So, should I do a rebuttal to John Loftus' new book?

[Ron Penrose]

I voted "Yeah!"

The ensuing exchange between you and the authors would be somewhat entertaining (assuming they will engage you, of course).

[jpholding]

The ensuing exchange between you and the authors would be somewhat entertaining (assuming they will engage you, of course).

John won't -- he's already said he won't reply to me again. But he has lied a lot before.

Richie won't -- unless someone pays him.

[jpholding]

Now for more from Richie, as he proceeds with a chapter by chapter erotic fantasy. I'll note how I'd respond to each chapter as far as can be guessed.

The first four chapters alone are priceless, covering the psychology and cognitive science of human error, demonstrating that religious belief can only be maintained by relying on common causes of error, rather than correcting for them. Two chapters on this are by Dr. Valerie Tarico and Dr. Jason Long, and I learned a lot from them.

That's pretty hilarious. Tarico is qualified to write on this subject, but her knowledge of religious issues is kindergarten level, per my review of her book for CRI. Long isn't qualified to write on either issue. Yet Richie "learned a lot" from him? Says a lot about Richie's lacf of discernment and intellectual horsepower.

Response: Not enough specifics to say for sure, but there's no way two chapters is going to be able to do more than pummel a few straw men in this regard. Given Tarico's poor understanding of Christianity, and Long's own amauterish understanding, we have two cases of Dunning's trying to explain this. But to be fair, since their versions of Christianity were both maintained by applying erroneous reasoning, their arguments are probably very effective against the ignorant version of Christianity they held to.

At the same time, Dr. David Eller (an expert in the anthropology of religion) exposes how Christian missionaries use the science of anthropology to market the gospel in other cultures, and how they acknowledge how culturally relative religion is, even their own religion, yet irrationally fail to see how this actually makes their religion no more credible than the ones they seek to displace.

Response: Something smells bad here. Eller may be confusing "relativity" with "relevance". I of all people know how important it is to contextualize the Gospel message, but that's not making the message "relative," it is trying to order the absolutes. Beyond that, it is a non sequitur to say that this makes any religion more or less credible.

John Loftus contextualizes all of this by reiterating and defending his Outsider Test for Faith, which has been widely hailed as a devastating new argument against religion, and here he confirms its reputation. It's the lynch pin of the whole book, the fulcrum on which every other chapter does Christianity in.

"Widely hailed"? :"Devastating"?

Response: I doubt if any more will be needed than the one I already have to WIBA.

Ed Babinski follows with a chapter proving the Old Testament assumes a flat-earth, three-tiered cosmology that everyone now agrees is wholly contrary to the actual physical facts. If the Bible can't even get that right, it can't be the inspired word of God. And if it isn't the inspired word of God, Christianity can't be true, because Christianity only makes sense in the context of the system of theology and salvation constructed in the Old Testament. Indeed, since the New Testament outright says that (where even Jesus quotes the Old Testament as the inspired word of God), disproving the OT proves the NT is just as much in error.

YAWN. Edski has been pounding this drum for decades now and it's still the same old tune.

Response: Probably won't need to do more that reprint the stuff I've already done on this.

More shortly.

[jpholding]

Continuing:

Supporting that point is a chapter by Paul Tobin surveying some of the most egregious things mainstream scholars all agree is wrong with the OT and NT ("it is inconsistent with itself, is not supported by archaeology, contains fairy tales [and] failed prophecies [and] many forgeries"), and though you might have heard all that before, seeing such a succinct summary of it hammers home its significance. We can't let these things slide anymore. Because they disprove Christianity. Point blank. Excuses won't fly.

Um, yeah. TOBIN shows this? His site was so full of antique canards I deemed it unnecessary to reply to. Sure is funny how Richie is trying to pretty up what looks essentially to be another version of 101 Bible Errers.

Response: Knowing Tobin's work, I'd have to do little more than provide a list of links to prior responses.

John Loftus caps the point with a chapter establishing that, indeed, excuses won't fly. We've all made the argument in casual conversation that making excuses for how the Bible says one thing but is supposed to mean another (the stock tactic employed by the delusional to maintain their belief that it's all divinely inspired and was endorsed by a perfect God) only proves that God is an incompetent communicator, and therefore not perfect (in fact, he'd have to be substantially retarded by the standards of even average human communicators). Loftus doesn't just say this. He proves it.

Huh huh huh....yeah, the old "it's not my fault I'm stupid, lazy, stubborn, a dishonest" canard. None of this changes the fact that every document has a meaning intended by the author, and context is always required to define it. Never occurs to DJ that he's the retarded one, eh?

Response: I've done enough replies to this sort of argument that I'd have nothing new to say, chances are...just would have to stitch together some old stuff and update it.

Next are two chapters proving the Old Testament God is evil. And both do so in a novel way. So if you think you've heard it all before, you'll love these. First Dr. Hector Avalos eviscerates Paul Copan, exposing his incompetence and delusional distortion of the facts in his already-absurd attempt to justify genocide and every other unconscionable brutality as 'alright if God says so'. You heard that right. The new Christian tactic now is not to deny that God commanded evil, horrible things, but to argue that evil, horrible things are okay. Well, good luck with that marketing strategy. Christianity is doomed if that's all they've got now.

Yeah, I'm sure. Argument by outrage again. Copan's arguments are far more sophisticated than "God said it was OK". More like Glenn Miller stuff, and Avalos ignored 98% of what Miller said when he "responded" to that.

Response: Probably will be able to note that (again) Avalos ignores most of the critical stuff. Also, you can bet Avalos never gets further than whining as opposed to arguing.

Avalos further shows how unremarkable the Old Testament laws are in their cultural context, no better or worse than (and suspiciously very much the same as) the manmade laws of surrounding civilizations, dispelling any belief that the OT was inspired by anything but ordinary, ignorant human beings.

Sooo...the point is what? I mean, how are you going to improve on, "don't steal" or "don't kill"? And why does there need to be variety? Is Hector bored? Very few of the laws I would say are an advance, and they are subtle advances which undermine presuppositions rather than giving direct order: The MLK vs Malcolm X approach, as I've said before. I imagine Hector will be making suggestions that God could have given them instructions for building a tricorder.

Response: I've come to expect little from this whiner other than gasbagging. This one might require me to do some original research on ancient law codes, but that's about it.

John Loftus carries the point home with a more philosophical point: that vast and widespread animal suffering is so unconscionable if theism is true, its existence entails God is evil (or, of course, doesn't exist). This was one of the funniest chapters for me, because I never knew all the squirmy ways Christian apologists have actually tried to get out of this argument. Loftus digs up the most amazing apologetics, and eviscerates them all. You'll be amazed at how desperate the explanations are. You'll be amazed Christians have even realized it's a problem. And a problem it is. A big problem. And as Loftus proves, an insoluble problem. Christianity essentially falls on this argument alone.

Response: Uh huh. Wanna make a bet this is a rehash of his TWeb threads, and that he ignores Miller's stuff on it? Meanwhile, what's Richie doing to alleviate animal suffering, as if he cares? On this one though I'd probably pass the baton to AP or someone else, it isn't my bag.

More later.

[jpholding]

Last part:

The next section takes on Jesus. My least favorite chapter is by Dr. Robert Price, essentially a take-to-task pointing up the invalid leaps of faith disguised as objective reasoning in the recent Boyd and Eddy apologetic text The Jesus Legend. Not that he's wrong about them, indeed he is amusingly correct on every point. It's just not the slam dunk, tour de force the other chapters are, and I fear some readers will not understand the context of many of the things Price talks about (though reading his book would help). Nevertheless, it's only the worst of the best. Which means, still pretty darned good.

I've seen Price's comments on this on his website. Sounds like a rehash.

Response: I doubt I'd have to do more than dip into the Tekton archives.

My chapter on the resurrection follows, and then the slam dunk of them all: John Loftus presents the "Duh!" argument that the Gospel Jesus (and insofar as we can honestly claim to know, the actual historical Jesus) issued prophecies that didn't come true. Which means he was a false prophet. Which entails Christianity is false. Done and dusted. The horns impale any attempt at escape: either the New Testament is full of error (and we cannot trust that Christianity is true on the word of such a wildly erroneous book), or Jesus was a false prophet (and Christianity is thereby refuted). Either way, Christianity falls. The only conceivable escape is back into the "God didn't mean that" fiasco, but then you get impaled on Loftus' earlier chapter. No way out.

Snort.

Response: For once Penrose got my response right: "Orthodox preterism, anyone?" Richie apparently still has no idea what that is, and since John's own critiques of it come right out of the K-12 manual, this one's a snap.

The book concludes with examples of particular recent Christian delusions: that morality comes from Christianity (Dr. David Eller refutes that notion, and though he is a relativist and we disagree on the philosophical warrants for moral belief, everything else he says is spot on);

Response: Not my bag. This would have to be handed off to AP or someone else.

that Hitler was an atheist and the holocaust is the legacy of atheism (Dr. Hector Avalos provides the most devastating refutation of this claim ever published, alone worth the price of this book; his tabulated comparison of Charles Darwin and Martin Luther may be the funniest thing ever);

His chapter is also the biggest strawman of the book. Although some folks are still saying Hitler was an atheist (IIRC John MacArthur does in one of his books I've just read), the record shows he was more like an eclecticist who drew from Germanic pagan traditions. The issue Avalos needs to address is Stalin's atheism, but he tried that in Fighting Words and failed miserably.

Response: Since it's a straw man, that may be all that's needed.


That's it, aside from Richie again referencing his own stuff.

[Ron Penrose]

Response: For once Penrose got my response right: "Orthodox preterism, anyone?" Richie apparently still has no idea what that is, and since John's own critiques of it come right out of the K-12 manual, this one's a snap.

Lol.

In your article, "The Book of Daniel in Preterist Eschatology", you mention that Dr. Thomas Howe has written a book critiquing preterist interpretations of Daniel -- have you gotten a hold of that book yet?

. . . Just curious if you have come across any objections to Preterism that you find difficult to answer.

[jpholding]

In your article, "The Book of Daniel in Preterist Eschatology", you mention that Dr. Thomas Howe has written a book critiquing preterist interpretations of Daniel -- have you gotten a hold of that book yet?

I plan to in 2-3 years when I get back to depth work on the subject.

. . . Just curious if you have come across any objections to Preterism that you find difficult to answer.

Not yet. Still looking.

[Darth Ovious]

I'm going to say yes, but only on the basis that it derserves a rebuttal. This will include if people ask for one after buying the book and reading, if the stuff contained in the book is worthwhile responding to and also if it's popular enough to warrent a reply.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

If you decide to write a rebuttal, I would be glad to look at those chapters you've mentioned....

[jpholding]

Good grief, now the ayes have it by one vote. What a contest!

[Steve007]

Now it's tied again. I didn't expect my vote to matter this much.

[jpholding]

Remember everyone, a tie means that Sheila will be handling the rebuttal...

[Darth Ovious]

Remember everyone, a tie means that Sheila will be handling the rebuttal...

Right, thats it, nobody else vote.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Now it's tied again. I didn't expect my vote to matter this much.

Remember everyone, your one vote could make a difference!

And I think Sheila should do it regardless.

[DoomRater]

I can't be the only one who thinks the "Who's John Loftus?" votes should count as no...