Review: The Christian Delusion edited by J. Loftus

[Seasanctuary]

Since I found Loftus' prior book Why I Became An Atheist so impressive in terms of writing earnestly for a Christian audience (review here), I picked up his new volume without hesitation.

The Christian Delusion (Prometheus Books, 2010) is a collection of fifteen essays, an introduction, and a forward by ten contributors. I was already partly acquainted with the work of Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, and Paul Tobin. Considered as a whole, this collection is like giving ten strong-willed individuals a square (or three) of cloth to decorate, then sewing the whole thing together into a quilt. Inconsistent, but interesting!

A handful of the essays are responses to specific, pro-Christian writings most readers will not have read. It felt like walking into the middle of a long debate, listening to one speaker, then leaving before hearing the other guy represent himself. "The Outsider Test For Faith Revisited" by Loftus, "Yahweh Is A Moral Monster" by Avalos, "Jesus: Myth and Method" by Price, and "Atheism Was Not The Cause For The Holocaust" by Avalos are in this category. Even so, all of the contributors spent sufficient time orienting readers of The Christian Delusion to the nature of the discussion.

Another area of variance had to do with the audience of each essay. Unlike Loftus' own earlier book, The Christian Delusion is not — on the whole or even in most of its parts — written for a Christian audience. The very first essay, Eller's "The Cultures of Christianities," starts with "every argument in support of religion has been shown to be inconclusive or demonstrably false" (p25). Jason Long's "The Malleability Of The Human Mind" is essentially a rant about the amazing adaptability and tenacity of religious thinking. He really should have named it "Why Skepticism Fails" as a humorous contrast to The Christian Delusion's official subtitle "Why Faith Fails." Now there are a couple of sections well-suited for a Christian audience, e.g. "What We've Got Here Is A Failure To Communicate" by Loftus and "Why The Resurrection Is Unbelievable" by Carrier. More on those in a bit.

Unless you've committed to doing so, I recommend against reading The Christian Delusion front to back. Instead, start with the essays which sound most intriguing. My top four personal recommendations:

#1. The Introduction.

Loftus not only summarizes the fifteen upcoming essays so you can better determine which to read next, but actually has three additional pages of excellent criticism on the way Christian apologetics makes stuff up and changes Christianity in response to skepticism. I wouldn't mind reading an entire Loftus book on this historical process alone.

#2. "Why The Resurrection Is Unbelievable" by Richard Carrier

A succinct and relentless attack on the way apologists have tried to justify resurrection belief by historical method alone. (Apparently faith is out of style.)

#3. "What We've Got Here Is A Failure To Communicate" by John Loftus

Many Christians are already very self-conscious about the problem of division among believers who are supposedly guided by a book of divine wisdom and the direction of the Holy Spirit. Loftus points out some negative consequence of this "Problem of Miscommunication."

#4. "The Cosmology Of The Bible" by Edward Babinski

Not an especially useful tool for arguing about the truth of Christianity, but a fascinating look at the comparative cosmology of Israel and nearby cultures.

There's probably a few things for everyone in The Christian Delusion. My recommendations may have more to do with my personal interests than the general merit of all the essays. It's worth at least a look in your local bookshop.

[GakuseiDon]

Another area of variance had to do with the audience of each essay. Unlike Loftus' own earlier book, The Christian Delusion is not — on the whole or even in most of its parts — written for a Christian audience. The very first essay, Eller's "The Cultures of Christianities," starts with "every argument in support of religion has been shown to be inconclusive or demonstrably false" (p25). Jason Long's "The Malleability Of The Human Mind" is essentially a rant about the amazing adaptability and tenacity of religious thinking. He really should have named it "Why Skepticism Fails" as a humorous contrast to The Christian Delusion's official subtitle "Why Faith Fails." Now there are a couple of sections well-suited for a Christian audience, e.g. "What We've Got Here Is A Failure To Communicate" by Loftus and "Why The Resurrection Is Unbelievable" by Carrier.

Thanks for that, Seasanctuary. I'm considering purchasing it, but does it address issues pertinent to liberal Christians like myself? I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, or that Jesus was virgin-born, and I'm agnostic with regards to the Resurrection, for example. Most of the chapters don't sound particularly interesting to me, except perhaps the ones dealing with the psychology of the mind.

I see that Richard Carrier has reviewed the book thusly:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2...-delusion.html

John and I wanted this book to be conclusive, every chapter its own tour de force on each topic. And we achieved that goal. The book is superb. Every chapter is fantastic, some more than others, but all are great. It doesn't cover every subject it could have, but the subjects it does cover it covers thoroughly, leaving nowhere left to run. It's all readable (nothing will be above anyone's head). Much of it will even be fresh and new to you (and that's saying something).

Most of all, taken together, its fifteen chapters are sufficient to establish that Christianity is a delusion.

As Carrier himself notes, the last claim is a bold one. Does it strike anywhere near the truth, in your own personal opinion?

[Seasanctuary]

Thanks for that, Seasanctuary. I'm considering purchasing it, but does it address issues pertinent to liberal Christians like myself? I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, or that Jesus was virgin-born, and I'm agnostic with regards to the Resurrection, for example. Most of the chapters don't sound particularly interesting to me, except perhaps the ones dealing with the psychology of the mind.

The bulk of the book is focused on theologically conservative Christianity. And there's an assumption — explicit at times — that a Christian faith which cannot be demonstrated as true is not worth having.

However, the last few pages of "The Bible and Modern Scholarship" by Paul Tobin is titled "Addendum: The Liberals and the Bible." He criticizes liberal Christianity in two main ways here. The first is that the claim that liberal Christianity is a recent development forced by "external circumstances — the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment, philosophies, and textual and historical criticism" (p170). So if liberal Christianity is right, why didn't Christians understand their faith correctly from the beginning? (Origen's "liberal" views come to my mind as a partial counter.) The second criticism is asking about the real difference between unorthodox liberal views and skepticism. Of course, Tobin puts it better than I just did. I would like to hear your response to his full "Addendum" if you get a chance to read it.

As Carrier himself notes, the last claim is a bold one. Does it strike anywhere near the truth, in your own personal opinion?

No. It lacks a systematic, effective argument to support the title. As I implied in the review above, it contains some good arguments...but it isn't one as a whole. Carrier's own chapter being the most effective, in my estimation.

[element771]

The very first essay, Eller's "The Cultures of Christianities," starts with "every argument in support of religion has been shown to be inconclusive or demonstrably false" (p25).

I really cannot comprehend this type of statement. This, IMHO, shows that there seems to be a commitment to atheism that is beyond argument, critical thinking, etc. I am a Christian that understands that all of the arguments for atheism are not complete crap and some are definitely worth thinking about.

In my experience, people who make blanket statements like this are not worth spending time on if you want a sincere and critical assessment of a topic.

Not to mention that the people writing this book are not what I would call highly respected scholars. Each one of them has demonstrated that they will deny Christianity at all costs, even the most simplistic, non-controversial beliefs....evidence be damned. A perfect example is the supposed "Christ Myth." You don't believe in the resurrection...fine. You don't believe that Jesus was God...fine. You don't believe that Jesus performed miracles....fine. But to deny the very existence of one of the most documented people in the ancient world as well as to try and posit that Jesus was invented from paganism when these ideas have been repeatedly been shown to be false (as per the experts in their respective fields) leads me to question the sincerity and honesty to which they approach a subject.

I don't know how Loftus is actually apart of this book. If his debate with Dinesh D'Souza is any indication as to the complexity or depth of thought towards theism, then.....well I will leave it at that.

And as far as Carrier and Price.... Let us look at a counter example in a field I am familiar with...evolution.

Does anyone take the views or thoughts of Michael Behe or William Demski seriously in the field? Answer: No. Why? Because they are on the fringe, they seem to have an agenda, they target their criticism towards particular areas that have become more recently established but they ignore the data, they pick and choose which data they believe with seemingly very little consistency, etc. Their reputation has suffered because of their commitment to a certain ideology whether the data supports it or not.....never mind the vast majority of other scientists (theistic or atheistic alike). They are lampooned and mocked severely by the skeptical crowd for their views because they go against the vast majority. How can they be so stupid as to not see what everyone sees?

Now let us look at Carrier and Price. Are they not the Behe and Demski of the historical evidence for Jesus? Behe and Price are both PhDs, employed by universities and have a publication record that is poor to mediocre but at least it is there. Demski and Carrier don't have positions and have a virtually nonexistent publication record...I am not counting publications in the Discovery Institute sponsored periodicals and certainly not articles in the Skeptical Enquirer or Internet Infidels. Yet the atheist / skeptical community applauds them. They think it is admirable to stand up to the vast majority of scholars who think that Jesus actually existed. It is a badge of honor and a mark of their high intelligence that they see things differently than the main stream scholarship.

Back to the topic....reading this would be like a Christian promoting a book that definitively proves the existence of God with the intro written by Kirk Cameron and contributing articles by the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

[Seasanctuary]

Element, I don't recall Carrier or Price arguing from professional authority in this particular volume.

[element771]

Element, I don't recall Carrier or Price arguing from professional authority in this particular volume.

But would not their professional authority be implied and be an attempt to give credibility to their arguments and the book?

[Seasanctuary]

But would not their professional authority be implied and be an attempt to give credibility to their arguments and the book?

I'm seeing an analogy to the Strobel bashing thread here. ;)

And sure, there may be a bit of that. I'm just saying that their respective chapters are heavily oriented around actual arguments, not "Trust me, I'm a professional historian" rhetoric.

[element771]

I'm seeing an analogy to the Strobel bashing thread here. ;)

And sure, there may be a bit of that. I'm just saying that their respective chapters are heavily oriented around actual arguments, not "Trust me, I'm a professional historian" rhetoric.

I agree but..... I trust that their arguments parallel their professional research. That is my point that I am trying to make. The arguments themselves (at least for the historicity of Jesus) are suspect as well as their approach to the topic.

[seanD]

Element, I don't recall Carrier or Price arguing from professional authority in this particular volume.

That's interesting. I wonder why. From what I remember reading one of Strobel's books, the book had no problem stamping authority on the claims made by the some of the professional apologists he interviewed.

[Mountain Man]

Loftus ... has three additional pages of excellent criticism on the way Christian apologetics makes stuff up and changes Christianity in response to skepticism. I wouldn't mind reading an entire Loftus book on this historical process alone.

[Babaloo]

"The Cosmology Of The Bible" by Edward Babinski . . . a fascinating look at the comparative cosmology of Israel and nearby cultures.

Hi Seasanctuary, Your review was quite thoughtful, and since you found the topic of cosmology fascinating, I thought I'd mention some other fascinating chapters from recent books on that same topic (in my chapter on cosmology in endnote 2 I listed additional books, but the ones I am about to share with you are not listed in that endnote). I discovered them afterwards and found them fascinating.

1) Expanding upon parallels between Israel's deity and those of surrounding nations, see chapter 8 of the book Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God by Eric A. Seibert There is limited viewing of this book at amazon.com if you use their "Look Inside" feature, but to view the maximum number of pages go right to chapter 8, "Israel's Theological Worldview," and then you should be able to read all of it, but only If you choose that chapter first, since viewing is limited.

2) Speaking of the rise of henotheism, monolatry and monotheism in the ancient world, and traits shared by ancient Near Eastern deities including Israel's deity, see the book, Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. The chapter can be read online at Google Books, and is titled, Religio-historical Approaches: Monotheism, Method, and Mortality Again, viewing is limited so you must select that chapter and only that chapter and begin reading there.

3) A fascinating essay, titled, Biblical Creation and Storytelling: Cosmogony, Combat and Covenant at the new BIOLOGOS website (run by and for pro-evolutionary Christians) that sums up biblical chaoskampf (battle with a chaos monster, demonstrating a deity's might). Viewing is not limited, and other research papers can be found at that site along with videos of scholars speaking about Genesis from N.T. Wright to John Walton.

[Philosophickle]

Seas, are you being facetious?

[MaxVel]

Originally posted by Seasanctuary
Loftus ... has three additional pages of excellent criticism on the way Christian apologetics makes stuff up and changes Christianity in response to skepticism. I wouldn't mind reading an entire Loftus book on this historical process alone.

Yes, Loftus would be excellent on that... ...as we know, he's had a lot of personal experience with making things up. An authority on it, one might say.

[GakuseiDon]

The bulk of the book is focused on theologically conservative Christianity. And there's an assumption — explicit at times — that a Christian faith which cannot be demonstrated as true is not worth having.

However, the last few pages of "The Bible and Modern Scholarship" by Paul Tobin is titled "Addendum: The Liberals and the Bible." He criticizes liberal Christianity in two main ways here. The first is that the claim that liberal Christianity is a recent development forced by "external circumstances — the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment, philosophies, and textual and historical criticism" (p170). So if liberal Christianity is right, why didn't Christians understand their faith correctly from the beginning? (Origen's "liberal" views come to my mind as a partial counter.) The second criticism is asking about the real difference between unorthodox liberal views and skepticism. Of course, Tobin puts it better than I just did. I would like to hear your response to his full "Addendum" if you get a chance to read it.

Sounds interesting, and maybe worth my while purchasing just for that.

No. It lacks a systematic, effective argument to support the title. As I implied in the review above, it contains some good arguments...but it isn't one as a whole. Carrier's own chapter being the most effective, in my estimation.

Good comments. Thanks for your response, Seasanctuary.

[Seasanctuary]

Seas, are you being facetious?

I don't think so. What did you have in mind exactly? Maybe I can clear something up.