The problem is that I cannot explain through materialistic logic that fact that I experience things (I think it’s called the consciousness problem). For me this opens up the door to woo woo thinking. I might be a pan-psychist(sp?) or at least I can’t really dismiss the theory.

Places to start on that question are my articles on consciousness, but I just dropped one long discussion that summarizes and links to many of them: Was Daniel Dennett Wrong in Creative Ways? That also touches on panpsychism etc.

But be warned, Sheldrake is a crank (example, example, example).

Pentecostalism is arguably the fastest growing religious phenomenon in the history of the world. If that is true, then the question I have is why? I know I’m not a sociologist or a psychologist but shouldn’t someone be asking a question like that in academia if it’s true?

First, that’s a somewhat misleading statement. When you have a minority movement, any growth mathematically looks “fast” but does not correlate with how that sounds in terms of success. The world isn’t actually becoming Pentecostal. As Christianity declines globally, more Christians are retreating to extremist sects (being boiled down to the hardest of the hardcore). But they’re still a minority.

Second, there is a distinction between Pentecostal and Charismatic that is sometimes overlooked in the stats. Pew has a discussion.

But, combined, those are the groups seeing global success, but mostly in the third world. They are now a quarter of Christians in the world (and that means, only a tenth of the world’s population; atheism is spreading as fast and has a similar percentage); and their gains are small in the first world (e.g. they comprise less than 5% of U.S. Christians and less than 1% of Americans altogether).

Most of those converting to these kinds of sects were already Christians; and a lot of them were old-world Catholics. One of the main reasons for this shift in the third world is the decline of Catholic institutions (the decay and corruption of the church has rendered it increasingly irrelevant to people’s lives, while Pentecostalism is better meeting emotional needs). Similar effects are hitting other aging movements, e.g. in the U.S. Southern Baptists are bleeding members into Pentecosyalism because of perceived decay, corruption, and unresponsiveness of the Southern Baptist Convention.

There’s a useful discussion at Current Affairs. The way I would summarize it is that there really is no successful intellectual argument for Christianity; almost no one is converted that way, and in fact most people are being driven out even by the attempt. What generates enthusiasm for any sect is emotional, so churches that use standard time-tested tactics of emotional manipulation are the only ones left who have a prospect of winning hearts and minds.

A very similar thing happened in the early 19th century, it’s called the Second Great Awakening. The causes and outcomes we can expect to be pretty much the same. After a few generations it will peter out and secularism will continue to overtake Christianity apace, as we already see it doing in the first world; the more so as third world countries improve their economic conditions and enter the first world, since physical and economic insecurity is a major cause of all conservative religious-movement popularity worldwide and historically.

Thank you for your link about Atheism+Health and happiness.

I completely agree with you about his misrepresentation and purposeful ignorance of what atheism is. Atheism is simply a rejection of the claims made about a deity due to lack of reliable evidence. It says nothing about our morals, values, etc. those are separate issue.

I do know he’s really into Ken Ham according to his posts. That should be enough to know how illogical and unscientific he truly is. He truly rejects and/or finds scientific finds untrustworthy but the bible as infallible….I think I’m going to cry..

How can he assert that our faculties are defective, ergo scientific facts are flawed and thus wrong. Then he concluded god did it, when his faculties should also be defective no? Unless he thinks being ‘saved’ means he has true knowledge from Jesus compared to us godless simpletons? I don’t necessarily agree with absolute truths, however in my opinion, science is the best and most consistent method we have at finding what is true. All he has is blind faith which is not a reliable path to truth, nor can he demonstrate any truth, only assert and proselytize.

I want to have a PM discussion with him. However, I will refrain from having one. Mainly because his arguments are flawed and he doesn’t understand that even when you show him it is erroneous.

I feel like he’s a troll but that he also thinks he’s the enlightened one, more importantly, he would be wasting my time, because no matter the evidence you provide, empirical, reliable, peer reviewed etc, he’s contractually as an adherent obligated to reject it and he clearly demonstrates that on every post.

He just frustrates me that there are people like that.

It slows down our advancements about how the real world works. I know we’re moving in the right direction, but it’s not going fast enough.

There are too many varieties of Calvanist now for the term “Calvinist” to even indicate anything anymore. So I sympathize. And I have no idea which sect or faction of Calvinism Sommer is into. You’d just have to ask him what its peculiar doctrines are.

Sommer actually challenged my science-based claim that our faculties are enormously defective. He even made fun of my massive citation of examples. He’s evidently not into scientific facts. Which rules him out as a legitimate party to any debate about reality.

So I don’t know how to answer your question. Someone who delusionally thinks they are under water and we just refuse to see the water is not someone we can have a rational conversation with.

Likewise someone who is completely out of touch with facts and reality. For example, his claims about atheism are false.

Excellent article!

I had a question concerning Josh Sommer’s comments to you about Plantinga and just epistemology in general.

Firstly, I don’t know what a Calvanist truly is, which is what Josh is correct? Unless I am mistaken. Calvanists is a denomination in Protestantism I think but what are the big differences between them and say, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics? I heard they have the “Once saved, always saved” doctrine. So what once you are saved, you can commit any sin, and be forgiven?

I feel like Josh heavily relies on the fact that he presupposes gods existence and admits our cognitive faculties are not perfect, thus, we are surely wrong about evolution. But then presupposes god for all his arguments, even though that argument could be used against him as well? Wouldn’t that be special pleading or confirmation bias on his part? I mean, I’m kinda confused as to why he thinks he has a key in the epistemological train when he admits human cognition’s are poor.

One of his comments was “Atheist saying there’s no evidence for god is like throwing someone in water and claiming he doesn’t see the water” I know, cringe worthy fallacy right there -> Perhaps, non sequitur?

That’s not evidence for god, it’s evidence for water. It reminds me of the “Look at the trees” argument.

Well that’s just evidence for trees not a god, let alone your specific god of your specific denomination.

He also says Genesis 2 is a better explanation than Naturalism…I almost ripped my hair off…We actually have evidence for Naturalism unlike Genesis…

Is he desperately trying to debunk evolution because he knows it destroys Biblical Creation? No Adam and Eve = no Original Sin = No need for a savior (Jesus died for nothing), which is what the whole soteriological of Christianity relies on.

He then mentions a false dichotomy (Either choosing Atheism or Jesus) He mentions all positive points for his imaginary friend, but then only bad connotations for atheism, as being depressing, no coping method whilst believing in Jesus gives comfort.

Sure comfort is nice, but doesn’t make it true.

I do believe he his sincerely convinced of what he believes. However, I don’t think his conclusion he reached is justified. He talks about Jesus as if he actually has a relationship with him, yet admits our cognition’s are poor…So how can he know what he believes is true and not misled? He doesn’t seem to see this. He’s essentially saying “well Richard’s and other Atheists cognition’s are poor thus most likely false. But mine are also poor, but I KNOW mine are correct because, well, Jesus”

I feel like Josh relies on presuppositionalism and fallacies for his arguments. He calls you a hack, likely because you have the only peer reviewed work against the Historicity of Jesus, and that probably aggravates him to no end, that not only the Jesus of the gospel is false but that there’s a possibility the ‘historical’ figure might be as well.

Am I wayyyyy off on my representation of Josh’s beliefs? Is my reasoning sound? I’m just very confused as to how he can’t see his arguments are flawed from the very first premise.