naturally you were selected as an ideal specimen.

In the past other scientists have attempted to conduct this sort of experimentation via genetically engineered rats. Or surgically altered rodentia nervous systems. Or the administration of various pharmacological compounds. But it was thought a novel approach might prove more suitable and produce better results. Enter RoboRat. RoboRat is a robotic rat built to terrorize real-life lab rats.

Currently you opine attacks from within and without. You're mighty discouraged and sullen to say the least because you believe there are criticisms against you coming from "two different fronts": Christians and fellow atheists. But I'm afraid that's just your mistaken muroideal perception. There are no Christians or atheists attacking you. Or any real people attacking you at all. Rather they're just figments of your imagination. Indeed, the experiments on you have succeeded. They've succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

But the guilt is crippling me. How did I get myself into all this in the first place. How did I agree. And I can't bear seeing you in such a state. A state which would doubtless only worsen with continued experimentation. Worsen beyond the point of no return.

That's why I felt I had to break it to you at this point. It was either now or never. In fact, there might not be another chance to do so.

But, alas! There's no panacea in this knowledge. You may not get worse, I hope, but you certainly won't get better. The damage has already been done. Your all too fragile mind has been irreparably broken. You may be forever stranded in a PKD-esque world. You may never know where illusion ends and where reality begins. You may never know many other important truths again. Isn't this true?

However, I must hurry. Time is running out.

Here's where you take the red pill and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. You're still trapped in your cage, typing this very message to yourself before the scientists return and disconnect the internet cabl..............................

(Posted on behalf of John Loftus.)

When ringing endorsements ring hollow

http://dovetheology.com/2012/04/04/john-loftus-endorsements/

Atheism is liberating–just ask John

A Swan Song For My Atheist "Friends"

By John W. Loftus at 2/12/2013

But even with this encouragement what I cannot take are atheists who take pot shots at me from behind. That's the final blow. It's just too much. I cannot fight battles on two different fronts. It's psychologically impossible. That's just me. I suspect it would be for most anyone. I also have a very hard time ignoring it.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-swan-song-for-my-atheist-friends.html

Color me confused. And here I thought apostasy was supposed to be liberating. Casting off the shackles of suspicion. No longer groveling before the iron boot of a cosmic tyrant. Putting false guilt behind you.

Was God cooling his heels?

Richard Carrier on the Argument From the Scale of the Universe

By John W. Loftus at 1/12/2013

For what it's worth, at least I'm not the only one who thinks Jeff Lowder's arguments don't work against my particular case. Here's Carrier from page 290 of my anthology, The End of Christianity:

    We cannot predict from “a very powerful self-existent being created life by design” that he would do this by creating trillions of galaxies and billions of light years of empty intergalactic space and then sit around and twiddle his thumbs for ten billion years before finally deciding to create life in just one tiny place. That’s not even expected at all, much less with 100 percent certainty.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/01/richard-carrier-on-argument-from-scale.html

For now I’ll content myself with few brief observations. At a later date I may also comment on Everitt’s argument, which Carrier footnotes.

i) There are, of course, scientifically competent Christians who reject Carrier’s timescales.

ii) Assuming we grant his timescales, if God is timeless, then God didn’t wait for 10 billion years to create life. A timeless God doesn’t wait for anything. Even if there’s a 10 billion year interval between the origin of the universe and the origin of life, that’s not an interval in the experience or being of a timeless God. Carrier is confusing what happens in or to the universe with what happens to God. But although God makes everything happen (directly or indirectly), nothing ever happens to God.

Carrier can, of course, try to attack divine timelessness. My immediate point is simply that his objection takes for granted a questionable, unstated premise.

iii) Likewise, on the B theory of time, everything came into being all at once. One can, of course, debate the scientific, philosophical, and theological merits of the B theory. My immediate point is simply that Carrier’s objection takes for granted a questionable, unstated premise.

iv) Why does Carrier assume life only exists on one planet? That’s certainly not an atheistic axiom. And that’s not a Christian axiom. Christian theology doesn’t preclude the existence of biological organisms on other planets. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. That’s an open question in theology.

v) To say God “finally decided” to create life 10 billion years later…is ambiguous. That could be taken in either of two different ways:

a) God decided to create life 10 billion years later.

b) God decided 10 billion years later to create life.

Does Carrier mean God originally planned to create life 10 billion years later, or that God didn’t decide to create life until 10 billion years into the process? Is it a delayed decision, or a delayed effect of a prior decision? Was God undecided about when or whether to create life? Or did God decided to create life all along, only save that development for a later stage in the creative process?

Probably, Carried just liked the sound of what he wrote, and didn’t bother to clarify in his own mind what he was even thinking.

Homage to John Loftus

One of the Christians who defends him is Steve Hays, who should be condemned by all civilized people, such that if he ever defended me it would be a red-light warning to re-think what I was doing.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/01/an-open-letter-to-jeffrey-jay-lowder.html

John Loftus is my hero. I stand in awe of Loftus. Correction: I genuflect in his presence.

Loftus is an intellectual Titan. He makes Newton, Aristotle, Leibniz, Einstein, Pauling, Pascal, Poincaré, Kripke, Cantor, Capablanca, da Vinci, Feynman, von Neumann, and Aquinas look like preschoolers.

But that’s not all. I also admire the moral greatness of John Loftus. He’s the William Booth of atheism. The Albert Schweitzer of infidels.

Okay, John, there’s your red-light warning. Now time to reconsider your mission in life.