The Christian Delusion

The Christian Delusion by John W. Loftus "The Christian Delusion" is an extension of sorts to his previous great book "Why I Became an Atheist" but instead of going solo this time around John Loftus brings along some of his friends and these are good friends to have. A series of interesting essays by fantastic authors that support the main thesis of the book, that Christianity is a false belief. This 422-page book is broken out into the following five parts: Part 1. Why Faith Fails, Part 2. Why the Bible is not God's Word, Part 3. Why the Christian God is not Perfectly Good, Part 4. Why Jesus is not the Risen Son of God, and Part 5. Why Society Does not Depend on Christian Faith. Positives: 1. A well-written and high-quality analogy. Highly accessible to the masses. 2. Fifteen great essays from nine great authors and an excellent Forward by Dan Barker. 3. A fascinating topic in the hands of a master. Many thought-provoking ideas and concepts. 4. Great format that allows readers to jump from one topic to another. I also like how the contributors tackle popular apologist's points of view. 5. The false sense of certainty that comes from faith. Many angles taken. 6. An analysis of Christian culture. 7. A brief history of Christianity. 8. The power of Christian belief under the scrutiny of cognitive science. Many misconceptions put to rest. 9. The inefficacy of prayers. Psychology and neuroscience to good use. 10. The compelling outsider test for faith. 11. The Bible put under the scrutiny of scholars. What their examinations "reveal" to the rest of us. The inconsistencies, bad cosmology, fables, failed prophecies, forgeries, and the lack of supporting historical evidence. 12. Slavery one of the strongest arguments against the biblical god. Moral relativism. 13. God's problem of Miscommunication. 14. The problem of evil as denoted in the Bible and the amount of animal suffering. 15. The false beliefs held by Christians. The failure of miracles. The myths. 16. How modern society does not depend on Christianity for morality or science. 17. How human morality evolved. 18. Debunking the false notion that atheism was the cause of the atrocities of Hitler. 19. How Christianity has evolved. 20. Common fallacies including that Christianity lead to science. 21. Great quotes throughout, "Christians are not easily argued out of their religion because, since it is culture, they are not ordinarily argued into it in the first place". 22. Comprehensive notes at the end of each chapter. Negatives: 1. No kindle links. 2. Requires an investment of time but so well worth it. In summary, "The Christian Delusion", is yet another excellent book by John Loftus. The essays are compelling, thought-provoking and fun to read. If you are a Christian, and you care that your beliefs correspond to reality as closely as possible then you must take a look at this book. I highly recommend it! Further suggestions: " Why I Became an Atheist " and " The End of Christianity " by John W. Loftus, " Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism " and " Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith " by Richard Carrier, " Natural Atheism ", " Atheism Advanced " and " Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence: Religious Violence Across Culture and History " by Dr. David Eller, " Man Made God: A Collection of Essays " by Barbara G. Walker, " The Invention of the Jewish People " by Shlomo Sand, "The Portable Atheist" by Christopher Hitchens, "The End of Biblical Studies" by Hector Avalos, "Forged..." by Bart Ehrman, " God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist " by Victor J. Stenger, "Godless" by Dan Barker, "Christian No More" by Jeffrey Mark, and "The Invention of God" by Bill Lauritzen.

The term "New Atheists" has sometimes been used pejoratively to refer to authors such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, etc. and to their popularity and rise of 21st century atheism. In spite of the excellent works coming from them, they are not experts in the field of religion and history (although they do a wonderful job at that too) but they really don't offer anything new to what has already been known by informed atheists for years. This is why the term "New Atheism" has puzzled me; I suspect they only seem new to Christians because never before in American history have atheists been so prominent in the American consciousness (except for, perhaps, Madalyn Murray in the 60s, who was hated, and her writings mostly ignored, or Robert Ingersoll in the late 1800s, but he was an agnostic, not an atheist, and not many Americans know of him today). The Christian Delusion, however, is something different. In this anthology the authors are writing from the expertise in their fields. I'm not sure that any book debunking Christianity has ever had such a distinguished group of authors and scholars, and this, if anything, is what is new about this book. The book's authors range from professors of religion, historian of antiquity, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and former evangelical preachers (see "about the authors" below). If anything, these are the new atheists (non-pejoratively), if only because they offer factual information about history and religion that has never been presented in such a way before to debunk Christianity (at least not to my knowledge). Nor do I praise them because of their Ph.Ds, or their experience (I know all too well many PhDs that I've worked with that don't merit a hill of beans), but because they present verifiable information and sound logic. The end notes and citations from the authors is worth the price of the book alone. The "Delusion" in the title should not offend anyone, nor should it be taken as an ad hominem against Christians. A delusion, in a colloquial sense, describes a belief that is either false, mythical, or derived from deception. Since this is a book about the Christian delusion, it aims to show the false, mythical beliefs of the Bible (believed by Christians), and the deceptive practices by Christian apologists to deceive the public through falsehoods and unreliable scholarship. The book is divided into five parts: "Why Faith Fails," "Why The Bible Is Not God's Word," "Why The Christian God Is Not Perfectly Good," "Why Jesus Is Not The Risen Son Of God," and "Why Society Does Not Depend On Christian Faith." Each part presents information and/or logic that destroys any Christian apologist's claims. This book is extraordinary. If you liked any of the books by the "New Atheists" then you should enjoy this book even more because of its depth, scope, and scholarship. Every chapter provides a thorough list of citations, many sources which are available online for further reading. There is also a lot of information here that other books on atheism do not address. I think this is the best Christian debunking book to date and is a must read for nonbelievers and especially Christians who want to know about the history of the Bible and its claims. Note, if you wish to read my entire review, please visit my website: [...] ---- A comment on a previous review by KC James: KC gives only three stars for the book, one reason because the Avalos chapter does "not deal evenly with the parts where Adolph blatantly trashes Christianity" from Hitler's Table Talk. Actually Avalos does, and he cites Richard Carrier's work on the subject where Carrier shows that the "atheist"quotes in TT are complete fabrications from Genoud (who translated TT into French and where others used Genoud's version and translated it into into English). The original German TT does not contain the atheist quotes.

The Christian Delusion is the answer to most of those little holes left over after The God Delusion. Red Herring topics that frequently come up in debates, like the claim that Hitler was an atheist, or that Christianity is the basis of our morals (both false, by the way) are answered firmly and confidently. Instead of writing the whole book himself, Loftus chose to make The Christian Delusion a compilation of essays, each covering a specific subject. This was a very intelligent decision for two reasons: first, it allows for an A-list authors that would sell out any Atheist convention, including: Richard Carrier, David Eller, Robert M. Price, Hector Avalos, Edward Babinski, Paul Tobin, Valerie Tarico, Jason Long, and, of course, John Loftus (there is also a forward by FFrF's Dan Barker). Second, the mutli-author technique allows each contributor to stay focused in their specific field of interest. The common apologist defense of questioning the qualification of any critical writer is thereby diffused. And credentials really are a moot point with this book; of the 10 authors, 6 of them have PhDs in their field and several of them are former Christians that turned to atheism after years of study. The book is divided into 5 sections, each containing 2-4 articles. Some of the writing does get a bit dry at times (they are, after all, tackling some pretty challenging subjects), but the layout of the book easily allows the reader the opportunity to take one subject at a time. 1. Why Faith Fails - This section is probably one of the most needed in the world of Atheist/Christian dialogue. Instead of just pointing out perceived flaws in religious belief, these articles seek to understand and explain religious experiences through the social sciences. The articles explain how religion mixes into (and often gets confused with) the culture around it, how cognitive experiences, like a Transcendence hallucination, can easily can get confused with a supernatural experience (often called a "born again" experience), and how the human mind itself is wired to trick us and that without an emotionally detached method of looking at the world, like science, we would all be nothing but bias machines. 2. Why the Bible is Not God's Word - Critique of the Christian Bible occasionally takes too much of a center stage in Atheist writing. Responsible analysis of any ancient document takes a lot of patience and the discipline, not surprisingly, tends to to lose some people (either Christian or Atheist). I enjoy it, personally, but only because I genuinely find the subject matter interesting. I wouldn't actually use Biblical Criticism to argue an Atheist standpoint. Conversations that focus on Biblical critique can get messy and lead down alley ways that would require a find their way out. Loftus, though, cleverly keeps the focus of the 3 articles in this section very focused and to the point. Instead of pointing out every possible contradiction or mistranslation, the writers stay on task and make it quite clear that the Bible could not possibly be a reliable source of knowledge about a supreme being. I believe that this section would prove very beneficial to any Christian that believes the Bible to be "revealed knowledge". 3. Why the Christian God is Not Perfectly Good - Hector Avalos kicks off this section by refuting a past article by Paul Copan called "Is Yaheh a Moral Monster?" Hector concludes that he is. He does this by showing that Hebrew law code was not superior to that of the surrounding tribes and that biblical morals are unclear at best. John Loftus finishes it up with an article that points out how animal suffering in the world cannot be part of an omniscient god's plan. 4. Why Jesus is Not the Risen Son of God - Robert M Price examines (and refutes) Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd's apologetic book, "The Jesus Legend", which attempts to argue for an historical Jesus. Then Richard Carrier tells us "Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable" with enough clarity to make anyone ashamed to have ever bought into the idea to begin with. John Loftus then gives us a best case scenario for who a man named Jesus at the center of a 1st century religious movement could have been. Hint, the answer has more to do with social rebellion than it does saving souls. 5. Why Society Does Not Depend on Christian Faith - The topic of this section is a big one lately, when every religious zealot with a television camera pointed at them has been making the astounding claim that Christianity is the glue that holds society together. Aside from this being a bigoted and xenophobic viewpoint to make, it's also false. David Eller shows that not only is Christianity not a necessary basis for morality but, no religion is. In "Atheism was Not The Cause of the Holocaust", Hector Avalos shows that not only was Hitler not an atheist, but that he had expressed that he expected to be rewarded in heaven! This will be a very handy article to pass on the persistent trolls that still like to claim, despite loads of contradictory (and easily available) evidence, that Hitler was an atheist. Richard Carrier then closes the book by completely blowing apart the bogus assumption that Christianity was (somehow?!) responsible for modern science. The Christian Delusion is, all in all, a very well thought out book. It covers most of the arguments one might run up against when conversing with apologists that aren't covered by the more broad "The God Delusion". While none of the articles will be the final word (the subject of each article could very easily fill a book of their own), all the authors have meticulously sourced their articles to make any further research easy. And, let's face it, at this point, anyone still adhering to any form of literal Christianity just isn't paying attention.

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (TCD) is a necessary source-book for anyone who values the individual liberty found in questioning superstition for the sake of critical thought. It exposes the fallacy that Christianity's divine command authority is necessary for individual betterment or societal progress. It identifies Evangelical Christianity's superiority claims in the areas of personal transformation, theological/scriptural veracity, and ethics for the superstitious group think they are. It arms truth-seekers with intelligent answers rooted in sound scholarship that can defend them from pseudo-intellectual-Christian-apologetic-razzle-dazzle. A truth-seeker must face a culture dripping with Christianity when assessing Evangelical "truth-claims". These "truth-claims" operate like intellectual pollution compromising healthy reason and mutating it towards emotion-laden-group-thought, devoid of logic, intellectual honesty or material ethics. American Christian Culture is aimed at end-times exceptionalism where the highest understanding of morality is obedience to whomever the masses deem the absolute authority. The elevation of superstition to a divine commander stands in the way of individual freedom and honest scientific exploration. We see these threats realized today when Evangelical Christians deny constitutional freedoms to homosexuals and obscure useful science in the name of their divine commander, dressing up creationism as Intelligent Design. We are facing crucial times where Biblical Inerrantists, Christian Reconstructionists, and Dominionists in the state of Texas are looking to over-throw the aims to Liberty offered by the Enlightenment in favor of the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity. America is in a struggle between reason and faith and too often the side of faith is given credence as good while reason is demonized. Presuppositions to invisible kingdoms indicate a healthy humility but genuine curiosity as to why reality is the way it is with an aim towards progress is considered arrogance. This is the context in which TCD has been born and it lives up to its necessary birthright by defending enlightened thought with well-researched argument. It also does this in a way to invite the reader into a non-threatening conversation prior to exposing Christianity for the collection of neurotic lies it is. Loftus has done an exceptional job of gathering a cross-reference of experts who strategically dismantle the Christian heuristic and show the reader how the religion's revelations are both artificial and banal. The genius of the book is in its structure so kudos to Mr. Loftus for his editorial guidance. We are taken on a narrative which first shows us that the "born again" experience is not unique to Christianity and can be easily explained without an appeal to the supernatural. This is a wise choice in addressing the Christian Delusion because so often Christians claim their religion true due to anecdotal evidence that over-values life-transformation as proof of an in-dwelt Holy Spirit. Essays in cognitive science and perception help expose Christianity as a constructed choice in alleviating cognitive dissonance and therefore is no better than any cognitive bias that allows emotional comfort in the face of randomness. We then see how using the Bible as a transcendent document ignores its inefficaciousness in explaining reality or providing a clear understanding of the human condition. The former is evidenced in the objective description of the pre-scientific (and wrong) cosmology attested to in scripture and the latter is shown by the exposition of the sectarian Christain wars that have haunted human history. We then make a turn and the book's tone goes from invitational to confrontaional. This shift in perspective is exciting to readers (like this critic) who have had to endure the propaganda and lies Jesus-followers dress up as scholarship. You see how Yahweh is a moral monster, how Christians have only childish answers to the inevitable suffering animals endure, how the Jesus legend is not unique, why the Resurrection is unbelievable, and how Jesus operated within a tradition of failed apocalyptic prophecy. All of these arguments use the Bible as reference, allowing the text to expose Christianity's ad hoc fallacies. Finally we get arguments which bring us back to the thesis of this critique. The ultimate value of TCD is its ability to arm the reader with knowledge and insight to counter claims that Christianity is essential for morality and progress. This reader was delighted to be armed with retorts to each of the dog-eared Christian assertions that morality depends on religion, Hitler's atheism (rather than his Catholic Christianity) caused the Holocaust, and Science depends on Christian presuppositions. We've seen explosive progress within modern civilization over the last 250 years which one can reasonably claim was caused by men who chose to offer empirical proof rather than divine revelation as the final arbitor of truth. The American Christian Church threatens to over-throw this progress for the sake of the safety superstitions seem to offer. They want to replace the hard work of thinking with the easy comfort of faith. TCD helps one see how this type of drive as both fallacious and dangerous. It offers intelligent arugment in the face of ignorant righteousness.

"What do I believe?" and "Why do I believe it?" are questions that can pursue a person for a lifetime. "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (422 pages, Prometheus Books, March 31, 2010), edited by John W. Loftus, can lead to answers. The authors are under no delusion that ordinary believers from childhood can be rescued. Faiths shield members from what is truth in the actual world. Elders, including loving parents, are constantly indoctrinating. The title "The Christian Delusion" follows the bestseller, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Loftus and company's scope is narrower than Dawkins's, but no less atheist. They say "faith fails," yet they have no illusions that the arguments and evidence they present will spell the end of Christianity or religion. They also know that in any universally practical sense, atheism fails. In opening chapter 1, David Eller says: "One of the great mysteries is why, despite the best arguments against it, religion survives." Dan Barker in the foreword says that in Europe "today most people are totally secular and the beautiful churches stand empty." (One could add: On whose backs did those stone edifices rise? In what hovels did they live?) Barker sees hope that for some thoughtful and lucky individuals there will be escape. Barker, a former pastor, is given as copresident of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a group of atheists, who in December 2008 erected next to a nativity scene, an antireligious sign -- this reviewer remembers -- that quotes Robert G. Ingersoll: "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." In chapter 1 Dr. Eller speaks of "Christianities," another way of saying that within a country or continent, and across the globe, Christianity has taken many forms, borrowing from, and giving to, the many cultures in which it was planted. One responds: But of course. What else to expect? Eller emphasizes that culture insulates members from outside influences. How can intelligent persons spend a long lifetime beclouded in a belief system that has been wrong from the start? This gets to the nature of belief itself. In chapter 2 Valerie Tarico explains that religious belief and experiences are now themselves a subject of scientific study. She comprehensively discusses how we acquire and hold on to our personal, social, and religious beliefs, and concludes that as believers "We are capable of sustaining elaborate systems of false belief and transmitting them to our children. We are capable of feeling so certain about our false beliefs that we are willing to kill or die for them." As by going to war, one would add. Dr. Tarico gives hope. Her conviction is: "Simply that supernatural explanations for religious experience are becoming unnecessary" and thoughtful believers can become aware. In chapter 3 Jason Long begins by saying that "It is nothing short of an incomprehensible tragedy that anyone in this age of reason would have to write a book debunking a collection of ridiculous fantasies from an era of rampant superstition." (Editor Loftus notes that Long here is briefly summarizing the first pages of Long's "The Religious Condition: Answering and Explaining Christian Reasoning.") Dr. Long asserts that religious believers are the victims of society's psychological indoctrination. Unless some setback, such as loss of a job or a spouse or other loved one, causes the believer to question the efficacy and accuracy of his basic beliefs. Long says, "If the doubter wants to hear arguments from those with contrasting beliefs, where does he turn? To his atheist family members? To his atheist friends? To an atheist church? These probably don't exist." Eventually some doubters become glad to have had such troubles and to have lived long enough to see their own light. A difficult path, Long says, because "People who do not believe in God are the least trusted minority in America." Further, "Human beings are surprisingly gullible creatures. The ability to think skeptically is not innate; it requires practice." John Loftus argues in chapter 4 that "the best way to test one's adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths." Christians understandably will view Islam with skepticism, as understandably will Muslims the Christian faith. Hence the difficulty but also the need of reaching an outsider's perspective in viewing one's own faith. Loftus's part 2 is "Why the Bible Is Not God's Word." The only alternative is that the Bible is man's word. The assertions are by no means new. One religion finds that its own purportedly divinely written books are not held holy by others. "The Christian Delusion" compiles the evidence. In chapter 5 Edward T. Babinski reviews the cosmological accounts and phraseologies that predated Genesis's account of the universe's formation and accounts of floods and other natural calamities. In chapter 6 Paul Tobin brings modern scholarship to bear on the Bible, as to inconsistencies, contrary archeological findings, "fairy tales," failed prophecies, and many forgeries. Tobin concludes: "The Bible is filled with so many diametrically opposite viewpoints that if they were present in a human being we would probably label that person bipolar or, even worse, schizophrenic." In chapter 7 Loftus exhaustively delineates the barbarisms and moral problems in the Bible: inferiority of women and homosexuals, divine genocide (in the flood), apostates condemned to death, slavery accepted, polygamy, holy war, and slaughter are a few. Part 4 of "The Christian Delusion" addresses "Why Jesus Is Not the Risen Son of God." Robert M. Price, in chapter 10, immediately points out that many "scholars have argued that the Gospels are myths about Jesus, not historical records." Dr. Price positions himself primarily against two apologists, Paul Rhodes Eddy and Greg Boyd. He argues against their book, "The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus." He says his discussion focuses on them but applies to evangelical apologists in general. In chapter 11 Richard Carrier discusses that if the resurrection of Jesus is unbelievable, then so is Christianity. Dr. Carrier concludes: "That Jesus rose from the dead is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. We have none." He also says: "The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that there are no angels, transmutations, flying or teleporting holy men, or gods of any kind, much less a god routinely engaged in producing miraculous wonders of the sort the Bible depicts throughout." And "that people simply don't rise from the dead because we can plainly see no god is doing anything like that." Part 5 supports why society does not depend on Christian faith. In chapter 13 Dr. Eller, returning, says that his discussions establish that "Christianity is not the only basis for morality, since religion of any kind is not required for morality nor is humanity even required." Chapter 14, by Dr. Avalos, also returning, discusses why atheism was not the cause of the holocaust. The book closes with chapter 15, another discussion by Dr. Carrier, supporting that Christianity was not responsible for modern science. He concludes that "this new idea that Christianity was not only responsible but necessary for the rise of modern science is certainly delusional." He traces science's beginnings to evidence in antiquity.

This excellent compendium of compelling refutations of all the best arguments for the truth and/or usefulness of Christianity are brought together in the supremely thoroughly documented articles in this book. John Loftus' "Outsider Test of Faith" is elaborated and used in several of the articles, asking Christians to apply the same standards to their own beliefs as those they use to discount the beliefs of other religions and even of other sects of Christianity. Richard Carrier's brilliant refutation of the lie that Christianity somehow provided the basis for the Scientific Revolution is supported by countless references to the works of ancient Greek philosophers, most of which were vandalized by later Christian "scholars" who scribbled praises to their imaginary sky monster over irreplaceable ancient scholarly work which, had it been preserved would arguably have gotten humanity to the moon by the 10th Century instead of suffering the centuries of pointless religious warfare which ensued instead. Any Christian who is genuinely interested in finding out why atheists are able to get along without faith in God should read this book, follow up on any references about points with which they disagree, then after failing to deny the truths contained in this book, join us in the light of reason, and help the world shake off the remnants of magical thinking which to this day continue the deadly work of the dark ages religious authorities. If the human species is to survice, we desperately need to accomplish this next step in human intellectual development. Bronze age ideologies and methods of thought combined with nuclear age weapons are a recipe for the ultimate disaster.

John Loftus kindly sent me an early draft of this book. I bought a copy from Amazon so I could feel freer in reviewing it frankly -- also because I plan to respond to some of Carrier's arguments in a forthcoming book, and wanted to get citations right. I'll limit my evaluation here to six chapters. Even so, apologies for the length. I may post more elsewhere. Chapter 4, "Outsider Test for Faith," John Loftus *** John and I have talked about having a public discussion some time; maybe this would be the topic to debate. In the meanwhile, let me say John offers a game argument: the chapter is readable and interesting. But the chapter is hobbled by two gross errors: (1) He badly misunderstands what Christians mean by "faith." (See the anthology on "Faith and Reason" on my web site, or chapter 2 of Truth Behind the New Atheism.) (2) John assumes that Christianity is limited to a zero-sum or "exclusivist" view of religions. As an authority on how Christianity relates to other religions, I think this is terribly simplistic. Loftus also credits the claim that "nothing is more destructive to religion than other religions." This is easily falsified. Look at India, where vschools of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, and Jainism have competed for millennia. Visit Nigeria, Taiwan, or Singapore. Loftus would do well to get his sociology of religion from someone like Rodney Stark, if not from first-hand experience. Chapter 10, "Jesus, Myth and Method," Robert Price ** Price is learned and a lively writer, and has been around the block more than some other contributors. He's also a gentleman, as I found when I had the chance to debate him a couple years ago. This chapter, however, is much more steam than dumpling. The first problem is that Price spends so much of his time striking rhetorical poses, that he has little time to really argue. Price claims that his main targets in this chapter (Eddy and Boyd) are "more widely read in many relevant fields than . . . the pompous N. T. Wright." What Price calls "pompous," many eminent scholars (including his Jesus Seminar colleague Marcus Borg) see as magisterial. In any case, the 3 volumes (so far) of Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series contains cite thousands of works. If Eddy and Boyd are that much better read, they must be impressive scholars indeed! Price claims that philosophical naturalism does not affect the historical method of Bultmann, Funk, or Hume. Price seems to deny the most natural reading of all three men, and does so by fiat, rather than by examining their words and explaining why they don't really mean what they appear to. "(Hume) is merely appealing to what everyone knows: the frequent reports of the extraordinary . . . always seem to turn out to be bunk upon examination." This is simply begging the question. My experience has been quite different, not in regard to the particular examples Price gives - silly miracle claims that are calculated to prove his point -- but to more serious miracles. Price's take on the gospels, when he finally comes to them, is also full of sound and fury: "The Mythic Hero Archetype to which the life of Jesus in the Gospels conforms in its entirety . . . " In Why the Jesus Seminar can't find Jesus, I found the gospels share 50 characteristics. No ancient myth I compared shared even half of those characteristics even a little. Every attempt to point to a fictional parallel -- the "Gospel" of Thomas, Iliad, Apollonius of Tyana - seems to fall flatter than the last. The closest genuine parallel I have found so far is to the Analects of Confucius, which is also an historical text. Towards the end of the chapter, Price compares the Gospels to the Nag Hammadi "Gospels." "They, too, claim to stem from eye-witnesses . . . If we instead admit they are historically spurious, we admit that it was nothing for early Christians to ascribe their own best thoughts and revelations to their Lord." But what is the logic of arguing that because some 3rd Century Greek Gnostics in Alexandria made up stories about Jesus, therefore 1st Century stories about Jesus by Jews from Palestine must also have been made up? Despite the manifest evidence (which Price's colleagues at the Jesus Seminar acknowledge at many points) of historicity in the Gospels? "If Paul had our fund of Jesus sayings available in oral tradition, why does he not settle issues at once with a dominical saying?" This sort of appeal to ignorance is popular among Jesus-skeptics, but ought to have worn out its welcome by now. Likely Paul had heard the teachings (their influence is evident), but had not memorized them. Chapter 12, "At best Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet," John Loftus **** I found John's argument in this chapter emotionally mature in tone for the most part and challenging in substance. Jesus promised to return soon, he argues, but failed to do so. Therefore he was a false prophet, and his other claims should not be trusted. This is not the place for a full rebuttal. But let me offer three considerations in response. First, at one point Jesus said he didn't know when he would return. Second, Jesus made many predictions about the future. Why do skeptics only talk about this one? Could it be because Jesus' other predictions came true! But what Barker calls in his Preface a "burning desire for actual facts," a "mental hunger" that supposedly typifies atheists, should attempt to take ALL the data into account. Finally, there's an interesting epistemological question here. Which would you be more likely to remember, the exact words of your teacher, or the fact that he multiplied loaves of bread, healed paralytics, and came back to life after he died? It seems far more plausible to argue that some of Jesus' disciples misunderstood him, far less plausible to say they only THOUGHT they'd met him alive after he died! Chapter 13, Hector Avalos, "Why Atheism was not the cause of the Holocaust" * Avalos' goal in this chapter is broader than the title implies: it is to minimize evil creditable to atheism, and maximize that creditable to Christianity. He therefore begins by seeking the Holy Grail of the New Atheism - a way to deflect the attention of young and historically ignorant readers from the undeniable fact that radical atheists killed millions of innocent people in the lifetimes of slightly older readers (like myself), often out of anti-religious bigotry. He suggests therefore that unless one can read Stalin and Mao in their original languages, one lacks the "competence" to verify the claim that atheism was culpable in communist persecution. I can and have done both, as a matter of fact, but the mind boggles at this principle. Can only those who read Latin claim Medieval Catholic theology had anything to do with the Inquisition? Does one need to learn Aztec before linking human sacrifice and the Aztec worldview? Avalos then attempts to conflate early Christianity with "communism." Avalos spends some 140 words describing the "killing of a married couple" in the early Christian community, described by Luke in Acts. Someone who didn't know the Bible would never recognize, from what Avalos says, that no one laid a hand on them! It would be as if a televangelist who defrauds his listener were struck by lightening, and Avalos were to compare Christianity to mass-murder because some Christian commentator saw the hand of God in their fate! Avalos' understanding of the Crusades and pogroms is superficial and tendentious; I recommend Stark on this subject, or Rene Girard. His discussion of witch-hunting is also silly and illogical. Neo-pagan historian Jenny Gibbons offers a far more reasonable discussion. (Or for a realistic "case study" feel of how it worked, see the excellent Kepler's Witch.) And by the way, let me add that I have personally stumbled across modern Christian missions that protect people accused of witchcraft on three continents. Would it be too much to ask for a balanced discussion, some time? The title of the chapter is curious. Who said atheism was responsible for the Holocaust? Avalos accuses two writers of making this claim: Dinesh D'Souza, and historian Richard Weikart. D'Souza did indeed overreach on this point, as I said in my Amazon review of his book in 2007. Weikart, it seems, did not. At least, Avalos provides no quotes to back up his assertion. I didn't notice him saying that, nor could I find any such quotes. Avalos does not deal with the evidence for atheist influence on the Nazi movement, or with Weikart's detailed account of the influence Social Darwinism had on Nazism. Instead he spends most the chapter citing Christian racists, and arguing that Martin Luther's program for the Jews was pretty much the same as Hitler's. (In their debate a couple years ago, Weikart rebuts these claims, but Avalos recycles a lot of his earlier argument, rather than respond to rebuttals.) Avalos' main point here is not mainly defensive, of course: "Nazism is part of a long history of Christian anti-Judaism. Nazism does not represent a radical departure from traditional Christian attitudes towards Jews." This, frankly, is nonsense. The "facts" he offers to prove his point are cherry-picked, card-stacked, and often just wrong. And if it were true, there would not have been 12 million Jews in Europe by the time Hitler came along. Chapter 15, Christianity and Science, Richard Carrier **** Disclaimer: I posted a largely critical review of Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God -- the first negative review of that book -- and he reacted with vigor. I enjoyed the ensuing exchange, part of which can be found on the Amazon site, the rest on my web page (search our names), but he seemed to find it painful. :- ) Carrier's chapter on science is mostly pretty solid, though. He makes his essential point effectively: that ancient science was a more impressive thing than Rodney Stark and some Christians represent it as. This is the topic of Carrier's own doctoral studies, and I found his illustrations fascinating. On own point, I'll suspend judgment. Carrier claims that, pace Stark, ancient science was essential empirical, that early scientists were willing to get their hands dirty. But last week I happened to be reading classical scholar Benjamin Farrington, who cited Xenophon: "What are called the mechanical arts carry a social stigma and are rightly dishonored in our cities." Farrington added, "This contempt for the mechanical arts came in the end to be a serious obstacle to the development of the physical, clerical and mechanical sciences in Greece." Carrier's juvenile jabs at Stark also become wearying: "Stark's incompetence (as a historian) is decisively exposed in a single sentence: 'Greek learning stagnated of its own inner logic. After Plato and Aristotle, very little happened beyond some extensions of geometry.' That Princeton University would publish a book with that sentence in it is one of the most appalling things I've ever encountered in my career . . . " A single sentence? Actually that's two. Carrier refutes the second. Much more did happen than "extensions of geometry," I admit. But if Stark is an "incompetent" historian for this error, how about Carrier? He made a far more sweeping historical blunder in "Sense and Goodness without God," claiming that "on a global scale," Christianity "spread by the sword." As someone keenly aware of the history of Christian missions, I refuted that claim on the Amazon site for his book, in detail. Does this egregious blunder make Carrier an "incompetent" historian, too? People who live in glass houses should be careful what missiles they toss, especially at scholars who have contributed as much to human understanding as Stark. Carrier overreaches more deeply at the end of the chapter. He suggests that Christianity "put an end" to scientific progress, even though he had just admitted that it had effectively ended a century before the Christians came to power. His jabs here are ineffective and evidently outside the range of his expertise. (Listen to my interview of the eminent historian of science Alan Chapman for a more balanced and mature view.) Chapter 11, "Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable," Richard Carrier * Carrier calls his chapter a "tour de force" on his blog. John Loftus asks rhetorically (I paraphrase), "Who better than Richard Carrier to write on the resurrection?" My answer: a lot of people would have been better. First of all, Carrier's tone is again tiresomely childish: "advocates of this delusion" . . . "fanatical cult . . . whose leaders regularly hallucinated, occasionally lied, and often fabricated documents." Typical is the tone Carrier adopts in regard to the story of Jesus saving the adulteress in John 8: "That's now known to be a forgery, too, deceitfully inserted after the fact." In fact many scholars think the story is genuine -- it sounds like Jesus, and is very unlikely to have been invented. Some think it was originally a part of Luke. But in any case, there would be nothing "deceitful" in the 1st Century context about including a plausible story about Jesus in a biography of Jesus. Carrier certainly cannot know the story was "forged." Often, as in other of Carrier's writings, his self-image threatens to blind readers who fail to don sun glasses: "I've given them far more than they're due . . . " "Extensively researching their claims to the very core, learning the ancient languages, studying the relevant histories and cultures and documents, and examining their best arguments . . . Now, with all that, and a PhD in ancient history to boot, they can't say I don't know what I'm talking about." Well of course that depends on what Carrier is talking about. Often he does NOT know what he's talking about. I plan to debunk Carrier's frequent claims (here and on-line) that the authors of the NT were gullible simpletons in a book I am now writing. This chapter on the resurrection, which ought to have climaxed the book, was remarkably anti-climactic. Carrier interacted with real evidence for the resurrection little more than a neutrino passing through Earth. He shows little sign of ever having seriously and thoughtfully consider the evidence for the resurrection. Instead, we get one-liners: "We have no more reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead, than that a pot of fish did." The jibe is typical: it's not witty enough to be amusing, nor is it particularly apt or insightful. This is probably one of the reasons Carrier just doesn't "get" the gospels: as C. S. Lewis said, one who is eager to look down his nose at others, often misses things that are over his head. Though I've spent some time rebutting them, I think Carrier may be able to learn from some of Robert Price's friends at the Jesus Seminar. This volume might benefit from a few more mature writers. But perhaps that would be asking too much. David Hart recently noted a similarly jejune tone and shallow thinking in all 50 essays of a competing volume. Some chapters here are more challenging and interesting, certainly better-informed, than the Dawkins Barbershop Quartet. But many of them seem to sail in a tangential direction to the target.

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails is the greatest critique of Christianity I've ever read. It is a sharp, thorough, and devastating case against the Christian religion. Not only that, but the book has contributions from several prominent atheists (Hector Avalos, Bob Price, Richard Carrier, John Loftus). This gives the book a very refreshing variety, as the contributors write on a wide-range of issues and look at them from different perspectives. Part 1 is entitled "Why Faith Fails" and I take it to be a refutation of the common notion that one needs no rational reason to believe Christianity to be true, you can just "take it on faith." It is amply demonstrated that "faith" (in the sense that is used here) is completely unreliable, due to, (among other things) the fact that people "have faith" in a wide variety of religions, and since only one (at best) can be true, it makes one's own faith very likely to be false if the faith has not been rationally scrutinized. Part 2 consists of three chapters which argue that the Bible is not God's word. Ed Babinski convincingly shows that the writers of the Hebrew Bible were given no divine revelation about the world in which they lived: their writings reflect belief in a flat earth covered by a dome (the 'firmament') which was the sky, or heavens. These beliefs are extremely and inexplicably strange if the Bible was inspired by God, but completely to be expected if the Bible was simply a product of its time and culture and not inspired by God. Paul Tobin, author of the website and book The Rejection of Pascal's Wager, explains a few of the contradictions and failed prophecies in the Bible, and I have a feeling that his approach would be very persuasive to fundamentalist Christians. Tobin proves his thesis far beyond a reasonable doubt, to the point that anyone unconvinced that the Bible contains inconsistencies after reading his chapter would have to be in deep, deep denial. Indeed, they would have to be in pathetic denial. John Loftus wraps up the section by discussing the "failure to communicate" of the Biblical God. The problem, as Loftus explains, is this: if God actually inspired the Bible, then why the hell is that Christians can't agree on the meaning of so many passages, and even on the basic messages of the biblical books themselves? Loftus' point could be forcefully illustrated by a webpage on [...], which lists passages in the Bible that condemn alcohol consumption followed by some that condone it. At the bottom of the page is a list of Christian websites that believe the Bible condemns drinking... Followed by a list of Christian websites that believe the Bible condones drinking! Well, which is it? And if God wrote it, why didn't he make his message clearer? I don't have the time to review the other parts of the book in such detail, but the highlights of the rest of the book include: Hector Avalos' chapter arguing that atheism was not the cause of the holocaust or the mass murders of communist regimes and Richard Carrier's chapter on the Resurrection (which forcefully and convincingly argues that such an event, given the poor evidence we have, is totally irrational-- even illogical-- to believe). To sum up, this book should be read by anyone who wants to understand the case against Christianity.