We shouldn’t be surprised by a world containing pointless suffering if it’s not set up with the welfare of conscious creatures in mind. But there’s a deeper problem with theism and its demands. Affirming theism requires moral judgments, as it entails endorsing the permissibility of suffering allowed by a benevolent God, which feels like a betrayal of those who suffer, such as animals or children, without apparent justification. I find theistic explanations of evil often shallow or morally insensitive, and I think that belief in God demands either ignoring or excusing suffering, potentially corrupting our moral faculties. Perhaps theism could be morally acceptable only if sufferers themselves understand and approve of their pain’s purpose, but this would require contentious theological commitments like universalism and an animal afterlife, which theists typically reject.

Although our world is ambiguous enough to lead me to agnosticism, I have a much harder time ignoring, excusing, or otherwise downplaying the evidence against theism, since it feels like I’d be doing something morally wrong. In particular, I’d be doing something wrong to those who have paid a terrible price living in creation. Countless animals have suffered horribly in evolutionary history. To affirm God’s existence would be, implicitly, to say “God, who is morally perfect and all-powerful, permitted those things to happen. Ultimately it must be okay that all those animals suffered like that.” One the one hand, I could excuse horrendous evil as no big deal in light of some (implausible) theodicy, which seems wrong — it feels like a betrayal and abandonment of those who suffered. (Not to mention, becoming the kind of person who can excuse it as no big deal would be stultifying. That is, it would be bad for me to dull my moral faculties to that point.) Or I could close my eyes and pretend it’s not there. The answer is “Don’t think about it.” Just look at all the wonderful aspects of creation and sweep the rest under the rug. This route seems morally suspect for the same reasons as the first.

Theism’s demand, it seems to me, is to either close your heart or close your eyes — you can either stop caring or stop looking. That’s the choice I’d have to make when it comes to the suffering on earth. How could I live with myself knowing that I’m doing one or both every moment I affirm the existence of God?

Linktree

I’m joined today by Jonathan Machnee, an autistic researcher who has conducted the largest English language ethnographic study of Christians and ex-Christian autistics (autism 1, or what was formerly known as Asperger’s Syndrome or high-functioning autism). His research has included data mining over 26,000 autistics and conducting over 500 interviews with autistic Christians and ex-Christians in order to understand the intersection between autism, Christianity, and nonbelief.

Christianity On the Spectrum

Autism and Apologetics

Jon on X

Email Jon at christianityonthespectrum at gmail dot com

My Linktree

/ Timestamps /

00:00 Why are autistics less religious?

29:36 Do autistics practice religion differently?

37:56 Why does everyone think they’re autistic?

1:02:07 Imago Dei

1:18:03 What surprised you in your research?

I critique Mel Gibson’s claim on the Joe Rogan Experience that “nobody dies for a lie,” which many apologists have used in the past to argue that the martyrdom of Jesus’ disciples supports the truth of the resurrection, as they wouldn’t die for something they knew to be false.

First, I challenge this by questioning the historical evidence for the apostles’ martyrdom, noting that accounts are late, based on oral traditions, and often embellished with legendary elements, such as milk flowing from Paul’s severed neck. Even if the apostles were martyred, the reasons for their martyrdom are uncertain due to the difficulty of establishing motivations and crucial details surrounding the apostles’ deaths, like whether it would have mattered if they’d recanted. I further undermine the apologist’s slogan by proposing scenarios where someone could die for a known lie, such as being falsely accused and coerced into confession under torture; and by highlighting human irrationality, like people confessing to capital crimes they didn’t commit. Finally, Matthew Hartke recounts the story of the Millerites, alerts us to the shortcomings of folk psychology, and explains how cognitive dissonance could explain Christian origins.

Ultimately, “nobody dies for a lie” fails under scrutiny, as history and human behavior are far more complex than the claim allows.

Linktree

Matthew Hartke – How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity 

Shameless Popery – The Hidden Danger of Mel Gibson 

Bart Ehrman – Were the disciples martyred for their belief in the resurrection? 

Joshua Schachterle – How did the apostles die?

Do apologists actually believe what they’re saying? I’m joined by Counter Apologist to discuss his “Paradise Hell” thought experiment and to try to explain why theistic attempts to account for evil are so unpersuasive. What decision would you make if eternity were on the line?

Linktree

We discuss Philip Goff’s conversion, the online reaction to it, and what his “heretical Christianity” involves. Is he a real Christian? What does he think about the resurrection, the ascension, the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth, the trinity, inerrantism, the atonement, and God’s nature?

Amos Wollen – Conversion Review: Christianity gains a new smart person

Randal Rauser on Goff’s Conversion 

Nathan Ormond (DigitalGnosis)- Philosopher CONVERTS to Christianity

Linktree

Two Christian apologists reviewed my series on the moral argument for God on their channel, Democracy of the Dead. I recorded my own counter-response shortly thereafter, but thought it was too profanity-laden and impolite to release. Generally speaking, it’s good to remain dispassionate in these online spaces, but I let my frustration get the better of me. However, I changed my mind. I trust that you in the audience can discern why I’m reacting as I do in the episode. My exasperation was entirely the product of their errors, oversights, and misunderstandings — all of which were completely avoidable, had they put one-tenth of the effort into their video that I put into mine. Their mistakes are not exclusively philosophical. In many instances, they simply misunderstand what is being said, for what purpose it’s being said, and even who is saying it. All in all, it was an extremely tedious video to review, but I hope that my commentary makes it interesting, or at least entertaining.

Linktree

Zac (Adherent Apologetics) and I explore a few of the things that drew me to agnosticism. Religious ambiguity, disagreement among epistemic peers, the diversity of the theistic tradition (as well as the varieties of non-theism), the seeming inscrutability of the prior probability of theism, and my acceptance of the value-selection hypothesis have all played a part in pushing me (somewhat reluctantly) to agnosticism.

Linktree

I’m interviewed by Fuad Abdullah Harahap (@fubilosophy) about my deconversion, the sad state of Christian apologetics, my issues with the skeptic community, free will, the afterlife, agnosticism, and a few other topics.

Fubilosophy

Linktree

What would convince you of God’s existence? Specifically, the Christian God. What would change your mind and cause you to convert?

I name three things: Christian aliens, miracles, and religious experience. That’s not an exhaustive list, but those things would dramatically raise my credence in Christian theism.

I spend the most time talking about religious experiences, mainly for two reasons. First, their epistemic significance is not always appreciated by nonbelievers. Second, I’ve noticed that some Christian apologists really hate it when nonbelievers say the experience of God would convince them of theism and thought that was worth examining.

/ Videos referenced in the episode /

Jimmy Akin & Emerson Green – Debunking the Skeptics on UFOs

The Argument from Miracles (Panel)

Countering the Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

What would make atheists accept a miracle claim? | C.M. Lorkowski & Real Atheology

5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology 

4 Things I Learned About Epistemology

Phenomenal Conservatism with Michael Huemer

Linktree

The world is religiously ambiguous: It can be interpreted in various incompatible ways, and the interpreters are not necessarily violating any standards of rationality in doing so. As for me, I don’t feel any position being forced on me by the evidence. My best efforts to judge the total balance of evidence weighing for and against theism leave me thinking that no one has a decisive case; and the main way to give the impression of having a decisive case is to ignore the total evidence, focusing solely or primarily on the facts that support your position. Put a spotlight on the things that favor your view, and minimize or cast aside the things that don’t fit.

Over time, I’ve come to appreciate the force of some of the evidence against the hypothesis of indifference and in favor of a “value selection hypothesis“, e.g. psychophysical harmony, fine-tuning, and the axiological trajectory of the universe. These, along with a few other considerations that favor theism more directly, have gradually moved me to more of a middle position on theism vs. atheism. (Today, I don’t dive into a full-fledged defense of those arguments.)

There are plenty of sources of epistemic uncertainty that have increasingly led me to hold on to my beliefs more loosely. How am I supposed to alter my confidence in light of peer disagreement? How should I set my priors? How am I supposed to reckon with the inescapable contingency of my beliefs? Richard Rorty often spoke about a certain kind of philosopher with “radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered” (1989). Rorty goes much further, in ways that I can’t get behind. But what can I say? I’m impressed by many of you. The problem is that you have mutually exclusive, incommensurable worldviews. At least for me, at this point, agnosticism seems like the most honest reaction to my epistemic situation. (Of course, God can settle this whenever he likes.)

Linktree