Why David Madison’s Slam Dunk Isn’t One

David Madison is a minister-turned-atheist, who has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. Madison was raised a liberal Protestant, but he gradually lost his faith while serving as the pastor of two Methodist parishes in Massachusetts. He went on to pursue a business career, but he’s recently written a book titled, Ten Tough Problems in Christian Thought and Belief: A Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith (see here for one critic’s review and here for a more favorable review).

However, what put me off Madison’s book is what he’s written on his own Web page. His recommended reading list of 200 books, put together for people who want to “find out how Jesus, Christianity and theism have all been so convincingly slam dunked,” includes dozens of books by authors defending the kooky view that Jesus never even existed (a view not shared by any reputable historian – and no, Dr. Richard Carrier doesn’t count as one; nor does Dr. Robert Price, who got trounced when he debated Dr. Bart Ehrman last year on the historicity of Jesus, as Carrier himself admits), and only a handful of books addressing the traditional philosophical arguments for the existence of God, of which Raymond Bradley’s God’s Gravediggers: Why No Deity Exists (Ockham Publishing, 2016) and Michael Martin’s The Cambridge Companion to Atheism appear to be the most substantive. (There are other books attacking Intelligent Design on Madison’s list, but these are beside the point, as ID proponents don’t maintain that their arguments, taken by themselves, prove the existence of any Deity.) And believe it or not, H. L. Mencken, whose credibility on religious and moral issues I have demolished here, here, here and here, makes the list, too. Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is on the list (has Madison ever read John Lennox’s response, I wonder?), as well as Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian, which has been refuted ably by David Snoke.

For the benefit of his readers, Madison has also kindly provided chapter summaries for his book, which (I am sorry to say) do not inspire confidence. A few excerpts:

God has given his perfect message for humanity in book form, but he had to keep adding installments, first the Hebrew Bible, then the New Testament, followed by the Quran and finally the Book of Mormon.
[Comment: LOL. I don’t know anyone who believes in all four – VJT.]

…[H]ow can it be than a supremely good, all-powerful, all-knowing God has to hear prayers to find out what’s going on and determine what to do?
[St. Thomas Aquinas answered this question back in the 13th century. See also this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – VJT.]

Christians cannot retreat to the safe-haven of the superior Christian option, because there are now more than 31,000 different brands of Christianity: no one agrees on who’s right about God.
[See here, here and here for why that figure is a myth – VJT.]

Resurrection is a concept borrowed from pagan antiquity…
[An old canard: see here – VJT.]

One of the constant themes of New Testament theology is that God required the sacrifice of his son to enable forgiveness of sins… As Richard Dawkins has said, if an infinitely powerful and good God wants to forgive people, why not just forgive them?
[Has Madison never heard of the theologian John Duns Scotus, who taught that God would still have become incarnate as Jesus Christ, even if Adam had not sinned? – VJT.]

In this chapter I cover ten categories of Jesus negatives, starting with his alarming pronouncement that hatred of one’s parents and family was a requirement for being one of his followers.
[Madison should read the comprehensive response by Jews for Jesus on this point: Did Jesus teach his disciples to hate their parents? – VJT.]

The purpose of this chapter is to show that Paul can fairly be called a delusional cult fanatic… He never met Jesus and had no interest whatever in what the Galilean preacher had said and done.
[Madison evidently hasn’t read New Testament scholar David Wenham’s book, Did St Paul Get Jesus Right?: The Gospel According to Paul. And even if St. Paul were wrong in his beliefs about marriage, government and the Second Coming, as Madison alleges, that would not make him delusional – VJT.]

…[T]housands of gods have been imagined by humans — concocted by our mammalian brains — and worshipped with unaccountable fervor… Humans have bungled religion so badly. Aliens would stay away.
[A majority of human beings now believe in one God, Who created the cosmos, Who maintains it in being, Who is both merciful and just, and Who answers the prayers of those who call on His name. Humanity is moving, albeit slowly, towards a consensus on the question of God – VJT.]

So I have to ask: if this is a representative sample of Dr. Madison’s writing, then why should I trust the factual assertions he makes in his latest book? Would any reader like to step up to the plate and defend Dr. Madison?

One last point I’d like to make is that if Dr. Madison really wants to dissuade people of the truth of Christianity, he should encourage people to read books in which the best Christian apologists debate atheists. If the atheists have really done their homework, as Madison says they have during the past twenty years, then that should be enough to convince any fair-minded reader that there is no good case either for Christianity or for theism.

What do readers think? Over to you.

108 thoughts on “Why David Madison’s Slam Dunk Isn’t One

  1. walto:
    Well of course, the stuff in the second paragraph has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether the guy existed.That was all patiently explained by Tim O’Neill above.Patrick (and maybe you too?) are simply conflating those two questions.
    ETA: I’d written “Flint” instead of “Tim O’Neill”.Sorry.

    Why would the question of the existence of a preacher, even a charismatic one, even be interesting, except to academics? Is there anything gained or lost by discussing the existence of Joseph Smith?

    Of course, if one could prove a negative — that Jesus did not exist — then that would be significant.

    Belief in any of the dozens of major revelation claims would seem outside the scope of rational discourse.

  2. @ Tim O’Neill

    Speaking as an apatheist, whether the Biblical Jesus was an actual historical figure or an amalgam of historical figures is an interesting diversion but hardly the point. It is the supernatural aspects that I question. Was Jesus divine, performed miracles, appeared “in the flesh” after being executed by crucifixion? Establishing an historical basis for the Biblical Jesus doesn’t establish his divinity.

  3. Alan,

    Indeed.

    With that new knowledge in hand, do you understand why he is not disputing the supernatural claims with his fellow atheists?

  4. Alan Fox,

    If you aren’t interested in the historical person that’s your business. I am. So are many other people. The question about whether he did anything supernatural is far less interesting to me given that (i) I don’t believe he did and (ii) I don’t believe anyone ever has.

  5. TimONeill:
    Alan Fox,

    If you aren’t interested in the historical person that’s your business. I am.

    I don’t know why you think the possibility of establishing the historicity of a real Jesus shouldn’t be of interest to me. Especially as I said it was. My point was that establishing the fact one way or another would have no bearing on the supernatural claims of Christians.

    The question about whether he did anything supernatural is far less interesting to me given that (i) I don’t believe he did and (ii) I don’t believe anyone ever has.

    Totally agree with your givens.

  6. J-Mac:
    What does it take for an intelligent, reasonable human being (one would hope) to throw away ALL logic, evidence, and facts to enter the worldof delusion and fairy-tail?

    Belief in one of the Abrahamic religions.

    It’s got talking snakes and donkeys, magical appletrees, conjuring spells, mythical and fantastic creatures, gods, demons. The whole shebang you find in typical fables and fairytales.

  7. For those people interested in establishing the fact of an historical Jesus:

    Does it matter if the historical person did anything exceptional?
    Doesi it matter if the person is a composite?
    Does it matter if most of the teachings and sayings attributed to the person are nor original to the person?

    How would you go about deciding these questions? Are you looking for new lines of evidence, or reexamining existing evidence?
    Can you give examples of how these questions are resolved for less controversial figures?

  8. Patrick: There are no known witnesses.

    What counts as a known witness? I’m sure that the way you define it, there are no known witnesses for anything that happened, say, 200 years ago and before.

  9. Erik:

    There are no known witnesses.

    What counts as a known witness?

    One that was actually present at the supposed events.

    I’m sure that the way you define it, there are no known witnesses for anything that happened, say, 200 years ago and before.

    You’d be wrong.

  10. Why is the historicity of Jesus the only thing in this thread anyone is interested in? Why is vjtorley uninterested in anything here, including even that?

  11. Patrick: There are no known witnesses.

    There are multiple witnesses to Joseph Smith’s Golden Tablets. Signed notarized, all upstanding citizens. What kind of evidence does it take to certify something as true?

  12. Patrick: One that was actually present at the supposed events.

    And when you said “There are no known witnesses” you meant that you know no witnesses, right? Because there are plenty who have been said to have been present. Anyway, as I said, such witnesses are largely irrelevant. Those who speak up are relevant. Your response where you quoted me didn’t address anything I said.

  13. petrushka: There are multiple witnesses to Joseph Smith’s Golden Tablets. Signed notarized, all upstanding citizens. What kind of evidence does it take to certify something as true?

    I wonder why none of the theists here are Mormons, in that case.

  14. Erik: And when you said “There are no known witnesses” you meant that you know no witnesses, right?

    What I mean is that there is no known contemporaneous accounts supporting the claim that Jesus existed.

    Because there are plenty who have been said to have been present.

    Well after the fact. The same holds for many other religions.

    Anyway, as I said, such witnesses are largely irrelevant.

    Because they don’t exist. If there were any evidence for an historical Jesus Christians would never stop trumpeting it.

    Those who speak up are relevant. Your response where you quoted me didn’t address anything I said.

    The problem is that you so often say nothing. I get that you’re convinced that you’re very intelligent, but that’s pretty much it.

  15. “….find out how Jesus, Christianity and theism have all been so convincingly slam dunked,” includes dozens of books by authors defending the kooky view that Jesus never even existed…” and blah, blah, blah..

    Let’s see how atheism is doing…

    Slam dunk 1: Atheists, even the most devout ones, are actually agnostics… Dawkins admitted to being agnostic himself as many others including Larry Moran and many others…So, how could anybody claim to be an atheist if he is actually agnostic?
    Well, in simple terms, (no surprises here ) it boils down to evidence…

    Yes, as much as you would like to label yourself as an atheist, until the moment you find the evidence for your beliefs it is pathetic… You can argue your case but until the moment when you reach the the most important point… “I want to believe it “. After that you are released from your …whatever…

  16. J-Mac: Slam dunk 1: Atheists, even the most devout ones, are actually agnostics

    They’re not mutually exclusive. Both the words atheist, and the word agnostic, have multiple meanings and their usage and meanings have changed over time.

    In the common vernacular, the word atheist is overwhelmingly used to refer to a person who does not believe in the existence of God (the order of words there is important).

    Today, most atheists (let’s just call them nonbelievers and then define the terms) use the words like this:
    Theist: A person who believes in the existence of a God.
    A-Theist (aka non-theist): A person who does not believe in the existence of a God.

    Gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge, theism/atheism is about belief.

    A person can be an agnostic theist, or a person can be an agnostic atheist. Or gnostic theist, or gnostic atheist.

    Gnosticism refers to what you think can actually be known with certainty. Most people are agnostics, even theists. That’s because most people don’t claim to know something with certainty. An agnostic theist would be a person who believes in the existence of a God, but who does not claim to know with certainty, that there is one.
    An gnostic theist would be a person who believes in the existence of a God, and also claims to know with certainty that there is one.

    An agnostic atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a God, but does not claim to know with certainty that there is none.
    An gnostic atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a God, and also claims to know with certainty that there is none(this person could be said to believe that there is no God, which is not the same as NOT believing there IS a God). This last option is what you mistakenly believe is what the word atheist means, a Gnostic Atheist.
    Now that was how the words are today used by most nonbelievers.

    It is true that philosophers have been using the word atheist to mean exactly that, a gnostic atheist, for a long time (and that is how it is still defined in many dictionaries). But the usages of words change with time, and today most atheists use the word to merely refer to BELIEF, not KNOWLEDGE. That also means eventually the dictionaries will change, because dictionaries defer to usage, they don’t dicate. But they’re usually behind the times, since the maintainers of dictionaries have to analyze common usage and that’s a process that happens over decades.

    It also used to be the case that the word agnosticism referred to the belief that the existence of God was not ratially knowable. That it was logically impossible to demonstrate that God exists, or that God does not exist.

    As you can see, that position does not actually address whether the person actually believes in God or not. It merely addresses whether the person believes that God’s existence can be known.

    As such it also means there was two meanings of the word agnostic. There was the agnostic that meant “the existence of God cannot be decided through reason” and there was the agnostic that meant “a person who doesn’t believe in God but doesn’t claim to know he doesn’t exist”.

    In that sense, a person could be convinced that God’s existence or nonexistence could not be rationally established(be an agnostic), yet that person could nevertheless still believe that a God exists(though for no rational reason). An agnostic theist.

    In the same way, a person could be convinced that God’s existence or nonexistence could not be rationally established(be an agnostic), yet that person could nevertheless still believe that a God does not exists(again, for no rational reason). An agnostic atheist.

    Still others have used the word agnostic (as many philosophers still do), to refer to a person who is effectively an agnostic atheist (as used today). A person who does not believe in the existence of God, but who also says that s/he doesn’t claim to know with certainty, that God doesn’t exist. This is probably what you mean by the word agnostic. That usage is going out of favor.

    … Dawkins admitted to being agnostic himself as many others including Larry Moran and many others…So, how could anybody claim to be an atheist if he is actually agnostic?

    Because they’re not mutually exclusive for reasons just explained. I’m an atheist, an agnostic atheist. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.

    Yes, as much as you would like to label yourself as an atheist, until the moment you find the evidence for your beliefs it is pathetic

    The null position is that existence claims should not be believed until they have met their burden of proof. As such, a mere atheist has no burden of proof, they have simply not been convinced by the supposed evidence for God.

    … You can argue your case but until the moment when you reach the the most important point… “I want to believe it “

    You want to believe what?

    After that you are released from your …whatever…

    You are not making sense.

  17. I think most people who have publicly identified as agnostic have been nonbelievers.

    Valuing belief seems to be a personality trait rather than a reasoned stance, although there’s the William James pragmatic defense of belief.

  18. Rumraket: a person could be convinced that God’s existence or nonexistence could not be rationally established…yet that person could nevertheless still believe that a God does not exist.

    That’s basically me, though I don’t understand the “nevertheless still” and I don’t particularly care for your taxonomy here. There was an endless thread on this matter not too long ago, and I found Allan Miller’s conclusions very congenial. The terms don’t matter, of course, as long as we understand each other. Naturally, however, a certain faction here absolutely insists that everybody use the terms the way they prescribe–even if such prescriptions don’t actually comport too well with common usage.

  19. It WAS a good discussion. Mostly hammering the shit out of that simplistic cartoon above.

  20. walto: The terms don’t matter, of course, as long as we understand each other.

    Agreed.

    Naturally, however, a certain faction here absolutely insists that everybody use the terms the way they prescribe–even if such prescriptions don’t actually comport too well with common usage.

    And that’s some times a problem, because they get confused about what people mean by the word, and think they’ve somehow revealed something profound or damning about certain atheists, when these people “discover” that by the word atheist, they refer to what people used to refer to with the word agnostic.

    Haha you silly atheists are actually agostics, you can’t PROVE that God doesn’t exist. Therefore, uhh, calling yourself an atheist is an attempt to, uhh, in some strange and convoluted way, try to appear to be something else than what you are, or… something?

  21. It’s rather easy to label something as simplistic, but the cartoon is less cartoonish than the claim that atheists know or claim that god does not exist.

    People who do not wish to be cartoonish give other people the benefit of Elizabeth’s dictum about assuming food faith with interlocutors.

  22. I’m not sure the above diagram quite gets it right. Here’s how I’d slice and dice it.

    God: someone who maintains the cosmos in existence and who does not depend on anything else for His/Her/Its existence. Since God is the Author of the laws of Nature, God is not subject to these laws; nor is God material or composite (as things inside the cosmos are). God knows everything that happens in the cosmos, and (on most definitions) cares about any creature capable of having a relationship with its Creator (that means us). [Note: the above definition is a fairly modest one, which avoids the question of whether God is omnipotent / omniscient / omnibenevolent: it merely states that God maintains the cosmos in existence, God knows whatever happens in it – whether God knows temporally or atemporally is irrelevant here – and God cares about each of us.]

    Atheist: someone who believes that there is no God. An atheist may either (a) disbelieve without claiming to have any evidence for God’s non-existence, or
    (b) disbelieve on the basis of a personal experience which cannot be shared with those who have not had it, or
    (c) disbelieve on the basis of evidence which is publicly shareable – viz. rational arguments, which may be considered to be either (i) logically compelling or (ii) highly persuasive but not compelling.

    Agnostic: someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God.
    An agnostic may either maintain that it is impossible for us to have rational grounds for believing or disbelieving in the existence of God (dogmatic agnosticism), or that it is possible in principle, but that at the present time, we have no grounds for doing so (tentative or provisional agnosticism).

    Theist: someone who believes in the existence of God, either
    (a) without any evidence at all (a fideist), or
    (b) based on incommunicable evidence, such as religious experience (a mystic), or
    (c) based on evidence which is publicly shareable (an evidential theist), which may be regarded as either (i) a proof that commands the assent of any rational mind, or (ii) a strong case which is highly persuasive, but does not command intellectual assent.

    I hope that’s a bit more precise.

    ———————–

    “No known witnesses” to the Resurrection? Surely you jest. What about Peter (Cephas), the other 10 or 11 apostles (it is doubtful that Judas was a witness), and Jesus’ brother James? These are listed in 1 Corinthians 15 as having seen the risen Jesus.

    As for the eleven Mormon witnesses, the evidence is contradictory, and seems to suggest that many (or all) of them saw with the eyes of faith:

    http://www.equip.org/article/problems-with-the-gold-plates-of-the-book-of-mormon-2/

  23. petrushka: the claim that atheists know or claim that god does not exist.

    Who knows what people may know? What words mean depend on how they’re used, not on cutely colored diagrams.

    Yes, the place would be better if people would assume good faith instead of, e.g., just spouting libertarianism.

  24. vjtorley: Atheist: someone who believes that there is no God. An atheist may either (a) disbelieve without claiming to have any evidence for God’s non-existence, or
    (b) disbelieve on the basis of a personal experience which cannot be shared with those who have not had it, or
    (c) disbelieve on the basis of evidence which is publicly shareable – viz. rational arguments, which may be considered to be either (i) logically compelling or (ii) highly persuasive but not compelling.

    Agnostic: someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God.
    An agnostic may either maintain that it is impossible for us to have rational grounds for believing or disbelieving in the existence of God (dogmatic agnosticism), or that it is possible in principle, but that at the present time, we have no grounds for doing so (tentative or provisional agnosticism).

    Theist: someone who believes in the existence of God, either
    (a) without any evidence at all (a fideist), or
    (b) based on incommunicable evidence, such as religious experience (a mystic), or
    (c) based on evidence which is publicly shareable (an evidential theist), which may be regarded as either (i) a proof that commands the assent of any rational mind, or (ii) a strong case which is highly persuasive, but does not command intellectual assent.

    I hope that’s a bit more precise.

    I think those are all fine, except I don’t think it’s exhaustive. You don’t seem to have a term for a person who doesn’t believe in the existence of God (or the Xenomorph organism from the Alien-movies) because, for example, s/he simply never heard of it.

  25. vjtorley,

    I think that’s closer, myself, but this seems too strong to me:

    vjtorley: Atheist: someone who believes that there is no God.

    I’d put the matter somewhere in between the cartoon and your assessment. Maybe something like “would, if asked, deny there is a God.” The cartoon makes piles of hay atheists, while your restatement makes atheists believers of a type. (Though if beliefs are dispositions to a type of behavior, so is my restatement, I guess.)

    Anyhow, I really don’t want to go through this again, except to repeat that insistence that what some cartoon indicates must be right (because, I mean, it has quadrants!) is infantile.

  26. Rumraket: I think those are all fine, except I don’t think it’s exhaustive. You don’t seem to have a term for a person who doesn’t believe in the existence of God (or the Xenomorph organism from the Alien-movies) because, for example, s/he simply never heard of it.

    Right.

  27. Vincent,

    John Harshman has a request:

    But the theological questions are more interesting. Would anyone care to explicate and/or defend Aquinas’s justification of prayer or Duns Scotus’s defense of the Incarnation?

  28. vjtorley: “No known witnesses” to the Resurrection? Surely you jest. What about Peter (Cephas), the other 10 or 11 apostles (it is doubtful that Judas was a witness), and Jesus’ brother James? These are listed in 1 Corinthians 15 as having seen the risen Jesus.

    “Known witnesses” for certain meanings of “known” and “witnesses.”

    All of which has shifted greatly from Erik’s general reference to “witnesses” as sources attesting to certain purported facts, while relating more specifically to Jesus’ existence and not the highly dubious (my position, not sure what Erik thinks about that) Resurrection.

    Glen Davidson

  29. GlenDavidson: All of which has shifted greatly from Erik’s general reference to “witnesses” as sources attesting to certain purported facts…

    “Witness” in historiography means a preserved manuscript or document. Witnesses abound. The thing is to evaluate them.

  30. Rumraket: I think those are all fine, except I don’t think it’s exhaustive. You don’t seem to have a term for a person who doesn’t believe in the existence of God (or the Xenomorph organism from the Alien-movies) because, for example, s/he simply never heard of it.

    I think you’re being too kind to vjtorley. He fails to account for the large number of agnostic atheists who lack belief but don’t claim knowledge. The theist-atheist / gnostic-agnostic dimensions are useful, his definitions are not.

  31. Patrick: I think you’re being too kind to vjtorley.He fails to account for the large number of agnostic atheists who lack belief but don’t claim knowledge.The theist-atheist / gnostic-agnostic dimensions are useful….

    Plus, they’re in color!!

  32. walto: Who knows what people may know? What words mean depend on how they’re used, not on cutely colored diagrams.
    Yes, the place would be better if people would assume good faith instead of, e.g., just spouting libertarianism.

    I fail to see the connection between the diagram and political philosophy.

    I think we have all been advised that there are different users of the word atheist. I fail to see why there is opposition to people trying to explain what they mean when they ese the word.

  33. petrushka,

    I fail to see that too. Discuss it with your buddy patrick. He’s the one who insists that one MUST use this word as he does.

  34. I might be wrong about a lot of s..t, but as a mental health worker, I’m naturally interested in human behavior…I can’t help it…
    To me most, if not all atheists real agnostics want to die.. when the time comes… without any hope for the “recovery”. I would like to know why?

    Is this a fair request?

  35. J-Mac: To me most, if not all atheists real agnostics want to die.. when the time comes… without any hope for the “recovery”.

    To you? Most if not all? What are you talking about, exactly?

  36. J-Mac:
    I might be wrong about a lot of s..t, but as a mental health worker, I’m naturally interested in human behavior…I can’t help it…
    To me most all the atheists and all real agnostics want to die.. when the time comes… without any hope for “recovery”. I would like to know why?

    Is this a fair request?

    How do you know which of your patients are believers or atheists? Do you usually go querying mental patients about their religious beliefs?

    And perhaps most importantly, do terminal theists usually want to keep living despite knowing they won’t?

  37. walto,

    I’m talking about the people who don’t want to accept anything beyond their current life… I respect that, but I’m curious as to why so many are giving up on it and most of all “WHY.”..

  38. J-Mac:
    walto,

    I’m talking about the people who don’t want to accept anything beyond theircurrent life… I respect that, but I’m curious as to why so many are giving up on it and most of all “WHY.”..

    FWIW, I want to accept rainbow unicorns and forty virgins, and I intend to tell everyone this on my death bed. Why other atheists won’t join me in accepting this, I don’t know. Too many prunes in their youth, maybe.

    I hope this helps.

  39. J-Mac: Is this a fair request?

    Not sure how you could establish this. I’m utterly convinced there is no afterlife, no soul, no heaven, no hell. This life is all we get. I expect to die sometime but I hope that event is still a while away. The thought of being dead doesn’t worry me, though I hope the process of getting to be dead from being alive isn’t too messy or protracted.

  40. J-Mac: I’m talking about the people who don’t want to accept anything beyond their current life…

    I’m convinced religious belief and the propensity for it has a large emotional component. I’m not so sure I could choose to believe. Presumably a deeply religious person would find it hard to choose to reject that belief.

Leave a Reply