Reddit reviews Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts
We found 24 Reddit comments about Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Baker Academic
> The means of magic differ in various cultures. Often in Greco-Roman antiquity
magicians were thought to manipulate spirits, hence, from a strict early Jewish
and Christian perspective, to traffic in demons.
I cannot encourage you ENOUGH to read "Miracles" by Craig Keener. http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525 It also goes into the accounts of modern healers, and he interviews those who were supposedly healed by known healing giants, such as Kathryn Kuhlman and John Wimber, and from churches like Bethel.
I think the best thing to do here (especially if you enjoy reading) is to do some study into the good reasons why Christianity is believed to be correct. William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith is one of the best, most cohesive defenses of the reasonability of the Christian faith I've ever read but there are plenty of other good sources too (Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God and The Coherence of Theism, J.P. Moreland and Bill Craig's Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview, Paul Copan and Bill Craig's Come Let Us Reason, Craig Keener's Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, and Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief just to name a few).
Miracles by Craig Keener... https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525
Also, Sam Storms writes a ton on spiritual gifts... has a decent book on 'em too!
> It's been a rough few years for me spiritually. I've gone through a "deconstruction" where I don't know if I agree with the typical Christian theology anymore. I took a lot for granted growing up in the church. Losing all of that assumed theology has been hard. It really forced me to question everything. And I don't have a lot of answers.
It seems like you're speaking of what's going on in my mind. Last year i even questioned God's existence; I desperately looked everywhere, because all of my foundations were failing and what i was teached since a kid could, after all, not be the exact truth. Why would God remain silent in so many situations or let the innocent suffer is just beyond me. Many things will remain unknown, but to this day i still want to believe in a God so powerful that there's nothing he cannot heal or do. This book helped me going through the doubt of His existence, perhaps it can help someone else: Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, by Craig Keener. My post was more in the sense that i don't know what else to do. God exists, sure, but He seems absent of our(my) suffering.
Here is an extensively sourced 2-volume work on Miracles:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801039525/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I have it on my bookshelf, ready to start reading after my current book. But I came across it as a reference in another book I read recently, and it looks very worthwhile--and on your exact topic!
As far as knowing what you can trust, I prefer a book like the above precisely because it details its sources. Other website testimonies may be useful, but probably need to be taken with a grain of salt.
You've given me a few things to research and ponder, so thank you!
For now, I'll just respond to your final questions:
> What is "agnostic"?
I would think that being agnostic on a particular question is simply neither confirming nor denying its validity. e.g. I can neither confirm nor deny the miracle claims of the Quran and Book of Mormon (along with many of the biblical miracles).
> how do you distinguish between an a priori presumption vs a conclusion?
An a priori presumption would be a decision about findings which restricts (or, perhaps, affirms) validity of certain hypotheses, despite the evidence. e.g. a Fundamentalist may have the a priori presumption that biblical miracles actually happened in history, and any evidence contrary to that assumption will be problematic to the fundamentalist. On the flip side, a secular materialist exegete may have the a priori assumption that miracles cannot happen in history, and thus any evidence to the contrary will be problematic. I don't think either of these presumptions are healthy for an unbiased view.
That said, the study of history may not be able to positively confirm a miracle hypothesis, due to the necessary constraints of such research. But there has been some work done which may suggest that historical research can positively corroborate miracle claims (e.g. Craig Keener's work). I wouldn't want to over step my competency, so I'll have to remain agnostic on that point.
Its my view that the historian must work under the constraints they're given: i.e. if a miracle did happen in history, they may not necessarily be able to positively affirm that truth. If it did not, then they can deny it's validity if they have sufficient evidence. If they are unable to deny the historicity of a miracle claim with sufficient evidence, then they ought to remain agnostic (simply allowing the validity of the miracle to remain on the conceptual table with other possible hypotheses), rather than denying its validity because of a priori presuppositions.
I think it's our human nature to sometimes starting to doubt something we can't see/test frequently. In my case, i've had a couple experiences of that nature so even if i start getting doubtful, i racionally know that it exists because i experienced it.
If you enjoy reading i absolutely recommend this book. It's a bit long, but it has a very thorough analysis and numerous examples of miracles (supernatural ocorrences), some even with medical proof.
I'm not sure I agree with your definitions fully first off:
>Religious Faith asks you to, absent compelling evidence, believe in what it asserts to be factual statements regarding not just past events -but past events that would compromise the totality of compiled empirical data (I'm speaking about miracles).
Areas in italics probably should be removed from your definition. A staggering number of people in the past and today claim they have witnessed a miracle, so many that it seems to me like they can't all be explained away. Gary Habermas and Craig Keener do good work on trying to document these miracles, many happen in hospitals where there is documentation (see Miracles by Craig Keener) In fact 73% of doctors believe in the US believe in miracles, many of whom say they've seen them. 73% of Meidcal Doctors is a lot, more than enough to throw your "totality of compiled empirical data" claim into question.
So if you want to pedantically scrum over definitions I guess we can, though it seems a bit silly.
Dr. Craig Keener has a good book on this. He is a highly respected biblical scholar who has taught at several different seminaries of different traditions and is widely published. This is a large book, but it looks at both the biblical miracle accounts and historical accounts, including contemporary accounts. I think his second volume that he's currently working on will have more contemporary accounts, and I heard he is sharing all types of documentation from personal accounts throughout the world, lots from Africa but also Asia and the United States too.
Sorry for the late reply; been off reddit for a while.
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525
There’s a lot of good responses here already but I wanted to offer some resources and ideas that have helped me.
First of all, despite what the new atheists say, you don’t need faith to believe in God, which is why there are so many deists in academia. The weight of the scientific evidence alone is enough to conclude that there must be some kind of intelligence behind reality. This includes the fine-tuning argument, a variation of which convinced Antony Flew, a life long atheist academic and strong critic of religion to change his mind about God and embrace deism, and quantum mechanics, which doesn’t prove God’s existence but rather undermines materialist assumptions about the fundamental nature of reality. These findings have convinced others in the scientific community such as lifelong atheist, Richard Conn Henry, a professor of theoretical physics at MIT to embrace deism.
So just based on what’s happening with physics, it’s reasonable to believe that there’s some kind of intelligence behind reality. However, this in no way proves the existence of the God of the Bible.
To support the Christian view of God you can look at the evidence for the reliability of New Testament accounts. This is where faith comes in. You have to decide whether or not you believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Obviously, there isn’t a scientific way to definitively prove whether or not an historical event happened. But if you want support for the idea that miracles happen and are relatively common, even today, I’d recommend Craig S Keeners magisterial 2 volume work “Miracles” which details hundreds of modern day miracle accounts.
Other reading:
The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard who was a professor of philosophy for many years at USC, helped me to understand my faith at a deeper level, which has helped immensely. It turns out it’s much easier to believe in something when it actually makes sense to you.
On Guard by William Lane Craig explains many of the logical proofs that other commenters have offered here, which are great but can be really difficult to understand without spending a good amount of time with them.
Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart: Hart is a leading Orthodox theologian and philosopher who spends a lot of time talking about the logical incoherence of materialism. All his stuff is great but it’s difficult.
This is just a small sample of what’s out there in terms of apologetics but it’s a start. There’s enough that you could spend your entire life reading compelling arguments for the God’s existence. However, the most effective way to strengthen your faith, in my opinion, is to see how effective the teachings of Jesus are for yourself, to ACTUALLY DO what he says and see how it transforms your life first hand. This is how you make your faith unshakable. Nothing beats personal experience.
That's a very tortured reading of just one of the stories of a post-resurrection appearance.
I was thinking about what you said about us deserving more proof. Frankly, I think we've got far more than we have any right to when compared to previous generations.
In Jesus' day, only a few thousand people saw him work a miracle. Only a thousand at most saw him after the resurrection. In all of human history, seeing the supernatural has been confined to a relative handful of people.
Today, though, every single person in the developed world has access to
No, we don't get to see Jesus in the flesh -- walking on water or otherwise -- but we've got more than any generation since his has had. Far more. And we're going to be held responsible for what we did with that privilege.
Has anyone read Craig Keener's Miracles? I am considering purchasing it, because I have heard it referenced in arguments by some Christians (The argument is usually something like, "You don't believe in miracles, but Craig Keener wrote a book documenting over 1,000 pages of miracles. Have you looked at all of them?).
> I don't mean to sound callous, but how about "someone made it up as a joke, they believed it and wrote it down as truth."
This is exactly the point and how we know this is not the explanation. The claim of a virgin birth just strangled their own case. It was an impediment, not an asset. If they're trying to influence people and win friends to the movement, the virgin birth is the absolute wrong strategy. No moron would even try a stunt like that, not as a serious strategy, and certainly not as a joke. If they are trying to promote a theory (Jesus is God!) and win people over from Judaism (who never joke about their religion) and from Roman polytheism, a joke about a virgin birth is the kiss of death. A claim about a virgin birth is sure to raise eyebrows and motivate scorn.
> Rashida Tlaib
Suppose Tlaib had given this as a reason to be allowed into Israel: "Because I'm going to be picked up by an extraterrestrial space ship." Yeah, like Israel'd ever open the doors for that. With a moronic plea, she sinks her own case. Sure, Israel said "yes" about visiting the grandma, and then the visit collapsed anyway. But if she had said something ridiculous, she would ruin her own cause.
> "we know that these guys are frauds, and we know how the trickery is done. Considering I know that this stuff can be faked, why should I believe that this same thing that was faked now wasn't faked before?
Sure we know these guys are frauds. Sure, we know how the trickery is done. But it's misguided to assume that become someone is a fake, then all are fakes. I can name politicians that are weasels, but should I then assume that all politicians are weasels and always were? Trump is a weasel, so therefore so was Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and Thomas Jefferson. Instead of prejudicially assuming "these guys are fakes, therefore Jesus was a fake," we have to evaluate Jesus on his own terms, in his own context, and on the basis of evidences pertaining to him.
> Because people 2000 years ago, when people were even more gullible, believed it?"
Actually, the Roman Empire of the 1st century is known to have been an era and culture of great skepticism, not one of gullibility. Even in the Gospel accounts, people aren't just pushovers to believe in Jesus (not even his disciples). The Romans, Jews, and even disciples in the New Testament are presented as wary and skeptical, not wild and gullible. It is true of the era.
> If you give me a link to a scholarly peer-reviewed study that shows that there are miracles in a respected scientific journal, I will get baptized this Sunday.
There is a two-volume work by Dr. Craig Keener where he researched both the miracles of the New Testament and modern miracles. If you're serious about really wanting to know, I recommend it to you (https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1YB9ERYUXP4CP&keywords=craig+keener+miracles&qid=1566222037&s=gateway&sprefix=craig+keener+mi%2Caps%2C151&sr=8-1). I know it's an expense and a hefty read, but if you are "not even kidding" and "would absolutely LOVE to believe in Jesus," you just may want to take the plunge.
As to a study, try these. (It's difficult to get everything you want online.)
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/proximal-intercessory-prayer-results-significant-improvements-auditory-and-vis
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674064676
>There are processes that select for more complexity and rationality.
Again, processes require an agent to set up the initial process. That agent also must be very intelligent if the program goal is to select for complexity and rationality.
Also, an ordered process is not at all likely to arise within this universe. The reason being is that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states that the universe is constantly becoming more and more disordered: http://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html If such a process has arisen, then it needed an agent to help it.
My point is simple: Name something else, besides what you think of the brain, that uses itself; and that is not designed.
There really isn't anything else. Hammers need carpenters, skis need skiers, planes need pilots, and computer need users. The brain is a computer, and as a computer it requires a user.
We haven't even talked about DNA, which is somehow a code without a writer. How can a code not have a writer? Check out this recent study done with DNA at Harvard:
http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/93/writing-the-book-in-dna
Quote from the article:
"In another departure, the team rejected so-called "shotgun sequencing," which reassembles long DNA sequences by identifying overlaps in short strands. Instead, they took their cue from information technology, and encoded the book in 96-bit data blocks, each with a 19-bit address to guide reassembly. Including jpeg images and HTML formatting, the code for the book required 54,898 of these data blocks, each a unique DNA sequence. "We wanted to illustrate how the modern world is really full of zeroes and ones, not As through Zs alone," Kosuri said."
If the modern world is full of zeroes and ones, and DNA is a code capable of doing this experiment, then that code requires a super intelligent writer that exists outside the realm of the code (so outside the natural world) Same as a software designer exists outside the software.
>There's no evidence whatsoever anything like a supernatural realm exists, which is what my original post was searching for I believe.
Well, I just posted some evidence straight from Harvard.
I would also suggest checking out this book on documented modern miracles: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801039525?creativeASIN=0801039525&linkCode=w00&linkId=ZT4A3RX5O2OMDWSA&ref_=as_sl_pc_tf_til&tag=roalll-20
Also, here's a link to my website: https://www.rocalternative.com/Testimonies.html
If we're going to go by empirical evidence here, then is it really logical to dismiss ALL testimonies of supernatural encounters? Especially when we are talking about millions of them that have happened over thousands of years? Not everyone can be insane or lying.
By the way, the number 2 isn't based at all in the natural world. It is not a material thing. Does this mean that the number 2 doesn't exist?
Btw, the reason I know all this stuff is because I used to be an atheist. It was because of all these things I've laid out, not to mention a few of my own supernatural encounters, that I was forced to change my mind about my former beliefs.
I would check out the long amazon review on the book
https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/product-reviews/0801039525/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
Keener takes Pat Robertson seriously.
See a pro-Christian blog
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/healing-of-amputees.html
" In other words, Keener isn't giving us much to go by. But he is providing more than Chris suggests. "
" Keener notes that he found more than 25 cases with "something like [healed amputees] " something like it
His evidence is "eyewitness accounts" like in Robertson's book where somebody saw it happen "in Ghana" and cases of things like spontaneous cancer remission.
Many have given proofs for God (Edward Feser's Aquinas and Five Proofs for the Existence of God are very good on that front), but in terms of knowing that Christianity is true, there are a few main ways that folks do it. While proving God is deductive, so you only would need one proof to succeed, the Christian faith cannot be proven deductively but would need induction, so more than one proof is good.
These proofs are not deductive, so there is some level of uncertainty, but taken together, I think it gives a very good case.
God gives us logic, and then occasionally circumvents the rules He established.
It's not blind acceptance of the irrational. It's accepting that God's miraculous intervention in our universe can circumvent known laws of nature. This book outlines hundreds of scientifically supported examples of miraculous events occurring. This is not explained by science alone. Miracles do seem to occur on occasion when situations are charged with religious significance. The acceptance of a rational only universe (according to Newtonian mechanics) is in my opinion, lacking in evidence. It does not best explain the universe I see. I approach the evidence like a jury approaches the evidence in a murder trial - what is the likely event, beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence we have available. When new evidence surfaces, we can revise our decision.
I consider this a rational approach, and it means accepting that God has circumvented the laws of logic.
It doesn't really matter what my beliefs are, just that, no, not every religion can be disproven, which is what you said.
However, my two big reasons for thinking there's probably a god (or, at the very least, a spiritual realm) are NDEs and documented, modern miracles.
edit: I forgot one: Edith turner and similar anthropologists
Craig Keener is the only person I've seen attempt some answer to this recently although I'm sure there are others.
You should check out this book
Minimally, if the effect of prayrer is unverifiable, it would be wrong to say it universally fails (I don't know if you said that but someone did). Prayrer isn't deliberately unfalsifiable, I suppose the nature of prayrer and testing scientifically if prayrer 'works' is . . not really a matter of science, even though I can imagine certain kinds of scientific tests to observe if certain prayrers 'work', and even the term 'work' is difficult to use because of the nature of prayrer. So maybe it would be better to say a significantly better methodology would need to be employed.
If God didn't heal 100 out of 100 amputees, the most you could say based on that experiment is that God said no, 100 out of 100 times. . and then you are assuming there is a God in the first place, and God could have morally sufficient reasons for saying no 100 times.
In regards to the nature of answered prayrer, it is not true theologically speaking that all answered prayrer must happen supernaturally. So answered prayrer could come in the form of a friend meeting a need, and I completely grant that that makes the conversation in regards to science and prayrer even more confusing, which I think supports my point regarding the general untestability of the effects of prayrer in a certain sense.
We live amongst brilliant people so I think something could be done, but the experiments im aware of are either too simple or are based on a superficial understanding of prayrer.
Not that you need to read it, but theirs an incredible book by Craig Keener called Miracles that has significant crossover into the conversation we're having here, more in the region of things like exotic medical ailments being undone. Very well documented. Conclusions aside, it is good work. And its nice to hear what you have to say, too, so I appreciate your conversing :)
Hi OP, thanks for the insightful post. You did a lot of collecting of good Bible verses to make the point.
Essentially, your argument is a reductio ad absurdem taking the form: "If X, then Y. Not Y. Therefore not X."
I think you well supported the first premise. And the conclusion follows from the two premises.
The place to look is your second premise. The second premise you simply stated. You said that history and modern times are not replete with miracles (except ones that are "discredited").
If I challenged the second premise, asserting that anyone who cares to investigate miracle claims (from Christians or any other group) will discover that the observable world is indeed full of them, what would you say?
I'd venture that some people (and just wait for the comments!) will mock me. But let's ignore them.
Fourthly, and relatedly, the problem with doubting a thing's existence is that doubt disincentivizes the search for evidence. If I don't believe in sea creatures, I am not likely to go swimming in the ocean looking to "prove" to myself that the ocean is indeed empty.
All that to say, the evidence and proof are plain to most people and readily available unless you are (a) already so sure that you're right that you only mock and dismiss those who could potentially offer you evidence and (b) don't go out of the way to seek the uncomfortable truth about our world.
I believe in science, have a Ph.D., and have personally experienced miracles and know people who perform miracles with some regularity. So, despite skepticism of some particular claims, I credit many of the Biblical stories, historical stories, and modern stories. I don't think that I am weird in this way. Disbelief in the supernatural is a minority report, globally. Most scientifically educated Americans believe in the supernatural. About 50 percent of working scientists are religious and believe in a god or higher power (footnote: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/)
So there is nothing particularly wild or mysterious about the phenomena you describe as "magic." I've seen it personally, and hundreds of people I know have experienced it personally. So, when I consider the evidence impartially (including verifiable eye-witness accounts), I'd say your second premise needs revisiting.
But like I said, I appreciated the post, and enjoy thinking these things through.
I'd appreciate non-mocking thoughtful responses as well.
Cheers!
Edit: added footnote to verify claim that a slight majority of scientists believe in a god or higher power (51%) according to Pew.
No. On the contrary, I think it can be shown that theism is rationally obligatory; that is, that we deny the existence of God on pain of irrationality.
To avoid the conclusion of the Modal Cosmological Argument an atheist must deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason: He must hold to the principle that a physical object can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence. Schopenhauer aptly dubbed this a commission of, "the taxicab fallacy." The reason is as follows: Ordinarily, the atheist agrees that things have sufficient causes and explanations: headaches, global warming, diamonds, teapots, lightning. Indeed, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is a lynchpin of rational thought for theist and atheist alike. But when the atheist is asked to follow the principle through to its ultimate logical consequence (i.e., the universe) he attempts to dismiss it like a hired hack—and not because it is rational to do so but because he doesn’t like where it is taking him.
As we move through the rest of the arguments the cost of atheism continues to rise. Faced with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, an atheist must deny the precept of Parmenides that ex nihilo nihil fit; in other words, he must believe that physical objects can pop into existence uncaused out of metaphysical nothingness. To avoid the theistic implications of cosmological fine tuning, he must (in an extravagant defiance of the principle of parsimony) postulate the existence of infinitely many unobservable universes. To explain the origin of life, he must believe that it self-assembled by chance in the prebiotic soup of the early Earth when on every reasonable calculation this is prohibitively improbable. To reconcile his atheism with the essential properties of human mental states, he must deny those properties—including free will and, with it, the rational content of his own denial. He must, finally, deny moral objectivity since morality, on his metaphysic, arises from evolutionary processes in the service of reproductive fitness. This has the absurd and unpalatable consequence that to first principles of moral reasoning (say, It is always wrong to bayonet babies for sport) he cannot give his unqualified assent. And when it is pointed out to him that his belief that, "Beliefs that arise from evolutionary processes serve reproductive fitness and cannot be trusted," is itself a belief that arose from evolutionary processes and so, ex hypothesi, cannot be trusted, he has no reply.
The entailments of atheism are counterexperiential and absurd. Atheism cannot be rationally affirmed.
On the face of it agnosticism would seem to be a very reasonable position to take. What could be more prudent than suspending judgement in matters about which absolute certainty is impossible?
Note, however, that to be agnostic is to hold that, possibly, atheism is true. And since to affirm atheism is to affirm that all its entailments obtain, to hold to agnosticism is to affirm that, possibly, all the entailments of atheism obtain: It is possible that physical objects can exist without a sufficient reason for their existence; it is possible that physical objects can pop into existence out of nothingness uncaused—and so on. Clearly: If it is absurd to believe that married bachelors actually exist then it is just as absurd to believe that married bachelors possibly exist. Atheism and agnosticism cannot therefore be rationally affirmed and so it follows that theism is rationally obligatory.
Against all this the list of objections you cite have no force whatsoever.
>We would see many religions claiming absolute truth that are incompatible with each other, all with fervent and devout believers claiming all others are misled
>
>Vastly different moral codes among religions, cultures, and nations. And time periods. And...this is what we observe.
Yes. But see posts 20 to 23 here
>Prayers would not be answered aside from what chance would allow. And...this is what we observe.
This is a bare claim made without support.
>Miracles would be locked away in the past and would cease to happen in modern times, when the population is more educated and has recording devices. And...this is what we observe.
Recommended reading. Plot spoiler: This massive tome is an encyclopaedia of well-evidenced modern miracles.
>No religion would have compelling evidence outside of their own holy books (or confirmation bias). And...this is what we observe.
Pish posh.
>Believers would commit the same atrocities as everyone else. And...this is what we observe.
If you are saying that some purportedly-religious people act immorally that is a very insignificant claim. If you are saying that the religious life does not overall conduce to the production and pursuit of virtue that is a more interesting but very controversial claim in great need of support. But even granting it, how does this prove there is no God? Man has free will.
>Believers would not live any more or less privileged lives; misfortune or good luck would befall everyone regardless of their inner beliefs
God is not a fairy god mother. He is concerned with his creatures obtaining higher order goods, not material comfort.
>Faiths would continue to splinter into more and more sects, and argue over interpretations of minutiae instead of consolidating
This is a subtype of the problem of hiddenness which theists have coherently addressed.
>Supposed miracles would be unfalsifiable or proven to be hoaxes or simply natural occurrences
Miracles are unfalsifiable? This is rubbish. The Resurrection could have been falsified if the corpse of Jesus had been produced.
>New belief systems and/or cults would appear and sometimes gain large followings despite seeming ridiculous to everyone else (ie. Scientology)
See the above link on divine hiddenness.
>Religions would often need apologists or lies to keep their followers, and that wouldn't always work. And...this is what we observe.
I came to Christian Theism through Natural Theology. I think that on the total evidence it is far more probable than not that there is a God and that he met us face-to-face in the person of Jesus Christ. You are implying here that natural theology has no force.
Well, sure. Anyone can claim anything about the state of a philosophical field but if you actually do the heavy lifting and lay out your case you would get both my attention and my respect. Will you do it or will you tentatively withdraw your insinuation as unsubstantiated? There is no third option—at least, not one that avoids intellectual dishonour.
>Religious beliefs would often demonstrably contrast with observed reality
On the contrary, see my opening remarks.
>Greater access to information would correlate with growing non-religious populations
Google some stats. The vast majority of people in the vast majority of times and places have been theists. Today religiosity is, if anything, growing.